stemming the invasive tide - us forest service · pdf filestemming the invasive tide forest...

STEMMING THEINVASIVE TIDEForest Service Strategy for Noxious and Nonnative Invasive Plant Management

United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Forest Service

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CURRENT DIRECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Feature: The Sheyenne National Grassland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Feature: Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Feature: Noxious Weed-Free Forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

PROGRAM DIRECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Feature: Caribou and Sawtooth National Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

I . PREVENTION AND EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Feature: Siuslaw National Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Feature: Nez Perce National Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

I I . CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Feature: Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

I I I . INVENTORY, MAPPING, AND MONITORING . . . . . . . . . 16

Feature: Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Feature: Los Padres and Stanislaus National Forests. . . . . . . . 18

IV. RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Feature: Biological Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

V. ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Feature: Ocala National Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Feature: Lincoln National Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Interdepartmental USDA Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Cooperation With Other Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Non-Federal Partners and Cooperators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Forest Service Noxious Weed Coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Forest Service Research Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

CONTENTS

USDA Forest Service. 1998. “Stemming the Invasive Tide: FS Strategy for Management of Noxious and Nonnative Plant Mgmt. pp.29.

INTRODUCTION

Noxious weeds and invasive plant species pose an

increasing threat to native ecosystems, croplands,

and other plant communities throughout the United States.

While weeds have long been recognized as a problem for

agriculture, the potential impact to other plant communities,

including wildlands, is receiving greater attention.

There are an estimated 2,000 invasive and noxious weed

species already established in the United States. Escalating

worldwide trade and travel will only increase the risk of

further invasions. All ecosystems—urban, suburban and

rural, including wildlands, rangelands, forests, riparian

areas, and wetlands—are vulnerable to invasion.

Experience and research have shown that invasive and

noxious weeds can no longer be considered a problem only

on disturbed sites. Noxious and invasive plant species have

become established within relatively undisturbed ecosystems,

including entire ecosystems such as the Florida Everglades.

Noxious weeds pose an increasing threat to the integrity of

wildland ecosystems, including specially designated areas

such as wilderness and research natural areas.

On Federal lands in the Western United States, it is

estimated that weeds occur on more than 17 million acres,

with similar infestations occurring in Canada and Mexico.

Good estimates are not available for the Eastern United

States. On National Forest System (NFS) lands, an estimated

6–7 million acres are currently infested and potentially

increasing at a rate of 8 to 12 percent per year. The noxious

weed situation in the United States has been described by

many as a biological disaster, “an explosion in slow motion”

(Wyoming Department of Agriculture).

1

CURRENT

DIRECTION

The Forest Service (FS) is the largest land-management agency within the United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA), managing191 million acres of national forests and grass-lands. The FS has the lead responsibility fornoxious weed coordination for the Departmentunder the authority contained in the NoxiousWeed Act of 1974, the Hawaii Tropical ForestRecovery Act, and the USDA Policy 9500-10.Under this authority, the FS developed theUSDA Policy in 1990 and policy direction for the FS in 1991.

FS policy was revised in 1995 (FSM 2080) toinclude new standards and refined direction forintegrated pest management (IPM). The revisedpolicy emphasizes the importance of integratingnoxious weed management in ecosystem analy-sis, assessment, and forest planning. The policyfurther emphasizes the importance of coordi-nated noxious weed management throughcooperation with other agencies, State and localgovernments, and private landowners.

Because the FS policy definition encompassesinvasive, aggressive, or harmful nonindigenousor exotic plant species, this report hereafter usesthe term “noxious weeds” to include all varia-tions included in the definition. The FS policydefines noxious weeds as—

those plant species designated as noxiousweeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or bythe responsible State official. Noxious weedsgenerally possess one or more of the followingcharacteristics: aggressive and difficult tomanage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrieror host of serious insects or disease and beingnative or new to or not common to the UnitedStates or parts thereof. (FSM 2080)

Three Deputy Chief areas of the FS haveresponsibilities for different aspects of noxiousweeds: Research, State and Private Forestry(S&PF), and the NFS. The NFS has responsibilityto prevent, control, and eradicate noxious weedsin 156 national forests and 20 national grass-lands. To achieve this goal, the administrativeunits of NFS work in conjunction with State andlocal governments and private landowners forthe common purpose of noxious weed manage-ment across jurisdictional boundaries.

THE SHEYENNE

NATIONAL GRASSLAND

Approximately 11,000 acres of leafy spurge onthe 70,000-acre Sheyenne National Grassland

in North Dakota caused grassland managers to turnto an IPM strategy to deal with the infestation.While a full complement of management tools hasbeen employed—including biocontrol, herbicides,and burning—the grazing of long-haired Angoragoats provides a unique twist to the successful leafyspurge control program. Grassland managers’observations and North Dakota State Universityresearch findings indicate that it is the combinationof treatments that has proven most effective in com-bating leafy spurge in the national grassland.

The North Dakota Department of Agriculture’sWeed Innovation Network helped match the grass-land’s need with the opportunity for goat ownersthroughout the State to expand their operations.

NOXIOUS WEED STRATEGY

2

Closeup of Aphthona nigriscutis, a biocontrolagent, on leafy spurge. Photo by R. D. Richard, APHIS.

NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL…

The grassland’s goat-grazing program involvestwo herds of Angora and Angora-cross goats, with1,200 animals in each herd. Under the watchful eyesof two dedicated herders, goats graze on desig-nated spurge patches during the day and at nightare returned to movable corrals. The use of herders,dogs, and corrals allows grassland managers to tar-get specific areas for grazing, thereby reducing oreliminating impacts to sensitive areas likeaspen/oak woodlands, or threatened species likethe western prairie fringed orchid. In fact, thegrassland’s herders have been trained to identifyand inventory orchids they encounter, thus addingto the species’ information base.

After 5 years, managers have observed a reduc-tion in stem densities of spurge patches. This reduc-tion allows livestock forage plants to becomereestablished.

The Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association is akey partner in successful leafy spurge controlefforts on the grassland. The grazing associationhas participated in a 50–50 cost-share grant to coverboth the herbicide and goat-grazing program.Grazing permittees also pay additional money forherbicide treatments beyond what is required in thegrant. As a reflection of their personal commitmentto furthering IPM efforts on the Sheyenne NationalGrassland, association members have also con-tributed many workdays to the collection and dis-tribution of biocontrol insects.

National grassland staff and grazing association memberscollecting biocontrol agents.

Angora goats grazing on leafy spurge. Photo by Bryan Stotts, USDA-FS.

3

CURRENT

DIRECTION

The primary emphasis of FS Research has been inthe development of biological controls. The

research program is concentrated in Bozeman,Montana, and Hilo, Hawaii, operating in coopera-tion with other State and Federal agencies and uni-versities. FS Research works in conjunction with theUSDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) weedcontrol project. FS Research augments the ARSeffort by concentrating on sites and ecosystemscommon to FS lands.

Weed ecology is also a component of forest andrangeland ecology research for the Western Forestand Range Experiment Stations. Studies are ongo-ing on germination rates and life cycles of noxiousweeds, on restoration methods for areas infestedwith weeds, and on the use of burning, grazing,and fertilization as alternative treatments to pesti-cide use.

Within State and Private Forestry, Forest HealthProtection (FHP) has historically provided technicalsupport and assistance in the pesticide and inte-grated pest management programs and now has

begun to provide field units with entomologicaland pathological technical assistance for noxiousweeds, including biological control. Technical assis-tance is also provided to the various State Forestersand private cooperators, and FHP assists with for-est health monitoring. In Hawaii, FHP staff respon-sibilities now include some financial support andassistance in treating noxious weeds.

FHP is responsible for reporting all pesticide usein the annual Report of the Forest Service to Congress.FHP participates in the National AgriculturalPesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP),which provides the necessary research for potentialdata gaps for pesticides currently registered withthe Environmental Protection Agency. FHP has pre-pared and is currently updating pesticide back-ground statements and risk assessments forpesticides commonly used in noxious weed control.These risk assessments are used to analyze anddetermine the potential impacts of pesticide use,such as potential adverse effects on health andsafety, on NFS lands.


4

Biocontrol research for kudzu, a serious problem species in theSoutheastern United States, includes cooperators in China andFHP test plots at the Savannah River Institute, North Carolina.

NOXIOUS WEED RESEARCH…

HAWAII

Hawaiian ecosystems are especially vulnerableto adverse impacts from introduced species. In

fact, the main threat to Hawaii’s surviving nativespecies and natural communities is considered tobe the destructive effect of invasive introducedspecies. To translate research data into successful,on-the-ground weed control methodologies, theFS’s Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry AlienSpecies Team, based at Hilo, Hawaii, combines itsbasic research on the resiliency of Hawaii’s ecosys-tems in the face of invasive alien species with tech-nology transfer.

FS Research, through the work of the Institute ofPacific Islands Forestry, expands its research andmanagement program to tackle alien species prob-lems. Biological control research programs are plac-ing more emphasis on the detailed, pre-releasemonitoring of target weeds and post-release assess-ment of the impact of control agents. Investigationshave been started on the dynamics of weed inva-sions and their impacts on forest structure andprocesses. As part of the Alien Species Team, theFHP program coordinates and manages weed con-trol programs to increase the effectiveness and effi-ciency of statewide forest weed control.

One such program is Operation Miconia. Miconiacalvescens is an invasive tree species which formsinterlocking, closed canopies that can displace

native forests by overtopping and shading outexisting trees and plants. Miconia is shallow rootedand susceptible to being blown down in wind-storms and causing significant risks to watersheds,as has occurred in Tahiti, where it is a major prob-lem. A statewide collaborative effort, OperationMiconia was kicked off in 1996 by Governor BenCaeyetano to inform the public about the potentialimpacts of Miconia and to coordinate control effortsthroughout the State.

Approximately 10,000 acres on the island ofHawaii are infested with Miconia. OperationMiconia’s control and eradication efforts on the Big Island are supervised by FHP staff on the AlienSpecies Team and are funded through a variety ofsources, including National Fish and WildlifeFoundation “Pulling Together” cost-share grants;County of Hawaii funds; in-kind contributionsfrom the State of Hawaii, Division of Forestry andWildlife and Department of Agriculture; andcontributions from the Campbell Estate.

The Big Island’s six-member control team startsits operations at the outside edges of infestationsand works toward the species’ “epicenter,” locatednear the Hamakua coast. The team uses a combina-tion of pulling-by-hand and chemical treatments. Itis also testing various chemical application tech-niques to determine the most effective methods touse in very rugged country. In addition, OperationMiconia uses satellite and computer technology tolocate and map infestations, and then disseminatesthis information through the Hawaii Ecosystems atRisk Project, University of Hawaii, Department ofBotany.

Since the beginning of Operation Miconia, morethan 180,000 acres have been surveyed and approxi-mately 700 acres have been treated. Some 2,000mature or flowering plants have been killed, and38,000 seedlings have been destroyed. However,since seeds can remain viable in the soil for up to 6years, continued vigilance is needed in treated areasto control the emergence of new plants. Current pro-jections indicate that Miconia control activities arerequired for another 10 to 15 years to eradicate thelast flowering plants and to control seedlings.

5

CURRENT

DIRECTION

Management of the noxious weed program hasbeen delegated to the Director of Range

Management within NFS. Until 1995, the RangeManagement budget included a budget line itemfor noxious weed activity, with a correspondingManagement Attainment Report target for numberof acres treated.

However, with the reorganization of the budgetin 1995, the line item was consolidated into the gen-eral range budget and some activities previouslycovered in range, such as inventory, were moved tothe Ecosystem Management budget. This createdconfusion regarding sources of funding for weedactivities and prompted a clarification letter by theChief. The Chief’s letter stated that any resourcearea that engages in ground-disturbing activitiescould use its funds for noxious weed activities asso-ciated with the planned ground-disturbing activity.A management target for noxious weeds wasretained.

The FS’s approach to the growing problem ofnoxious weeds has varied. Noxious weed concernsand activities have historically been based at theregional, forest, and district levels, under theumbrella of national policy. Initiatives and controlprograms are developed and implemented at thislevel often independently of other administrativeunits. Some regions have had active programs sincethe early 1970’s, working closely with State andlocal officials on a consolidated noxious weedapproach. Other regions are in the process of devel-oping a strategy.

The FS has often played a key role at the local,county, and ranger district level. In many ruralcommunities, the FS is a valuable resource, provid-ing the necessary scientific expertise and organiza-tional skills to assist county weed boards,conservation districts, and other partners in devel-oping weed plans and applying for grants. One FSprogram has provided a market for a new agricul-tural specialty product: weed-free forage.

Some examples of programs and initiativesdeveloped by local FS units include the following:

D Requiring State-certified weed-free forage forpack animals on NFS lands.

D Requiring cleaning of equipment prior to enter-ing NFS lands.

D Requiring State-certified weed-free straw forconstruction and rehabilitation efforts such asroad building, fire rehabilitation, watershedrestoration, riparian restoration, and mineralsreclamation projects.

D Requiring weed-free gravel for use in roadbuilding.

D Requiring airports and landing areas used in firecontrol to be weed-free.

D Working with lumber mills to have weed-freemill sites.

D Cooperating with State, local, and interestedpartners in developing educational materials andtraining courses.

D Cooperating on interagency, multi-State, andmultijurisdictional noxious weed managementplans (for example, the Greater Yellowstone AreaWeed Management Plan).

D Working with local highway departments andcounty road crews to cooperatively spray roadrights-of-way across jurisdictional boundaries.

D Working cooperatively with ARS and Stateresearchers by providing secure research sites forthe release of biological control agents on NFSlands.

D Working cooperatively with Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service (APHIS) and Stateweed associations by providing secure insectarysites for mass rearing of biological controlinsects.

D Considering the potential effects of FS actions onnoxious weeds, using mitigation measures incontrol and project design.


6

NOXIOUS WEED-FREE

FORAGE

In the early 1980’s, FS staff recognized that someof the noxious weed species becoming estab-

lished at trailheads, at campsites, and along trailswere directly attributable to the use of livestockfeed infested with noxious weed seeds. Some indi-vidual forests in Montana and Wyoming institutedrequirements that only noxious weed-free forage beused on those forests. By the early 1990’s, the ForestService and the Utah Department of Agricultureformed a partnership that led to the developmentof the Nation’s first statewide noxious weed-freeforage certification process and to the requirementthat only noxious weed-free forage be used onnational forests in Utah.

Forest Service staff throughout the WesternStates are convinced this prevention effort is a keycomponent in their work to slow the spread of nox-ious weeds on national forests. Some nationalforests tested a similar noxious weed-free feedrequirement in wilderness or other sensitive areasbefore going to statewide requirements. Noxiousweed-free feed is now required on national forestsin Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah.Efforts are currently underway in California,Nevada, and North Dakota for the Forest Service

and State agriculture offices to develop a similarcertification process and use requirement onnational forest lands.

The requirement to use only noxious weed-freefeed on national forests is authorized through“closure orders,” which can be legally enforced.Under a typical noxious weed-free feed program,the involved State is responsible for running thecertification process through local agriculturaloffices. A Noxious Weed-Free Forage Producers Listis published by States with closures on nationalforests so the public can quickly locate a source fornoxious weed-free feed in their area. Nationalforest offices help distribute the Producers List tonational forest users.

In the five Western States where noxious weed-free feed is required, Forest Service staff participatein public information campaigns about noxiousweed problems on public lands caused by the use ofinfested feed. These campaigns often focus onhunters by publishing advisories in State huntingregulations and by visiting hunters in the field andat check stations. These actions ensure that huntersare aware of noxious weed-free feed requirements ifthey plan to hunt with stock on the national forest.

NOXIOUS WEED PREVENTION AND EDUCATION…

PROGRAM

DIRECTION

Four primary goals have been identified for thenoxious weed program.

D Increase the understanding and awareness ofnoxious weeds and the adverse effects theyhave on wildland ecosystems.

D Develop and promote implementation of aconsistent IPM noxious weed program as ahigh priority at all levels of the agency.

D Institutionalize consideration of noxiousweeds in planning and project analysis.

D Develop strong partnerships and cooperationwith private landowners, county govern-ments, State Foresters, State and Federal agen-cies, extension services, universities, and theresearch community for a consolidated unitedapproach.

A Forest Service model noxious weed pro-gram incorporates currently successful elementsfrom the NFS, S&PF, and Research. All naturalresource areas are responsible for cooperation innoxious weed programs and activities relating totheir staff areas. Such a program requires themaintenance of close ties with private landown-ers, local weed boards, professional groups,other agencies, and State governments. The coor-dinated efforts of these groups leads to strongsupport in State legislatures and among congres-sional representatives. These efforts produceState weed legislation, State and local funding,joint public information campaigns, commitmentfrom private landowners and a high degree ofawareness from the public.

In professional societies, employees serve asactive members and officers, and they supportorganizational activities by providing scientificexpertise as well as support and sponsorship ofgroup activities. In evaluating current andneeded adjustments to the noxious weed pro-gram, it is useful to divide the noxious weed pro-gram into five areas: (1) Prevention and Education;(2) Control; (3) Inventory, Mapping, andMonitoring; (4) Research; and (5) Administrationand Planning. An essential component to successin all five areas is coordination.


8

Instructional video and accompanying field forms produced jointlyby the Forest Service’s Northern Region and the Bureau of LandManagement. These educational tools help train staff to inventory,collect, release, and monitor flea beetles as biocontrol agents.

The FS’s FHP field office in Boise, Idaho, hasteamed up with the Sawtooth and Caribou

National Forests to test control methodsfor leafy spurge in mountainous, coniferous envi-ronments. On national forests in the Northwest,leafy spurge is one of the most aggressive and envi-ronmentally damaging weed species that landmanagers face. While biocontrol agents had beensuccessful in controlling spurge in prairie environ-ments, it was unknown if they would work incooler, high-elevation forested environments. Thistechnology transfer effort represents an integrationof traditional Research and S&PF responsibilitieswith on-the-ground applications in the nationalforests.

A leafy spurge infestation on the Fairfield RangerDistrict of the Sawtooth National Forest was firstnoted in 1968. By the mid-1990’s, the infestation hadgrown to more than 22,000 acres. As part of a strat-egy of IPM, FS staff spray the perimeters of theinfestation with herbicides to limit the increase ofits boundary. Further, in coordination with Forest

Service Research, four species of Aphthona flea bee-tle have been released as biocontrol agents at about200 sites. Beetles stress the plants, reducing theirnumber and vigor.

FHP staff monitor release sites to determinewhich biocontrol agents work best under differentsite conditions. Monitoring results indicate that acomplex of four different species of the Aphthonaflea beetle has not only survived but also is thrivingin higher elevation environments.

Many of the insects used in the Fairfield RangerDistrict came from the Malad Ranger District on theCaribou National Forest. In 1997, the Malad RangerDistrict sponsored a Leafy Spurge Field Session,where FHP staff showed 70 participants, includingcounty, State, and Federal personnel, as well as pri-vate landowners, how to collect, transport, andrelease Aphthona beetles. Because the need is greatand the supply of biocontrol agents is small, fieldsession participants were also shown how to set uptheir own insectaries to grow more biocontrolagents for redistribution.

CARIBOU AND SAWTOOTH

NATIONAL FORESTS

9


Forest staff produced the video “Beetles and Billies: Your Buddiesin the Battle Against Leafy Spurge” for public distribution.

I. PREVENTION AND

EDUCATION

OVERVIEWUsing weed-free forage and road materials and carefullyselecting the species used in restoration and stabilizationprojects is helping to minimize the spread of noxiousweeds on national forests. Partnerships with public andprivate groups to develop educational materials like trail-head signs, brochures, posters, videos, and displays ishelping to increase public awareness about combatingnoxious weeds.

Prevention activities can retard or precludethe introduction and establishment of nox-

ious weeds in noninfested areas. Education is avital part of prevention by informing all levels ofthe FS, our partners, and the public of the poten-tial impact and threat of noxious weeds.

There are numerous examples of excellentlocal programs that have been developed incoordination with other agencies and State andlocal groups. However, prevention programshave not been emphasized or implemented inall appropriate regions. The FS needs a coordi-nated and consistent prevention and educationeffort.

Objective—Implement a program of preventionmeasures on all NFS units. Emphasize preven-tion as an effective and cost-efficient methodol-ogy for weed control.

Objective—Develop and implement a programto increase awareness and understanding ofnoxious weed issues at all organizational levels.

Objective—Work with all potential cooperatorson developing educational materials—such asvideos, brochures, advertisements, and class-room materials—to increase public awarenessof noxious weed issues.

Forest Service land managers in coastal areas ofOregon find that gorse, an aggressive perennial

shrub with extremely stiff, sharp thorns, canquickly dominate an area, effectively eliminatingany use by humans or wildlife. In addition, gorsecontains flammable oils that pose a serious firehazard. The destruction of the Oregon coastal com-munity of Bandon in the 1930’s is attributed touncontrollable wildfire spread through gorse-dominated vegetation.

Staff on the Mapleton Ranger District of theSiuslaw National Forest recently completed the envi-ronmental analysis for the Western Lane CountyGorse Management Project, an integrated vegetationmanagement project. The project includes a contain-ment strategy for the most concentrated areas ofgorse on the national forest and an eradication strat-egy for small isolated occurrences of the weed.Because gorse is primarily spread through humanuse, control treatments are focused on areas liketrails, campgrounds, and picnic areas. A variety oftreatment methods will be used to prevent gorseplants from maturing and going to seed. Theseinclude herbicide spraying, biocontrol agents like thegorse spider mite, crushing and burning, manualpulling, and mechanical removal. In unique resourceareas, plans call for spot treatment of herbicidesapplied to individual plants.

NOXIOUS WEED STRATEGY NOXIOUS WEED PREVENTION AND EDUCATION…

10

SIUSLAW

NATIONAL FOREST

Spider mites cover gorse plant.

Gorse plant.

A number of unique resource areas are affectedby gorse in Western Lane County, including dunebeaches; Highway 101, a scenic highway corridor;coastal salt spray meadows; and seasonal wetlands.Gorse treatments are required that are responsive tothe unique characteristics of these areas. The gorsemanagement strategy must also be responsive toconditions along salmon streams to protect cohoand steelhead, both candidates for Federal listing asthreatened or endangered species. Along thesestreams, gorse will be partially cleared out, and avariety of conifer species will be planted in anattempt to shade out the weed.

Prevention and education efforts are a key partof the gorse management project. Because gorseseeds are frequently transported in mud clinging tovehicles, heavy equipment, the feet of stock, biggame, or humans, interpretative signs will be usedthroughout the national forest treatment areasinforming the public about the treatment and howgorse is spread. To help minimize the spread ofgorse along trails, special areas will be designatedat trailheads for horse riders to clean out theirhorse’s hooves. Administrative vehicles used in

gorse areas will be steam-cleaned to reduce theprobability of gorse seeds being transported intonew areas. In addition, workshops for ForestService employees and the public will heightenunderstanding of how gorse is spread and actionsthat can help minimize its spread.

Additional Forest Service education and preven-tion efforts are focused in the biological controlarena. Over the past 10 years, a number of controlmethods have been tested by Forest Serviceresearchers and Oregon Department of Agriculturestaff. Among these, the largest success involved theuse of biocontrol agents, especially gorse spidermites. The mites form dramatic webbed coloniesover the outer branches of gorse plants, eventuallycausing extensive defoliation that results inreduced plant vigor.

Populations of spider mites are so successful atsome release sites that the Mapleton Ranger Districtwill sponsor a Gorse Spider Mite Day for the pub-lic. Forest Service staff will demonstrate how to col-lect and transport mature spider mites so they canbe distributed to other gorse areas.

11

Recreationists surrounded by gorse plants.

I. PREVENTION AND

EDUCATION (CONTINUED)

Short-Term Emphasis Items

D Encourage the implementation of a weed-freeforage program in all wilderness areas by 2002.

D Encourage implementation of a weed-free forageprogram for all NFS lands by the year 2005.

D For all ground-disturbing activities, provide aseries of standard mitigation measures such as:

• Clean equipment prior to entering NFS lands;

• Use weed-free materials (that is, gravel andseeding mixtures);

• Include weed prevention measures in fireplanning and firefighting (for example, weed-free airports and landing sites, weed-freecamp locations, and so forth); and

• Develop Best Management Practices (BMPs)and contract C-clauses for potential inclusionsin contracts.

D Facilitate the development of restoration/reha-bilitation strategies and techniques, includingdevelopment of new seed sources, seeding tech-niques, posttreatment, and management.

D Increase awareness of noxious weeds and theirpotential impact at all levels of the agencythrough briefings and training sessions. Rewardand recognize successful projects and programs.

D Provide for increased communication for unitsand individuals working in noxious weeds.Where possible, integrate with existing programssuch as the pesticide newsletter, research news,and Range Writer, the FS range managementnewsletter.

D Develop interagency interpretive signs for place-ment at portals, at trailheads, and along road-sides to alert forest users about the noxious weedprogram and their role in prevention andcontrol.

D Continue technology transfer and technical assis-tance to State Foresters and private cooperators.

Long-Term Emphasis Items

D Develop national/regional training programs inpolicy, plant identification, and integrated pestmanagement. Where possible and appropriate,integrate training with local and State agencies

D Identify and classify vulnerable and nonvulnera-ble ecosystems and vegetation types.

D Develop training materials and programs forcontractors on NFS lands.

D Develop educational materials for inclusion inwildflower days,NatureWatch, andother environmentaleducation programs.

D Develop advertisingcampaigns, leaflets,and other materials toeducate forest userson noxious weeds,how they spread, andhow they can be con-tained in conjunctionwith local, State, andFederal agencies andcooperators.

D Develop a consoli-dated effort includingbrochures, schoolmaterials, interpretivesign content, videos,internal training andpublic outreach tocontractors, privatelandowners, elected officials, and the generalpublic.

D Cooperate with other agencies, States, universi-ties, and organization in developing and fundingnoxious weed educational materials for use bymultiple organizations.

D Develop a national advertising campaign incoordination with States and other agencies.


12

NEZ PERCE

NATIONAL FOREST

The 1994 creation of the Salmon RiverWeed Management Area marked a

turning point in weed management incentral Idaho. After a number of years ofindependent work, the county weed supervisor,neighboring private landowners, and staff of theNez Perce National Forest were ready to try a new,cooperative approach to their noxious weedproblem.

The Salmon River Weed Management Area is acooperative venture involving public and privatelands and is focused on identifying common objec-tives and priorities for noxious weed management.The 500,000-acre Weed Management Area is domi-nated by dry grasslands and steep slopes. Roughly40,000 acres are affected by 17 noxious weedspecies, with yellow starthistle the predominateproblem species.

According to Nez Perce range staff, a crucial stepin the Salmon River Weed Management AreaCoordinating Committee’s success to date was thecreation of a weed-status inventory to facilitate acommon understanding of the problem. Along withthe inventory, participants developed an areawidenoxious weed map. Crews from the county, Bureauof Land Management, and Forest Service mappedweeds across jurisdictional boundaries, while pri-vate landowners brought in reports of weedsightings.

Committee meetings gave participants the forumto discuss the results of their control efforts.Notably, the inventory identified new invasivespecies that the committee selected as high priorityfor treatment. The committee also used the map toset objectives and plan annual activities. Initial con-trol efforts focused on yellow starthistle, in partbecause the 30,000 acres affected by this species hada clear geographic boundary and the committeebelieved their cooperative efforts could be effectivein preventing its spread beyond that boundary.

The coordinating committee created an annualoperating plan for the upcoming year that describeseach participant’s proposed weed managementactivities. The committee also developed a long-range management plan for each weed species.

The Salmon River Weed Management Area effortis considered a success in a number of respects.Since its inception, weed-control efforts on both

public and private lands have increased, and,importantly, cooperative public-private relation-ships are stronger and more focused on mutualbenefit. Participants know their neighbors are con-tributing to the cause and believe their personalefforts will count for more.

As a participant in the Salmon River WeedManagement Area, the Nez Perce National Forest isworking with a number of partners on biologicalcontrol of yellow starthistle. Forest ServiceResearch has helped develop a biocontrol projectand locate a source of successful biocontrol agents.Forest staff know that for successful biocontrol theymust “manage the insects” by building up insectpopulations where they can be most effective. Insupport of this approach, the University of Idaho’sDepartment of Plant, Soil, and Entomology issetting up a monitoring program for the insectrelease sites.

13


Yellow starthistle biocontrolagent collection field trip inIdaho.

Damage to yellow starthistleseed head by biocontrol agent.

II. CONTROL

OVERVIEWThe FS’s 20 years of experience with noxious weeds hasshown that IPM, using a full complement of control meth-ods, is the most effective approach. In the IPM strategy, newand small infestations or those near sensitive areas are giventop priority for treatment.

Programs to control noxious weeds have beeninstituted on many ranger districts within the

agency. However, many forests and districts havenot implemented a viable noxious weed program.Given the number of acres infested and the pro-jected rates of spread, it is clear that there are cur-rently insufficient funds to address even a smallpercentage of the areas infested. Funds are insuffi-cient to support program development in newareas, and it is difficult to retain adequate fundingto support viable existing programs.

Pesticides remain a key component in an IPMapproach to noxious weed control. The requiredNEPA environmental analyses, such as environ-mental impact statements and environmentalassessments necessary to use pesticides, have notbeen completed for many regions and forests.

Objective—Develop an IPM strategy and programfor each NFS unit where noxious weeds occur. The IPM strategy should consider and employ allcontrol treatments, including biological control,prevention, mechanical, and chemical.

Objective—Participate in the development of localweed management units to consolidate and coordi-nate weed control across jurisdictional boundaries.

Objective - Provide leadership in scientific exper-tise, organization skills, and administrative supportto local weed-control efforts.

Objective - Develop strategies to eradicate, control,and contain noxious weeds on public lands.

Objective—Rapidly respond to new infestationswith aggressive treatment or eradication.


D Implement followup inventory treatment on allground-disturbing activities.

D Develop a strategy to complete the necessaryenvironmental analysis to permit the appropriateuse of pesticides in all regions.

D Develop a rapid response strategy on each forestto respond to new infestations.

D Ensure that control activities do not adverselyaffect threatened, endangered, or sensitivespecies or site water quality.


D Develop an IPM strategy for the containment,control, and potential eradication of weeds on allFS units where appropriate. Include priorityspecies and treatment areas.

D Provide sufficient funding to each NFS unit toimplement a locally developed noxious weedstrategy.

D Develop noxious weed management areas incooperation with private landowners and localand State governments (for example, the GreaterYellowstone Area Weed Management Plan).

D Develop BMP’s for all ground-disturbing activi-ties, which would include appropriate preven-tion and mitigation.

D Develop multiagency, multiregion strategies fornew and existing weed species.

D Emphasize the use and development of biologi-cal control agents.

D Emphasize control and containment of noxiousweeds in special areas such as wilderness andresearch natural areas, including the use ofherbicide where appropriate.

D Emphasize use of native vegetation in weedcontrol activities.


14

MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT

NATIONAL FOREST

The Jackson County Weed ManagementPartnership, initiated by the Forest Service’s

Parks Ranger District in north- central Colorado, isone of six pilot projects selected by the State ofColorado to demonstrate the effectiveness of acoordinated and “boundaryless” approach to weedmanagement.

In 1993, range staff on the Parks Ranger Districtof the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forestapproached the Jackson County Commissionersabout forming a multiagency weed managementpartnership. Compared with adjacent counties withsimilar serious weed infestations, it appearedJackson County could be successful in weed-controlefforts if all agencies worked together. A coordi-nated approach to noxious weed management wasconsidered critical if Jackson County was to main-tain the upper hand with weeds.

The Jackson County partnership in the UpperNorth Platte Weed Management Area involves 10cooperating entities that are responsible for Federal,State, and private lands within the weed manage-ment area, including the town of Walden. The weedmanagement partners meet each spring to developan annual work plan, which includes education,inventory, and treatment projects. The weed advi-sory board, composed of local landowners, evalu-ates and prioritizes treatment areas by looking at

noxious weed occurrences rather than jurisdictionalboundaries. The partners pool staff and equipmentand fund a weed coordinator who is responsible forcoordination and implementation. At the end of theseason, a wrap-up meeting is held to review whathas been accomplished, to discuss problems andopportunities, and to lay the groundwork for thenext season’s efforts.

While there were a few initial reservations aboutembarking on this program, by the second year ofimplementation Jackson County Commissionersenthusiastically endorsed Forest Service range con-servationist Tom Smith’s presentation about theweed partnership at the western regional confer-ence of the National Association of Counties.

The numerous accomplishments of 1997 mark itas a pivotal year in the integrated weed manage-ment program. A county fund was created for theadministration of weed management projects, andweed infestations were inventoried and mapped onthe county’s computerized Geographic InformationSystem (GIS). Increased awareness and involve-ment from other agencies and private landownersallowed more acres to be treated than ever before.Through the educational efforts of the countyextension office and the county weed coordinator,public awareness of the need for proactive weedmanagement is on the upswing in Jackson County.


Range staff on Parks Ranger District, contributors to the Jackson County Weed Management Partnership.

16


OVERVIEWThe Forest Service is leading the National RangelandAssessment, a report on the condition of all rangelands,public or private, in the United States. All Forest Serviceregions are increasing inventory activities for noxious weeds.Standardized guidelines for inventoring and monitoringnoxious weeds on all Federal lands will shortly be published,allowing agencies to share noxious weed information acrossjurisdictional boundaries.

The Forest Service lacks a consistent methodol-ogy for inventorying and mapping vegetation.

Some regions, forests, and districts have developedmapping and database standards, but few areconsistent over wide areas. Analysis or displays of noxious weeds over broad areas is thereforedifficult. This problem of consistent data standardsis mirrored by other agencies, counties, and States,which compounds the difficulty of integratingnoxious weed programs across jurisdictionalboundaries. Many of the current inventory effortsare incompatible with computerized GIS, andtherefore it has been difficult to integrate noxiousweed issues into forest plans and landscape orother broad-scale analyses.

Objective—Develop consistent inventory, data,and mapping standards across resource, agency,and jurisdictional boundaries.

Objective—Map noxious weed infestations on allNFS lands in a manner compatible with moderntechnologies such as GIS and Global PositioningSystems (GPS).

Objective—Develop consistent, effective, minimal-monitoring standards.


D Implement minimum mapping standards, likethe Greater Yellowstone Area standards, agreedupon in 1997.

D Develop sample minimum monitoring standardsfor inclusion in revisions of forest plans.


D Develop interagency, interjurisdictional map-ping, inventory, and data standards.

D Develop forest, regional, and national maps forall noxious weed infestations on NFS lands.

D Implement the use of remote sensing, GIS, GPSand other technologies.

D Complete a literature summary on the uses ofremote sensing in weed inventories.

III. INVENTORY, MAPPING, AND MONITORING

Global Positioning Systems (GPS) use satellites to produce precise maps of noxious weed infestation locations.

NOXIOUS WEED INVENTORY, MAPPING, AND MONITORING…

MIDEWIN NATIONAL

TALLGRASS PRAIRIE

The 15,000-acre former munition-productionfacility, the Joliet Arsenal, is located about 40

miles southwest of Chicago, within a midwesturban population area of some 8 million. Thearsenal provides a unique setting for a unit of theFS, which, since 1997, jointly manages the site with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.Ecosystem restoration of the Arsenal’s tallgrassprairie was a primary objective identified for theMidewin National Tallgrass Prairie by the JolietArsenal Citizens’ Commission and the Illinois LandConservation Act of 1995.

Forest Service and Illinois Department ofNatural Resources staff participate in laying ascientific foundation for the development of amanagement plan for Midewin. At the local, or“micro-site” level, Tallgrass Prairie staff have beguninventorying and mapping the current condition ofvegetation. Of the 60 invasive species inventoried,22 species were identified as presenting the mostimmediate management problem and wereprioritized for treatment.

The inventory and mapping effort includesidentifying which invasive plants pose the mostsignificant threat to native species, how severeinfestations of each invasive species are, and thepotential for spread each species poses. A specificIPM manual has been prepared for each of the pri-ority invasive species on the Midewin. The IPMmanual includes a series of recommendations forpotential control methods, including mechanical,chemical, biological, and prescribed burning.

Inventory and mapping work on a larger scale ispart of the Prairie Parklands “macro-site “ effort,which involves an approximately 40,000-acre areaof public and private lands in Northeastern Illinois,including Midewin. In an effort to trim inventorycosts, one feature of the macro-site effort incorpo-rates remote sensing. Through a grant from theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration,Prairie Parklands staff ground-check the findings ofhigh-altitude satellite photographs on the Midewinsite. The ground-check tests the accuracy and feasi-bility of remote sensing for invasive speciesinventories.

Long-term plans call for the establishment ofabout 40 miles of seedbeds to be used in restorationplanting. They will include specialized seedbeds toraise prairie, savanna, and wetland plant species.Staff horticulturists at Midewin have developed thebeds because commercial nurseries currently areunable to keep up with the enormous demand forseed that restoration will require. The beds will also allow the project to proceed cost effectively.Volunteers at the Tallgrass Prairie helped create and maintain the first seedbeds, and they remaininvolved in the ongoing expansion of the seedproduction areas.

17

Garlic mustard, an invasive species in the Midewin NationalTallgrass Prairie.

18

Noxious weeds adversely impact more than thetraditionally affected forests and rangelands in

California. Areas of historic, prehistoric, and scenicsignificance—including Highway 1, the designated“All American Highway” along the Californiacoast, and the Jordan Creek/Bower Cave SpecialInterest Area, are currently the focus of someinnovative noxious weed efforts.

The Monterey Ranger District noted an increasein noxious weeds threatening wildland values andcreating an increased fire hazard on public lands.While many weeds apparently start along the coast,they move rapidly inland and pose a threat toriparian areas, designated wilderness areas, anddesignated botanical areas. Noxious weeds threatenendangered species’ habitat as well. One suchexample is Smith’s blue butterfly.

In response, the Big Sur Weed Management Areawas formed by the Big Sur Multi-Agency AdvisoryCouncil. Participants include the Monterey RangerDistrict of the Los Padres National Forest;California Department of State Parks; CALTRANS,the California Highway Department; the MontereyCounty Planning and Building InspectionDepartment, and private property owners. Through a grant from the California Exotic Pest/

Plant Council, the Big Sur Weed Management Area Committee developed a joint invasive plantinventory for the transfer of hand-drawn maps to acomputerized GIS. Based on the inventory, priorityareas and target species for treatment were identi-fied. Potential for partnerships or shared effortsamong committee members is a criterion inselecting priority sites for treatment.

In addition, the committee developed anddistributed a brochure that includes photo identifi-cation of the most common invasive plants in thearea and describes what the public can do to ensure that they do not contribute to the invasiveplant problem. The Weed Management AreaSubcommittee facilitates a unified effort on bothpublic and private land for effectively managingcommon problems with weeds.

NOXIOUS WEED INVENTORY, MAPPING, AND MONITORING…

LOS PADRES AND STANISLAUS

NATIONAL FORESTS

Pampas grass.

Typical pampas grass site along coast of California.

The 1,600-acre Jordan Creek/Bower Cave SpecialInterest Area on the Groveland Ranger District,

Stanislaus National Forest, includes a historic ranchand way station and the Bower Cave. The cave isboth a significant cultural site to the local Me-WukIndians and a 100-year old tourist attraction.

By 1994, an estimated 500 acres at this site wereinfested with yellow starthistle. The inventoryindicated approximately 125 starthistle plants persquare foot, which translates to roughly 5 millionnoxious thistle plants per acre. To help returnnative vegetation, a multiyear project of prescribedburning and native species planting was started in1997. The first burn was a success, with most of thestarthistle consumed. In the fall of 1997 annualgrasses were seeded to act as fuel to help carryfuture prescribed burns. As control of starthistle is gained, native plants and grasses will be planted at the site.

New partnerships make important contributionsto the starthistle control project. Firefighters fromthe Forest Service and California ConservationCorps staffed the first prescribed burn at their own cost, using the fire as a training opportunity.Their contribution helped stretch scarce noxiousweed treatment funds on the ranger district. AnAnnenberg Rural Challenge Grant to the localcounty school district will fund an outdoor coursein monitoring and research at the site. Students will conduct before-treatment and after-treatmentstarthistle plant counts as part of their course work.

Right: Mariposa County Fire Department volunteer lighting a strip of yellow starthistle. Photo by Lisa Linde.

Below: Firefighters walking through waist-high starthistle.Starthistle burning in background. Photo by Lisa Linde.

IV. RESEARCH

OVERVIEWForest Service scientists are focusing biological controlresearch on high-elevation and natural area noxiousweeds. Research efforts are also examining new inte-grated pest management strategies combining a numberof treatment methods. Much of the agency’s weedresearch is being conducted in coordination with universi-ties and other research institutions across the globe.

More research on biological control of weedsis needed to meet the challenge of new nox-

ious weed introductions into the country. The FSand ARS biocontrol programs should continue tocooperate in co-located laboratories, relatedresearch, and other collaborative situations.

In addition to biological control, research isneeded on the ecological processes of weed inva-sion and establishment, especially in nativeecosystems. Additional information is needed onthe vulnerability of individual vegetation typesand habitats; reductions in site diversity and pro-ductivity following invasion of noxious weeds;loss of wildlife habitat; changes in visual quality;alternative treatments such as burning, mowing,and grazing; and the economic cost.

Objective—Expand cooperation with ARS andthe Natural Resources Conservation Service inbiological control, weed ecology research, andthe use of native species in revegetation. Alsoprovide to USDA Cooperative State Research,Education and Extension Service (CSREES) weedresearch needs so these priorities can be identi-fied in the National Research Initiative andSpecial Grants Program.

Objective—Strengthen coordination withAPHIS to receive early alerts in a timely manneron accidentally imported weed species thatmight become a problem on NFS lands.

Objective—Strengthen research efforts in nox-ious weeds, including all aspects of weed ecol-ogy, plant community dynamics, and alternativecontrol methods.

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL

Forest Service researcher Dr. George Markin’swork on biocontrol of noxious weeds is built

upon a number of international cooperative efforts.Markin conducts biocontrol research on a variety ofnoxious weeds, including Rush skeletonweed,Scotch-broom, gorse, kudzu, and tansy ragwort.Because these noxious weeds are not native toNorth America, Markin’s research takes on a for-eign focus. Markin notes, “Because the need is sogreat and the number of scientists in the field issmall, there is no reason to compete; instead, Iknow I can rely on any of the 200-plus biocontrolscientists across the globe to readily share informa-tion with me about their findings and help melocate potential biocontrol agents. “ Markin alsoworks closely with the ARS facilities and stafflocated throughout the world.

Markin works with cooperators in Uzbekistanand the Republic of Georgia on a search both forpotential pathogens and insect biological controlagents for Rush skeletonweed, a major problem insouthern Idaho. Studies are also underway inGreece and Turkey to determine the suitability forrelease in North America of two root-boring cater-pillars as control agents for Rush skeletonweed. Acolony of these caterpillars has been establishedunder Markin’s supervision at the Montana StateUniversity quarantine laboratory in Bozeman andis supplemented regularly by new shipments fromGreece.

The Oregon Department of Agriculture’s pro-gram for control of Scotch-broom and gorse inwestern North America has joined an internationaleffort by Australia, New Zealand, and Chile in thesearch for natural enemies of these weeds. Markin’sproject has introduced selected agents into quaran-tine in Montana for final host-testing. Also inBozeman, he is studying a mite- and foliage-feeding caterpillar, as well as a seed-feeding beetle,supplied to him by cooperators in England, France,and Portugal.

NOXIOUS WEED STRATEGY NOXIOUS WEED RESEARCH…

20

In 1997, in cooperation with the FS SouthernForest Experiment Station and the Department ofInterior’s Great Smokey Mountains National Park,Markin undertook an effort to determine the feasi-bility of using biological control for kudzu, a devas-tating weed species covering millions of acres offorests and agricultural lands in the SoutheasternUnited States. Kudzu, a native of Japan and China,is a major problem in southern pine forests becauseof its tenacity and ability to climb, overtop, andsubsequently smother, mature trees. No biologicalcontrol agents are currently available in the UnitedStates for kudzu control.

Dr. Markin visited China in 1997 to learn aboutthe protocols, regulations, and requirements forworking in that country. Then, based on observa-tions, published reports, a review of herbariumspecimens, and a computerized climatic match, thesoutheastern province of Anhui was chosen as themost likely area to search for the natural enemies ofkudzu. After observing numerous natural enemiesattacking kudzu in Anhui, Markin initiated anagreement with entomologists in the AgricultureDepartment of the Anhui University to conduct a 2-year study to identify those that might have poten-tial for controlling kudzu.

Most recently, Markin is at work on tansy rag-wort, a large infestation of which was recentlyfound in northwestern Montana on the Flatheadand Kootenai National Forests. Tansy ragwort wasat one time a major problem on the West Coast, butan earlier biological control program there almostcompletely controlled it west of the CascadeMountains. Unfortunately, the same biocontrolagent released on infestations east of the Cascadeshas failed to become established. In an effort to findcold-hardy strains of approved biocontrol agents,Markin has begun a study of the natural enemies oftansy ragwort found in the Alps of Switzerland.

21

Dr. George Markin in China working with Chinese entomologistsand students, reviewing herbarium specimens.

IV. RESEARCH (CONTINUED)

Objective—Increase cooperation with all membersof the research community, including FS Research,the Wilderness Research Institute, the Inventoryand Monitoring Institute, other agencies, universi-ties, and extension services.


D Clearly identify and prioritize research needs innoxious weeds, optimizing limited researchfunds.

D Evaluate current research projects for potentialapplication to noxious weed ecology.

D Coordinate research efforts with other agencies,such as ARS, NRCS and CSREES.

D Develop a strategy for FS research efforts.Coordinate research strategies and prioritieswith concurrent research efforts in other agen-cies, universities, and extension services.


D Encourage basic research in weed ecology,including competitiveness, habitat requirementsand limitation of individual weed species, pesti-cide effectiveness, and pesticide residue in wild-land settings.

D Expand research on biological control agents,including insects, pathogens, and livestock.Expand research coordination with local univer-sities and extension services.

D Expand research in the use of remote sensingtechnology to identify and track invasive andnoxious weeds in the field.

V. ADMINISTRATION

AND PLANNING

OVERVIEWForest Plans are one tool for ensuring that noxious weedsare given appropriate priority within an ecosystem manage-ment approach. The NEPA process allows the FS to evaluatethe degree of threat from noxious weeds as well as evaluatethe treatment options available. Development of cooperativeweed management areas, or “WMA’s,” with neighborsthrough programs such as the “Pulling Together” partner-ships, helps to pool resources and expertise to accomplishmore in prevention, treatment, and control than any oneparty could achieve alone.

While widely recognized as a potential threat toecosystem viability, noxious weeds are often

not fully considered in landscape and otherecosystem-based analyses.

Some analyses fail to consider the potential effectof the proposed action on noxious weeds. Some for-est plans are silent on noxious weeds, or direction isweak. There remains inconsistent manual directionfor noxious weeds in the various resource areas.

Objective - Encourage coordination and collabora-tion between the FS, other Federal agencies, State,local, and tribal governments, and the university/research community to promote increased efficien-cies and effectiveness of noxious weed manage-ment programs.

Objective—Integrate consideration of noxiousweed issues into forest planning and analysis.

Objective—Provide consistent direction and sup-port for management of noxious weeds to allresource areas and within all levels of theorganization.


D Ensure that the noxious weed program is anemphasis item of the Chief.

D Pursue a multifunded line item budget for nox-ious weeds and provide adequate funding.

D Include noxious weed issues in the ResourcesPlanning Act assessment.

D Develop prototype of minimum forest plangoals, objectives, standards and guidelines forinclusion in forest plan revisions.


22

OCALA

NATIONAL FOREST

In northern and central Florida, invasive nonna-tive species are an emerging problem in the

national forests. Coordinated control efforts oninvasive species can be hampered if adequate leg-islative recognition and authority is not available.Therefore, in response to recommendations fromthe Task Force on Invasive Upland Exotic Plants,the Florida legislature recently amended Statestatutes to include the control of invasive uplandexotic plants, such as cogon grass, on public lands.

Cogon grass was imported to Florida in the1940’s to help control soil erosion and to provideforage. Cogon grass can quickly become a mono-culture, aggressively crowding out native plants.There are no known biological control agents forthe species in Florida; and, if allowed to grow tall,its razor sharp leaves make consumption bywildlife impossible. In addition, because it burnshot and fires move quickly through it, cogon grassalso poses a severe fire threat to the urban interfacewhere homes are scattered among forest lands.

The Task Force recommendation and amendedState statute helped set the stage for expanded

cooperative control efforts in Marion County.Planning is underway to eradicate this species fromthree distinct areas that involve the Ocala NationalForest and private and State lands.

The earlier success of Ocala National Forest tocontrol cogon grass infestations led the LakeGeorge Ranger District to expand the scope andpartners involved in upcoming eradication efforts.The new cogon grass eradication plan is a coopera-tive venture between the Forest Service, FloridaDepartments of Environmental Protection and StateParks, county parks, water management districts,and private corporations and landowners.

The plan calls for surveys delineating the bound-aries of infested areas, treatment with pesticides,monitoring, followup re-treatment until eradicationis complete, and revegetation where necessary.Since forest staff have found that a significantsource of cogon grass infestation is yard clippingsdumped in the forest, an educational campaignincludes informational kiosks at dump sites withinthe national forest.

NOXIOUS WEED ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING…

Botonist Lorraine Miller inspects cogon grass on the Ocala National Forest. Photo by Bruce Ackerman, Ocala Star Banner.


D Ensure that there is consistent manual directionfor noxious weed management in all resourceareas. As part of the ongoing manual review,ensure that all outdated and conflicting clausesare eliminated.

D Develop a glossary of common terms anddefinitions.

D Clarify legal definitions of a “noxious weed.”

D Clarify and/or develop protocols for the listingof noxious weeds at both the Federal and Statelevels to ensure that noxious weeds may betreated as they appear in new areas or States.


D Ensure that members of Congress and their staffshave firsthand knowledge and awareness of on-the-ground noxious weed conditions, impactsand trends, and the cost of implementing IPM toprevent, control, and eradicate noxious weeds.

D Ensure that noxious weeds and their potentialeffects on native plant communities, threatened,endangered and sensitive species, and depen-dent wildlife species are considered in environ-mental analyses for project activities andlandscape assessments.

D Ensure that the “no action/no noxious weedcontrol” alternative is analyzed, fully reviewingthe environmental and economic consequencesof no treatment. Establish clear policy directionfor the use of multiresource (multistaff area)funding for noxious weed management efforts.

D Encourage the coordination of weed manage-ment programs with adjacent and intermingledlandownership.

D Encourage FS participation in local weed boards,organizations, and rural development planning.

D Cooperate with Federal, State, and local roadand highway departments to integrate coopera-tive control efforts across all ownership.

V. ADMINISTRATION AND

PLANNING (CONTINUED)


24

Cogon Grass. Photo by Jeff Lotz, Division of Plant Industry, FL.

LINCOLN

NATIONAL FOREST

In a few counties in New Mexico, county officialsand public land managers have jointly initiated

an effective administrative tool to respond toincreasing noxious weed infestations that adverselyaffect Federal, State, county, and private landecosystems.

Through a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) created in Otero County in 1997, a coalitionof public, State, county, and private entities seeks tocoordinate, encourage, and formalize the coopera-tive relationships necessary for effective manage-ment of alien noxious weeds. Otero County’s MOUincludes the implementation of integrated weedmanagement action plans and treatment projects, aswell as prevention and education programs.

The Lincoln National Forest is a signatory to theOtero County MOU, which includes the countycommissioners, the Otero County Soil and WaterConservation District, the Natural ResourcesConservation Service, the Bureau of LandManagement, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, theMescalero Apache Indian Tribe, the FS, the NewMexico State Highway and TransportationDepartment, and the Cooperative ExtensionService. In addition, the Farm Bureau also has beenactively involved in control efforts.

To ensure that the goals and objectives of theMOU are achieved, the coalition has designatedrepresentatives to an interagency work group thatmeets whenever necessary to coordinate plant con-trol efforts, funding, public awareness and involve-ment programs, and management objectives.

Through agreements in the MOU, members ofthe coalition plan and appropriate funds to attackjointly the Otero County noxious weed problem. Inthe absence of mandatory statewide noxious weedlegislation, regional and forest employees find thatthese types of agreements are a positive approachtoward the containment and control of noxious andinvasive weed species.

Efforts of the coalition have already producedresults that benefit the Lincoln National Forest insouthern New Mexico. The public has been madeaware of the extent of the noxious weed problemand supports the program. Treatment of highwaycorridors reduces the threat of weeds spreadingalong State and county highways and roads.Private landowners voluntarily treat infestationswithin and adjacent to national forest boundaries.

In all, this program is a win-win situation foreveryone and demonstrates what can be donecooperatively, without mandatory State legislation.

25

NOXIOUS WEED ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING…

Musk thistle. Teasel.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL

USDA ACTIVITIES

D Cooperate on issue development on a policylevel.

D Develop research cooperatives with sisteragencies.

D Cooperate on developing educational materialsand programs.

D Develop cost-share agreements for research anddemonstration projects.

D Act as reviewer for sister agencies’ programs orresearch development.

D Define research needs and focus programs andfunding across agencies.

COOPERATION

WITH OTHER

FEDERAL AGENCIES

D Combine efforts with other Federal agencies toensure that data are compatible and accessiblewithin the FS and to outside users.

D Cooperate on control and prevention activitieson adjacent lands and with other land manage-ment agencies.

D Cooperate in research for developing newtechnologies.

D Cooperate in inventory, monitoring, andmapping, use of remote sensing information and database management for compatible datasystems with other land management andresearch agencies.

D Cooperate in development of educationalprograms.

D Pool funding with sister agencies for moreefficient use of funds on projects of common interest.

D Work with other Federal agencies to justify a lineitem in the Federal budget for a multiagencyinvasive and noxious weed budget, modeledafter Fire or IPM.

D Continue to support and participate in theFederal Interagency Committee for Managementof Noxious and Exotic Weeds.


26

Leech Lake Reservation, Division of Resources Management,cooperative purple loosestrife control project with ChippewaNational Forest. Photo by Steve Mortensen.

NON-FEDERAL

PARTNERS AND

COOPERATORS

D Cooperate on control and prevention activitieswith adjacent public and private landowners.

D Pool funding with public and private landown-ers for the most efficient use of funds in noxiousweed management.

D Cooperate in educational projects.

D Continue to educate and build a constituency tosupport Federal action and funding support of amultiagency budget line item.

D Encourage active participation of FS profession-als in scientific weed societies, county weedboards, and weed coalitions.

D Seek cooperation and challenge cost-share fund-ing from private sources including cooperatefoundations, grants and organizations.

D Interact with international partners in develop-ing international cooperation on noxious weedissues and programs.

27

Tahoe National Forest volunteersworking on musk thistle removal.Photo by Kathy Van Zuuk.

Leafy spurge control tour onSheyenne National Grassland,involving researchers, grazingassociation members, and cooperators.

National Contacts

Deborah C. Hayes, Ph.D. National Noxious Weed CoordinatorUSDA Forest ServiceP.O. Box 96090 AB-3SWashington, DC 20090-6090PH: 202-205-0847FAX: 202-205-1096EMAIL: dhayes/[email protected]

Rita Beard Washington Office Detached OfficeUSDA Forest Service 3825 E. MulberryFort Collins, CO 80524PH: 970-498-1715FAX: 970-498-1660EMAIL: rbeard/wo,[email protected]

Dave Thomas Forest Health Protection Noxious Weed Coordinator USDA Forest Service FHP AB-2S P.O. Box 96090 Washington, DC 20090-6090 PH: 202-205-0889 FAX: 202-205-1139EMAIL: dthomas/[email protected]

Northern Region: MT, ID, ND, Northwestern SD

Jim OlivarezR-1 Noxious Weed CoordinatorUSDA Forest Service Fed. Bldg., P.O. Box 7669Missoula, MT 59807 PH: 406-329-3621FAX: 406-329-3132EMAIL: jolivarez/[email protected]

David AtkinsR-1 FHP Noxious Weed Coordinator USDA Forest Service Fed. Bldg., P.O. Box 7669Missoula, MT 59807 PH: 406-329-3134FAX: 406-329-3132EMAIL: datkins/[email protected]

Rocky Mountain Region: CO, KS, SD, and Eastern WY

R-2 Noxious Weed CoordinatorUSDA Forest Service740 Simms St.Golden, CO 80401PH: 303-275-5005FAX: 303-275-5075EMAIL: /[email protected]

Susan JohnsonR-2 FHP Noxious Weed CoordinatorUSDA Forest ServiceP.O. Box 25127Denver, CO 80225PH: 303-275-5065FAX: 303-275-5075EMAIL: sjohnson/[email protected]

Southwestern Region: AZ and NM

John ConnerR-3 Noxious Weed CoordinatorUSDA Forest Service 517 Gold Avenue SWAlbuquerque, NM 87102PH: 505-434-7200 or 505-842-3227FAX: 505-842-3807 or 505-434-7218EMAIL: jconner/[email protected]

Doug ParkerR-3 FHP Noxious Weed Coordinator USDA Forest Service Fed. Bldg., 517 Gold Avenue, SWAlbuquerque, NM 87102PH: 505-842-3280FAX: 505-842-3800EMAIL: dparker/[email protected]

Intermountain Region: Southern ID, NV, UT, and Western WY

Curt JohnsonR-4 Noxious Weed CoordinatorUSDA Forest ServiceFed. Bldg., 324 25th St.Ogden, UT 84401PH: 801-625-5600FAX: 801-625-5483EMAIL: cjohnson/[email protected]

28

FOREST SERVICE NOXIOUS

WEED COORDINATORS

29

Dave BaumgartnerR-4 FHP Noxious Weed CoordinatorUSDA Forest ServiceFed. Bldg., 324 25th St.Ogden, UT 84401PH: 801-625-5258FAX: 801-625-5716EMAIL: dbaumgartner/[email protected]

Pacific Southwest Region: CA, HI, Guam, and Trust Territories

Cheri RohrerR-5 Noxious Weed CoordinatorUSDA Forest Service630 Sansome St.San Francisco, CA 94111PH: 415-705-2545FAX: 415-705-1166EMAIL: crohrer/[email protected]

R-5 FHP Noxious Weed CoordinatorUSDA Forest Service 630 Sansome St.San Francisco, CA 94111PH: 415-705-2660FAX: 415-705-1140

Duane NelsonInstitute of Pacific Islands ForestryUSDA Forest Service1643 Kilauea Ave.Hilo, HI 96720PH: 808-935-6292FAX: 808-935-9801EMAIL: dnelson/[email protected]

Pacific Northwest Region: OR and WA

Gary SmithR-6 and FHP Noxious Weed CoordinatorUSDA Forest Service333 SW 1st Ave., P.O. Box 3623Portland, OR 97208PH: 503-808-2914FAX: 503-808-2469EMAIL: gsmith/[email protected]

Southern Region: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, NC, OK,SC, TN, TX, VA, PR, and Virgin Islands

Levester PendergrassUSDA Forest ServiceR-8 Noxious Weed Coordinator1720 Peachtree Rd., NWAtlanta, GA 30367PH: 404-347-3908FAX: 404-347-4448EMAIL: lpendergrass/[email protected]

Paul MistrettaR-8 FHP Noxious Weed Coordinator USDA Forest Service 1720 Peachtree Road, NW, Room 925NAtlanta, GA 30367PH: 404-347-2229FAX: 404-347-1800EMAIL: pmistretta/[email protected]

Eastern Region: CT, DE, FL, IA, IN, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, WV, and WI

Eunice PadleyUSDA Forest ServiceR-9 Noxious Weed Coordinator310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Room 500Milwaukee, WI 53203PH: 414-297-1977FAX: 608-262-2500EMAIL: epadley/[email protected]

Russ McKinneyR-9 FHP Noxious Weed CoordinatorUSDA Forest Service100 Matsonford Road5 Radnor Corp Ctr. Suite 200Radnor, PA 19087-4585PH: 610-975-4124FAX: 610-975-4200EMAIL: rmckinney/[email protected]

Alaska Region: AK

Mary StensvoldR-10 Noxious Weed CoordinatorUSDA Forest Service204 Siginaka WaySitka, AK 99835PH: 907-747-4210FAX: 907-747-4331EMAIL: mstensvold/[email protected]

Ed HolstenR-10 FHP Noxious Weed CoordinatorUSDA Forest Service3301 “C” St., Suite 522Anchorage, AK 99503-3956PH: 907-271-2573FAX: 907-271-2897EMAIL: eholsten/[email protected]

FOREST SERVICE

RESEARCH CONTACTS

National Headquarters

Sheila M. Andrus, Ph.D.USDA Forest ServiceVegetation Mgmt. and Protection Research Staff14th and Independence Ave., SWP.O. Box 96090Washington, DC 20090-6090PH: 202-205-1561FAX: 202-205-2497

Research Station Headquarters

North Central Forest Experiment Station USDA Forest Service1992 Folwell AvenueSt. Paul, MN 55108PH: 612-649-5000 FAX: 612-649-5285

Northeastern Forest Experiment StationUSDA Forest Service5 Radnor Corporate Ctr., Suite 200Radnor, PA 19087PH: 610-975-4223FAX : 610-975-4200

Pacific Northwest Research Station USDA Forest Service 333 S.W. 1st Avenue P.O. Box 3890 Portland, OR 97208 PH: 503-326-3592 FAX: 503-808-2130

Rocky Mountain Research StationUSDA Forest Service240 West Prospect RoadFort Collins, CO 80526-2098PH: 303-498-1100FAX : 303-498-1010

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment StationUSDA Forest Service800 Buchanan Street, West BldgAlbany, CA 94710-0011 PH: 510-559-6300FAX: 510-559-6440

Southern Research StationUSDA Forest Service200 Weaver BlvdP.O. Box 2680Asheville, NC 28802PH: 704-257-4300FAX: 704-257-4840

Forest Products LaboratoryUSDA Forest ServiceOne Gifford Pinchot DriveMadison, WI 53705-2398PH: 608-231-9200FAX: 608-231-9592

International Institute of Tropical ForestryUSDA Forest ServiceCall Box 25000UPR Experimental StationRio Piedras, PR 00926-5000PH: 787-766-5335FAX: 787-766-6302

30

31

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The following people supplied information,ideas, or photographs for the noxious weed

stories. Thanks to all who generously contributedtheir time for this publication.

Noxious Weed StrategyDeborah Hayes and Rita Beard

Forest Service Noxious Weed StoriesJan Lerum

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all itsprograms and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender,religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital orfamily status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons withdisabilities who require alternative means for communication of programinformation (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’sTARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of CivilRights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue,SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD).USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Guy AnglinTom BarbouletosBob BridgesBob BrittainH. Dan BrownJulie ConcannonJohn ConnerBev CorbettRose DavisJim FedericksJennie HaasKirk JohnsonJeff KwasnyAndy KratzLeonard LakeEric LaneJim LileGeorge MarkinLorraine MillerPaul Mistretta

Duane NelsonJim OlivarezEunice PadleyDick ReardonR. D. RichardCheri RohrerLarry SamsonSteve SchumacherDan SegottaBeth ShimpJody ShimpGary SmithTom SmithMary StensvoldLarry StritchChuck SundtJohn TaylorDave ThomasEric UlaszekKathy Van Zuuk

stemming the invasive tide - us forest service · pdf filestemming the invasive tide forest...

Documents