1. Bryan Stock Trail Russian olive Removal Assessment, and Future Treatment along the
North Platte River, Casper, WY
July 19, 2012
Celesta Collacchi
City of Casper, WY
Public Service
Division of Parks and Recreation
Urban Forestry

2. Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………...……2
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………2
Methods……………………………………………………………………………………….......4
Figure 1. Sample Russian Olive Regrowth Assessment at Bryan Stock
Trail………………...4
Results…………………………………………………………………………………………….5
Table 1. All Plots
Analysis…………………………………………………………………….5
Table 2. Main Stems Left Behind Plots
Analysis……………………………………….…….5
Table 3. Plots Treated Correctly
Analysis……………………………………………………..6
Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………...…6
Results of
Treatment…………………………………………………………...………………6
Future Treatment of Bryan Stock
Trail………………………………………………………...7
Prescription………………………………………………………………………………...
7
Future of Russian olive
Treatment……………………………………………………………..8
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………..9
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………….……11
Appendix A: Record of Russian Olive Removal and Treatment ….................................…..12
Appendix B: Additional Information…………………………………………………….……13
(Text Included)
Appendix C: Bryan Stock Trail Assessment Area ……………………..………………….…14
(Printed map)

3. Abstract
The 13.1 acres of pre-treated Russian olive behind the soccer fields and along the Bryan
Stock Trail has been inventoried for plots of cut and treated Russian olive plants. The cut and
garlon paint method was performed in 2007, and has not since been examined. By stopping at
every visible stump to record the GPS location and the status of vigor and regrowth that has
occurred within the last five years, a vague estimate of percent success was obtained overall,
being 69%. However, there is bias with this calculation for reasons such as possibly not finding
all treated stems, and the inconsistencies of not all stems having been treated in the same way.
Recommendations for Bryan Stock Trail future removal would be to firstly designate a
specific area, constrained by width and length parameters that will focus on complete removal of
Russian olive. It is not advised to continue with partial removal as it leads to unsatisfactory
results visually and prevents a clear evaluation of what work has been done within the area. It
also encourages sprouting and seed sources. This most likely means that the full 13 acres will not
be obtainable right away. The main concern for the success of the North Platte River Revival is
continued and persistent evaluation as well as treatment application to the designated area. This
requires a dedicated team for at least three years after the initial cutting.
Future sites that were treated experimentally have several options to address the condition
that now exists on the riverbanks of partially treated patchworks. Before any action can be taken,
including plans for removal, clear goals and objectives must be stated, as well as a pre-decided
team or faculty that will have a commitment to the project. If the project is to be continued as an
experiment as to what the most effective treatment of Russian olive is, three methods are
suggested. Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI) plots could be setup for permanent smaller areas
to have continuous measurements of desirable and undesirable growth. This will require the most
amount of time and effort. Second, a line-intercept inventory could be constructed for estimates
of percent coverage of Russian olive before any treatment is underway. Lastly, a detailed record
of what is removed while the work is being done would require the least amount of time and
manpower.

4. Introduction
The primary purpose of the Russian olive evaluation along areas of the North Platte River
was to determine the most successful treatment from cutting and painting with garlon, cutting
and injecting later, or pulling out the plant with a trackhoe. Unfortunately, this task is larger than
previously expected because of the large area to cover, and lack of important pre-treatment data.
The project has since been scaled down to review only the area alongside the Bryan Stock Trail
for suggestions and future recommendations.
The treatment alongside the Bryan Stock Trail was not inventoried before treatment began,
nor were borders for the project defined. Any management project requires a defined area, as
well as a starting inventory. Temporarily disregarding this lack of information, the Russian olive
that was removed was not done so in a systematic way, making it difficult to search for 5-year
old stumps through new and grown vegetation, in addition to it being an unknown area.
When arriving at treated stumps, issues arose with inconsistencies of the treatment
application. The volunteers who assisted the project were not instructed with any guidelines for
what to cut, since not all Russian olive was allowed to be removed (an issue in itself since
eradication cannot exist where there are large, vigorous trees in close proximity, not only
because of seed sources but also because they could potentially be supplying nutrients via root
systems below ground). This created a matrix of sporadic stumps. Examples of possible
guidelines to give for cutting include:
• A prescription for all tree removal above 3.5 inches; since the bark is mature by that size
and would not be subjected to a basal bark treatment.
• Patch or group cuttings of Russian olive; particularly if there is a large tree that would act
as a parent tree for seeds, should be removed.
• Rows or strips at regularly spaced intervals for removal.
• Careful removal of Russian olive that seem to be in direct competition of native trees.
These recommendations for removal can only be decided after an area is specified to
determine what would be the most cost effective and time efficient. In addition to the scattering
of stumps, some of the multi-stemmed shrubs and trees were not completely treated. Examples

5. include out of a three-stemmed Russian olive, which two of the stems were cut, leaving the third
stem. Another was a Russian olive that had one stem and one branch cut and painted with garlon,
while leaving a large main stem.
The issues with this approach is that there is more than enough live tissue to continue growth
and to promote suckers or sprouts from the trunk or even from the roots. When a tree is injured
or stressed, it sends up additional shoots that produce leaves for energy and continued life. When
only half the tree is treated, the chances of the already aggressively sprouting Russian olive
increases, creating a ‘one step forward, two steps back’ in efforts of eradication.
This poses an additional problem in inventory efforts for the “success rate” because the plot
is technically a fail since it was not performed correctly and therefore should be deemed
ineffective. To illustrate how this becomes confusing can be taken from the second example
given above, where the large trunk was left minus a branch and a medium sized stem. There was
suckering apparent on the large trunk, but it cannot be determined if this was in response to the
loss of the branch and stem, or if it was the plant’s natural sprouting character.
Methods
A pre-existing ArcGIS polygon had an estimated area of what was treated (Appendix C:
Bryan Stock Trail Assessment). Starting from east of the Bryan Stock Trail Bridge and moving
west, this area was combed for any visible cut trunks. Each stump that was found was
categorized as a GPS point and had several measurements taken, represented in Figure 1.
Russian Olive Regrowth Assessment
Site Code: pt28
Cut and Treated
Trunks Sprouts
Date: 06/12/12 Stem
Diameter
(in.)
# of
Regen.
Caliber
(in.)
Height
(ft.)
Number 1 2
2 2
3 3 2 0.5 2
4 0.5 3
5
6
7
8
9
10

6. Additional
Notes: 2 main stems left
Figure 1. Sample Russian Olive Regrowth Assessment at Bryan Stock Trail, each plot had the
number of stems and characteristics recorded, as well as notes on the cut.
Evidence of a cut was classified as a plot, and each stem that had been cut had the
diameter measured. The number of sprouts was recorded originally from whichever stem they
seemed to come from. Each sprout had its caliber and estimated height recorded. It proved to be
hard to discern where the sprouts were coming from if the forking of two stems was higher than
the basal sprouts. In the event of true basal sprouts the number of regeneration was recorded with
a line separating it from the cut and treated trunks. In the end analysis, the only use of making
note which cut stem the sprouts came from was for an average size that the olive would
regenerate, otherwise that detail was not important. The space for additional notes was used to
record any stems left behind.
Forty-two plots were found, with 149 stems total. Attach is Appendix A: Record of
Russian olive Removal and Treatment, with details from each plot. A few simple calculations
were figured for the overall success rate at Bryan Stock. Analysis was done for three success
rates of: the project as a whole, plots treated incorrectly, and only plots treated correctly.
Results
Out of the 42 plots inventoried, only 18 stems had regrowth within 13 plots. This equates
to a 69% success rate. When only looking at plots that had main stems left behind, the same plot
success rate (69-70%, Table 2) occurred, but held the highest likelihood that they would resprout
(22.2%), and the highest percent grow-back (55.6%, Table 2). The data was manipulated in three
ways shown below.

7. Table 1. All Plots Analysis, is the complete evaluation of all that was inventoried. This is an
assessment of the project in 2007 as a whole, evaluating the project’s success and not the
treatment’s success which can be seen in Table 3.
Table 2. Main Stems Left Behind Plots Analysis, takes into consideration only the plots that
had treatment performed incorrectly. This means not all the stems were cut, leaving behind large
healthy stems. This quantifies the consequences of inadequate treatment.

8. Table 3. Plots Treated Correctly Analysis, includes only plots that had all stems removed. This
gives a more realistic assessment of the cut and paint with garlon method than the combination
of Table 1, which would be biased.
Discussion
Results of Treatment
The overall treatment of cut and paint with garlon was not carried out correctly, being
that the stems were not revisited after the initial treatment, so the results are likely biased after
five years’ time. Interestingly enough, plots with main stems left behind had the same success
rate per plot as the cumulative total plots. However, the chance of a single stump sprouting was
higher, being more than 1 out of 5 compared to 1 out of 10. Comparing the percent grow-back in
terms of stems, treatment performed incorrectly had 15% greater stem count than plots treated
correctly.
All three tables show that when a plot does resprout, the average number of shoots is 5.
This illustrates how the area will look if treatment is continued to be done incorrectly. Russian
olive is a multi-stemmed small tree to shrub, but if the stumps that are treated are not returned to
for future treatment, the result will be a dense, low coverage of Russian olive. This is
problematic for wildlife and treatments. The broad shrubs will inhibit much growth of native

9. species as they will be shaded out by the short canopy. Bird species will decrease, as there will
be less strata in the environment as only low shrubs will be growing. The dense thorny branches
will be more difficult for treatment as well.
With this stated, if future treatments are done correctly, being that all stems are cut and
painted within 15 minutes of the cut, and assessment for possible retreatment of any stems are
carried out for the 3 years that follow, an even higher percent success rate than 69% is expected.
Future Treatment of Bryan Stock Trail
Taking into consideration the time and team it would take to perform a proper assessment
and eradication alongside Bryan Stock Trail, a prescription is described below. Inventory would
be ideal, but persons capable of this and having enough time to allocate to the depth of the
project are not present. The North Platte River Revival team must obey one condition with any
future treatment, and that is all Russian olive plants must be treated and revisited for post-
treatment.
Prescription
1 acre segments along the trail should be made into a shape file with ArcGIS. These
perimeters should then be staked or ribboned-off on the ground. This is so everyone is aware of
where the treatment is to be conducted and can then be left for retreatment. Complete treatment
of cut and paint with garlon will be performed on any and all Russian olive stems, no exceptions,
one acre at a time. After 15 minutes of being cut the Russian olive can begin to heal itself, so the
stump must be painted within that time.
For follow-up treatment, the committee has two choices.
If only one acre segments are being completed in eradication, it will be easy to
return to the site and treat any new sprouts or Russian olive that have grown from seed
source the following year.

10. If multiple acres are treated or if the committee wishes to track and record for
comparative treatment success rate, it is suggested that the procedure within the
Methods section are performed before each cut is made and
measurements similar to those in Figure 1 be recorded.
One acre is a suggestion, as it sounds the most manageable. It is better to be conservative
with treatment so that a thorough job is completed, instead of patchworks which are unpleasing
visually and incomplete for the eradication effort. After one acre is completely treated, another
acre can begin. Eradication should start on the western part of the trail and move eastward with
the flow of the river. Treatment costs have been quoted between 5 and 20 dollars per acre.
It should also be clarified that the prescription for the area is for all Russian olive plants
to be cut and painted, as well as returned to for the next three years. The prescription is not
complete without both parts. As eradication is the ultimate (and diligent) goal of the North Platte
River Revival team, it cannot be stressed enough how all stems within the area are cut and
treated and returned to for the next three years.
Problems of the 2007 project included not being able to remove all the plants because of
an official’s voice, and the lack of visitation for continued treatment. If either part of the
prescription in not intended to be followed, then the project should either be abandoned because
incomplete treatment is a waste of resources or the final goal should be reevaluated or else will
never be obtained.
Future of Russian olive Treatment
A conglomeration of Russian olive treatments includes foliar, basal bark, cut and paint, or
hauling (Park, n.d.). In most literature found online from scholar reports and experiments to
online summaries, cut and paint is the most discussed and suggested. Taking into account the
specific environment of North Platte River each of the treatments pros and cons will be
discussed.
Foliar is a restricted treatment to smaller Russian olive plants as all of the foliage must be
treated, eliminating many of the taller, broad canopy plants. This treatment is also non-target, so
will have much concern for close native vegetation that will not be spared, and for the health of
citizens on the trail that will be exposed to the chemical treatment. Overall this treatment is not
recommended for any use along any part of the trail.

11. Basal bark cut is most effective on stems less than 3.5 inches in diameter. Small stems
have their circumference cut and then immediately treated with glyphosate. The mean diameter
of past cut and treated stems is about 3 inches, but many much larger Russian olives with a DBH
of 8 inches and greater were left. This restricts most of the current stock alongside the river;
however has the potential to be used during the retreatment of any sprouts. Cuts girdle the tree,
so must be done in a line all the way around the tree, the thicker the better. Then the chemical is
sprayed from the ground up about 2 feet. This treatment can be done by one individual with a
backpack sprayer. Similar concerns of ambient spray being emitted to humans and native
species. Also, once the stem is girdled and dies, a crew must groom the area to cut down the dead
stem, or else dead sticks will cause an eyesore.
Cut and paint is very successful and is most self-contained. Although it is unfortunate
that stumps remain, decay will take place and as the roots die the groundwater will be returned to
the water table. Immediate removal of the downed Russian olive should be done through one
path so broken branches and spreading of seed source is restrained. No olive can be left on the
ground for fear of roots sprouting and anchoring for continued life. Native tree seeds may be
suppressed underneath the canopy of the Russian olives, so the soil remaining intact with the
roots left behind in actually a benefit for revegetation.
Hauling is not recommended for the extensive area of the restoration project. It extremely
urged to not use this technique so close to the river bank for several reasons. Heavy machinery
causes soil compaction and erosion in any soil. Within the North Platte River Environmental
Restoration Master Plan produced by Stantec Consulting Services, many areas alongside the
river are under high erosion. Most river banks are generally subjected to erosion and should be
handled with care. Russian olive has been shown to change river temperature and flow rate,
creating droughts, but cannot simply be yanked from the precarious position of the bank. This
will undoubtedly leave behind roots which can resprout, create increase sediment load into river,
have a loss of seed bank from the soil, remove non-target native species, and erosion on the bank
which will widen the river. The widening of the river will change stream dynamics to shallower
depths, decreasing fish habitat and oxygen levels.
In some areas along the river, such as at Crossroads, the hauling method was performed.
It should be noted that currently grass is the only plant growing there now as the seed bank was
most likely disturbed. Some sources suggest this use for large thickets of Russian olive. It needs
to be understood that a buffer to the river of at least 10 to 15 feet should be in place.
Furthermore, Best Management Practices would be to set a fine screen along the edge of the
treatment zone to the river buffer so in the case of rain, the amount of ground runoff and
sedimentation into the river will be reduced. It may also be useful to backfill the area with native
soil, or to lightly compact the torn earth. Since the seed bank may be removed, poles of willow

12. and cottonwood, which readily sprout, could be planted to help repopulate the area and try to
web down the tilled soil.
Chemical injection is similar to the basal bark treatment, but may be more expensive.
This treatment was attempted in 2008 and 2009, but inadequately. Cuts were made, and
injections were described as being “later” (Appendix A), ranging from one month to four
months. Because no dates or marks were recorded, there cannot be a fair evaluation of the
treatment. Injection may have a high success rate but cannot be properly assessed because of the
time bias. It needs to be remembered that trees compartmentalize their wounds, so if injections
or chemical paints are not done within a timely manner (one month being too long, most sources
saying 15 minutes) then the treatment is not being used to its fullest potential and is in fact
shoddy and ill-prepared.
Conclusion
A proper management plan needs to be implemented for the eradication of Russian olive.
The Stantec Master Plan is not adequate because it addresses more limnology concerns with
invasive species control supplementing those concerns with the river. A proper Forest
Management Plan would include an inventory which contains Strategic, Tactical, and
Operational plans for best results. There also needs to be documentation of what goals and
objectives are to be for areas of the North Platte River Project. To illustrate such a proposal:
Brian Stock Trail, Behind the Soccer Fields:
Strategic Plan (40-100 years in the future)
Goal: Complete Russian olive eradication along the Brian Stock Trail
Tactical Plan (20-40 years)
Goal: Late spring, for the next three years, a walkthrough of the treated
area for retreatment.

13. Long-term objective: Occasional surveillance for any new Russian olive
after the three year
mark of retreatments.
Operational Plan (weekly, monthly, or yearly)
Long-term objective: Predetermined, small defined areas, undergoing eradication
prescription and prevalent re-
treatment.
Short-term objective:
• Designate one acre areas to be delineated with stakes, ribbon, or spray paint.
• Cut all stems on the acre, and paint stump within 15 minutes of being cut.
• Remove all limbs, stems, and branches from the site.
• Record date and GPS polygon for files.
This bulleted format is not as detailed as a proper management plan but portrays the
specifications necessary and the diligence that should be followed if this is to be done correctly.
The City of Casper has a great opportunity to be made an example of Russian olive
eradication efforts, as it is causing many problems across the United States and especially in
nearby states of Utah and Colorado. With a proper management plan and well documented
procedures and results, the city could have a credited report that could be used in citations and as
a reference for similar projects and experiments.
One last thing to consider is the presence of Russian olive even away from the river.
Russian olive was originally used as windbreaks can be seen in people’s yards and landscapes
across the city. Although these trees are not in direct area to the river, the largest vector for their
dispersal is birds eating their berries. Without starting a ban on Russian olive within the City and
keeping in mind the range of birds and the two year viability of the seeds, continued monitoring
for Russian olive past the three years is suggested. It will not have to be done yearly, but perhaps
biyearly or extended.
The past activities of the Russian olive treatment have been sporadic at best. Treatment
was conducted in poorly defined areas, not completed correctly, definitely not revisited, and in
most cases, conducted on one side of the river but not the other. Inert work such as this is similar
to the excitement at the beginning of pulling some weeds from a garden, but losing steam a

14. quarter of the way through. The flowerbed will be returned to the weed-taken state if all weeds
are not pulled and some sort of chemical or weed blanket is not laid down.
If resources are not available to fund the after-treatments or the manpower is not
available to do the project right, the goals and perhaps the project, should be reevaluated for its
priority and tangibility. The project has much potential as seen with the 69% success rate of the
back-burner project along Bryan Stock Trail. Depending on the ambition of the City, funding
(Nebraska used Legislative Bill 701 to fund removal (Sarchet, 2007)) and delegation to a
Russian olive crew could create a handle on this very detrimental invasive specie.
Included in Appendix B: Additional Information, articles and specific pages that were
read and regarded as highly useful can be found. It is urged that they be read for more
understanding on why cut and paint is the best practice to be used.
Bibliography
North Platte River Environmental Restoration Master Plan (2012). Fort Collins, CO: Stantec
Consulting Services, Inc.
Park County Weed & Pest Control District. (n.d.). Winter: The perfect time to rid your property
of Russian olives. Retrieved from http://www.parkcountyweeds.com/Upload/File/RO
Treatment for website.pdf
Sarchet, M. (2007). Invasive species: sucking out water resources away. Prairie Fire- The
Progressive Voice of the Great Plains,

15. Appendix A: Record of Russian olive Removal and Treatment

16. Figure 2. Record of Russian olive Removal and Treatment—Platte River Revival
Location of where Russian olive, year, method used to remove the olive plant, what was
used to kill the stump, and who participated in the treatment.
Appendix B : Additional Information
Sampling Techniques:
Fire Research and Management Exchange System, (n.d.). Line intercept sampling method.
Retrieved from website:
www.frames.gov/documents/projects/firemon/LIv3_Methods.pdf
Schowalter-Hay, E. (2011, Septemeber 23). How to calculate absolute shrub density. Retrieved
from http://www.ehow.com/how_12089685_calculate-absolute-shrub-density.html

17. Stannard, M. USDA, NRCS. (2002). Technical Notes: History, biology, ecology, suppression
and revegetation of russian-olive sites (pp.4-7). WA: Spokane.
Tree and shrub inventory sampling plan. In Center to Grand Forks Project (pp. 1-2). Minnkota
Power Cooperative, Inc.
Management:
Bettinger, P. et al. (2009). Forest management and planning. Elsevier Inc.
5.2 Vegetation plan. (2012). North Platte River Environmental Restoration Master Plan (pp. 49-
52). Fort Collins, CO: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
Appendix C: Bryan Stock Trail Assessment Area
(Printed map)