"I'm concerned that from a forestwide perspective, our existing weed control decisions cover too small a portion of the forest, and that we are not able to respond in a timely and efficient manner to newly located infestations and new species not already found on the Lolo," said Debbie Austin, Lolo forest supervisor.
"We need the ability to respond more rapidly to new and relatively small weed infestations," she added, "and prevent or reduce the impacts of weeds on resources such as big game, native grass and wildflower communities, threatened, endangered or sensitive plants, animals and fish and natural processes."
Officials are seeking public comments on the proposal by Aug. 20.
Priority for weed control would be assigned, Austin said, based on whether a weed was new, existing in small patches or widespread, and whether it occurs in these five specific areas of emphasis:
- Bunchgrass big-game winter ranges.
- Protection of weed-free areas and roads, trails and trailheads that lead into big-game winter ranges.
- Areas of concentrated public use, since people are the primary agents of weed spread.
- Administrative sites.
- Next to private landowners with active weed-control programs.
The plan calls for increased use of herbicide treatments on disturbed areas, such as along roads and trails, trailheads, campgrounds, recreation areas, power lines and other rights of way, airstrips, helicopter landing sites, burned areas, gravel and rock quarries, administrative sites, fuel reduction project areas, bunchgrass big-game winter ranges, electronic sites and ski areas. Herbicide treatments may also be applied to undisturbed native plant communities where weeds are beginning to establish or have already done so.
Under the Lolo forest proposal, ground and aerial spraying of herbicides would be limited to no more than 15,000 acres a year. Aerial application would not be used in designated wilderness areas. Standardized criteria would be developed to determine when to use herbicides. Measures would be taken to protect the public and workers' health.
The plan would continue the forest's integrated weed management program, started in 1992, using education, prevention, biological controls (weed-eating insects), revegetation and mechanical controls in conjunction with herbicides.
"Nearly everyone we talk to wishes we didn't need to use herbicides," said Austin. "But used very carefully, they are a very effective weed management tool. While there are other integrated pest management tools, like hand-pulling and sheep or goat grazing, in the weed management tool box, our experience indicates that a combination of weed education and prevention programs, biological controls, ground and aerially applied selective herbicides and revegetation are the most effective and economical on the Lolo, especially when you consider we have a very limited weed budget and we're responsible for weed management on a vast and varied 2.1 million acres of land."
Since 1991, the Forest Service has done site-specific environmental analyses for weed control projects in the Lolo forest.
Unfortunately, Austin said, forest officials found those limited efforts have not been sufficient to contain, control or reduce weed infestations over a wide variety of sites. Weed control decisions authorize the use of herbicides only on a small portion of the forest.
On the sites where herbicides have been used, she said, weed control efforts have been very effective in both remote backcountry areas and in popular urban interface recreation areas like the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area, Pattee Canyon and Blue Mountain.
Many of the weed-free areas of the Lolo forest, and the absence of large infestations of some of the most difficult-to-control weeds like leafy spurge and Dalmatian toadflax, are the products of those efforts, Austin said.
Another recent success story in the Lolo forest was a weed control project focusing on 21 big-game winter ranges and five other areas in the Lolo forest that were burned in the wildfires of 2000. Since 2001, an integrated weed management plan, including ground and aerial herbicide treatments, was implemented on eight of the winter ranges and the five burned areas "with great results," Austin said.
"On eight monitoring sites, we reduced weeds an average of 95 percent," she said. "We've also prevented weeds from invading and dominating the areas that burned in the 2000 wildfires."
The new weed management proposal also includes the following provisions:
- Standardized methods would be developed to protect critical resources such as rare or unique plant communities, riparian areas, surface water and reduce the potential for groundwater contamination.
- Forest managers will cooperate with researchers to learn new weed-control methods and to better understand the effects of both weeds and weed control on the ecosystem.
- Managers would use knowledge learned from past weed-control projects so that future weed control projects can be more effective and have less impact on people and other resources.
While she said she doesn't expect to ever eradicate weeds in the Lolo forest, Austin said the new plan will help forest managers to respond promptly to prevent new weed species from becoming established; reduce and contain the most difficult weeds to control; and reduce infestations of weeds that are already widespread, such as knapweed.
In addition, Austin said, the plan will create a more pleasing and natural-looking landscape.
Following the public comment period, an environmental impact study will be conducted. The analysis will address how weed management activities, such as the use of herbicides, affect big game, native grass and wildflower communities, threatened, endangered or sensitive plants, animals, fish and natural processes. The effects of herbicides on human health also will be addressed.
"Reforestation of the weed-infested lands on the Lolo forest won't happen overnight," said Austin. "It's going to take years and a lot of help. But we'll never finish until we start, and the longer we wait, the harder it will be."
Reporter Daryl Gadbow can be reached at 523-5264 or at dgadbow@missoulian.com
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)