No abstract

QiH tW il Guidelines for Coordinated Management of Noxious Weeds in *TEM HAS BEEN DIGITIZED Section I Introduction and Acknowledgments Weeds in the Greater Yellowstone Area Undesirable plants are spreading into the Greater Yellowstone Area. Exotic plants and noxious weeds infest, the native plant communities in increasing numbers throughout the area. Public concern increases about the existing and potential harm¬ ful effects of unmanaged weeds. Unacceptable levels adversely affect crop and forage production, wilderness, wildlife habitat, visual quality, recreation opportunities, and land value. Land managers face the challenge to develop and conduct an effective program for controlling the spread of noxious weeds. Seven National Forests and two National Parks comprise the GYA. The entire GYA encompasses 20 million acres that include the National Forests and the National Parks, federal reservations, plus state lands and parks. National Wildlife Refuges, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and private lands. World renowned for its re¬ newable resources, this area offers outdoor recreation op¬ portunities, scenery, geologic and thermal features, and it attracts millions of people annually. This area lies within three states-Montana, Idaho, and Wyo¬ ming-and includes all or part of 16 counties. World renowned for its renewable resources, this area offers outdoor recreation opportunities, scenery, geologic and thermal features, and it attracts millions of people annually. A Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix 1) for Noxious Weed Management was signed by all entities within the GYA to encourage and formalize the coop eratlve relationship necessary for effective manage¬ ment and coordination of Noxious Weed programs among the land managers. This agreement will result in increased sharing of expertise, information, resources, and provide a process to improve the efficiency and ef fectlveness of all weed management programs. These guidelines provide a unified effort in developing a public awareness program; a prevention program; and a common inventory, mapping, monitoring, and reporting procedure. An overall Management Plan and specific action plans can be developed for logical units of land called Weed Management Areas. The GYA can be divided into Weed Management Areas that have common characteristics and become the land unit for the Section II A WMA may be weed-free and organized to quarantine an area from importation of weeds. The landowners may agree not to allow the use of hay from outside areas. They may agree to require that any construction, utility, logging equipment, etc., coming into the area be weed-free. Always include county weed boards in the WMA even it only federal land is involved. The WMA does not supplant the county weed board, but insures that cooperation extends across county, state, and federal boundaries within the Greater Yellowstone Area.

Sagebrush steppe communities with impoverished although mostly native herbaceous layers may represent the best of what's left of the sagebrush steppe ecosystem in North America. The other 75% of this ecosystem has been lost or substantially changed by the combined forces of development, agriculture, fire, and livestock grazing. Can we revitalize these impoverished communities effectively and what's causing these communities to remain static over decades? This project assessed several approaches for returning the vigor and productivity to a Wyoming big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass community in central Idaho. I took an experimental approach to assess restoration techniques. The project occurred on a single mapped soil unit within a single pasture of the Bureau of Land Management's Upper Pahsimeroi grazing allotment. Sample units all occurred on generally flat sites (slope = 0-5%) and similar elevations (2010-2075 m [6595-6810 ft]). Fifteen 4-ha (10 ac) sample units were positioned randomly within the project area prior to treatments being applied, and treatments (controls, mechanical crushing only, and mechanical crushing with seeding of native grasses) were assigned randomly to sample units. Half the area of each sample unit was fenced to exclude livestock. Each treatment was replicated 5 times. The total area encompassed by the sample units was 150 ha with 30 ha treated with mechanical crushing. Mechanical crushing of sagebrush and other shrubs was accomplished by 2 passes of a Lawson aerator over each treatment area during November 2003 after snow had fallen. A rangeland drill was used to seed a mixture of 90% bluebunch wheatgrass and 10% Indian ricegrass (at a rate of 11-13 kg/ha [10-12 lbs/ac]) immediately after crushing was completed. Sampling occurred in the year prior to application of treatments (2003) and in 3 subsequent years following treatment-2005, 2007, and 2012. Cover of plants, exposed soil, biological crust, and litter was the response metric for assessing treatment effects. Cover was estimated using 10 pointinterception transects in each treatment combination. Cover of Wyoming big sagebrush on control sites, both open to livestock grazing and closed, increased slightly (from 17-19% in 2003 to 23-25% in 2012). Mechanical crushing reduced Wyoming big sagebrush cover 63%from an average of 19% in 2003 (range: 11-32%) to an average of 7% in 2005 (range: 2-12%). By 2012, 9 growing seasons post-treatment, average big sagebrush cover had increased to 11% (range: 1-20%); an increase from 2005 of 42%. Crushing & seeding resulted in substantial increases in bluebunch wheatgrass cover from about 1-2% cover in 2003 to an average of 33% in 2012. The reduction in competition from sagebrush apparently resulted in increases in squirreltail cover (particularly in areas open to livestock grazing) and increases in needle and thread cover (particularly in areas protected from livestock grazing). The cover of exposed soil in areas treated with crushing fell below pretreatment levels on most treatments (except contro...

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) describes and analyzes the environmental impacts of implementing a program for controlling noxious weeds on the Rexford and Fortine Ranger Districts of the Kootenai National Forest, Montana. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, this FEIS identifies impacts on the natural and human environment of three alternatives. The preferred alternative would use an integrated approach to control noxious weed s Alternatives The proposed program for controlling noxious weeds would involve coordination with the state, county, and private landowners to ensure that safety factors are adequate, and that efforts are not wasted. Manual, mechanical, cultural, biological, and chemical methods of control are considered for use under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 excludes the use of herbicides, while Alternative 3 would provide no attempt to control noxious weeds. Alternative 1-Proposed Action. All approved methods of noxious weed control, excluding aerial application of herbicides, and burning, would be used in an integrated program. Average annual treatments throughout the EIS area would typically not exceed 25 acres. Cultural treatments, and various preventive strategies would be imposed to limit new infestations. Alternative 2-No use of herbicides. Alternative 2 would not allow use of herbicides, but all other treatments could be used. Average annual treatment would typically include about 10 acres. Cultural treatments and various preventive strategies would be implemented to curtail new infestations. Alternative 3-Under Alternative 3, no attempt would be made to control noxious weeds. Any control would only be a natural function of the environment with no planned intervention by land management actions. Environm ental Conseouences Air Quality-There would be no negative impacts on air quality from the selected treatments. Burning as a method of control has not achieved favorable results, and is not feasible with the scattered nature of the infestations, and will not be proposed. Soils-Under Alternatives 1 and 2, hand grubbing or tilling would result in short term, slight increases in erosion. The persistence of herbicides in soils would be short term due to the amounts of organic matter, and warm moist conditions which occur in the project areas. No soil sterilization would occur. Water Resources-There is slight potential for herbicides to affect water quality from spray drift or surface runoff. With the mitigation provided, such ab buffer atiips, miniinuiii application rates, liaiu) and wick appiicatoit; and Uie small amounts of acreage to be treated, there is little opportunity to adveisely affect water quality of either surface or ground water. The small amounts of tillage or hand grubbing will not significantly increase suspended sediments or dissolved solids. Vegetation-Alternative 1 would improve the ecological condition of Forest lands and reduce the spread of noxious weeds to noninfested lands. Alternative 3 would allow noxious weeds to spread unchecked. Th...

No abstract