Helena National Forest

Elkhorns Wildlife Management Unit

Weed Management Strategy

Elkhorns: Range and Weeds: Weed Management Strategy

ELKHORN MOUNTAIN INTEGRATED
WEED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
First Draft – January 2000
Updated - January 2002

Diane Johnson – Range and Weeds, Townsend Ranger District
Jay Winfield – Range and Weeds, Helena RD
Jon Sanford and Pete Armstrong – Range and Weeds, BLM
Duane Harp and Joni Packard– Rangers
Jodie Canfield – Elkhorn Coordinator, Wildlife Biologist
Ron Gibson – Range and Weeds, Jefferson RD
Phil Walsh – Supervisory Weed Technician, Elkhorn Mountains

1. This strategy applies to both private and public lands in the Elkhorn Mountains, realizing that we have the tools to influence both ownerships, but that most of the direct effort to control weeds will be on public lands.
2. At pre-2001 levels of funding and treatment, we can probably keep existing “roadside” infestations from spreading, but cannot reduce infestations or treat infestations that are inaccessible by vehicle.
3. Under the existing levels of noxious weed infestation in the Elkhorn Mountains, there is still a reasonable chance to contain and reduce most weed species, with the possible exception of Dalmation Toadflax, which has rapidly spread and expanded its range in the Elkhorn Mountains in recent (drought) years.
4. Within this Wildlife Habitat Management Unit, weed management directly affects the quality of wildlife habitat.

High quality wildlife habitat is a function of the structure, function, and health of the soil, water, and vegetation. Vegetation functions to provide food, shelter, nesting sites, and security from disturbance for most wildlife species in the Northern Rockies.

Because of the harsh climatic extremes of the Northern Rockies, it is critical for animals to have high quality, nutritious forage, such that they can garner the fat reserves they need to survive the winter and to nourish young. These animals, large and small, evolved in conjunction with native plant species, and have adaptations that make them effective at harvesting and assimilating nutrients from native plant species.

Noxious weeds have competitive advantages over native species, particularly in areas of dry, marginal soils. These are the areas often critical for big game winter range. Noxious weeds diminish the quality of an area to provide forage for most wildlife species.

Weed control efforts include both chemical and biological agents. Most chemical agents will kill non-grass plant species, including forbs and shrubs. It is important, therefore, that these agents are used carefully, since both forbs and shrubs (e.g. bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, chokecherry, and sagebrush) can be important for providing both forage and cover for wildlife.

The best strategy for weed management, relative to wildlife, is prevention. This means controlling the entry of weeds into an area by aggressive control along roads and other pathways of introduction. It also means education of humans. It also means integration of biological control in those areas where infestations have already invaded important wildlife habitats. In short, weed management is critical to management of wildlife habitat, but must include a comprehensive strategy in addition to chemical control.

1. Contain and reduce existing weed infestations
2. Eliminate infestations of any new weed species
3. Prevent new infestations and the introduction of new weed species

1. Use all available tools and techniques
2. Secure adequate funding and staffing
3. Garner participation from all land management agencies and private landowners (prevention, education, noxious weed grants)

1. Complete and update regularly an existing condition comprehensive weed map of the Elkhorns.
2. Establish a monitoring program to show “success”.
3. Develop a marketing strategy (to use to request funding), which highlights the Elkhorn Mountains as a “pilot” noxious weed reduction area.
4. By securing agency funding and through grant sources, develop a baseline noxious weed treatment program using both force account weed crews and contracts, which are dedicated to the Elkhorn Mountains.
5. As part of a larger, long-term strategy, work towards securing the funding necessary to have a position that would be committed to coordinating a weed program for the Elkhorn Mountains.

All Agencies:

Mechanized Weed control in the Elkhorns

A. Good Soils: (Assumption: treatment is more successful)

1. Reduce spotted knapweed infestations by 80%.
2. Reduce Dalmation toadflax and butter & eggs by 90%.
3. Reduce Houndstongue by 90% (Johnny Gulch; include private ground).
4. Reduce musk thistles by 75% and Canada thistle to 50% (to levels where biocontrols are effective).
5. Eradicate new species that show up
6. Reduce the level of leafy spurge by 50% (Cabin Gulch, Devil’s Fence); eradicate new infestations.

B. Poor Soils (may need to revegetate with native seed)

1. Reduce knapweed by 50%
2. Reduce Dalmation toadflax and butter & eggs by 20%
3. Reduce Houndstongue by 90%
4. Reduce thistles by 90%
5. Reduce leafy spurge by 90%

1. Toadflax in Johnny Gulch
2. New species that are not common including:
• Sulpher cinquefoil
• Yellow star thistle
• Dyer’s Woad
• St. John’s Wort
• Rush skeleton weed
• Orange hawkweed
• Tansy ragwort
• Common crupena
• Other knapweeds
• Oxide daisy
3. Spurge in Weasel Creek
4. Toadflax and thistle in East Fork McClellan

1. Support enforcement of weed control on private land
2. Implement and enforce the Weed Seed Free Hay Program
3. Support weed research in the Elkhorns (e.g. MSU and Dalmation toadflax in South Elkhorns)
4. Best Management Practices – adopt the Regional “final” BMPs for the Elkhorn Mountains, distribute and use it.
5. Initiate and begin to develop partnerships and solicit volunteers through Montana Trust Fund Grants and County Weed Boards. Include:
• County weed supervisors and County Weed Boards
• BPA line, Railroads
• State lands, FWP, Conservation Districts
• National Guard, Mining Companies
• Permittees, User groups
6. Have a strong information and education program – for prevention and to correct misinformation about chemicals and weeds
   • Use News mediaü Internal agency education
   • One on one contact
   • Kids – target a grade in the schools and have volunteers present, programs (Millions for the Millenium Grant through Carla Hoopes; Todd Brightenfelt, Whitehall; Jim Larsen, Columbus)
   • Interpretive signing in the field – simple positive signs at trailheads, bulletin boards, main access points
   • Local fairs - booths

1. Secure funding (grants, Congressional Earmark) for a grant writer and weed educator for the Elkhorn Mountains. This position could be supervised by the BLM, State, NRCS, Forest Service, County, or Private Nonprofit organization.
2. Secure funding to have 3-4 two-person crews dedicated to weed treatments in the Elkhorn Mountains as well as 1-2 “floaters”. A committee of weed specialists from around the Elkhorns would integrate the work of these crews.
3. Secure a Montana Trust Fund Grant each year to treat a “rotating” area in the Elkhorn Mountains (private and public land).
4. Use contracts to treat small infestations in the backcountry areas. The focus would be to eliminate new species and small patches along trails and adjacent meadows.
5. Utilize aerial spraying (EIS on Forests completed by 2003).
6. Have all data for the entire Elkhorn Mountains on one system for GIS/GPS for mapping and monitoring; aerial digital satellite imagery by 2003.
7. Have new chemicals available to use; work with chemical company’s (eg. Tellar, Plateau, Escort, Butact, Transline).
8. In areas of leafy spurge and where conflicts with native sheep are not an issue, there may be opportunities to work with existing permitted sheep to control weeds.
9. Use wetblade mower if feasible.
10. Have adequate #’s and kinds of biocontrols; develop partnerships with other bug suppliers.
11. Treat prescribed and natural burns aggressively; train fuels personnel and certify to treat weeds; get funding from fuels programs.
12. Use reseeding (native species) in combination with chemicals where necessary or feasible (based on the latest research).

1. Produce an interagency Elkhorn Weed Map – Phil, Diane/GIS
2. Identify the acres of existing infestations – GIS
3. Prepare grant applications – Jodie, Debbie Anderson
4. Develop brochure – Weed committee, Helena Forest Foundation
5. Submit Montana Trust Fund Grant – Diane and Ron
6. Develop monitoring program – Jay, Jon, Jodie, Lois Olsen
7. Develop outline for summer workshop – Jodie, Joni
8. Develop marketing “package” with map, costs, projects– Jay, Diane, Jodie
9. Identify additional grant options – Jodie, Debbie Anderson
   • Make contacts with Congressional staffers, local and national groups for summer workshop

• Track Expenditures
• Track in kind separate from cash
• Take BEFORE and AFTER photos
• Make Media Contacts

2002 Costs

Chemical Treatments:

Roadside: $38-50/acre
ATV: $50-80/acre
Backpack: $100-120/acre (but up to $350/acre)

2001 Grants

$20,000 – RMEF – Elk Summer Range, backcountry (contract)
$10,000 – Mule Deer Foundation – Mule deer winter range
$15,000 – Regional Office Partnership Funds

2002 Grants

$10,000 – RMEF – Summer Range follow up treatment
$10,000 - Sikes Act – elk winter range; submitted in Jan. 02
$10,000 – FNAWS (bighorn sheep) – sheep winter range
$45,000 – Regional Partnership Fund

 

Weed Management Today

Noxious Weed Final Environmental Impact Statement

Noxious Weed Treatment Project Record of Decision

 

 

USDA Forest Service - Helena National Forest
Last Modified: Monday, 02 July 2007 at 17:28:10 EDT