INVASIVE PLANT RISK ASSESSMENT

Transcription

1 Yuba River Ranger District Tahoe National Forest USDA Forest Service INVASIVE PLANT RISK ASSESSMENT Yuba Project Prepared by: Courtney Rowe, District Botanist Date: TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction Analysis Framework: Pertinent Laws, policies, and direction Project Description Non-Project Dependent Factors Inventory Known Invasive Plants in Analysis Area Habitat Vulnerability Non-Project Dependent Vectors Project-Dependent Factors Habitat Alteration Expected as a Result of the Project Increased Vectors as a Result of Project Implementation Management Requirements Anticipated Invasive Plant Response to Proposed Action References... 8 Appendix A. TNF Invasive Plant List Appendix B. Invasive Plant Management Plan Appendix C. Project Map Appendix D. Invasive Plant Infestation Maps... 16

2 1 INTRODUCTION In 2003, the United States Forest Service identified invasive species as one of four critical threats to the nation s ecosystems (Bosworth 2003). Invasive plants pose a significant threat to ecological function due to their ability to displace native species, alter nutrient and fire cycles, decrease the availability of forage for wildlife, and degrade soil structure (Bossard et al. 2000). Infestations can also reduce the recreational or aesthetic value of native habitats. Forest management activities can contribute to the introduction and spread of invasive plants by creating suitable environmental conditions for establishment and by acting as vectors for spread. The following risk assessment has been prepared to evaluate the risk associated with invasive plant introduction and spread as a result of the proposed project. 1.1 ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK: PERTINENT LAWS, POLICIES, AND DIRECTION A comprehensive summary of principal statutes governing the management of invasive plants on the National Forest System is available in FSM A brief summary of the pertinent laws, policies, and direction is provided below Federal Laws and Executive Orders Executive Order (1999) directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species; detect and respond rapidly to control such species; and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts from invasive species on public lands Forest Service Policies and Direction Forest Service Manual 2900 (USDA Forest Service 2011) directs the Forest Service to manage invasive species with an emphasis on integrated pest management and collaboration with stakeholders, to prioritize prevention and early detection and rapid response actions, and ensure that all Forest Service management activities are designed to minimize or eliminate the possibility of establishment or spread of invasive species on the NFS or to adjacent areas. Forest Service Manual 2070 (USDA Forest Service 2008) provides guidelines for the use of native material on National Forest System lands. It restricts the use of persistent, non-native, non-invasive plant materials and prohibits the use noxious weeds for revegetation, rehabilitation and restoration projects. It also requires that all revegetation projects be reviewed by a trained or certified plant material specialist for consistency with national, regional, and forest policies for the use of native plant materials Forest Plan Direction TNF Land and Resource Plan(USDA Forest Service 1990) Does not specifically address invasive plants, though it does provide for the protection and enhancement of special status species habitat. It is amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) to address invasive plant management. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004) Establishes goals, standards, and guidelines for invasive plant (noxious weed) management for the Sierra Nevada forests. It emphasizes prevention and integrated weed management. It establishes the following invasive plant management prioritization: 1) prevent the introduction of new invaders; 2) conduct early treatment of new infestations; 3) contain and control established infestations. It also requires forests to conduct an invasive plant risk assessment to determine risks for weed spread (high, moderate, or low) associated with different types of proposed management activities and develop mitigation measures for high and moderate risk activities with reference to the weed prevention practices in the Regional Noxious Weed Management Strategy.

3 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is described in detail in the Yuba Project Environmental Assessment. There are two action and one noaction alternatives: Alternative A proposed action; alternative B no action; and Alternative C wildlife focus. The proposed action includes the following activities: mechanical thinning; planting native conifers in a portion of the gaps; aspen restoration (conifer removal both by hand and/or mechanical equipment); pre-commercial thinning; manual, mechanical and smothering treatments of non-native invasive plants; roadside and power distribution line hazard tree removal; borate compound application to freshly cut stumps; hand cutting, hand piling, and pile burning; under burning; helitorch prescribed fire for wildlife habitat (shrubfield) enhancement; road decommissioning; road recondition/reconstruction and maintenance; replace/restore a non-functioning waterhole with a functioning one; meadow habitat enhancement (conifer removal both by hand and/or mechanical equipment); installation of nest boxes and creation of wildlife cover piles; trail construction between the Haskell Peak Trail and the Chapman Creek Trail; and offering public Christmas tree cutting areas along designated roads. Treatment activity quantities for both action alternatives are summarized in Table 1, Table 2 Table 3. Alternative C complies with the regional requirement that an alternative be developed that meets the Draft Interim Guidelines for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National Forest Lands (2015). In Alternative C, proposed activities would not change from the proposed action, except for the following: Mechanical thinning treatments in units, 16, 21, 22, 30 and 31 would change to retain 50% canopy cover; only 12 ac (unit 21) would be dropped. Aspen restoration treatments in units 74, 74, 76, 78 would be dropped (96 ac) would be dropped Table 1. Proposed treatments (differences between alternative in bold) Treatment Alternative A (acres) Alternative C (acres) Aspen Work Hand Cut/Hand Pile/Pile Burn Aspen Work Mechanical and Hand Cut/Hand Pile/Pile Burn Mechanical or Hand cut/hand Cut/ Hand Pile/ Pile Burn Meadow Restoration (Hydrology) Mechanical Thin 1,194 1,182 Mechanical Thin and Hand Cut/Hand Pile Precommercial Thin (PCT) Rx Helitorch Burn in Shrubfields Powerline Hazard Tree/Veg Removal Underburn/Rx Burn 3,258 3,258 Invasive Plant Treatments Water Hole Development 1 1 Total 7,114 7,006 Note: Roadside hazard tree acres not included. Some of the units displayed have more than one type of treatment proposed on the unit acreage shown (i.e., thinning / mastication). The total treated area for all activities under this proposed action is approximately 5,660 aggregate acres. Table 2. Units where prescriptions differ between Alternative A and Alternative C Unit Prescription Alternative A (Acres) Alternative C (Acres) 16 Mechanical thin Mechanical thin Mechanical thin Mechanical thin Mechanical thin Aspen work Aspen work Aspen work Aspen work 12 0 \

4 Table 3. Proposed road and trail treatments Treatment Alternative A (miles) Alternative C (miles) Road maintenance Road reconstruction Road decommissioning Trail construction NON-PROJECT DEPENDENT FACTORS 3.1 INVENTORY Surveys and existing data On TNF, surveys are considered adequate if: a) all the areas where activities are proposed were surveyed within the last five years and b) surveys are floristic in nature and, to the extent feasible, target the identification period of the species identified in pre-field review. Of the approximately 7114 ac where project activities are proposed in the Yuba Project, there are NRIS survey records for 3325 ac all of which occurred in Additional surveys were conducted in 2010, but there are no spatial data for these areas because, on TNF, spatial NRIS records only exist for surveys that occurred in 2014 or later. For the Yuba Project, all areas where ground-disturbing activities are proposed have been surveyed. There are a few additional areas where ground disturbance may be required (e.g. temporary roads, landings); there are management requirements in place to survey these areas prior to implementation and protect any new occurrences. Some areas where only underburn is proposed were not surveyed (~890 ac) as this treatment does not include ground disturbance and is not anticipated to increase invasive plant risk. Table 4. Current surveys in the project area Survey ID Units Survey Date Acres YUBAPROJECTSURVEY2015_07 7/20/ YUBAPROJECTSURVEY2015_01 7/21/ F /25/ YUBAPROJECTSURVEY2015_04 8/18/ YUBAPROJECTSURVEY2015_05 7/29/ YUBAPROJECTSURVEY2015_03 7/27/ YUBAPROJECTSURVEY2015_02 7/12/2015 1, YUBAPROJECTSURVEY2015_06 8/26/ , Assessment summary Surveys are considered adequate for the Yuba Project. 3.2 KNOWN INVASIVE PLANTS IN ANALYSIS AREA Table 4 summarizes the invasive plant infestations known in the Yuba units and analysis area from existing TNF corporate data and Table 5 summarized units that intersect known invasive plant infestations(usda Forest Service 2016). Table 5. Invasive plants known in the project and analysis area Species Number of infestations Number of plants Acres In project units Bromus tectorum 1 n/a n/a Cytisus scoparius In analysis area, outside units No additional species

5 Total Does not include private lands Unit Scientific Table 6. Infestations that intersect project units Common Last Name Site ID surveyed Number of plants D Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom CYSC Acres I Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom CYSC Bromus tectorum cheatgrass there are 2 areas infested with cheatgrass along Road B Bromus tectorum cheatgrass there are 2 areas infested with cheatgrass along Road B 1 Bromus tectorum cheatgrass there are 2 areas infested with cheatgrass along Road Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) Species Account Scotch broom is a large yellow-flowered perennial shrub reaching a height of two to three feet tall. It spreads aggressively by seed with each plant producing up to 12,000 seeds per year. It is difficult to control due to a persistent seed bank and its ability to establish from stem sprouts, even when cuts are made close to the ground. Scotch broom can form dense, monotypic stands that outcompete native vegetation(bossard et al. 2000). Scotch broom is considered highly invasive by Cal-IPC and it is a Category C weed in California(California Department of Food and Agriculture 2013; California Invasive Plant Council 2010) TNF Status & Preferred Treatment As of 2016, there are approximately 179 infestations on TNF, with approximately 577 ac infested(usda Forest Service 2016). This represents approximately 25% of the mapped infestations on TNF; known infestation quantity and area is second on TNF behind musk thistle. Manual and small tool mechanical treatment is preferred. Broom has a high re-sprout potential; therefore, clipping, mowing, and blade-type mechanical treatments are not recommended. Manual removal is typically effective only when plants are young, and can be removed entirely (Bossard et al. 2000; LeBlanc 2001). On the Yuba project, it is feasible to treat all infestations prior to implementation, within the projected discretionary budget Bromus tectorum Species account Cheatgrass is an annual graminoid which generally emerges in early spring (Bossard et al. 2000). The conversion of Great Basin rangeland from native perennial grasses to cheatgrass is one of the most severe ecological degradations in the United States(D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992; Mack 1981). Cheatgrass invasion shortens fire return interval and alters nutrient cycling, resulting in increased fire hazard and the displacement of native plant communities, particularly those dominated by sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) (Brooks et al. 2004; Evans et al. 2001). Most available treatment methods have proven ineffective for control of cheatgrass on a large scale (Bossard et al. 2000). Therefore, prevention is considered critical in cheatgrass management. Cheatgrass is considered highly invasive by Cal-IPC, but is not listed as a noxious weed in California (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2013; California Invasive Plant Council 2010) TNF Status & Preferred Treatment Cheatgrass is found in every USGS quad on TNF (California Invasive Plant Council 2016). Due to the large extent of infestations and a dearth of effective treatment options, it not tracked in NRIS and management on TNF is generally limited to prevention during project and management activities (e.g. screening materials, avoiding known infestations, cleaning equipment). Nonetheless, cheatgrass represents a substantial threat to ecosystem function and native species habitat, especially in open areas at high elevation. Management outside of project

6 areas focuses on avoidance and prevention. When this species intersects proposed project activities, it is discretionarily mapped and managed; recommended managements are project and site-specific. Manual treatment is preferred for small infestations. Pull plants prior to seed set. Plants without flowers can be left on site. Plants with flowers should be bagged and disposed properly. Repeat as new plants appear. Manual treatment may not be feasible for large infestations. On the Yuba project, it is feasible to treat all infestations prior to implementation, within the projected discretionary budget Assessment summary Given the large project size (over 7,000 ac), the invasive plant inventory is extremely low: only four infestations totally 0.16 ac. The known infestations can be treated effectively with available techniques and within the projected budget. 3.3 HABITAT VULNERABILITY The vast majority of the project area is dominated by conifer forests (~5,126 ac). Canopy cover varies from open canopy and sparse ground cover (e.g. old burns, roads, ridge tops, and rock outcrops) to areas of dense canopy (>60% cover). Barren, grassland and forested areas with relatively open canopy are generally more susceptible to invasion than closed-canopy forested areas (Brooks 2007; Hobbs and Huenneke 1992). Past activities in the project area, such as mining, livestock grazing, timber harvest, fire exclusion, wildfires, road and trial construction and recreational activities such as camping, hiking, biking, and off-highway vehicle use have resulted in disturbed areas throughout the project area. Disturbed habitats often have a higher susceptibility to invasions than those with long periods in late successional phases (Radosevich 2002). Invasive plant establishment in disturbed areas may be the direct result of destruction of vegetation, or it may indirectly result from changes in resource levels, such as light or moisture, or other conditions (Kowarik and Von der Lippe 2007; Parendes and Jones 2000) Assessment summary There are some highly disturbed areas in the project area, but the majority of the project area is dense conifer forest that is relatively less vulnerable to invasion, so the overall habitat vulnerability is low. 3.4 NON-PROJECT DEPENDENT VECTORS Vectors such as roads, trails, utility lines, recreational activities (e.g. camping, hiking, horseback riding, and hunting), and ongoing land management activities can spread invasive plants through the transport of weed seed. In particular, roads trails and utility corridors can contribute to long-distance dispersal of invasive species via three mechanisms: providing habitat by altering conditions, making invasion more likely by stressing or removing native species, and allowing easier movement of seeds or propagules by wild or human vectors (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Habitats adjacent to such corridors in the analysis area are at a high risk of weed invasion and spread. Road density is considered low in the project area, but trail and OHV density is moderate, with several high-use recreation areas near Downieville and Sierra City. In addition, the project area includes the Haskell Peak and Howard Creek Grazing Allotments, where cows present a substantial vector for spread Assessment summary There is a moderate risk of introduction and spread associated with existing roads and trails, recreation activities, and grazing.

7 4 PROJECT-DEPENDENT FACTORS 4.1 HABITAT ALTERATION EXPECTED AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT Ground disturbance will occur during commercial harvesting and mechanical thinning. Road decommissioning is also result in ground disturbance, but on a much more limited scale. Use of mechanical equipment during harvesting and thinning can result in soil disturbances that favor nonnative plant establishment (Brooks 2007; Hobbs and Huenneke 1992; Lonsdale 1999; Zouhar et al. 2008). In addition, harvesting and thinning reduce canopy cover and increase tree spacing. Mastication will remove shrub cover. Pile burning and underburning may also remove some shrub cover. As discussed in non-project-dependent factors, disturbed areas and areas of more open canopy are more susceptible to invasion. Prescribed burning both pile or under burn may occur across most of the project area. Prescribed burning may result in increased availability of light, water, and nutrients, depending on the intensity, severity, size, and seasonality (Covington et al. 1997; Gundale et al. 2005); these conditions can also favor spread of invasive plants (Brooks 2003; Hobbs and Huenneke 1992). 4.2 INCREASED VECTORS AS A RESULT OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The proposed mechanical harvesting, thinning, restoration (~2,149 ac) and road reconstruction and decommissioning (~6.9 mi) necessitate the use of heavy equipment. Soil containing invasive plant propagules can adhere to machinery, be dispersed to uninfested areas, and result in new infestations (Hodkinson and Thompson 1997). The use of infested machinery is considered a substantial vector for incidental introduction (Kowarik and Von der Lippe 2007; USDA Forest Service 2001; van der Meulen and Sindel 2008). On TNF, machinery is often imported from lower elevations (e.g. Sacramento Valley); in California, invasive plant species richness is generally greater at lower elevations (Dark 2004; Randall et al. 1998). So, use of imported equipment presents a high risk of introduction. The project does not increase the quantity of access routes, recreation facilities, utility corridors, livestock graving, or movement of water from potentially invaded sources Assessment summary The use of heavy equipment is a substantial vector for introduction and the proposed scope of use is relatively large, so the risk is high. 4.3 MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS Standard management requirements for invasive plants The following measures are designed to minimize risk of new weed introductions, minimize the spread of weeds within units, and minimize the spread of weeds between units. These measures are consistent with Forest Service policy and manual direction and the TNF LRMP as amended by the SNFPA. MMR-IP1: All equipment and vehicles (Forest Service and contracted) used for project implementation must be free of invasive plant material before moving into the project area. Equipment will be considered clean when visual inspection does not reveal soil, seeds, plant material or other such debris. Cleaning shall occur at a vehicle washing station or steam-cleaning facility before the equipment and vehicles enter the project area. Equipment used during emergency work or used exclusively on paved surfaces is exempt from the cleaning requirement. When working in known invasive plant infestations, equipment shall be cleaned before moving to other National Forest Service system lands. Avoidance areas will be identified on project maps. MMR-IP2: All gravel, fill, top soil or other materials are required to be weed-free. When possible, use onsite sand, gravel, rock, top soil or organic matter when possible, unless infested with invasive species; do not use material (or soil) from areas contaminated by invasive species. Obtain materials from sources that have been certified as weed-free. MMR-IP3: Avoid disturbance and do not locate landings or stage equipment in known invasive plant infestations. MMR-IP4: Invasive plant infestations will be avoided during equipment traffic and soil-disturbing project activities. Avoidance areas will be flagged prior to implementation and identified on project maps. MMR-IP5: As needed, revegetate landings/staging areas/parking areas/other openings created during project implementation. Seed and plant mixes must be approved the District Botanist or their designated appointee who has knowledge of local flora. Invasive species and persistent non-native species will not be intentionally used in revegetation.

8 Native plant and seed material should be collected from as close to the project area as possible, from within the same watershed, and at a similar elevation whenever possible. MMR-IP6: No project activities will be conducted within 100 feet of cheat grass infestation along Forest Road 9-5 until treatment has been conducted Assessment summary The incorporated resource protection measures greatly reduce risk of introduction from imported materials and equipment through equipment cleaning as well as the risk of spread from known infestations through avoidance and treatment. 5 ANTICIPATED INVASIVE PLANT RESPONSE TO PROPOSED ACTION Overall, the risks of invasive plant introduction and spread associated with the Yuba Project are considered moderate (Table 6). In regards to invasive plant risk, there are no substantial differences between Alternative A and Alternative C, as they differ by only ~12 ac. While there are few infestations that intersect units and a low density of adjacent infestations, there are high risks of introduction associated with the proposed ground disturbance and use of imported equipment. Because treatment and avoidance of all known infestations within the project is feasible and required through the project s management measures, the risk of spread is greatly reduced. Table 7. Summary of Risk Factors NON- PROJECT DEPENDENT FACTORS PROJECT- DEPENDENT FACTORS Factor Risk Assessment summary Inventory N/A Adequate Known invasive plants Low Relatively few infestations and treatment is feasible Habitat vulnerability Low Some highly disturbed areas, but majority is dense conifer forest Non-project dependent vectors Habitat alteration expected as a result of project Increased vectors as a result of project implementation Management measures ANTICIPATED NNIP RESPONSE Moderate High High Greatly reduced Moderate Low road density; moderate trail / OHV density; Haskell Peak and Howard Creek Grazing Allotments Ground disturbance on ~2,149 ac Use of imported equipment on ~2,149 ac; no new permeant vectors All known infestations will be avoided and treated 6 REFERENCES Exec. Order No P. 3 CFR Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Bosworth, D Invasive Species. USDA Forest Service. Letter to all employees; July 16, Brooks, M Effects of Land Management Practices on Plant Invasions in Wildland Areas. P in Biological Invasions, Nentwig, W. (ed.). Brooks, M.L Effects of increased soil nitrogen on the dominance of alien annual plants in the Mojave Desert. Journal of Applied Ecology 40(2): Brooks, M.L., C.M. D'Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J.B. Grace, J.E. Keeley, J.M. DiTomaso, R.J. Hobbs, M. Pellant, and D. Pyke Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. Bioscience 54(7): California Department of Food and Agriculture Encycloweedia: Data Sheets. California Invasive Plant Council California Invasive Plant Inventory. California Invasive Plant Council CalWeedMapper. Covington, W.W., P.Z. Fule, M.M. Moore, S.C. Hart, T.E. Kolb, J.N. Mast, S.S. Sackett, and M.R. Wagner Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the southwest. Journal of Forestry 95(4): D'Antonio, C.M., and P.M. Vitousek Biological Invasions by Exotic Grasses, the Grass Fire Cycle, and Global Change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: Dark, S.J The biogeography of invasive alien plants in California: an application of GIS and spatial regression analysis. Diversity and Distributions 10(1):1-9. Evans, R.D., R. Rimer, L. Sperry, and J. Belnap Exotic plant invasion alters nitrogen dynamics in an arid grassland. Ecological Applications 11(5):

9 Gundale, M.J., T.H. DeLuca, C.E. Fiedler, P.W. Ramsey, M.G. Harrington, and J.E. Gannon Restoration treatments in a Montana ponderosa pine forest: Effects on soil physical, chemical and biological properties. Forest Ecology and Management 213(1-3): Hobbs, R.J., and L.F. Huenneke Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 6: Hodkinson, D.J., and K. Thompson Plant dispersal: the role of man. Journal of Applied Ecology 34(6): Kowarik, I., and M. Von der Lippe Pathways in Plant Invasions. P in Biological Invasions, Nentwig, W. (ed.). Springer, Bern, Switzerland. LeBlanc, J.W Getting a handle on broom Scotch, French, Spanish, and Portuguese brooms in California (Publication 8049) University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland, CA. Lonsdale, W.M Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80: Mack, R.N Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into Western North American--An Ecological Chronicle. Agro-Ecosystems 7(2): Parendes, L.A., and J.A. Jones Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along roads and streams in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conservation Biology 14(1): Radosevich, S Plant Invasion and Their Management, Chapter 4. in Invasive Plant Management: CIPM Online. Center for Invasive Plant Management, Bozeman, MT. Randall, J.M., M. Rejmánek, and J.C. Hunter Characteristics of the exotic flora of California. Fremontia 26(4):3-12. USDA Forest Service Tahoe National Forest Land And Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Nevada City, CA. USDA Forest Service Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices, Version 1.0. USDA Forest Service. Guide. USDA Forest Service Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. USDA Forest Service Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2070, Vegetation Ecology. USDA Forest Service, National Headquaters (WO), Washington DC. USDA Forest Service Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2900, Invasive Species Management. USDA Forest Service, National Headquarters (WO), Washington D.C. USDA Forest Service Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant and Invasive Species (TESP-IS) Data for Tahoe National Forest, Natural Resource Information System (NRIS). van der Meulen, A.W., and B.M. Sindel Identifying and exploring pathways of weed spread within Australia: a literature review. Zouhar, K., J. Smith, S. Sutherland, and M. Brooks Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Fire and Nonnative Invasive Plants. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6.

10 APPENDIX A. TNF INVASIVE PLANT LIST Scientific Name Common Name CDFA Cal-IPC Known on TNF? Map Treat ARRD YRRD Known in project area Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed B Moderate Yes X X Aegilops triuncialis barbed goatgrass not High Yes X X rated Ailanthus altissima tree-of-heaven Not Moderate Yes X X rated Arundo donax giant reed B High No X N/A Bromus tectorum cheatgrass Not High Yes O O X rated Carduus nutans musk thistle A Moderate Yes X X Carduus pyconocephalus Italian thistle C Moderate Yes X X Centaurea diffusa diffuse knapweed A Moderate Yes X X Centaurea melitensis Maltese starthistle C Moderate No X N/A Centaurea solstitialis yellow starthistle C High Yes X X Centaurea stoebe spotted knapweed A High Yes X X Chondrilla juncea skeletonweed A Moderate Yes X O Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B Moderate Yes X X Cortaderia selloana pampasgrass Not High No X N/A rated Cytisus scoparius scotchbroom C High Yes X O X Dittrichia graveolens stinkwort Not Moderate No X N/A rated Elymus caput-medusae medusahead C High Yes X O Euphorbia oblongata oblong spurge B Limited No X N/A Foeniculum vulgare fennel Not High Yes X X rated Genista monspessulana French broom C High Yes X X Hydrilla verticillata hydrilla A High Yes X O Isatis tinctoria dyer s woad B Moderate No X X Lepidium chalepensis lenspod whitetop B Moderate No X X Lepidium draba whitetop B Moderate No X N/A Lepidium latifolium tall whitetop B High Yes X O Linaria dalmatica ssp. dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax A Moderate Yes X X Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife B High No X N/A Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian water milfoil C High Yes O O Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle A High Yes X X Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Not rated Spartium junceum Spanish broom C High Yes X X Ulex europaeus gorse B High No X N/A High Yes O O X

11 APPENDIX B. INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT PLAN The following plan includes all of the unit-specific invasive plant management requirements. Refer to the project s invasive plant risk assessment & contracting documentation for specific details of equipment washing, avoidance areas and treatment. In general, invasive plant infestations are flagged with orange flagging with black writing Invasive Species. New infestations may be found between analysis and implementation; consult the district botanist prior to implementation. Infestation Site ID Plant Coun t MM R- IP1 equip - ment wash Uni t Proposed Treatment Logging System Invasive Species Acre s 1 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 2 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 3 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 4 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 5 Precommercial Thin Hand work 6 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 7 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 10 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 11 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 12 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 13 Mechanical Thin Tractor X Meadow (Mechanical or Hand cut); Hand Cut/ Hand Pile/ Pile Burn Hand Work 14 or Tractor X 16 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 17 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 20 Meadow Work Hand Cut Hand work 21 Mechanical Thin Tractor X MMR -IP4 Flag & avoid infestation 22 Mechanical Thin Cable cheatgrass X X Aspen Work Mechanical and 23 Hand Cut Tractor X 24 Precommercial Thinning Hand Work 26 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 27 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 28 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 30 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 31 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 32 Precommercial Thin Hand Work MMR -IP6 Tx prior to implement Proposed Treatment spring--pull, bag & dispose offsite Notes there are 2 areas infested with cheatgrass along Road 9-5. GIS in project folder (not in NRIS)

12 Infestation Site ID Plant Coun t MM R- IP1 equip - ment wash MMR -IP4 Flag & avoid infestation Uni t Proposed Treatment Logging System Invasive Species Acre s 33 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 34 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 35 Precommercial Thin Hand Work 36 Precommercial Thin Hand Work 40 Mechanical Thin Cable X 41 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 42 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 43 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 44 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 45 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 51 Meadow Work Hand Cut Hand Work cheatgrass n/a X 54 Precommercial Thin Hand Work 55 Precommercial Thin Hand Work 56 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 57 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 58 Mechanical Thin Tractor X 59 Mechanical Thin and Aspen Work; Hand Cut/ Hand Pile/ Pile Burn Tractor X 60 Aspen Work Hand Cut Hand Work 70 Aspen Work Mechanical and Hand Cut Tractor X 71 Aspen Work Mechanical and Hand Cut Tractor X 72 Aspen Work Mechanical and Hand Cut Tractor X 73 Aspen Work Mechanical and Hand Cut Hand Work 74 Aspen Work Mechanical and Hand Cut Tractor X 75 Aspen Work Mechanical and Hand Cut Tractor X 76 Aspen Work Mechanical and ; Hand Cut/ Hand Pile/ Pile Burn Tractor X 77 Aspen Work Mechanical and ; Hand Cut/ Hand Pile/ Pile Burn Tractor X MMR -IP6 Tx prior to implement Proposed Treatment Notes

13 Uni t Infestation Site ID Plant Coun t MM R- IP1 equip - ment wash Proposed Treatment Logging System Invasive Species Acre s Aspen Work Mechanical and; Hand Cut/ Hand Pile/ Pile Burn Tractor X Aspen Work Mechanical and; Hand Cut/ Hand Pile/ Pile Burn Tractor X Aspen Work Mechanical and; Hand Cut/ Hand Pile/ Pile Burn Tractor X Aspen Work Mechanical and; Hand Cut/ Hand Pile/ Pile Burn Tractor X Aspen Work Mechanical and 85 Hand Cut Tractor X 100 Aspen Work Hand Cut Hand Work 101 Meadow Restoration 102 Meadow Restoration 103 Meadow Restoration 104 Meadow Restoration 105 Meadow Restoration 106 Meadow Restoration 107 Meadow Restoration 114 Meadow Restoration Mechanical or Hand Work Mechanical or Hand Work Mechanical or Hand Work Mechanical or Hand Work Mechanical or Hand Work Mechanical or Hand Work Mechanical or Hand Work Mechanical or Hand Work X X X X X X X X MMR -IP4 Flag & avoid infestation MMR -IP6 Tx prior to implement Proposed Treatment Notes

14 Uni t Proposed Treatment Logging System Mechanical or Hand Powerline / Veg Removal Work - Water Hole Development N/A - Invasive Plant Treatments Hand Work A Underburn Invasive Species Infestation Site ID Plant Coun t Acre s MM R- IP1 equip - ment wash X MMR -IP4 Flag & avoid infestation B Underburn cheatgrass X B 1 Rx Helitorch Burn cheatgrass X C Underburn D E F G G- M H I J Underburn Handcut, Handpile, and Pile Burn Underburn Rx Helitorch Burn Rx Helitorch Burn Rx Helitorch Burn Rx Helitorch Burn Handcut, Handpile, and Pile Burn scotch broom scotch broom CYSC X CYSC X MMR -IP6 Tx prior to implement Proposed Treatment spring--pull, bag & dispose offsite spring--pull, bag & dispose offsite spring--weed wrench, dispose offsite (if seeds mature) spring--weed wrench, dispose offsite (if seeds mature) Notes there are 2 areas infested with cheatgrass along Road 9-5. GIS in project folder (not in NRIS) there are 2 areas infested with cheatgrass along Road 9-5. GIS in project folder (not in NRIS) along road 9-20 (Haskell Pk Spur) along Rd (Artic Spur)

15 I APPENDIX C. PROJECT MAP F A H C B B J G G-M D E BotanyAnalysisArea Project Proposals Proposal Hand cut Mechanical Thin Meadow Restoration Powerline Haz Tree & Veg Underburn or Helitorch Transportation System Road Closed to Vehicular Traffic (ML1) Dirt Road (ML2) Improved Road (ML3-5) County Road State Highway Interstate Highway Motorized Trail Non-Motorized Trail Map produced by District Botanist Miles Figure 1. Proposed units and botanical analysis area

16 APPENDIX D. INVASIVE PLANT INFESTATION MAPS

17

18

19

20