Noxious Weeds Reporta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...statewide as noxious weeds by rule of the Department of Agriculture or county-wide noxious weeds by district

Marshall Woods Restoration Project

Missoula Ranger District

Lolo National Forest

Noxious Weeds Report

September 17, 2014

Prepared by: //Karen Stockmann// Date: September 17, 2014

Karen Stockmann East Zone Botanist Lolo National Forest

1

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Forest Plan Direction and Regulatory Framework

Forest Plan Direction (goals, objectives, standards)

• Forestwide

Weed management in the Rattlesnake NRA is guided by the principles and priorities established in Amendment 11 to the Lolo National Forest Plan (including Appendix O-4) and the Integrated Weed Management FEIS of 2007. Amendment 11 states: “All management activities will incorporate noxious weed prevention measures. Noxious weed control projects will be focused where they may have the greatest effect on preventing weed spread or damage to natural resources, and the greatest benefit to people who are actively trying to control weeds on land adjacent to the National Forest.” This decision provides Forest-wide standards, monitoring expectations, and guidelines for weed prevention and for weed control projects. The FEIS authorizes and adaptive and integrated weed management strategy for the LNF to include treatment of new weed species, new weed infestations, and the use of new control methods. The FEIS is incorporated into this analysis by reference (see the Lolo National Forest website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/lolo/projects).

• Affected Management Areas (MAs)

MA1 – This management area consists of scattered parcels that are non-forest or noncommercial forest land. The MA does not specifically identify goals or standards for noxious weed control for this project area but identifies projected acres under the schedule of management practices. There are standards in MA1 for prohibiting chemical herbicide and pesticide use in the Ashley Creek Watershed (the majority of MA1) which is well outside the project area boundary. This MA is included in portions of Unit 63 and 200. Weed species found in this MA include spotted knapweed, common mullein, and tumble mustard.

MA8 – This management area consists of portions of the ski areas on the Lolo NF that are permitted on National Forest System (NFS) lands. For this project that includes a portion of Marshall Ski Area, which is no longer under a special-use permit. The MA does not specifically identify goals or standards for noxious weed control for this project area but identifies projected acres under the schedule of management practices. No units are located within this MA but it is included in the project area boundary.

MA13 – This management area consists of lakes, lakeside lands, major second-order and larger streams and the adjoining lands that are dominated by riparian vegetation. The prohibition of the use of chemical herbicides and pesticides in Ashley Creek Watershed is identified again under this MA but there are no specific goals or standards for noxious weed control other than maintaining vegetation health and value. Projected acres for noxious weed control are identified under the schedule of management practices. This management area is present within all units. The riparian area weed infestations are small and patchy. Weed infestation is present mostly where trails, roads, or open spaces

2

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/lolo/projects

occur. Known species include spotted knapweed, leafy spurge, Dalmatian toadflax, thistles, houndstongue, and common mullein.

MA16 – This management area consists of lands of varying physical environments which are suitable for timber management. Units 200 and 84 and a portion of Unit 63 are included in this MA. The prohibition of the use of chemical herbicides and pesticides in Ashley Creek Watershed is identified again under this MA but there are no specific goals or standards for noxious weed control, other than maintaining healthy timber stands that apply to this project area. Projected acres for noxious weed control are identified under the schedule of management practices. Weed species found in this MA are Dalmatian toadflax, spotted knapweed, houndstongue, musk thistle, and whitetop.

MA19 – This management area consists of predominantly shrub lands located at elevations below 5,000 feet on south-facing slopes; big game winter ranges. The entire Unit 64 is the only unit included in this management area. This unit is infested with almost all of the Lolo NF’s common noxious weed species; spotted knapweed, St. Johnswort, cheatgrass, Canada thistle, musk thistle, houndstongue, Dalmatian toadflax, sulfur cinquefoil, and leafy spurge.

MA23 – This management area consists of lands with high visual sensitivity and are available for varying degrees of timber harvest. Unit 1 and portions of Unit 81 are within this MA. The prohibition of the use of chemical herbicides and pesticides in Ashley Creek Watershed is identified again under this MA but there are no specific goals or standards for noxious weed control other than maintaining healthy timber stands that apply to this project area. Projected acres for noxious weed control are identified under the schedule of management practices. Weed species found in this MA are cheatgrass, Dalmatian toadflax, spotted knapweed, meadow hawkweed, houndstongue, tumble mustard, and common mullein.

MA25 – This management area consists of land with a medium degree of visual sensitivity and are available for varying degrees of timber management. The prohibition of the use of chemical herbicides and pesticides in Ashley Creek Watershed is identified again under this MA. The MA does not specifically identify standards or goals for noxious weed control for this project area but identifies projected acres under the schedule of management practices. This MA is included in portions of Unit 63 and 200. Weed species found in this MA include spotted knapweed, common mullein, and tumble mustard.

MA27 – This management area consists of scattered parcels of commercial forest land but is steep and rocky. Only 0.5 acres of the MA occurs in the project area, no units are within this MA.

MA28 – This management area consists of the non-wilderness portion of the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness (RNRAW) which was established by Public Law (PL 96-476) on October 19, 1980. The majority of the project units are within this MA (Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 60, 61, 62, 65, 70, 71, 90, 91, 92, 100A, 100B, and 101). Management standards are also contained in Appendix O-4 of the Forest Plan. The only standard that addresses noxious weed management is Standard 39 which requires noxious weed treatments (along with tree removal) in the Homestead Meadows to retain the typical cleared homestead appearance. Noxious weed control acres are identified in the schedule of management practices as well. Appendix O-4 defines area-wide policies for vegetation management

3

(herbicide, noxious weeds) under Section G (page 14) and indicator conditions for vegetation in Table II-1 (p. 27) and indicator standards for vegetation in Table V-1 (p. 32).

Appendix 0-4 – This Forest Plan appendix gives management direction for Limits of Acceptable change in the RNRAW. Area-wide policy for vegetation management (herbicides and noxious weeds) is based on Amendment 11 to the Lolo NF Plan. The direction for noxious weed management in the RNRAW is, in order of priority: prevention and direct control of weeds (where weed control efforts can be most effective versus where there are the most weeds). Biological control is the first and preferred direct weed control action and has been implemented in the project area consistently since 1995 targeting mainly leafy spurge and spotted knapweed. Herbicide treatments have been implemented in the project area about the same time. Educational material is provided in posters and signs at trailheads and bathrooms. Weed prevention measures (as required on page W-7 of Amendment 11) include use of certified weed-free feed and straw bedding, a recommended quarantine on weed-free feed before pack and saddle stack enter the area, signing trailheads to promote weed prevention awareness, and revision of special use permits to require weed treatments consistent with the philosophy of the Forest Plan. Noxious weeds are an indicator for the Vegetation Factor in all Opportunity Classes. Controlling noxious weeds is desirable in the RNRAW with biological control being the preferred method.

Laws, Regulations, FSM/FSH, other agency plans and policies

Federal Noxious Weed Law

The federal noxious weed list is determined by rule of the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the definitions and provisions of the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, Title 7, Chapter 61. A federal noxious weed is of foreign origin and is new or not widely prevalent within the United States. Federal noxious weeds are specified as aquatic weeds, parasitic weeds, or terrestrial weeds. For the purpose of weed management on federal lands (Section 2814), a federal agency shall adopt any list classified as noxious by federal or state law. The project area contains ten species listed by Montana and cheatgrass.

Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species

Each Federal agency whose actions may affect the status of invasive species shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, identify such actions; subject to the availability of appropriations, and within Administration budgetary limits, use relevant programs and authorities to: (i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (ii) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner; (iii) monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; (iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded; (v) conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent introduction and provide for environmentally sound control of invasive species; and (vi) promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them; and not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly

4

outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.

Montana County Noxious Weed Control Law

The Montana County Noxious Weed Control Law (MCA 7-2101 through 2153) was established in 1948 to protect Montana from destructive noxious weeds. This act, amended in 1991, has established a set of criteria for the control and management of noxious weeds in Montana. Noxious weeds are defined by this act as being any exotic plant species which may render land unfit for agriculture, forestry, livestock, wildlife or other beneficial uses or that may harm native plant communities. Plants can be designated statewide as noxious weeds by rule of the Department of Agriculture or county-wide noxious weeds by district weed boards following public notice of intent and a public hearing.

The Montana Noxious Weed Law only pertains to noxious weeds. It cannot be enforced on any weed not designated as a statewide or district “noxious weed” (Table 1). This is the same list the Lolo NF uses for resource management and decision-making in regards to noxious weed species.

Local government has the responsibility for implementation and enforcement of weed management in Montana. Each county government is required to appoint a county weed control board, and to develop a long-term noxious weed management plan. The Marshall Woods project area is entirely in Missoula County.

Invasive plants are classified by the State of Montana by their priority for control or eradication in three categories.

Table 1: Montana State Weed List. (Species in bold font are known to occur within the project area.)

Priority Level Description Species Priority 1A These weeds are not present in Montana.

Management criteria will require eradication if detected; education; and prevention.

Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)

Priority 1B These weeds have limited presence in Montana. Management criteria will require eradication or containment and education.

Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria) Flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus) Japanese knotweed complex (Polygonum spp.) Purple loosestrife (Lythrum spp.) Rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius)) Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus)

Priority 2A These weeds are common in isolated areas of Montana. Management criteria will require eradication or containment where less abundant. Management shall be prioritized by local weed districts.

Tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) Meadow hawkweed complex (Hieracium spp.) Orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum) Tall buttercup (Ranunculus acris) Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) Yellowflag iris (Iris pseudacorus)

5

Priority Level Description Species Blueweed (Echium vulgare) Hoary alyssum (Berteroa incana)

Priority 2B These weeds are abundant in Montana and widespread in many counties. Management criteria will require eradication or containment where less abundant. Management shall be prioritized by local weed districts.

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) Whitetop (Cardaria draba) Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens) Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe or maculosa) Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) Oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum or Leucanthemum vulgare) Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.)

Priority 3 Regulated Plants: (NOT MONTANA-LISTED NOXIOUS WEEDS) These regulated plants have the potential to have significant negative impacts. The plant may not be intentionally spread or sold other than as a contaminant in agricultural products. The state recommends research, education, and prevention to minimize the spread of the regulated plant.

Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)

Analysis Area Boundary(ies)

The analysis area for noxious weeds includes only NFS lands within the Marshall Woods project area boundary. Multiple weed species exist on adjacent private, city, and county lands within the project area boundary including weed species considered new invaders on the Missoula RD. However, the FS does not have jurisdiction over these infestations; but cooperates with the City of Missoula and Missoula County to monitor these populations and continues to look for new invaders.

Existing Conditions

Most noxious weeds have a strong association with disturbed areas such as roadsides, trail sides, construction projects, old homesteads, and utility sites. Removal of topsoil and low vegetative cover create favorable conditions for noxious weed colonization, as these species tend to be aggressive, early

6

seral colonizers. Spread beyond centers of infestation occurs by transport of seeds and vegetative parts (rhizomes) on construction equipment, humans, animals, wind, and water. Many noxious weed species, particularly the most common invasive species, occur in open, dry, and disturbed habitats. However, new invader species, such as orange hawkweed, are not as limited by those habitat characteristics and occur in a wider range of site conditions.

Inventories conducted in 2002 and 2009 found approximately 2,435 acres of noxious weeds, mostly scattered along trails, roads, and open forested areas within the project area. Inventory size ranges from a single plant to hundreds of acres. Infestations may overlap and be scattered across large areas or dense patches confined to small areas. Spotted knapweed is the dominant weed species within the analysis area (1,161.0 acres). Known weed infestations are listed by unit in Table 2. Each species is hyperlinked to the Fire Effects Information System, Plants Database to give specific information (species characteristics, growth habits, distribution and occurrence, fire effects, management considerations). The reader can refer to Appendix C for general information on each noxious weed species characteristics.

Table 2: Known Weed Species Presence by Unit

Unit Weed Species

1 Spotted Knapweed, Houndstongue, Leafy Spurge, Dalmatian Toadflax

2 Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Leafy Spurge,

3 Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Houndstongue, 4 Spotted Knapweed, Dalmatian Toadflax, St. Johnswort

5 Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Dalmatian Toadflax, mostly concentrated on trail

6 Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Dalmatian Toadflax, Oxeye Daisy mostly concentrated on road

60 Spotted Knapweed, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Tall buttercup

61 Spotted Knapweed, Leafy Spurge, Dalmatian Toadflax, Cheatgrass, St. Johnswort, Sulfur Cinquefoil

62 Spotted Knapweed, Common Tansy, Houndstongue, Dalmatian Toadflax

63 Spotted Knapweed

64

Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Cheatgrass, Canada Thistle, Musk Thistle, Houndstongue, Dalmatian Toadflax, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Leafy Spurge, St. Johnswort

65 Spotted Knapweed, Leafy Spurge, Dalmatian Toadflax, Cheatgrass, Sulfur Cinquefoil

66 Spotted Knapweed, Dalmatian Toadflax, Houndstongue

70 Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Houndstongue, Leafy Spurge, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Canada Thistle

71 Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Leafy Spurge, Oxeye Daisy

7

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/cenmac/all.html

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/cynoff/all.html

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/eupesu/all.html

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/linspp/all.html



http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/hypper/all.html

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/potrec/all.html




http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/brotec/all.html











http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch?keywordquery=CHLE80&mode=symbol&submit.x=23&submit.y=10











http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/tanvul/all.html








http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/cirarv/all.html

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/carnut/all.html

























The implementation of the Integrated Weed Management FEIS/ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007) allows the Lolo NF (including the Missoula RD) to treat noxious weeds under an adaptive management strategy; incorporating mechanical, biological, and chemical weed control along with educational efforts directed at the prevention and management of noxious weeds (preceding environmental assessments have included sections of the project area prior the 2007 Integrated Weed Management assessment). Analysis of the effects of noxious weed treatments is contained within the FEIS. Noxious weed control has been ongoing since 1992 in the form of herbicide treatment, biological control releases, hand-pulling, and educational efforts. Herbicide treatments have and will continue to be applied to trails and open meadows infested with various weed species on a scheduled interval. Biological controls have and will continue to be released on leafy spurge infestations as needed. Hand-pulling methods will continue on houndstongue populations and incidental small infestations discovered in remote, relatively weed-free areas. Treatment of weeds within the Rattlesnake NRA, Marshall Canyon, and Woods Gulch can be implemented under the authority and guidelines of the 2007 FEIS. All methods will continue regardless of the alternative selected in this analysis in order to maintain previous noxious weed control and suppression efforts.

Educational practices inform employees and the public about the dangers of noxious weed establishment and spread. Additionally, educational forums allow discussions about reasons why noxious weeds are present. Noxious weed identification posters and information fliers are available across the Forest for those who are interested in noxious weed management. The Lolo NF supports the Missoula County Leave No Weeds Educational Program, which travels to local schools educating students on noxious weed identification and effects. The Lolo NF staff is always available to the public for questions and assistance in noxious weed management.

Prevention is a tool that is complemented by education. Preventing establishment of new noxious weed species and new infestations requires monitoring, not only by Forest Service employees, but by the public as well. Preventative measures include actions such as ridding outdoor equipment of noxious

80 Spotted Knapweed

81 Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Dalmatian Toadflax 82 Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Houndstongue

84 Spotted Knapweed, Dalmatian Toadflax, Cheatgrass, Oxeye Daisy, on road beds and cut and fill slopes

90 Spotted Knapweed, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Tall buttercup; along trail none in unit

91 Spotted Knapweed (Leafy Spurge potential from Unit 61) 92

100A

Spotted Knapweed, Oxeye Daisy, St. Johnswort, Leafy Spurge, Common Tansy, Houndstongue, Canada Thistle

100B Spotted Knapweed

101 Spotted Knapweed, Leafy Spurge, Sulfur Cinquefoil, St. Johnswort, Cheatgrass

200 Spotted Knapweed

8





















http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/tanvul/all.html











weed seeds, traveling (both people and domestic animals) on existing trail and paths, and being conscientious of actions that may spread noxious weed in general.

Biological control agents are released almost every year to reduce the infestation size and vigor of noxious weed plants in the project area (Table 3). They consist of various seed-head and gall flies, root moths and weevils, and other insects that have been rigorously researched by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Research is designed to develop biological controls that effectively hinder a noxious weed plant without adversely affecting native vegetation. Sites are selected based on success potential of the insect populations as populations need to establish before they can be effective. Therefore, management must consider disturbance possibilities and site characteristics (dry/moist, sunny/shady, etc.). Biological control agents are initially self-perpetuating but as they diminish a noxious weed infestation they also diminish their food supply. This causes a decrease in the agents’ population and gives the noxious weed infestation a chance to recover its original size. As the noxious weed infestation regains its size, the biological control agent builds its population back up but not to an effective level. When used in concert with other tools in integrated weed management or more than one biological control agent, biological control agents become more effective (Radosevich 2007).

Table 3: History of Biological Control Release in the RNRA

Target Weed Biological Control Agent Date

Number Released Location*

Spurge Oberea erythrocephala 6/24/2009 120 D3 Woods Gulch Spurge Apthona lacertosa 07/19/02 11000 D3 Woods Gulch #1 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 7/12/2002 4000 D3 Woods Gulch #1 Spurge Apthona lacertosa 07/19/02 11000 D3 Woods Gulch #2 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 7/12/2002 4000 D3 Woods Gulch #2 C. Thistle Sclerotinia inoculum 06/22/83 1 Kl/3 D3 Spring Gulch Knapweed Agepeta zoegana 08/10/93 100 D3 Spring Gulch Knapweed Cyphocleonus achates 08/16/96 250 D3 Spring Gulch Knapweed Larinus obtusus 07/30/93 58 D3 Spring Gulch

Spurge Apthona cyparissiea 07-16-98 2000 D3 Strawberry rdg. at schoolhs jnct.

Spurge Apthona lacertosa/nigriscutus 7/30/2002 20000 D3 Strawberry Ridge #? Spurge Apthona nigriscutus/cypariss 07-16-98 2000/2000 D3 Strawberry Ridge #1 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus/flava 07/17/97 2000 D3 Strawberry Ridge #1 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus/flava 07/25/97 2000 D3 Strawberry Ridge #1 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus/flava 08/10/95 500/50 D3 Strawberry Ridge #1 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus/flava 07/25/97 500 D3 Strawberry Ridge #2 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07-16-98 2000 D3 Strawberry Ridge #3 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus/flava 07/25/97 1500 D3 Strawberry Ridge #3 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 08/15/97 6000 D3 Strawberry Ridge #4 Spurge Apthona cyparissiae 07/16-98 2000 D3 Strawberry Ridge #5a and 5b Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07/14/94 2000 D3 Sawmill Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07/17/96 1000 D3 Sawmill Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07/17/96 1000 D3 Sawmill Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07/17/96 1000 D3 Sawmill

9



Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07/17/96 1000 D3 Sawmill Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07-09-98 3000 D3 Sawmill Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 08/09/95 2000 D3 Sawmill Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 08/30/94 250 D3 Sawmill Spurge Spurgia esulae 07/03/96 100 D3 Sawmill Spurge Spurgia esulae 07/25/95 50 D3 Sawmill Spurge Spurgia esulae 08/09/95 250 D3 Sawmill Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07/17/96 1000 D3 Sawmill Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07/13/99 5000 D3 Sawmill #1 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07/11/00 1000 D3 Sawmill #1 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07/13/99 5000 D3 Sawmill #2 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07/11/00 2000 D3 Sawmill #2 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 7/11/2002 2000 D3 Sawmill #2 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07/12/99 3000 D3 Sawmill #4 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 7/11/2002 3000 D3 Sawmill #4 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07/12/99 4000 D3 Sawmill #6 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 7/11/2002 1000 D3 Sawmill #6 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07/11/00 2000 D3 Sawmill #8 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 7/11/2002 5000 D3 Sawmill #8 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07/12/95 2500 D3 Sawmill (5 releases) Knapweed Cyphocleonus achates 07/28/05 200 D3 Sawmill B Knapweed Cyphocleonus achates 07/27/09 110 D3 Sawmill Gate Knapweed Agepeta zoegana 07/20/92 629 D3 Sawmill Gulch Knapweed Agepeta zoegana 08/10/93 100 D3 Sawmill Gulch Knapweed Agepeta zoegana 08/19/91 359 D3 Sawmill Gulch Knapweed Terellia Virens 00/00/94 830 D3 Sawmill Gulch Knapweed Larinus obtusus 07/28/94 0 D3 Sawmill Gulch Spurge Apthona cyparissiae 06/27/95 250 D3 Sawmill Gulch Spurge Apthona cyparissiae 07/12/96 500 D3 Sawmill Gulch Spurge Apthona czwalinae/lacertosa 07/03/96 1000 D3 Sawmill Gulch Spurge Apthona flava 07/08/92 D3 Sawmill Gulch Spurge Apthona flava 07/26/95 400 D3 Sawmill Gulch Spurge Apthona flava 07/29/93 1500 D3 Sawmill Gulch Spurge Apthona flava 08/09/95 2000 D3 Sawmill Gulch Spurge Oberea erythrocephala 6/25/2009 120 D3 Sawmill Gulch Spurge Apthona cyparissiae 07/17/97 3000 D3 Sawmill Gulch #1 Spurge Apthona cyparissiae 07/17/97 3000 D3 Sawmill Gulch #2 Spurge Oberea erythrocephala 6/25/2009 120 D3 Sawmill Gulch #2 Spurge Oberea erythrocephala 6/25/2009 120 D3 Sawmill Gulch #3 Knapweed Cyphocleonus achates 07/23/10 100 D3 Sawmill Gulch #3 supplement Spurge Apthona cyparissiae 07/09/99 4000 D3 Sawmill Gulch #4 Toadflax Mecinus janthinus 6/21/2007 100 D3 Sawmill Meja #1 Toadflax Mecinus janthinus 6/21/2007 100 D3 Sawmill Meja #2 Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 6/27/2007 12000 D3 Sawmill Scatter Knapweed Larinus minutus 06/30/00 200 D3 Sawmill/Trail junction #1

10



Knapweed Larinus minutus 06/30/00 200 D3 Sawmill/Trail junction #2 Knapweed Larinus minutus 06/30/00 200 D3 Sawmill/Trail junction #3 Knapweed Cyphocleonus achates 09/16/99 150 D3 Rattlesnake Knapweed Urophora affinis 05/00/81 6000 D3 Rattlesnake Cr Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07/17/96 1000 D3 Rattlesnake Drive Knapweed Larinus minutus 07/02/98 200 D3 Rattlesnake Trail Knapweed Larinus minutus 09/22/95 18 D3 Rattlesnake Trail Knapweed Petrolonche inspersa 09/22/95 450 D3 Rattlesnake Trail Spurge Apthona czwalinae/lacertosa 07/03/96 1000 D3 Rattlesnake Trailhead Spurge Apthona flava 07/26/95 400 D3 Rattlesnake Trailhead Spurge Apthona nigriscutus 07-09-98 2000 D3 Rattlesnake Trailhead Spurge Apthona nigriscutus/flava 08/10/95 500/50 D3 Rattlesnake Trailhead Spurge Oberea erythrocephala 6/28/2010 100 D3 Rattlesnake Trailhead Spurge Spurgia esulae 07/03/96 50 D3 Rattlesnake Trailhead Spurge Apthona lacertosa/nigriscutus 7/7/2005 4000 D3 lower Sawmill #1 Spurge Apthona lacertosa/nigriscutus 7/14/2009 3000 D3 Lower Sawmill Gulch Spurge Apthona nigriscutus/flava 07/10/97 1000 D3 Lower Sawmill Gulch Spurge Oberea erythrocephala 6/25/2009 120 D3 Lower Sawmill Gulch *D3 = Missoula Ranger District

Mechanical control is extremely labor intensive and is restricted to incidental hand-pulling and mowing due to a lack of staff time and funding; but careful mechanical control is always encouraged during educational discussions.

Chemical control, in the form of herbicides, is used as necessary to control noxious weed infestations on the Missoula Ranger District. Application of herbicides is carried out under the direction of the Lolo Forest Plan, Amendment 11 and other current environmental assessment documents. Herbicides reviewed in Amendment 11 are picloram, glyphosate, and 2,4-D (USDA Forest Service 1991). In addition to those herbicides the 2007 Weed FEIS/ROD approves use of aminopyralid, chlorsulfuron, clopyralid, dicamba, imazapic, imazapyr, metsulfuron, and triclopyr (Table 4). The use of any other herbicide must be approved by the Forest Supervisor through a Pesticide-Use Proposal process.

Table 4: Herbicide and Target Weed Species

Chemical Name Trade Name(s) General Target Weed Species (not all are present in the project area)

Aminopyralid Milestone® Canada thistle, diffuse knapweed, musk thistle, orange hawkweed, yellow hawkweed, oxeye daisy, Russian knapweed, spotted

knapweed, sulphur cinquefoil, yellow starthistle Chlorsulfuron Telar® dyer’s woad, thistles, common tansy, houndstongue, whitetop, tall

buttercup Clopyralid Transline®, Curtail® thistles, yellow starthistle, orange hawkweed, yellow hawkweed,

diffuse knapweed, Russian knapweed, rush skeletonweed, spotted knapweed, oxeye daisy

11

Chemical Name Trade Name(s) General Target Weed Species (not all are present in the project area)

Dicamba Clarity®, Banvel®, others

houndstongue, yellow starthistle, common crupina, orange hawkweed, yellow hawkweed, diffuse knapweed, spotted

knapweed, Oxeye daisy, tall buttercup, Canada thistle, blueweed, white top, perennial pepperweed, leafy spurge, tansy ragwort

Glyphosate Round-up Ultra RT®, Round-up Original®,

Rodeo®, Accord®, others

purple loosestrife, yellow starthistle, Canada thistle, common crupina, yellow toadflax, Japanese knotweed

Imazapic Plateau® leafy spurge, white top, perennial pepperweed Imazapyr Arsenal®, Chopper®,

Habitat salt cedar, dyer’s woad

Metsulfuron Ally®, Escort® houndstongue, thistles, sulphur cinquefoil, common crupina, dyer’s woad, purple loosestrife, common tansy, whitetop,

blueweed, perennial pepperweed Picloram Tordon 22K®, Tordon

RTU® houndstongue, thistles, yellow Starthistle, sulphur cinquefoil,

common crupina, orange hawkweed, yellow hawkweed, diffuse knapweed, Russian knapweed, spotted knapweed, rush

skeletonweed, common tansy, Dalmatian toadflax, yellow toadflax, leafy spurge

Triclopyr Garlon 3A®, Garlon 4®, Redeem®, Remedy®

yellow hawkweed, orange hawkweed, sulphur cinquefoil, purple loosestrife, diffuse knapweed, spotted knapweed, oxeye daisy,

thistles, Russian knapweed 2, 4-D Numerous musk thistle, sulphur cinquefoil, common crupina, dyer’s woad,

Russian knapweed, purple loosestrife, tall buttercup, whitetop, spotted knapweed, mullein, perennial pepperweed

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Analysis Methods

The spread of existing weed infestations and the possibility new infestations establishing was analyzed under this section; noxious weed management and treatment for the project area has been analyzed through previous decisions (USDA FS 1991, 2007). The analysis of the project area was prepared using existing weed inventory maps and on-the-ground knowledge of weed infestations, site characteristics, observations of completed past similar proposed activities and applicable research findings. Because weed seed and rhizomes are transported by multiple carriers and ample seed banks exist in all units as well as surrounding areas, all proposed activities that have on-the-ground disturbance were evaluated regardless of their distance to known noxious weed infestations. All proposed activities that reduce vegetative cover and increase favorable conditions for noxious weed invasion and spread were evaluated based on known noxious weed infestations within or adjacent to the proposed activity.

12

Measurement Indicators – Measurement indicators will be presented in terms of probability based on a Risk Assessment for proposed management actions (Noxious Weed Risk Assessment, Project File). As stated before, noxious weed infestation, establishment, and spread is based on level of disturbance, activity duration, and vegetative cover. Removing topsoil and decreasing vegetative cover resulting from management actions creates favorable conditions for noxious weed colonization, as these species tend to be aggressive early seral colonizers. Spread beyond centers of infestation occurs by transport of seeds and vegetative parts (rhizomes) on construction equipment, humans, animals, wind, and water. Three measurement indicators have been developed to analyze the impacts of each alternative. Theses measurement indicators represent the primary factors affecting the introduction, spread, or increased density of noxious weeds by the proposed activities in the analysis area.

1. Habitat Vulnerability: Different vegetation cover types have a large influence in weed invasion. Vegetative types vary in susceptibility to different noxious weeds based on precipitation, aspect, soil, and existing vegetative competition. The amount of change in the tree or shrub canopy affects the amount of light reaching the forest floor. This affects noxious weed establishment and reproductive success.

2. Non-Project Dependent Vectors: Existing vectors include recreation activities, wind, and wildlife. Grazing in not currently permitted in the project area.

3. Habitat Alteration: Ground-disturbance through the use of ground-based equipment, thinning prescriptions, road improvements, or prescribed burning which results in exposing soil by removing or disturbing the duff layer.

4. Increased Vectors: Additional management activities in the area can be considered vectors for noxious weed establishment and spread.

These measurement indicators are related to the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed activities and do not include the cumulative impacts from existing activities (e.g., high recreation use).

The effects of the proposed actions are assessed for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on noxious weed infestations. Direct effects are impacts that are caused by the proposed activities when and where they occur. Indirect effects are impacts caused by the proposed activities that occur later in time or away from the proposed activities. Cumulative effects are based on known past, present, and reasonably foreseeable action that may impact the same area or add additional impacts to the area. Impact definitions are as follows:

Negligible: Noxious weed infestations would remain at their current infestation level and expand at the current rate of spread.

Minor: Noxious weed infestations would be increased over a relatively small area, the effects would be localized and are not expected to expand beyond a specific disturbance area. No new noxious weed species would be introduced or the potential would be low.

13

Moderate: Noxious weed infestation would increase or expand over a relatively wide area and/or across multiple sites. The increases would be noticeable and require additional management actions beyond this project. New infestations would be expected to develop.

Major: Noxious weed infestations would be expected to overtake native plant populations over a relatively large area. Infestations levels would be so great there would be a permanent loss to native vegetation.

Short-term: During project implementation (approx. 10 years); control efforts would taper after 3 years.

Long-term: After project implementation, control efforts would need to continue beyond 3 years, infestation levels continue until shrub and tree canopy mature (beyond 20 years.)

Beneficial: This term is not to be confused as being beneficial to the expansion of noxious weed infestations. Beneficial impact would be referring to the control, suppression, and eradication of noxious weed infestations.

Negative: This term refers to the expansion, introduction, and establishment of noxious weed infestations increases.

Effects Common to All Alternatives:

Noxious weeds would continue to spread and establish at current levels through existing, non-project vectors (roads, trails, wildlife, wind, and dispersed/unauthorized recreational activities; including dogs off leash) within the project area regardless of which alternative is selected. Vegetation cover types would remain the same until the bark beetle mortality surpasses the natural carrying capacity. Trees would begin to rapidly decline and canopy cover would decrease.

Road 99 (TR515) improvements would be included in all alternatives. A portion of the improvements would include filling in some of the dips and resurfacing. This would require fill to be brought in from off-site. Generally speaking, most gravel sources have some level of noxious weed infestations. It would be expected that new weed infestations would result at each of these improvement areas. These areas would be monitored and subsequently treated if necessary to minimize the potential for spread and establishment.

Overall impacts from management action common to all alternatives would be considered minor and long-term due to the nature of noxious weed spread from habitat alterations, increased vectors and inadvertent introduction by humans, wind, water, and wildlife. Generally, impacts from noxious weed invasions would be considered negative due to the loss of native or desired vegetation for ecosystem resiliency.

14

Alternative A – No Action

o Direct and Indirect Effects

Increased human activity and planned disturbances due to management efforts would not occur beyond ongoing management activities (decisions already approved). Ecosystem maintenance burns approved in the Rattlesnake EMB Wildlife Improvement Decision Notice would be implemented at some point. And the decisions made for Section 31 would be implemented as well. These projects would directly impact the potential for noxious weed spread. Each decision includes noxious weed treatments. Potential for spread of existing noxious weed infestation and establishment of new weed infestations would be expected to increase from activities associated with prior decisions. Therefore, direct, negligible (due to subsequent noxious weed treatments) to minor effects would result from the implementation of the No Action Alternative.

Indirect effects would include the establishment and spread of noxious weeds from existing vectors (roads, trails, wildlife, wind, and dispersed/unauthorized recreational activities; including dogs off leash violations) within the project area. Vegetation cover types would remain the same until the bark beetle infestation surpasses the natural carrying capacity. Trees would begin to rapidly decline and canopy cover would decrease. As more trees begin to die because of insect and disease the cover types would start to change. This would happen gradually, and if left untreated trees would begin to fall creating microclimates and retaining some shade. Ground-disturbance would mostly be from falling trees and exposed root wads. Under No Action, noxious weed treatments would occur at the current level, which is not that extensive in the project area and would occur as funding became available. Overall, the No Action Alternative would have negligible to minor, long-term impacts in terms of noxious weed expansion and establishment. Generally, impacts from noxious weed invasions would be considered negative due to the loss of native or desired vegetation for ecosystem resiliency. No Action would be more beneficial than the action alternatives for noxious weed spread and establishment but would be less beneficial for treatment of existing infestations due to funding and personnel limitations.

o Cumulative Effects

Ultimately, if the No Action Alternative were implemented, the area could experience a wildfire which would result in a greater disturbance area resulting in large increases in noxious weed invasion (Zouhar et al. 2008). The disturbance areas would vary in intensity and would be random throughout the project area making detection and treatment more difficult than project-related disturbances. Canopy cover would be reduced in most areas. In areas that experienced severe fire intensity, mineral soil would be exposed. Both conditions are conducive to noxious weed invasion on their own, and together increased invasion and expanding infestations would be inevitable (Thomas et al. 1999, Battles et al. 2001, Scheller and Madenoff 2002, Abella and Covington 2004, Wienk et al. 2004, Gray 2005, Lindgren et al. 2006, and Dodson and Fiedler 2006, IN:. Sutherland & Nelson 2010). Impacts due to wildfire would be moderated, both short-term immediately after the fire and long-term if left untreated. Generally, impacts from noxious weed invasions are considered negative due to the loss of native or desired vegetation for ecosystem resiliency and interfere with natural succession processes post-fire.

15

Lands within the project area boundary not under FS jurisdiction continue to be a threat to noxious weed spread and establishment. Trails and roadways that access the analysis area boundary, especially used by recreationists, might contribute to the spread and establishment of noxious weeds on NFS lands. Missoula County has been actively mapping noxious weeds on city, county and private land within the county; including most of the project area. Point occurrences (no acre value associated, in most cases) have been physically mapped since 2002. Noxious weeds inventoried within the entire project area are included in Table 5 (as of February 2011). Most of the infestations are not currently being actively managed by the associated landowner. Additionally, blueweed, dyer’s woad, perennial pepperweed, and white top are known to infest lands neighboring the entire project area. The Missoula RD would continue to identify weed treatment needs on FS lands in the project area and treat infestations through implementing the Lolo Integrated Weed Management EIS (USDA Forest Service 2007). With or without a wildfire, the threat of new invaders from neighboring lands is considered minor, as the Forest is always looking for new invaders with the intent of eradicating them from the NFS lands.

Overall cumulative impacts from the No Action Alternative would be negligible to minor in terms of noxious weed spread and establishment. Existing infestation would be treated incidentally as funding became available and would result in both short-and long-term control efforts. Generally, impacts from noxious weed invasions would be considered negative due to the loss of native or desired vegetation for ecosystem resiliency this would continue to be the case under the No Action Alternative but less so than the other action alternatives due to no addition disturbances from management actions.

Table 5: Noxious weed species, mapped by Missoula County within the project area boundary (Feb 2011)

Weed Species Number of Point Occurrences Mapped

Cheatgrass 9 Spotted Knapweed 128 Oxeye Daisy 337 Canada Thistle 76 Field Bindweed 11 Houndstongue 255 Leafy Spurge 150 Orange Hawkweed 33 St. Johnswort 13 Yellowflag Iris 9 Dalmatian Toadflax 160 Common Toadflax 2 Japanese Knotweed 24 Tumble Mustard 6 Salt Cedar 5

16

All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)


Given the extensiveness of noxious weeds already present in the project area (both species richness and abundance) the risk of spread of existing noxious weed infestations and establishment of new weed infestations would increase in all units under the action alternatives (Lockwood et al. 2005, Allendorf and Lundquist 2003). Each alternative proposes an increase in ground disturbance, a decrease in canopy density, and a change in cover type. Ground disturbance levels vary by alternative (temporary road building, prescribed fire, thinning, etc.); however, the resulting direct impact would remain elevated due to the simple occurrence of soil and vegetative changes and increased human activity (Nelson et al. 2008, Aukema and Carey 2008). Additionally, research has shown increases in nutrient availability and decreases in competition often promote invasion of some noxious weeds due to their ability to rapidly uptake nutrients and their efficiency utilizing neighboring areas (Besaw et al 2011, Sutherland & Nelson 2010, Funk & Vitousek 2007). The actions proposed in all action alternatives include reducing competitive vegetation to increase resiliency in trees; which would increase nutrient availability to all remaining species as well, including noxious weeds.

Increased management and ground-disturbance levels could result in moderate impacts to noxious weed establishment and expansion. Resource protection measures to monitor and treat noxious weeds would decrease this impact to minor if fully implemented (Appendix A – Weed Treatment Plan). Though weed treatments would decrease the potential for increased spread and establishment, which is beneficial, the general impacts from disturbance and increased management would be considered negative due to the potential loss of native or desired vegetation for ecosystem resiliency in areas that were not able to be treated.

17

Figure 1: Picture Collage Demonstrating the Need for Treatment along Roads within the Project Area (RD 16803).

Indirect impacts include the possibility of increased vectors through user-created trails (see Recreation Specialist’s Report). Similar to roads, user-created trails are a linear disturbance; which facilitate noxious weed spread and establishment (Gelbard & Belnap 2003, Birdsall et al. 2012). Activities associated with project implementation might also increase the potential for noxious weed spread and eventual establishment. Staging areas, vehicles, fill, hand tools, incidental disturbances, and other unexpected sources of weed seed spread and propagation may occur during implementation. However, resource protection measures and BMPs should reduce these impacts. Wildlife is another vector for noxious weed spread and establishment. The project area experiences a great deal of wildlife activity from ungulates, birds, bears, and a wide-variety of mammals. The project area has some limiting landscape features but for the most part it is widely accessible to wildlife. Most units have evidence of heavy use from migration trails to simple ocular observances. This project would not be expected to change the population dynamic of most wildlife species but would allow more of the area to accessible with thinning and burning (see Wildlife Specialist’s Report). This would be a negative, indirect consequence of the project that would last beyond the implementation period.

Even though the potential to increase noxious weed populations is expected; the overall extent of noxious weed infestations in the planning area would potentially be reduced due to the associated weed treatments (Appendix A – Weed Treatment Plan). Herbicides are currently not used extensively throughout the project area. Biological controls have not been released on a regular basis since 2010. Mechanical treatments (hand-pulling and mowing) have been reduced due to a reduced workforce; and educational materials are limited to a couple of posters and signs in the project area. With the implementation of this project, all of these noxious weed management techniques would increase. Noxious weed treatments would increase plant community diversity by decreasing competition from noxious weeds (Rice 2013). Noxious weed treatments would facilitate desired site conditions of the

18

understory by preempting noxious weed establishment and allowing desirable vegetation to take hold since site regeneration is dependent on the composition of the species that result afterward (Radosevich 2007, Nelson et al. 2008).

Effective treatment for cheatgrass is still being explored. Cheatgrass infestations would be monitored until a solution for control becomes available. Existing cheatgrass infestations are expected to expand as part of this project. Overall impacts from the action alternatives in relation to noxious weed spread and establishment would be moderated, both short and long-term and negative. However, the implementation of this project would rely on resource protection measures designed to decrease noxious weed spread and treat known infestations. This would decrease the impact from moderate to minor and limit the extent of the impact to the implementation period (short-term). Compared to the No Action Alternative all action alternatives would require prevention measures and treatment of noxious weed infestation which would be more beneficial to the area for controlling, suppressing, and eradicating noxious weeds.

o Cumulative Effects

Past noxious weed spread within the project area boundary is facilitated by recreational activities and natural vectors (wind, water, wildlife). Lands within the project area boundary not under FS jurisdiction continue to be a threat to noxious weed spread and establishment as explained in the No Action Alternative. The Missoula RD would continue to identify weed treatment needs in the project area and treat infestations through implementing the Lolo NF Integrated Weed Management FEIS/ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007). Recreational use may decrease and additional vectors would not be developed as part of this project. But recreational use would still remain high and a source of weed spread and introduction.

Cumulatively noxious weed spread and establishment would degrade the native vegetative community, reduce water quality through soil erosion, and reduce wildlife habitat over time. However, noxious weed treatments as part of the implementation including the resource protection measures of this project, noxious weed spread is expected to be reduced (with the exception of cheatgrass). Overall, the project would have a direct benefit to reducing the infestation levels of noxious weeds in the project area. Long-term educational and preventative benefits would also be expected from the implementation of this project under all action alternatives. This would result in a moderate decrease to noxious weed infestations within the project area. No negative, long-term health effects due to herbicide application on workers or the public are expected.

Alternative B, C and D (thinning)


Canopy cover reduction would vary by treatment objective, units, and alternative (Tables 6-8). The majority of the project area is within dry habitat types (ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir) that are vulnerable to noxious weed colonization when the forest canopy or soil is disturbed. Figures 2 and 3 show the how canopy cover influences the level of noxious weed infestation along TR513. The photos are taken at the

19

exact same spot, one looking north into Section 31 where canopy cover is very low; the other is looking south into Section 6. The level of spotted knapweed is obviously dependent on the canopy cover. Given the extent of noxious weed already present, new infestations and expansion of existing infestations is expected even with thinning from below techniques because canopy cover would be reduced by 30- to 60% (Gillette et al. 2014). Canada thistle, cheatgrass, and spotted knapweed are very shade-intolerant and prefer drier sites; however, all have been observed under trees and in moister sites. Musk thistle and Dalmatian toadflax are relatively shade-intolerant. Leafy spurge and St. Johnswort are moderately tolerant of shade and moisture but will grow well in sunny and dry sites. Common tansy and houndstongue are considered shade-tolerant. Though thinning in sites would open the canopy, noxious weed invasion (mainly spotted knapweed) risk would be minimized through resource protection measures and are expected to be minor in occurrence, short-term, and beneficial.

Figure 2: Spotted knapweed follows along the trail when there is no canopy cover

Figure 3: Photo taken from exact same spot on TR513 looking into a high canopy cover area along TR513

20

Table 6: Canopy Cover Reduction Impact on Noxious Weeds Already Present for Alternative B

Unit Prescription Description (Alt. B)

Canopy Cover % Reduction Weed Species Present

Increased Spread from Canopy

Removal (Y/N)

1 Thin + Rx Fire 35

Spotted Knapweed, Houndstongue, Leafy Spurge, Dalmatian Toadflax Y

2 Thin + Rx Fire 40 Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Sulfur Cinquefoil Y

3 Thin + Rx Fire 40 Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Houndstongue, Y

4 Thin + Rx Fire 50 Spotted Knapweed, Dalmatian Toadflax, St. Johnswort Y

5 Thin + Rx Fire 50

Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Dalmatian Toadflax, mostly concentrated on trail Y

6 Thin + Rx Fire 35

Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Dalmatian Toadflax, Common Mullein, Oxeye Daisy mostly concentrated on road Y

60 EMB + understory thinning/slashing 20

Spotted Knapweed, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Tall buttercup N


Spotted Knapweed, Leafy Spurge, Dalmatian Toadflax, Cheatgrass, St. Johnswort, Sulfur Cinquefoil N


Spotted Knapweed, Common Tansy, Houndstongue, Dalmatian Toadflax N

63 EMB + understory thinning/slashing 20 Spotted Knapweed N


Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Cheatgrass, Canada Thistle, Musk Thistle, Houndstongue, Dalmatian Toadflax, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Leafy Spurge, St. Johnswort N


Spotted Knapweed, Leafy Spurge, Dalmatian Toadflax, Cheatgrass, Sulfur Cinquefoil N


Spotted Knapweed, Dalmatian Toadflax, Houndstongue N

21

Unit Prescription Description (Alt. B)



Removal (Y/N)


Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Houndstongue, Leafy Spurge, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Canada Thistle N


Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Leafy Spurge, Oxeye Daisy N

80 Young Stand Thin + Rx Fire 30 Spotted Knapweed Y

81 Young Stand Thin + Rx Fire 30

Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Dalmatian Toadflax Y


Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Houndstongue Y


Spotted Knapweed, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Tall buttercup; along trail none in unit Y

90 Noncommercial thin + Hand Pile & Burn 20 Spotted Knapweed N

91 Noncommercial thin + Hand Pile & Burn 20 N

92 Noncommercial thin + Hand Pile & Burn 20

Spotted Knapweed, Oxeye Daisy, St. Johnswort, Leafy Spurge, Common Tansy, Houndstongue, Canada Thistle N

100A Meadow/Aspen Restoration 75 Spotted Knapweed Y

100B Meadow/Aspen Restoration 75

Spotted Knapweed, Leafy Spurge, Sulfur Cinquefoil, St. Johnswort, Cheatgrass Y

101 Ecosystem Maintenance Burning 25 Spotted Knapweed Y

200 Site Prep + Reforestation 25


22

Table 7: Canopy Cover Reduction Impact on Noxious Weeds Already Present for Alternative C

Unit Prescription Description (Alt. C)



Removal (Y/N)

1 Thin + Rx Fire 35



Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Sulfur Cinquefoil N


Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Houndstongue, N

4 Thin + Rx Fire 50

Spotted Knapweed, Dalmatian Toadflax, St. Johnswort Y

5 Thin + Rx Fire 50


6 Thin + Rx Fire 35

Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Dalmatian Toadflax, Common Mullein, Oxeye Daisy mostly concentrated on road Y









Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Cheatgrass, Canada Thistle, Musk Thistle, Houndstongue, Dalmatian Toadflax, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Leafy Spurge, St. Johnswort Y


Spotted Knapweed, Leafy Spurge, Dalmatian Toadflax, Cheatgrass, Sulfur Cinquefoil Y


Spotted Knapweed, Dalmatian Toadflax, N

23

Unit Prescription Description (Alt. C)



Removal (Y/N) Houndstongue


Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Houndstongue, Leafy Spurge, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Canada Thistle Y


Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Leafy Spurge, Oxeye Daisy Y

80 Young Stand Thin + Rx Fire 30 Spotted Knapweed Y


Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Dalmatian Toadflax Y


Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Houndstongue Y


Spotted Knapweed, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Tall buttercup; along trail none in unit Y

90 Noncommercial thin + Hand Pile & Burn 20 Spotted Knapweed N







101 Ecosystem Maintenance Burning 25 Spotted Knapweed


Spotted Knapweed, Houndstongue, Leafy Spurge, Dalmatian Toadflax

24

Table 8: Canopy Cover Reduction Impact on Noxious Weeds Already Present for Alternative D

Unit Prescription Description (Alt. D)



Removal (Y/N)


Spotted Knapweed, Houndstongue, Leafy Spurge, Dalmatian Toadflax N


Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Sulfur Cinquefoil N


Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Houndstongue, N


Spotted Knapweed, Dalmatian Toadflax, St. Johnswort Y




Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Dalmatian Toadflax, Common Mullein, Oxeye Daisy mostly concentrated on road N









Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Cheatgrass, Canada Thistle, Musk Thistle, Houndstongue, Dalmatian Toadflax, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Leafy Spurge, St. Johnswort Y


Spotted Knapweed, Leafy Spurge, Dalmatian Toadflax, Cheatgrass, Sulfur Cinquefoil N


Spotted Knapweed, Dalmatian Toadflax, Houndstongue N

25

Unit Prescription Description (Alt. D)



Removal (Y/N)


Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Houndstongue, Leafy Spurge, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Canada Thistle Y


Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Leafy Spurge, Oxeye Daisy Y

80 Young Stand Thin + Rx Fire 30 Spotted Knapweed N


Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Dalmatian Toadflax N


Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Houndstongue N


Spotted Knapweed, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Tall buttercup; along trail none in unit N

90 Noncommercial thin + Hand Pile & Burn 20 Spotted Knapweed Y







101 Ecosystem Maintenance Burning 25 Spotted Knapweed Y



o Cumulative Effects (of thinning)

Cumulative effects would be the same as described under all action alternatives.

26

Alternative B, C and D (burning)


Noxious weed infestations have been likened to a biological wildfire in that they spread rapidly and (seemingly) out of control. Unlike fire management that can help maintain natural habitats and restore fire regimes, noxious weed infestations can change the ecology of the area leading to an irretrievable loss of native vegetation if not closely managed (Fredrickson 2011). Unfortunately, fire management can also create conditions favorable to the introduction and spread of noxious weeds (Brooks and Lusk 2008, Goodwin et al. 2002). The Lolo NF has developed mitigation measures to help prevent the establishment and spread of noxious weeds during fire management activities, but when noxious weed infestation already exist in an area, achieving restoration goals becomes challenging.

Site characteristics of ecosystem maintenance burn and thin/burn units on south, southwest, and west aspects (Units 4, 5, 61, 63, 64, 65, 70, 101, and 200) have a greater potential for noxious weed invasion (mostly spotted knapweed and cheatgrass but Unit 61 has a large leafy spurge patch that could spread to Units 5 and 6 and expand in Unit 61). Resource proection measures and BMPs would be implemented to prevent new infestations from establishing and provide for future noxious weed control efforts. Herbicide treatment of areas, for noxious weed management, could reduce established desired broadleaf vegetation (i.e., native herbs, forbs, shrubs and some tree regeneration). This short-term reduction would be minimal and is not expected to persist, as preventing noxious weed infestations would create less competition and an environment conducive to desired vegetation growth.

The only burning planned in Units 90, 91, and 92 would be handpile burning. This is not expected to increase noxious weed infestations and spread as much as an underburn which would be more wide-spread throughout a unit. These units have dense canopies that would not be reduced enough to create conditions for noxious weed establishment (Figure 4). Remaining burned areas (after handpiles were burned) would be seeded with native seed mixes to provide competitive vegetation to prevent noxious weed establishment (Goodwin et al. 2002, Allendorf and Lindquist 2003, Lockwood et al. 2005, and Brooks and Lusk 2008).

27

Figure 4: Looking Across Woods Gulch at the Dense Canopy of Unit 90 from TR 513

Generally, locations of noxious weeds are avoided when possible during burning operations especially in areas with heavy human use on NFS lands (UDSA Forest Service 2001). This is not possible for this project since all units have some level of noxious weed infestation and it is in a heavily used National Recreation Area (see Recreation Specialist’s Report). Overall, burning would reduce the amount of existing understory vegetation and increase the potential for noxious weeds to spread into uninfested areas or expand existing infestation levels. Treatments that involve both thinning and burning would lead to higher invasive potential than either management action used alone. Resource protection measures and noxious weed treatments associated with the project would help minimize both short and long-term impacts from burning but noxious weeds would be expected to spread. Burning would create site conditions conducive to noxious weed invasion but the risk would be minimized through resource protection measures and are expected to be minor in occurrence, short-term and beneficial.

o Cumulative Effects (of burning)


28

Alternative B, C, and D (road decommissioning)


Road decommissioning in Units 66, 82, and 200 would eliminate a human vector of spread but decommissioning would create highly disturbed ground conditions suitable for noxious weed spread. Road decommissioning efforts in the neighboring West Riverside wildfire area resulted in linear spotted knapweed infestations along the decommissioned roads. Infestation levels are considered high (greater than 25% cover) in Unit 200 along the roads to be decommissioned.

Roads in Units 66 and 82 where analyzed in the Section 31 decision. Implementation of Alternatives B, C or D would decommission additional roads miles beyond what was approved in that decision. Decommissioning the roads would decrease the vectors in these units but would increase the amount of ground disturbance along the road where it would be decommissioned. Units 66 and 82 have a medium (5 to 25% cover) level of infestation along the road sides. Roads would be treated with herbicide prior to decommissioning to reduce the current infestation levels. Decommissioned roads would be seeded with native seed mixes to provide competitive vegetation to prevent noxious weed establishment (Goodwin et al. 2002, Allendorf & Lindquist 2003, Lockwood et al. 2005, and Brooks and Lusk 2008). Extensive monitoring would occur to determine success of seeding and if follow-up weed treatments are needed. Though road decommissioning would create ground disturbance and remove existing vegetation, the risk of noxious weed invasion would be minimized through resource protection measures and is expected to be minor in occurrence, short-term and beneficial.

o Cumulative Effects (of road decommissioning)

Cumulative effects would be the same as described under all action alternatives but would be greater due to more miles of decommissioning added under the action alternatives.

Alternative B and C (temporary road construction and decommissioning))


Temporary road construction in Units 4, 5, and 6 would create vectors into those units that would increase the chance of noxious weed spread and establishment. Currently FSRs 16803 and 53413 are highly infested with spotted knapweed, St. Johnswort, Dalmatian toadflax, cheatgrass, common mullein, tumble mustard and houndstongue (Figures 5 and 6). These weed species are all highly invasive and could infiltrate the units through the newly constructed temporary road. Establishment would be limited since the road would be continually used and should be decommissioned once commercial harvesting is completed. Soil resource protection measures for the temporary road obliteration would also minimize noxious weed establishment on these temporary roads since the mitigations favor native plant growth and reduce the potential for bare mineral soil exposure. Though road decommissioning would create ground disturbance and removal of existing vegetation, the risk of noxious weed invasion would be minimized through resource protection measures and are expected to be minor in occurrence, short-term and beneficial.

29

Figure 5: Example of Noxious Weed Infestation on RD 16803

Figure 6: Example of Noxious Weed Infestation on RD 53413

30

o Cumulative Effects (of temporary roads (construction and decommissioning))


Alternatives B and C (Commercial Timber Harvest)


Alternative B includes commercial timber harvesting in Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, while Alternative C drops units 2 and 3. Commercial harvesting would involve skidding through noxious weed infestation facilitating noxious weed spread and possible introduction as the logs are being pulled out. All units have trace (0-1%) to high (greater than 25%) levels of noxious weed species. Neighboring units have noxious weed infestations of the same or different species. All units have trails (noxious weed spread vectors) through them which increase the potential for noxious weed invasion. Unit 1 has patches of leafy spurge along the sides of RD 2122 that would either need to be avoided or eradicated prior to hauling and skyline activities. The trail in Unit 2 has a leafy spurge patch that will need to be avoided. And Units 5 and 6 border Unit 61 which has an approximate 30-acre leafy spurge patch that has the potential to spread during management activities (Figure 7). Resource protection measures for skid trail rehabilitation would minimize the potential for noxious weed spread but some level of introduction or expansion is expected. Overall the impacts from commercial timber harvest units would be minor to moderate based on the potential for noxious weed spread from the canopy opening, increased human activity, and follow-up burning. These units would require follow-up noxious weed management for the short and long term to ensure adequate weed control. Impacts would be neither beneficial nor negative but more neutral since resource protection measures would decrease the spread and establishment of noxious weeds but the current level of infestation is expected to expand. As stated above, Alternative B includes commercial harvest in Units 1- 6 whereas Alternative C only includes only Units 1, 4, 5, and 6. Units 2 and 3 are susceptible to noxious weed invasion from commercial timber harvest but the units are relatively flat and skidding impacts would be minimal as compared to the other units. Therefore, Alternatives B and C have the same level of effect from the proposed commercial timber harvests.

31

Figure 7: TR 513.1 divides Units 6 (left) and Unit 61 (right)

o Cumulative Effects (of commercial timber harvest)


Summary of Effects

The following table summarizes the effects of the alternatives as well as of various activities included in the alternative.

32

Table 9: Summary of Impacts for All Alternatives

Alternative(s) Direct and Indirect Impacts Cumulative Impacts

All Minor, long-term, negative Minor - moderate, long-term, negative

A Negligible to minor, long –term, negative

Negligible to minor, short and long-term, negative

B, C, D – general

Minor, short-term, beneficial Minor - moderate, short and long-term, negative

B, C, D - thinning


B, C, D – burning


B, C, D – Road Decomm.


B, C – Temp Road Construct.


B, C – CT Harvest

Minor to moderate, short and long-term, neutral

Minor - moderate, short and long-term, negative

The above determinations consider the implementation of all resource protection measures.

All alternatives are in compliance with the Forest Plan, Amendments, and Appendices.

o Possible Conflicts with Plans or Policies of Other Jurisdictions

No plans or policies related to noxious weed management would be violated by any of the proposed alternatives as long as the resource protection measures for noxious weed control are implemented to the fullest extent possible and as required by Montana State law.

33

o Resource Protection Measures

Table 10: Noxious Weed Resource Protection Measures

Primary Resource

Resource Protection Measure Objective

Resource Protection Measure* Units/Location RPM# Sale (C), Service (S),

Other1

S/P2 V3

Soil, Visual, Cultural and Recreation Resources

Commercial Thinning Activities – Harvest Operations To maintain soil productivity and reduce detrimental disturbance and weed impacts

Conventional mechanical felling and skidding (Clipper/Saw and Grapple Skidder) would be limited to periods when snow depth or frozen ground is adequate to protect soils (Winter Operating Period). OR, during Summer Operating Conditions using In-Woods Processing.

During Dry Season Operations. Machinery would operate over a slash mat of approximately 5-6 inches where available.

At the end of operations, the slash mat on the skid trail would be approx. 2-3 inches deep (at a minimum), in contact with the soil surface, and cover approx. 65-70% of the skid trail where bare mineral soil is exposed. Litter, duff, soil, and woody debris displaced from the trail would be placed back on the skid trail to the greatest extent possible.

During Dry Season or Winter Operations. Harvesting and skidding operations would not occur unless specified conditions (dry soil, adequate snow depth, or frozen ground) exist over

Units 2, 3 (Alternative B only)

5 C

C

C

S

S

S

34

approximately 85% of the harvest unit (including landings). Soil moisture would be evaluated at the bottom of the root-tight layer if one exists or within the top 6-12 inches of the soil surface (Refer to Table B1 in the Soil Specialist Report for a definition of dry soil by soil texture).

Equipment would be allowed to operate on slopes averaging 35% or less, and would also be allowed to operate on slopes of 35-40% (less than 100 feet in length) as approved by the TSA in coordination with the Soil Scientist.

C

S

“ Commercial Thinning Activities – Harvest Operations To maintain soil productivity and reduce detrimental disturbance and weed impacts

Summer Operating Conditions

Where they exist and are safe, existing skid trails would be used unless approved by the TSA.

Operation of skidding equipment off of designated trails would be minimized unless dispersed skidding is approved during winter periods.

Harvesting and skidding operations would not occur unless specified conditions (i.e., dry soil) exist over approximately 85% of the harvest unit (including landings). Soil moisture would be evaluated at the bottom of the root-tight layer if one exists or within the top 6-12 inches of the soil surface (Refer to Table B1 in the Soil Specialist’s Report for a definition of dry soil by soil

Ground-based portions of Units 1, 4, 5, and 6 (Alternatives B and C)

6 C

S

35

texture).

Equipment would be allowed to operate on slopes averaging 35% or less, and would also be allowed to operate on slopes of 35-40% (less than 100 feet in length) as approved by the TSA in coordination with the Soil Scientist.

Existing landings would be re-used to the extent possible.

” Skid Trail - Location, Construction, Use, Rehabilitation To maintain recreation and cultural resources, visual quality, and soil productivity as well as reduce detrimental soil disturbance and improve the recovery of native vegetation Purchaser Agreement or Service Contract

During Dry Season Operations. Where they exist and are safe, existing skid trails would be used unless approved by the TSA.

Operation of skidding equipment off of designated trails would be minimized unless dispersed skidding is approved by the TSA during winter periods.

Any skid trail crossings will be perpendicular to system trails. The skid trail will curve as soon as feasible to minimize the distant view. Slash and debris will be placed within the skid trail for at least the “line-of-sight” to discourage use by recreationist.

If new skid trail construction is required in Units 2 or 3, the archaeologist will be informed and at that time decide whether field monitoring is necessary.

Within 100 feet of system trails and dispersed campsites in all ground-based harvest units Ground-based portions of Units 1, 4, 5, 6 (Alternatives B and C) Units 2 and 3 (Alternative B only)

7 C

C

S

C

S

P

P

P

” Log Landings - Location, Construction, Pile

Where practicable, landings would be constructed, piled, and burned in areas where detrimental soil disturbance

Within 100 feet of system trails and dispersed

8 C

P

36

Burning, Rehabilitation To maintain recreation and cultural resources, visual quality, and soil productivity as well as reduce detrimental soil disturbance and improve the recovery of native vegetation Purchaser Agreement or Service Contract

already exists (i.e., previous log landings, skid trails, and roads associated with past activity). If possible locate landing piles outside of sensitive viewsheds.

The archaeologist would be informed regarding landing location and at that time decide whether field monitoring is necessary for operations in Units 2 and 3.

When activities occur along open trails, slash will be treated within 100 feet of the corridor within 6 months and no longer than 1 year.

If “curtain” (incinerator) burning is used, locate burning pit in an interior location in the stand where it is not visible from trails or creeks. Do not develop access routes that follow a straight line of sight, curve the route to limit distant view. Use of the access route would occur over a slash mat.

Where landing piles will be burned on-site the following rehabilitation is required.

Treat the landing for weeds,

After the piles are burned, rehabilitate the landing by site scarification (hand or machine 6-12 inches deep, subsoiling may be prescribed by the Forest Soil Scientist),

campsites in all ground-based harvest units Units 2 and 3 (Alternative B) Ground-based portions of Units 1, 4, 5, 6 (Alternatives B and C)

C

O

S

C

S/O

P

P

P

S

P

37

Seed the landings in the fall, or as practicable, with native seed composed of species similar to the surrounding area (check with botanist or native plant coordinator),

Place slash over the site to a depth of 2-3 inches covering 65-70 percent of the landing. Ensure the slash is in contact with the soil surface, and

Plant the landing with tree seedlings.

Monitor the landing for the first 5 years to ensure re-vegetation is successful and self-sustaining.

S

C

S

O

P

S

P

P

√

” Machine Piled Slash - Location, Construction, Pile Burning, Rehabilitation To maintain recreation and cultural resources, visual quality, and soil productivity as well as reduce detrimental soil disturbance and improve the recovery of native vegetation

Machine piling would be limited to periods when snow depth or frozen ground is adequate to protect soils (Winter Operating Period). OR, during Summer Operating Conditions.

Where practicable, slash would be piled and burned in areas where detrimental soil disturbance already exists (i.e. previous log landings, skid trails, and roads associated with past activity). If possible locate slash piles outside of sensitive viewsheds.

The archaeologist would be informed regarding slash pile location and at that time decide whether field monitoring is necessary.

Within 100 feet of system trails and dispersed campsites Units 70* and 71 (Alternative B) *See RPM #60

9 C

P

38

Purchaser Agreement or Service Contract


Slash would not be removed from skid trails or landings to discourage off trail use.

Seed the scorched area in the fall, or as practicable, with native seed composed of species similar to the surrounding area (check with botanist or native plant coordinator), and

After seeding, place slash over the site to a depth of 2-3 inches covering 65-70 percent of the scorched area. Ensure the slash is in contact with the soil surface.

C

O

S

P

” Hand-Piled Slash - Location, Construction, Use, Rehabilitation To maintain recreation and cultural resources, visual quality, and soil productivity as well as reduce detrimental soil disturbance and improve the recovery of native

In areas beyond 50 or 100 feet of system trails and dispersed campsites. Prior to hand piling, slash would be left through one winter after cutting to allow for initial decomposition and nutrient leaching OR, in lieu of this, material less than 1” diameter at breast height would be lopped and scattered and not piled and burned.

Exception: units adjacent to private land or those identified in the silviculture prescription with insect concerns may be piled and burned as soon as possible to reduce fire hazard

50 feet for Units 61, 64, and 90 100 feet for Units 60 and 70

10 O

P

39

vegetation Purchaser Agreement or Service Contract

Where practicable, slash would be piled and burned in areas where detrimental soil disturbance already exists (i.e. old log landings, skid trails, and roads associated with past activity).

Handpiles would be constructed so they are no larger than about 6 feet in diameter and 6 feet high.

For locations within 50 or 100 feet of system trails and dispersed camp sites.

Where practicable, slash would be piled and burned in areas where detrimental soil disturbance already exists (i.e. old log landings, skid trails, and roads associated with past activity). To the greatest extent practicable, slash piles would not be constructed on shrubs patches or other areas of dense understory vegetation.

Handpiles would be constructed so they are no larger than about 6 feet in diameter and 6 feet high.

Locate piles outside of sensitive viewsheds where feasible.


Slash would not be removed from skid trails or landings to discourage off trail use.

C

C

C

C

C

O

C

P

S

P

S

P

P

P

40

After burning, scarify the scorched area (6-8 inches deep without turning over the soil) and seed. Ideally seeding would be done in the fall, or as practicable. Use native seed composed of species similar to the surrounding area (check with botanist or native plant coordinator). Slash would be placed over the burn pile covering 65-70% of the scorched area to a depth of 2-3 inches.

S

P

Soils, Noxious Weeds

Delay Underburning To provide time for weed control and re-seeding efforts to be successful

Delay underburning until weed control and vegetation re-seeding is successful. Prescribed fire would only be allowed once native vegetation is established, effective groundcover exceeds 60% of the surface area, and plants and plant roots can withstand fire.

Unit 64 12 O S

Noxious Weeds

To reduce or eliminate the introduction or spread of weeds

Treat weeds on haul routes, decommissioned roads, landings, and other areas where ground-disturbance would occur as a result of this project.

Project area 20 C S

“ To reduce or eliminate the introduction or spread of weeds and the impacts of herbicide treatments

Weed treatments will tier to Lolo National Forest Integrated Weed Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2007), including approved herbicides, treatment strategies and mitigation measures. Implement mitigation measures 1-48 (starting on page 28 of the Lolo National Forest Integrated Weed Management Plan 2007). These include evaluating the weed site for sensitive plant habitat, implementing Region 1 weed prevention practices and

Project area 21 C S

41

BMPs (FSM 2081.2), revegetating sites with a seed mix that includes native species, following herbicide application law, and posting signs where herbicides are being applied.

“ “ Skyline corridors and skid roads will not be located in patches of leafy spurge.

Units 1, 2, 6, and 70, mapped locations, and where ever it occurs

22 C P

“ “ Burn piles will be seeded in the fall, or as practicable, with native seed composed of species similar to the surrounding area (check with botanist or native plant coordinator)

Project area 23 C S

42

o Consistency with Forest Plan Direction and other Laws, Regulations, etc.

Treating noxious weeds on NFS lands within the project area is possible regardless of this project through Forest Plan direction and Montana State law. This project would cause additional disturbances and create vegetative conditions more conducive to noxious weed spread and establishment. However, as part of this project resource protection measures would be implemented and would include seeding and treatment of noxious weed infestations to reduce the risk of noxious weed spread and establishment in areas that are not currently at risk. Implementation of this project would be consistent with Forest Plan Direction with the inclusion of resource protection measures.

• Monitoring Plans/Requirements

Monitoring is a critical element of integrated weed management on the Missoula RD. The project area is highly visited by staff and the public. Incidental monitoring for new invaders would occur well into the future.

Treatments would be monitored for efficacy and re-treatment needs should noxious weed treatment occur.

Monitoring of seed germination and establishment to discourage noxious weed propagation would occur on decommissioned roads, landings, burn piles, and other disturbance areas that are seeded as part of this project.

43

LITERATURE CITED

Abella, S.R., and W.W. Covington. 2004. Monitoring an Arizona ponderosa pine restoration: Sampling efficiency and multivariate analysis of understory vegetation. Restor. Ecol. 12:359 –367.

Allendorf, F. and L. Ludguist 2003. Introduction: population biology, evolution, and control of invasive species. Conservation Biology, Vol. 17, No. 1 February 2003. Pages 24-30.

Aukema, J.E. and A.B. Carey. 2008. Effects of variable-density thinning on understory diversity and heterogeneity in young Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Research Paper, PNW-RP-575 April 2008

Besaw, Levi M., Giles C. Thelen, Steve Sutherland, Kerry Metlen, and Ragan M. Callaway. 2011. Disturbance, resource pulses and invasion: short-term shifts in competitive effects, not growth responses, favour exotic annuals. Journal of Applied Ecology 2011, 48, 998–1006 (doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01988.x)

Birdsall, J.L., W. McCaughey, and J.B. Runyon. 2012. Roads impact the distribution of noxious weeds more than restoration treatment in a lodgepole pine forest in Montana, USA. Restoration Ecology, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 517-523

Brooks, M. and M. Lusk. 2008. Fire Management and Invasive Plants: a Handbook. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington Virginia, 27 pp.

Dodson, E.K. and C.E. Fiedler. 2006. Impacts of restoration treatments on alien plant invasions in Pinus ponderosa forests, Montana, USA. J. Appl. Ecol. 43:887– 897.

Fredrickson, B.P., C.J. Williams, S.P. Hardegree, M.A. Welts, J.J. Stone, and P.E. Clark. 2011. Fire, plant invasions, and erosion events on western rangelands. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 64(5): 439-449.

Funk, J.L. and P.M. Vitousek. 2008. Resource-use efficiency and plant invasion in low-resource systems. Nature. Vol 446. 26 April 2007 (doi:10.1038/nature05719)

Gelbard, J.L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology, Vol. 17, Issue 2, pages 420-432 April 2003 (DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01408.x)

Gillette, N.E., D.L. Wood, S.J. Hines, J.B. Runyon, and J.F. Negron. 2014. The once and future forest: Consequences of mountain pine beetle treatment decisions. Forest Science, 60(3):527-538.

Goodwin, K., R. Sheley, and J. Clark. 2002. Integrated weed management after wildfires. Department of Land Resources and Environmental Studies. Montana State University, Extension, Bozeman, MT.

Gray, A.N. 2005. Eight nonnative plants in western Oregon forests: Associations with environment and management. Environ. Monit. Asses. 100:109 –127.

44

http://library.eri.nau.edu/gsdl/collect/erilibra/index/assoc/HASH8f22.dir/doc.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02365.x/abstract

https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/%7Eaukema/Aukema&Carey2008_pnw_rp575.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2011_besaw_l001.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2011_besaw_l001.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2011.00781.x/pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2011.00781.x/pdf

http://www.fws.gov/policy/FireMgtandInvasives%20HB%202009.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/policy/FireMgtandInvasives%20HB%202009.pdf

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2111/REM-D-09-00147.1

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2111/REM-D-09-00147.1

http://sfc.smallfarmcentral.com/dynamic_content/uploadfiles/152/26.funk%20jl%20resourceuse2007.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01408.x/pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01408.x/pdf

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/saf/0015749x/v60n3/s10.pdf?expires=1410913933&id=79187544&titleid=4023&accname=National+Forest+Service+Library&checksum=681C3DDB24B62C9AD0FC9B8993F228A9

http://store.msuextension.org/publications/AgandNaturalResources/EB0160.pdf

http://www.environmental-expert.com/Files%5C6063%5Carticles%5C4960%5CW632111146222570.pdf

Lindgren, P.M.F., D.B. Ransome, D.S. Sullivan, and T.P. Sullivan. 2006. Plant community attributes 12 to 14 years following precommercial thinning in a young lodgepole pine forest. Can. J. For. Res. 36:48–61.

Lookwood, J.L., C. Phillip, and T. Blackburn. 2005. The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasion. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution. Vol. 20 No. 5, pages 223-228.

Nelson, C.R., C.B. Halpern, and J.K. Agee. 2008. Thinning and burning in result in low-level invasion by nonnative plants but neutral effects on natives. Ecological Applications, 18(3), April 2008, pp. 762-770. Ecological Society of America.

Radosevich, S.R., J.S. Holt, and C.M. Ghersa. 2007. Ecology of Weeds and Invasive Plants. Rleationship to Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. Third Edition of Weed Ecology/ Radosevich, Holt, Ghersa 1997. Book. ISBN 978-0-471-76779-4

Rice, P. 2013. Winter range weed treatment and monitoring 2002-2012, Lolo National Forest. Unpublished but on file at the Lolo NF.

Scheller, R. M. and D. J. Mladenoff. 2002. Understory species patterns and diversity in old growth and managed northern hardwood forests. Ecol. Appl. 12:1329 –1343.

Sutherland, Steve and Cara R. Nelson. 2010. Nonnative Plant Response to Silvicultural Treatments: A Model Based on Disturbance, Propagule Pressure, and Competitive Abilities. West. J. Appl. For. 25(1) 2010.

Thomas, S.C., C.B. Halpern, D.A. Falk, D.A. Liguori, and K.A. Austin. 1999. Plant diversity in managed forests: Understory responses to thinning and fertilization. Ecol. Appl. 9:864–879.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Lolo National Forest Plan (1986), Amendment 11. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lolo National Forest, Missoula, MT.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Guide to noxious weed prevention practices. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Lolo National Forest Forestwide Integrated Weed Management EIS. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lolo National Forest, Missoula, MT.

Wienk, C.L., C.H. Sieg, and G.R. McPherson. 2004. Evaluating the role of cutting treatments, fire, and soil seed banks in an experimental framework in ponderosa pine forests of the Black Hills, South Dakota. For. Ecol. Manag. 192:375–393.

Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; Brooks, Matthew L. 2008. Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 355 p.

45

http://www.appliedmammal.com/content/publications/CJFR%2036%2048-61%202006.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534705000327

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18488633

http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=esm_fac

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2010_sutherland_s001.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2010_sutherland_s001.pdf

http://faculty.washington.edu/chalpern/Thomasetal1999.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/ftp/invasives/documents/GuidetoNoxWeedPrevPractices_07052001.pdf

http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDfxMDT8MwRydLA1cj72BTUwMTAwgAykeaxRtBeY4WBv4eHmF-YT4GMHkidBvgAI6EdIeDXIvfdrAJuM3388jPTdUvyA2NMMgyUQQAyrgQmg!!/dl3/d3/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnZ3LzZfS000MjZOMDcxT1RVODBJN0o2MTJQRDMwODQ!/?project=6188

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S037811270400101X/1-s2.0-S037811270400101X-main.pdf?_tid=e70cf74c-3e80-11e4-b8c8-00000aacb35e&acdnat=1410968588_4792c052251a93d25c3c24f7c5ed845f

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_6.pdf

Appendix A Weed Treatment Plan Ground-based (truck or ATV) Treatment along Existing Roads

Road Target Weeds Acres Possible prescriptions (per acre)*

Last treated

When to Treat

99/TR515 Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Cheatgrass, Leafy Spurge, Oxeye Daisy, Thistles

3.0 14.4 5-7 oz Aminopyralid, 0.5-1 oz Chlorsulfuron 2/3 oz Clopyralid, 3 oz Metsulfuron, 12 oz Imazapic 1 – 2 pints Picloram 1 – 2 qts Picloram (spot only)

2008 Prior to project implementation, during implementation, and after (if necessary)



2007/2008

Prior to project implementation, during implementation, and after (if necessary)

2329 Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Dalmatian Toadflax, Common Mullein, Houndstongue



53412 Spotted Knapweed, Dalmatian Toadflax, Houndstongue

0.3 1.44 5-7 oz Aminopyralid, 0.5-1 oz Chlorsulfuron 1 – 2 pints Picloram 1 – 2 qts Picloram (spot only)

Prior to project implementation, before decommissioning (if necessary)

53413 Spotted Knapweed, Dalmatian Toadflax,

1.1 5.28 5-7 oz Aminopyralid, 0.5-1 oz Chlorsulfuron 1 – 2 pints Picloram 1 – 2 qts Picloram

2008 Prior to project implementation, before decommissioning

46


Last treated

When to Treat

Houndstongue (spot only) (if necessary)

53414 Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Dalmatian Toadflax, St. Johnswort, Houndstongue



53415 Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Houndstongue

0.9 4.32 5-7 oz Aminopyralid, 0.5-1 oz Chlorsulfuron 1 – 2 pints Picloram

2008 Prior to project implementation, before decommissioning (if necessary)

16783 Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Houndstongue

1.3 6.24 5-7 oz Aminopyralid, 0.5-1 oz Chlorsulfuron 1 – 2 pints Picloram

Prior to project implementation, during implementation until stored (if necessary)

16803 Spotted Knapweed, Leafy Spurge, Dalmatian Toadflax, Cheatgrass, St. Johnswort, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Common Tansy, Houndstongue



33350 Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Dalmatian Toadflax

0.5 2.4 5-7 oz Aminopyralid, 2/3 oz Clopyralid, 3 oz Metsulfuron, 2 oz Imazapic 1 – 2 pints Picloram 1 – 2 qts Picloram (spot only)


47


Last treated

When to Treat

33348 Spotted Knapweed, Cheatgrass, Dalmatian Toadflax

0.2 0.96 5-7 oz Aminopyralid, 2/3 oz Clopyralid, 3 oz Metsulfuron, 2 oz Imazapic 1 – 2 pints Picloram 1 – 2 qts Picloram (spot only)


63138 Spotted Knapweed, St. Johnswort, Cheatgrass, Canada Thistle, Musk Thistle, Houndstongue, Dalmatian Toadflax, Sulfur Cinquefoil, Leafy Spurge, St. Johnswort

0.5 2.4 5-7 oz Aminopyralid, 0.5-1 oz Chlorsulfuron 2/3 oz Clopyralid, 3 oz Metsulfuron, 2 oz Imazapic 12 oz Imazapic 1 – 2 pints Picloram 1 – 2 qts Picloram (spot only)



5-7 oz Aminopyralid, 0.5-1 oz Chlorsulfuron 2/3 oz Clopyralid, 3 oz Metsulfuron, 12 oz Imazapic 1 – 2 pints Picloram 1 – 2 qts Picloram (spot only)



5-7 oz Aminopyralid, 0.5-1 oz Chlorsulfuron 2/3 oz Clopyralid, 3 oz Metsulfuron, 12 oz Imazapic 1 – 2 pints Picloram 1 – 2 qts Picloram (spot only)


63235 Spotted Knapweed, Houndstongue, Leafy Spurge, Dalmatian

5-7 oz Aminopyralid, 0.5-1 oz Chlorsulfuron 2/3 oz Clopyralid, 3 oz Metsulfuron, 12 oz Imazapic

Prior to project implementation, before decommissioning

48


Last treated

When to Treat

Toadflax 1 – 2 pints Picloram 1 – 2 qts Picloram (spot only)

(if necessary)

Total 78.24

*estimating 4.8 acres per mile; herbicides prescriptions will vary based on location, infestation level, return timeframe, and species. Prescriptions are not limited to this list and may change as new techniques and herbicides become available.

Spot Treatments (backpack) along Trails

Trail Name Target Weeds Miles Approx. Acres

Prescription When to Treat

29.1 Wallman Spotted knapweed, St. Johnswort, sulfur cinquefoil, leafy spurge

2.9 0.29 Varies by target weed

Prior to project implementation with follow-up

29.2 Wallman Cuttoff A

Spotted knapweed, leafy spurge



326 Woods Gulch Lincoln Hills Tie

Spotted knapweed, Dalmatian toadflax, houndstongue


Prior to project implementation

513 Sheep Mtn Spotted knapweed, sulfur cinquefoil, oxeye daisy



513.1 Three Larches

Spotted knapweed, leafy spurge, houndstongue,



49

Trail Name Target Weeds Miles Approx. Acres

Prescription When to Treat

St.Johnswort

513.2 Three Larches Cutoff



515.1 Rattlesnake Creek Cutoff A

Spotted knapweed



515.8 Rattlesnake Creek Cutoff H

Spotted knapweed



517.1 Spring Gulch

Spotted knapweed, oxeye daisy



Total 1.25

*estimating 0.1 acres per mile

Aerial Weed Treatment

Unit Known Weeds Acres Prescription

62, 66, 82 Spotted knapweed, houndtongue, St. Johnswort, Dalmatian toadflax

350 5 – 7 oz. Milestone/acre with a surfactant and drift agent

65, 71, 101 Spotted knapweed, oxeye daisy, houndstongue, thistles

275 5 – 7 oz. Milestone/acre with a surfactant and drift agent; Telar

Total 625

50

Biological Controls

Unit Acres Weed Species

Release History Future Release Needs

Year Number released

Species

6 and 61(along TR513.3)

11.2 Leafy Spurge

2002 8000 Apthona nigriscutus

Continue to monitor and release Apthona spp., oberea erythrocephala, spurgia esulae as needed until the site can be sprayed

2002 22,000 Apthona lacertosa

2009 120 Oberea erythrocephala

70 (above TR 24.2) 2.35

Leafy Spurge


Continue to monitor. If infestation not responding to biological controls consider herbicide treatment.

1996 500 Apthona czwalinae/lacertosa

1996 50 Spurgia esulae


2005 500 lacertosa

2005 500 Apthona lacertosa

2005 500 Apthona czwalinae

2010 100 Oberea erythrocephalla

71 (Strawberry Ridge)

41.3 Leafy spurge

1998 4000 Apthona cyparissiae

Continue to monitor. If infestation not responding to biological controls consider herbicide treatment.

2000 20,000 Apthona lacertosa/nigriscutus


51

Unit Acres Weed Species

Release History Future Release Needs

Year Number released

Species


1998 4000 Apthona nigriscutus/cyparissiae

1997 11,100 Apthona nigriscutus/flava

Total 54.85

52

Appendix B – Region One Weed Prevention and Best Management Practices for Noxious Weeds

1. Road Use and Management

(1) Incorporate weed prevention into road layout, design, and alternative evaluation.

(2) Remove the seed source (e.g. spraying road side prior to road work) that could be picked up by passing vehicles and limit seed transport in new and reconstruction areas.

(a) Remove all mud, dirt, and plant parts from all off road equipment before moving into project area. Cleaning must occur off National Forest lands.

(3) Re-establish vegetation on bare ground due to construction, reconstruction and maintenance / blading activity to minimize weed spread. Seed within two days of disturbance and before soil crusting. Coordinate road work with District weed coordinator to avoid objective conflicts (e.g., blading immediately after being sprayed herbicide application).

(a) Revegetate all disturbed soil, except the travel way on surfaced roads, in a manner that optimizes plant establishment for that specific site, unless ongoing disturbance at the site will prevent weed establishment. Use native material where appropriate and available. Use a seed mix that includes fast, early season species to provide quick, dense revegetation and easy to establish and relatively herbicide resistant forbs (such as silky lupine and common yarrow). Use only certified weed-free grass seed – select weed-free forb seed depending on availability.

(b) Follow seeding guidelines and use seed mixes in the latest update of the LNF Revegetation Guidelines. Use native material where appropriate and available. Revegetation may include planting, seeding, fertilization, and weed-free mulching as indicated by local prescriptions.

(c) Monitor and evaluate success of revegetation in relation to project plan. Repeat as indicated by local prescriptions. Report monitoring and evaluation results to District/Forest Weed Coordinators.

(4) Discuss gravel and fill material sources and plans with the District Weed Coordinator to prevent the movement of existing and new weed species caused by moving infested gravel and fill material. A borrow pit will not be used if LNF listed weeds are found on site until it has been treated and inspected as weed free.

53

(5) Minimize sources of weed seed in areas not yet revegetated. If straw is used for road stabilization and erosion control, it must be certified weed-free or weed-seed free.

(6) Minimize roadside sources of weed seed that could be transported to other areas during maintenance.

(a) Coordinate with District/Forest Weed Specialist to determine if potential or new invaders exist on roads within the project area and on access roads to the project area.

(b) Do not blade roads or pull ditches where potential or new invaders are found.

(c) Maintain desirable roadside vegetation. If desirable vegetation is removed during blading or other ground disturbing activities, area must be revegetated according to sections above.

(7) Retain shade to suppress weeds. Consider minimizing the removal of trees and other roadside vegetation during construction, reconstruction, and maintenance, particularly on southerly aspects.

2. Timber Removal and Management

(1) Ensure that weed prevention is considered in all pre-harvest timber projects.

(a) Remove all mud, dirt, and plant parts from all off road equipment and vehicles before moving into project area. Cleaning must occur off National Forest lands.

(2) Minimize the creation of sites suitable for weed establishment. Revegetate bare soil as described in the Roads section above.

(a) Avoid use of weed infested sites for helispots, landings, staging, and parking. If weed free sites are not available, treat site(s) prior to use. Treat weeds on landings, skid trails and helibases that are weed infested before logging activities, where practical. Mowing is an option prior to seedhead development for weed infestations that do not vegetatively reproduce (such as leafy spurge).(b) Retain maximum canopy cover and shade, negotiate a balance of thinning for timber stand improvement and shade retention for weed prevention.

3. Soil and Water

(1) Use integrated weed prevention and management in all soil, watershed, and stream restoration projects. Weed treatment should be implemented for a sufficient amount

54

of time prior to road obliteration projects (Class Levels 3 – 5) to reduce the weed seed availability. Retain maximum vegetation and shade when considering road decommissioning, obliteration and recontouring.

(a) Revegetate bare soil resulting from excavation activity according to the Roads section above.

(b) Remove all mud, dirt, and plant parts from all off road equipment and vehicles before moving into project area. Cleaning must occur off National Forest lands.

(c) Straw used for road stabilization and erosion control will be certified weed-free or weed-seed-free.

(d) Monitor and evaluate success of soil, watershed, and stream restoration activities in relation to project plans. Repeat as indicated by local prescriptions. Report monitoring and evaluation results to District/Forest Weed Coordinators.

4. Prescribed Fire

(1) Mitigate weed establishment and spread in slash piling operations by reseeding (as described above in roads section) and mulching (with certified weed-free mulch) all burn sites immediately after pile burning. Monitor burn sites for weeds, treat and reseed until weed free and fully revegetated. Emphasize burning piles in the spring to reduce the duff destruction associated with hotter burns that leave soil more suitable for weed invasion. Recon proposed burned areas and identify the presence of weeds such as leafy spurge or cheatgrass that can increase after fire. Modify burn area boundaries and prescriptions to prevent fire caused weed increases. If boundaries and prescriptions cannot be modified and still meet management objectives and weed free sites are not available, pre-treat areas at least one season before burning.

(2) Conduct pre-and/or post-burn weed treatments to mitigate fire / weed impacts related factors such as shade loss.

(3) Avoid use of weed infested sites for staging and parking. If weed free sites are not available, treat site(s) prior to use.

(4) Inspect equipment and vehicles for weed seed and weed plant parts. Wash vehicles (emphasize undercarriage) regularly.

55

5. Recreation

(1) Minimize transport and establishment of weeds on trails with education and awareness information for recreationists.

(a) Post and enforce weed-free feed orders.

(b) Post weed information and/or interpretive signs at trailheads and roads leading to trailheads.

(c) Encourage mountain bike trail users to inspect and clean their bike prior to use on trails. Discourage and obliterate use-created trails.

(2) Trail construction and maintenance activities

(a) Coordinate with District Weed Coordinator to determine if potential or new invaders occur on existing trails or planned recreational routes (trails, old roads) within the project area and on access roads/trail to the project area.

(b) Clean all equipment prior to leaving the project site, if operating in areas infested with new invaders (consult with District/Forest Weed Specialist) to prevent spread to other recreational areas on the Forest.

(c) Minimize the creation of sites suitable for weed establishment during construction and maintenance activities. Revegetate bare soil as described in the Roads section above for trail obliteration activities.

56

Appendix C –Species Characteristics of Noxious Weeds Known to Occur within the Project Area (including private and city lands)

Table 11: Species Characteristics of Noxious Weeds Found in the Project Area (including private and city lands)

Noxious Weed Growth Habit Leaves Stem Flowers Roots Seeds Reproduces Habitat Blue Weed

(Echium vulgare)

Biennial, non-native herbaceous plant, can reach 80cm in height (30 inches). Entire plant is hairy.

Alternate. Leaves can reach 25 cm in length (10 inches), can be as wide as 3 cm (1 inch). Most are smaller. All leaves have white speckles that give the leaves a dimpled appearance.

To +1m tall, erect, lateral, often ascending, typically multiple from base, simple, herbaceous, green with purple spotting (from spine bases), dense pubescent with straight spines.

Irregular in shape up to 2 cm wide (0.75 inch). Blue. Blooms, First appear in early summer and continue into mid fall.

Taproot. Nutlets are 3-cornered, 2.5-3 mm long, rough and grainy.

Seed only. Fields, borders and waste places

Canada Thistle (Cirsium ravens)

Perennial, grows up to 4feet tall.

Deeply toothed with spines, hairy on underside, varies quite a lot from plant to plant.

Smooth to slightly hairy, branched at top.

Small bristly cluster, 3/8 to 5/8 inch in diameter, light lavender to deep rose purple, male

Extensive creeping horizontal roots up to 16 feet long and 2 to 22feet deep.

Produces up to 9,300 seeds per plant, viable up to 22 years.

Vegetative from horizontal creeping roots or from seeds.

Meadows, roadsides, native grasslands, pastures, and waste places.

57

Noxious Weed Growth Habit Leaves Stem Flowers Roots Seeds Reproduces Habitat or females.

Common Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare)

Perennial, grows in thick stands.

Alternate, deeply divided into several toothed segments, 2-dimensional.

Purplish-red color, 1.5 to 6 feet tall.

Yellow, 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter, flat topped, dense clusters, button-like, and aromatic.

Extensive, non-rhizomatous stalks.

Prolific seed producer.

Root stalk and seed.

Roadsides, waste areas, stream banks, and pastures.

Common Toadflax (Linaria vulgaris)

Perennial, often over 3 feet tall.

Long and narrow, numerous, pale green, smooth and pointed, attached directly to the stem.

Smooth, erect, sometimes branched.

Like snapdragon, bright yellow with deep orange center (why it is also called Butter and Eggs), 1 to 1.5 inches with spur.

Woody, vigorous, well branched with many laterals, rhizomatous.

Can produce up to 500,000 seeds, viable for at least 10 years.

Vegetative buds and root stock.


Dalmatian Toadflax (Linaria dalmatica)

Perennial, often over 3 feet tall.

Light green, alternate, heart shaped, clasping the stem, waxy.

Branching, light green, smooth with many leaves.

Like snapdragon, bright yellow, 1.5 inches with long spur.

Vigorous, deep and extensive, rhizomatous.

Up to 500,000 seeds, viable for at least 10 years or more.

Vegetative buds and root stock


Houndstongue (Cynoglossum

officinale)

Biennial, grows up to 3 feet tall.

Velvety to touch, lower: broad, upper: narrow and clasps the stem.

Heavy, erect, branched above.

Dark red to purple, 1/4 inch in diameter, grows in clusters.

Taproot. Produces 300-675 seeds per plant, viable up to 2-3 years.

Seed. Pastures, roadsides, and waste areas.

58

Noxious Weed Growth Habit Leaves Stem Flowers Roots Seeds Reproduces Habitat Native hounds tongues have a blue flower.

Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum)

Herbaceous perennial

Broad oval with truncated base, triangular and pointed at tip, 6 inches long, 3-4 inches wide, entire margin

Hollow stem with raised nodes, max. 10 feet tall

Small creamy white, erect racemes 6-15 cm long

Stout rhizomes

Triangular, shiny, and about 1/10 inch long

Vegetative and seeds

Along streams, in fields and waste areas

Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula)

Perennial, grows up to 3 feet tall.

Long narrow, usually drooping.

Branched near top, hairless, entire plant contains milky white sap.

Inconspicuous, surrounded by large heart shaped floral leaves that turn yellow green near maturity.

Vertical and horizontal roots. Main vertical roots can penetrate 26 feet deep. Horizontal rhizomatous roots, near the soil surface, extend outward from the parent plant 15 feet per year.

Produces up to 140 seeds per plant, viable up to 8 years or longer. Projects seeds up to 15 feet from the base of the plant. Seeds float on water.

Large number of buds on each root and by seed. Each bud is capable of producing a new, independent plant.

Riparian areas to dry hills.

59

Noxious Weed Growth Habit Leaves Stem Flowers Roots Seeds Reproduces Habitat Meadow Hawkweed Complex (Hieracium

pratense, H. floribundum, H.

piloselloides)

Creeping perennials that contain a milky sap.

Basal rosettes have hairy, narrow, spatula-shaped, dark green above and light green below.

One rosette can produce 10 to 25 flowering stems that can grow up to 3 feet tall. Short, stiff hairs, may have 1 to 3 small, clasping leaves below the midpoint of the stem.

Five to 30 bright yellow, dandelion-like flowers make up the inflorescence. Blooms by mid-June and seeds by early August.

Shallow, fibrous, creeping. Can produce 4 to 12 leafy stolon that can reach a length of 4 to 12 inches. Vigorous stolon growth quickly expands the colony, forming dense patches that can have as many as 3,200 plants per square yard.

Viable up to 7 years.

Seeds, rhizomes, stolon, and adventitious root buds. Reproduces asexually.

Pastures, forest meadows, abandoned fields, clear-cuts, and roadsides.

Mullein

(Verbascum Thapsus)

Alien, naturalized biennial herb

First season form rosette numerous leaves 6-15 inches long, 5 inches wide, smaller as alternately ascend the

7-8 feet in height, covered with dense hairs

Densely covered flower spike, second season sulfur-yellow

Long taproot, fibrous cover, fleshy inside

Minute, brown, long lived seeds with longitudinal ridges

Seeds Sunny roadsides, gravel, sand or chalk, dry soils

60

Noxious Weed Growth Habit Leaves Stem Flowers Roots Seeds Reproduces Habitat stem, dense hairs on both sides

Musk Thistle (Carduus nutans L).

Biennial or winter annual, often up to 7 feet tall. Rosette formed in first year, flowering stem elongates in the second year.

Dark green with light midrib, hairless on both sides, long sharp spines.

Hairless. Solitary, terminal, nodding heads (why it is also called nodding thistle), 1.5 inches to 3 inches diameter, deep rose to violet purple in color.

Fleshy tap-root, hollow near ground surface.

A single flower head may produce 1,200 seeds and a single plant up to 120,000 seeds. Seeds are viable for 10 years in the soil.

Seed only. Meadows, roadsides, native grasslands, pastures, and waste places.

Orange Hawkweed (Hieracium

aurantiacum)

Perennial herb, ranges from 1-3 feet in height. Contains a milky juice.

Basal rosette consists of narrow, spatula-shaped, hairy leaves 4 to 6 inches long, darker green on the upper than the lower surface. Bristly hairs on the leaves.

Usually leafless flowering stems, occasionally 1 to 3 small leaves. Bristly hairs on the stem.

Five to 30 flower heads form a compact, umbelliform inflorescence on the terminal stems. Flower heads have red-orange petals with notched tips. Flower by mid-June and produce seeds

Shallow, fibrous, and creeping. One flowering plant can produce 4 to 12 leafy stolon that can reach a length of 4 to 12 inches. Vigorous stolon growth quickly

Viable up to 7 years.

Seeds, rhizomes, stolons, and adventitious root buds. Reproduces asexually.

Moist pastures, forest meadows, abandoned fields, clear-cuts, and roadsides.

61

Noxious Weed Growth Habit Leaves Stem Flowers Roots Seeds Reproduces Habitat by August. expands the

colony, forming dense patches that can have as many as 3,200 plants per square yard.

Oxeye Daisey (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum)

Perennial, erect up to 2 feet tall.

2-5 inches long, leaves reduce in size upward on the stem.

Glabrous to slightly pubescent.

One per stem, ½ to 1 inch wide, white petals with yellow centers.

Shallow, branched rhizomes, and strong adventitious roots.

Produces up to 26,000 seeds which are viable for up to 6 years.

Vegetatively, rhizome and seed.


Perennial Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium)

Perennial Forb Alternate, lance-shaped, toothed, basal are larger than upper

1-3 feet tall, waxy layer

White, less than 1/8 inch wide and borne in dense, round clusters at the branch tips

Creeping roots

Tiny seeds – 2/fruit

Fruits, roundish, slightly hairy, 1/16 inch diameter contain 2 seeds

Many different environmental conditions

Saltcedar/tamarisk (Tamarix

ramosissima and T. chinensis)

Perennial, deciduous or evergreen shrubs or small trees, 5-20 feet in height

Small leaves on green stems, alternate, overlap and appear scale-like

Highly branched, smooth, dark brown to reddish-brown bark

Borne in finger-like clusters on terminal and lateral branches, small, pink to white, have 5

Long tap root

Fruit capsules contain many 1/25 inch in diameter seeds

Reproduction is by root expansion, resprouts and by seeds that are dispersed through the air

Along waterways in the western states.

62

Noxious Weed Growth Habit Leaves Stem Flowers Roots Seeds Reproduces Habitat petals and by water.

Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa)

Biennial or short lived perennial, grows 1-3 feet tall.

Long and divided on lower, short and narrow above, covered with fine hairs.

Erect with slender wiry branches, covered with fine hairs.

On branched stem tips, Pink to purple, rarely white. The seed head has black tipped bracts.

Taproot, well developed, fibrous.

Produces 1,000 seeds per plant, viable up to 9 years.

Seed. Meadows, roadsides, native grasslands, pastures, and waste places.

St Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum)

Perennial, erect, numerous branches.

Opposite, attached directly to stem approximately 1 inch long, transparent dots.

Woody at the base, 1 to 3 feet tall, rust colored with 2 ridges. Turns reddish brown and dies in late summer.

Yellow, 3/4 inch in diameter, clustered.

Woody taproot can penetrate the soil to a depth of 4 to 5 feet. Lateral roots grow 2 to 3 inches beneath the soil surface and extend 3 feet.

Produces between 15,000 and 33,000 seeds annually. Viability ranges from 6 to 10 years.

Vegetative buds from lateral roots and from seeds.

Low elevation sites where the annual precipitation is between 15 and 30 inches.

Sulfur Cinquefoil (Potentilla recta)

Long lived perennial, grows 12 to 18 inches tall.

Palmate compound, 7 leaflets, stiff hairs on lower surfaces, yellowish green.

Covered in hairs that are twice the length of the stem at right angles, many leaves along stem but few at base, branched

1/2 to 1 inch in diameter, pale yellow.

Single taproot, may have several shallow spreading branch roots, no rhizomes.

Produces up to 1,650 seeds, viable up to 3 years. Plants can live up to 20-30 years.

Seed. Meadows, roadsides, native grasslands, pastures, and waste places.

63

Noxious Weed Growth Habit Leaves Stem Flowers Roots Seeds Reproduces Habitat near the top.

Tall Buttercup (Ranunculus acris)

Hairy perennial forb, grows up to 3 feet high.

Hairy deeply lobed (nearly to the base) into 3 to 5 segments with each segment lobed again. Leaves decrease in size upward on the stem.

Branched hairy, each produces single flowers in loose clusters.

Glossy yellow 3/4 to one inch in diameter with a greenish center.

Short, thick rootstalk with many fibrous, coarse, spreading roots.

Numerous seeds are clustered in a round seed-head. Seeds are dark brown, flattened, egg-shaped in outline, and 1/8 inch long, with a short, slightly curved tip

Seed. Meadows and pastures, generally avoided by livestock because of poisonous properties.

Tumble Mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum)

Annual or biennial Initially low growing basal rosette

2 – 3.5 feet tall, branching occasionally in upper half

1/3 inch across, 4 yellow petals, 4 green sepals, central pistil, knobby divided stigma, several stamens with arrowhead shaped anthers.

Stout taproot Small seeds, smooth, oblong shaped and dull orange to dark brown

Seed Rangeland, road sides, and waste areas

White Top

(Cardaria draba)

Perennial, grows up to 2 feet tall.

Rosette are blue-green. Stem leaves are blue-green

Slender stalks that are about 1/2

Four white petals arranged in a cross. Dense

Taproots and rhizomatous lateral roots.

Capsules are broad, float, heart-shaped pods with 2

From vegetative root segments and

Open, un-shaded areas. Found in disturbed

64

Noxious Weed Growth Habit Leaves Stem Flowers Roots Seeds Reproduces Habitat to gray-green and arrow-shaped with occasional finely toothed edges. All leaves are covered with soft white hairs. Leaves of the lower stem are on stalks, while leaves of the upper stem attach directly to the stem with two clasping lobes.

inch long. clusters of small flowers create the white, flat-top appearance. Bloom in May and produces seeds a month later.

Taproots reach a depth of 12 to 30 feet by the second or third growing season. Lateral roots eventually turn down to become vertical roots, which often reach greater depths than the parent roots. Both roots produce adventitious buds, which develop into rhizomes and shoots. A single plant can produce 50 shoots per year with competition.

reddish-brown seeds. Can produce from 1,200 to 4,800 seeds each year viable for about 3 years.

seeds. areas dominated by other exotic species.

65

Noxious Weed Growth Habit Leaves Stem Flowers Roots Seeds Reproduces Habitat Yellowflag Iris

(Iris pseudoacorus)

Perennial ,grows 3-4 feet tall

Leaves emerge from the ground in a fan-like arrangement, similar to garden iris, smooth edged, mostly basal leaves, flattened and sward-like with pointed tip

Several flowers are born on erect flower stalks

Large pale to deep yellow, three downward pointing and three upward pointing petals. Some petals have light brown to purple veins or flecks

Rhizomes Three-angled cylindrical capsule 1-4 inches in length

Both Rhizomes and seeds

Forms large dense colonies, similar to cattails, and grows in wet areas in water up to 10 inches deep

66

Noxious Weeds Reporta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...statewide as noxious weeds by rule of the Department of Agriculture or county-wide noxious weeds by district

Documents