Prepared By:

Gary K. Smith, Regional Noxious Weed Coordinator

Reviewed By:

Dick Lindenmuth, Regional Range Staff

Ron Escaño, Acting Natural Resources Director

National Forest Noxious Weed Coordinators

Approved By:

NANCY GRAYBEAL, Acting Regional Forester

INTRODUCTION      

On September 25, 1998, Chief Mike Dombeck released the USDA Forest Service (FS) Strategy for Noxious Weeds and Nonnative Invasive Plant Management. The Pacific Northwest (PNW) Regional Strategy builds upon this document, and adapts goals and priority actions to PNW situations.

The increasing impacts of noxious weeds and other nonnative invasive plants on wildland ecosystems require action at all levels of the Forest Service. Strategy documents guide those actions.

The underlying principles of both the FS National and PNW Regional strategies are:

• Support priorities of the Chief's Natural Resource Agenda: maintaining and restoring watershed health; sustaining forest and rangeland ecosystems.
  
• Provide a roadmap into the future for preventing and controlling the spread of noxious weeds and nonnative invasive plants.
  
• Provide consistent and cooperative management direction by institutionalizing noxious weed issues in all of our programs and policy decisions.
  
• Excerpts from the FS National Strategy describe the situation and need for action:

1. 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.
   
2. All ecosystems are vulnerable to invasion.
   
3. Experience and research have shown that invasive and noxious weeds can no longer be considered a problem only on disturbed sites. Noxious weeds pose an increasing threat to the integrity of wildland ecosystems.
   
4. On National Forest System 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 weeds situation has been described by many as a biological disaster; "an explosion in slow motion" (Wyoming Department of Agriculture).

National, Regional and local concern about noxious weeds and their impacts on public lands is increasing. Experience has shown that Integrated Weed Management (IWM) is most effective. IWM combines coordinated weed prevention strategies, vigilant monitoring and prompt control of new infestations. By the time a weed is perceived as a "problem" in a particular area, the opportunity for prevention is lost, eradication is difficult, control is costly, and impacts on wildland ecosystems and uses are severe. Discussions with Noxious Weed Coordinators indicate that the incidence of state priority weeds is still limited on most National Forests in Washington and Oregon. The PNW Region needs to respond to the threat of invasive non-native plants, and the time is now. This strategy provides a consistent and coordinated approach for National Forests and our cooperators.

OVERVIEW OF THE STRATEGY   

The PNW Region Noxious Weed Strategy articulates our objectives and identifies priority actions needed at all organizational levels to achieve the objective. It follows the structure of the FS National Strategy and integrates National objectives with local situations. The PNW Region Noxious Weed Strategy identifies objectives and actions in each of five aspects of Integrated Weed Management: Prevention; Integrated Weed Treatment; Administration; Inventory; and Research.

In preparing this strategy, the Region relied on feedback received from NF Noxious Weed Coordinators and concerned publics. Critical feedback came from two key sources:

• Interviews in 1997-98 with all NF Noxious Weed coordinators and interested staff in structured assessments of their current noxious weed management programs.
• Feedback from interested public participants in noxious weed workshops held in 1997 and 1998.

Responsible persons and expected completion date are identified for each action item. Regional staff dedicated to noxious weeds are not sufficient to accomplish all action items. They will focus on policy changes, communication, review and information transfer. National Forests, their line and staff officers, and Weed Coordinators support is essential to accomplishing many priority actions. Without National Forest support, many accomplishments will be delayed.

WHAT IS A NOXIOUS WEED?   

Forest Service policy defines noxious weeds as "those plant species designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the responsible State official." (FSM 2080) Both FS National and PNW Region Strategies use the term "noxious weeds" to more broadly encompass all invasive, aggressive, or harmful non-indigenous plant species.

PNW REGION NOXIOUS WEED ORGANIZATION   

Three branches of the Forest Service share responsibility for aspects of noxious weed management: National Forest System, State and Private Forestry, and Research.

National Forest System

Forest Supervisors and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Manager have the responsibility to prevent, eradicate or control noxious weeds on the National Forest lands which they administer. Within the Regional Office, the Natural Resources staff administers the Regional program, with the Range program manager as lead.

The Regional Office and each National Forest have designated a Noxious Weed Coordinator. Coordinators are resource professionals from various disciplines including forest management, range management, botany, hydrology, ecology, and wildlife biology. No Noxious Weed Coordinators currently work on weeds full time.

State and Private Forestry

The Natural Resources staff in the Regional Office provides State and Private Forestry (SPF), Forest Health Protection, support to noxious weed management in PNW forests and rangelands. SPF provides technical support and assistance in IWM, pesticide use, and biocontrol development. In a unique agreement within the FS, the PNW Region Noxious Weed Coordinator administers both SPF and NFS facets of noxious weed management.

Research

PNW Station, and Rocky Mountain Station, Bozeman Weed Biocontrol Research Work Unit provide Research support to PNW Region noxious weed management.

REGIONAL POLICY OVERVIEW   

The noxious weed program of the PNW Region is guided by Regional vegetation management policy, articulated in the Record of Decision (ROD) for Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation (1988). This ROD responded to a 1984 court injunction that prohibited all herbicide spraying until legal insufficiencies were satisfied. As a result of court-ordered mediation, additional requirements were added to the ROD in a Mediated Agreement. Signers of the Mediated Agreement may petition the court for relief if the PNW Region is not complying with its requirements. National Forests have incorporated Regional vegetation management policy into their Land and Resource Management Plans.

PNW REGION NOXIOUS WEED STRATEGY  

1. PREVENTION AND EDUCATION   

Current Situation

PNW Region policy identifies prevention as the preferred strategy for managing noxious weeds. Prevention is narrowly defined by the Mediated Agreement to the ROD, and excludes early treatment of weeds to prevent their spread. The environmental analysis for any project with the potential to introduce or spread noxious weeds must consider and analyze weed prevention strategies.

Environmental activists and others opposed to herbicide use view prevention as essential to managing noxious weeds. Public workshops held in the PNW Region in 1997 and 1998 focused on prevention of noxious weeds. Participants enthusiastically prepared lists of Best Management Practices (BMP) for weed prevention in ground-disturbing activities. An example of a BMP for roads would be: require Forest Service, cooperators and contractors to use gravel only from weed-free pits. These proposed BMP's will be considered in the development of nationwide BMP's as described in the FS Strategy.

National Forests are practicing prevention to varying degrees. Among the most widely-adopted practices are: weed risk analysis in project National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (13); washing equipment before entry to National Forest lands (8), and revegetation of treated noxious weed sites (8).

Education and information exchange are important components to support prevention strategies. Many Weed Coordinators are conducting employee training, and public outreach and education. Weed Coordinators and public workshop feedback has urged the Regional Office to take the lead in developing internet-based information exchange on noxious weed prevention.

National Forests are finding prevention to be difficult to implement. Prevention measures often increase project costs. Successful prevention is difficult to identify and even more difficult to measure: is the absence of new weed introductions due to the prevention measures that were taken, or to some other factors? No measure of prevention is currently recognized in agency funding or accomplishment reporting; thus cost-effectiveness of prevention cannot be quantified for lawmakers and agency managers.

OBJECTIVE 1A:

Interdisciplinary project planning teams evaluate risks of weed introduction and spread in ground-disturbing resource management activities. ID Teams develop cost-effective, integrated prevention strategies commensurate with risk that are frequently implemented.

Actions:

Participate in the development of BMP's for weed prevention to be considered in National Forest resource management projects nationwide.

Smith, ongoing.

National Forests will adapt and enhance draft National BMP guidelines for their local situations and issue as policy direction. Regional Office will facilitate regionwide sharing of example BMP's, and encourage National Forests to incorporate BMP's into their Land and Resource Management Plans.

Ongoing: National Forest Noxious Weed Coordinators lead.

Continue to highlight the necessity and importance of considering and analyzing noxious weed prevention among PNW Region line officers, key staff, and environmental coordinators in program reviews, Regional meetings, and conference calls.

Smith, Snell, Lindenmuth, ongoing.

Keep NF Weed Coordinators informed of policy changes and funding opportunities to support prevention and restoration, such as expanded use of Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation plans.

Smith, ongoing

 OBJECTIVE 1B:

National Forest employees and citizens regionwide can post and share information about weed prevention in an electronic medium.

Actions:

Investigate options and recommend cost-effective electronic medium for sharing of prevention analyses, examples, ideas and technologies among PNW Region Weed Coordinators. Recommend how and what information would be available to and interactive with interested citizens.

Sheehan, Smith/NF Weed Coordinator, September, 1999.

 OBJECTIVE 1C:

Standardized protocols for reporting prevention accomplishments in meaningful, quantifiable measures are developed. Communication of prevention cost-effectiveness to agency managers, lawmakers, and the public raise support and resources to increase its practice.

Actions:

Consult with Washington Office Range staff about potential quantifiable measures of prevention accomplishments. Evaluate opportunities for incorporating measures of prevention in Government Performance Review Act revisions of FS accomplishment reporting.

Smith, Beard, FY 2000.

Encourage ad hoc interregional team to investigate and recommend national standards/protocols for measuring and reporting noxious weed prevention accomplishments.

Smith, Beard, FY 2000.

Consult with resource economist about economic analysis procedures for prevention measures.

Smith, Region 3 economist, NF Weed Coordinator, FY 2000.

If National adoption of prevention performance measures is not feasible, PNW Region evaluate prevention accomplishment measures for consideration in Regional accomplishment reporting and weed funding distribution formulae. Smith, SP, NF Weed Coordinator, FY 2000.

OBJECTIVE 1D

Forest Service employees, users, cooperators, and visitors are aware of noxious weeds and supportive of personal efforts they can take to help prevent their introduction and spread.

Actions:

Develop, support, and distribute weed awareness and prevention information materials at regional and local information centers and key sites on National Forests. Smith, NF Weed Coordinator, ongoing

Participate in noxious weed awareness and education opportunities with user groups, civic groups, legislators, interested citizens, and FS employees. Smith, NF Weed Coordinator, ongoing.

Compile listing of weed awareness and education resources available to NF Noxious Weed Coordinators and include in weed prevention electronic medium. Smith, Sheehan, September, 1999.

OBJECTIVE 1E

Support interagency cooperative and regulatory efforts to reduce risks of weed introduction and spread.

Actions:

Develop an implementation plan for weed-free forage regulations in concert with Oregon Department of Agriculture. Foster support for trial weed-free forage programs. Deschutes, Malheur, Ochoco Weed Coordinators, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Smith, summer, 1999.

2. INTEGRATED NOXIOUS WEED TREATMENT   

Current Situation

All PNW Region NF's have or are currently preparing environmental National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) analysis for an Integrated Weed Management (IWM) plan. As NEPA decisions are implemented, treatments of existing noxious weed infestations could potentially continue to increase commensurate with available funding. In 1998, PNW Region NF's reported 32,248 acres of noxious weed treatment, a 132 percent increase over 1994. Treatments have consistently increased over the five-year period.

Herbicide use is the most controversial treatment method. The proportion of noxious weed treatments accomplished with herbicides increased steadily between 1994 and 1997, although herbicides remain a relatively small component (16 percent) of total treatments. Manual treatment of weed infestations remains the dominant treatment method (77 percent); however, experience is showing manual treatment to be ineffective and/or unreasonably costly for many new invaders.

Noxious weed treatment is included in the scope and requirements of the 1988 PNW Region ROD for Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation and associated Mediated Agreement. Requirements include a detailed site-specific analysis process. National Forests find the time required for NEPA analysis with detailed site-specificity delays them from promptly responding to new infestations when the size and impacts are still small. NEPA costs also take large proportions of appropriated funds for IWM. NF Weed Coordinators feel that full analysis and NEPA of every new site is repetitious and unnecessary to make sound treatment decisions.

Four herbicides may be used to treat noxious weeds on National Forests following the ROD and Mediated Agreement. National Forests and cooperators believe that new herbicides that were not considered in the 1988 FEIS would be more effective in noxious weed eradication, and would produce less environmental effects than the four. The Region has no defined process for adding a new herbicide. Neither the PNW Region Vegetation Management ROD nor the Mediated Agreement describe a process for adding to the vegetation treatments analyzed in the 1988 FEIS. The very existence of a Regional programmatic ROD, unique among all FS Regions, complicates the identification of a process that is responsive, efficient, and in compliance with current NEPA and National Forest Management Plan (NFMA) policies.

The state of development of biological control of weeds technologies differs greatly between the two states in the PNW Region. Oregon State Department of Agriculture supports a high level of technical expertise on staff, and technology transfer. Oregon National Forests benefit from state technical assistance that is provided through a joint Bureau of Land Management (BLM) - Forest Service contract for IWM services. In contrast, Washington State Department of Agriculture does not support staff for biocontrol or IWM services. Other state academic and extension experts are few and generally unavailable. Biocontrol use in Washington National Forests is minimal.

Other actions required by the Mediated Agreement include preparing informational profiles of individual herbicides and of non-herbicide treatment methods, and monitoring of scientific and anecdotal literature for significant new information about effects of herbicides and other treatments. The Regional Office no longer has available technical skills to maintain these commitments. The firm contracted by the WO for pesticide risk assessment services can potentially perform most of these tasks, and the WO supports a trial effort to determine whether the contractor can meet PNW Regional needs.

Weed Coordinators and control personnel can consult on specific weed control techniques with Regional and state weed staffs, extension personnel, academics, and herbicide manufacturers consultants. Where NF employees apply herbicides in weed control, training in pesticide laws and safety is critical to successful application. Regional NR staff have conducted specialized herbicide applicator training for 9 years for NF employees and cooperators. State pesticide applicator recertification seminars have increased their emphasis on noxious weed vegetation management in recent years.

OBJECTIVE 2A

National Forests produce technically and procedurally sound NEPA analyses and treatment decisions for IWM.

Actions:

Encourage NF's to complete NEPA decisions for IWM programs still in process and consult on analysis topics of uncertainty to National Forest IDT's. Smith, NR leadership, FY 1999.

Region shares IWM issues, appeals, and trends with both field practitioners and environmental coordination staffs. Smith, SP, ongoing.

Region and NF's consult on alternative approaches to site characterization to allow treatment of newly discovered infestations with analysis that includes sideboards and criteria, while not triggering a revision to existing IWM NEPA Decision. Wallowa-Whitman Weed Coordinator & Range Staff, FY 2000.

Develop a library and/or forum in a readily accessible electronic medium for sharing of IWM analyses, and innovations among NF Weed Coordinator. note: combine with Prevention, Goal 2 actions.

Sheehan, Smith, NF Weed Coordinator, September, 1999.

Encourage IWM decisions that are supported by a technically sound economic analysis and consider cost-effectiveness.

NR leadership, ongoing.

OBJECTIVE 2B:

PNW Region responds efficiently to adopt new technologies including new herbicides with economic and environmentally preferable characteristics.

Actions:

Determine in concert with Strategic Planning and Office of General Counsel an appropriate course for NEPA analysis and compliance with Regional policy, including the Mediated Agreement when considering additional herbicides for use by NF's. Provide streamlined NEPA process that meets legal and technical analysis requirements as guidance to NF's. NR, SP, OGC, September, 1999.

Cooperate with Washington Office Forest Health Protection to incorporate PNW Region needs for new herbicide risk assessment, herbicide profile, and monitoring of new scientific and anecdotal literature into the FS National risk assessment contract. Smith, Thomas, ongoing.

OBJECTIVE 2C

National Forests consistently and effectively use biological control organisms as part of IWM.

Clarify biocontrol status and priority needs for Washington state NF's. Investigate funding and skills availability both within and outside the Forest Service to accomplish priority needs. Determine long-term program level and needed resources. WA, NF Weed Coordinators, Colville lead. November, 1999.

Continue support for Oregon Dept. of Agriculture biocontrol services under BLM-FS contract. Encourage communication and accomplishment reporting by ODA staff to affected NF Weed Coordinators. Smith, P&P, Bolton (BLM), ongoing.

Involve PNW Region entomologist in biocontrol training, monitoring, and technology development including joint sponsorship with weed coordinators of studies funded by FHP grant programs.

Smith, Snell, Service Center, summer, 2000.

OBJECTIVE 2D:

NF Weed Coordinators have skills and knowledge available to design cost-effective, environmentally sound treatments. NF employees working in noxious weed control have skills and training necessary to ensure the safe and legal use of herbicides in treatments.

Actions:

Provide links or list of web site addresses to connect NF weed coordinators to diverse sources of weed control information available on the web. Smith, Beard, Sheehan, December, 1999.

Evaluate Regional training needs and pre-existing sources of applicable training. Ensure NF Weed Coordinators are aware and share information on state accredited pesticide applicator training offerings.

Smith, ongoing.

3. ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING   

Knutson-Vandenberg collections from timber sale receipts funded 78 percent of 1998 treatments. KV collections are expected to decline into the future because of reductions in timber sale quantities and the value of the logs offered for sale. The priority of noxious weed control in a sale KV collection is determined locally, but can only be funded from sale receipts (if any) in excess of funds required for reforestation; noxious weed control is not a required activity.

Appropriated funds for noxious weed management (in fund code NFRV) increased gradually between 1994 and 1998. In 1998, NF's received an average of $33,000 each. Generally, NFRV funds have not been sufficient to support a base-level program encompassing inventory, NEPA, control, and monitoring. NF responses to shortfall of appropriated funds have varied. Some have provided funding from appropriations of resource management activities that contribute to the introduction and spread of noxious weeds, such as road maintenance funds. In other cases, NEPA analyses have been delayed or deferred.

The formula used by the WO to distribute NFRV noxious weed funds among Regions changed for 1999. The new formula weighs more on treatment accomplishments than before. Additionally, treatments accomplished with trust funds (K-V) are no longer included in Regional acreage totals. These two changes have caused the PNW Region's allocation to drop over 40 percent. A $400,000 Congressional earmark for the Okanogan and Colville NF's doubled the Region's NFRV allocation. Without earmarks in future years, the Region will receive significantly less than in 1998, unless more treatment acres are accomplished with contributed funds (other than K-V), and/or NEPA costs are reduced as analyses are completed and decisions made.

Line officer awareness of noxious weed impacts and support for prevention and control varies widely. Variation is partly due to the extent of noxious weed invasion on National Forest lands varies widely.

Noxious weed infestations are still small and localized on some National Forests, and managers find other resource management priorities more pressing. Forests with high rainfall and dense vegetation are low risk for invasion by most currently recognized noxious weeds. Costs of prevention measures associated with resource projects may be questioned for their cost-effectiveness in these habitats.

However, every National Forest has weed infestations that are adversely affecting critical habitats, or habitats that are at risk. Another factor affecting management support is the reluctance of some line officers to approve the use of herbicides. The PNW Region has experienced the most controversy associated with herbicide use of any Region. Public resentment and mistrust still runs high in certain areas such as, but not limited to, southwest Oregon. Even where an activist public is not totally opposed to herbicide use in noxious weed control, NF's incur higher expenses for NEPA analysis and for favoring nonchemical methods where feasible though costly and less effective.

Many PNW Region Land and Resource Management Plans have little specific analysis or direction about noxious weeds. The ROD for Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation was incorporated by reference into all first-generation LRMP's. Some NF's have amended LRMP's as part of Forest-wide IWM planning. As LRMP revisions begin, noxious weed prevention and control can be emphasized, and current vegetation management direction may be reviewed and revised if necessary to facilitate IWM.

Two eco-regional Plans provide direction, guidance and/or findings relevant to NF noxious weed programs. The Northwest Forest Plan contains minimal discussion of noxious weeds within its analysis area. In contrast, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) emphasizes noxious weeds as part of the #2 priority for ecosystem protection and restoration in its analysis area. Implementation process and requirements for ICBEMP are not yet final (January, 1999).

OBJECTIVE 3A

National Forests receive adequate funds to maintain all aspects of noxious weed management commensurate with magnitude of extent and risk of infestation. Resource management functions that generate ground disturbing activities expend funds to prevent weeds as part of project implementation.

Action:

Issue clear direction with budget advice from Region to National Forests stating program areas responsible for ground disturbing activities are to build prevention costs into the project on the front end. RF, FY 2000 advise.

Communicate to managers the importance of accomplishing noxious weed treatment. Ensure recognition of the Chief's emphasis on noxious weed management. NR Director and leadership, ongoing.

Communicate to NF line and staff the implications of new Regional and National appropriated weed fund distribution formula. Recognize NF's that increase treatment accomplishments and exercise aggressive prevention programs. Smith, Lindenmuth, ongoing.

Encourage NF use of Wyden Amendment authorities to support cooperative weed management programs across land ownerships where NF funds can be effectively leveraged for enhanced prevention and eradication. Smith, Ochs, ongoing.

Share NF strategies for maximizing KV fund support for noxious weed management in compliance with trust fund laws, regulations and policies. Share strategies for other collection sources and procedures.

Smith, Connett, Kain, FY 2000.

Develop noxious weed program and priority information tailored to specific resource management staffs illustrating magnitude and trends of weeds and their effects on specific resources. Promote funding support from potentially affected resources. NF Weed Coordinator, Smith, Escano, FY 2000.

Provide opportunities for members of Congress, state governors, and their staffs to increase awareness and demonstrate in the field the impacts of noxious weeds, and effective weed control efforts on NF's.

NF Weed Coordinators, Smith, summers 1999 and 2000.

OBJECTIVE 3B:

Line officers recognize the risks for noxious weed introduction and spread for the NF, and make IWM program decisions that are most cost-effective, balancing potential weed effects on ecosystems, available funding sources, and sensitivity to local public sentiment.

Action:

Brief Regional Leadership on National and Regional noxious weed strategies and enlist their support to communicate importance of the noxious weed program to the field. Smith, Lindenmuth, RLT for fall, 1999.

Consult with NF staffs on controversial IWM programs to ensure appropriate evaluation of current science, and compliance with law and policy requirements in IWM planning. Smith, Mattson, ongoing.

In program reviews encourage line officers to implement cost-effective weed treatment methods where public support can be gained for IWM. Emphasize the effects of their decisions on future funding for noxious weed management. NR Leadership, Lindenmuth, Smith, ongoing.

OBJECTIVE 3C:

Noxious weed management is fully analyzed and integrated in guidance and issues considered in NF LRMP revisions.

Action:

Regional Coordinator consult with Strategic Planning staff in issues identification and guidance preparation for revision of PNW Region NF LRMP's. Smith, SP staff, summer, 1999.

Work with SP staff and NF's to evaluate the effects of ICBEMP findings and guidance on NF noxious weed programs. NR, ICBEMP, and SP staff, 2000.

 

 

 

 

4. INVENTORY AND MONITORING   

Most National Forests have a noxious weed inventory database, and most of these are linked to NF GIS. NF's developed these data bases independently to meet their needs in the absence of a National or Regional standard. These data bases have much commonality in information, but they are neither easily integrated with each other, nor with a national ecosystem inventory data base, called TERRA. NF Weed Coordinators generally would like more Regional direction for database standardization, even as an interim system, recognizing future installation of a national database. NR information manager Rich Apple works part-time on the national TERRA training cadre, and is pivotal to Regional efforts. A few weed coordinators have offered to work with Rich on adapting their databases for optional Regional use.

NF inventories vary widely in their delineation standards for infestations. National standards for delineation of infestations have been developed and distributed to NF's in 1998. NF's vary widely in inventory reliability based in systematic field surveys. Systematic surveys are generally limited by available funding. NF's have developed various strategies for obtaining as much useful information as possible, including: cyclic multi-year Forest-wide surveys; limit systematic or intensive surveys to those species with a high priority for eradication and control.

Remote sensing is not used significantly in weed inventory due to limited technology development and transfer. Studies indicate that reliable weed infestation identification is highly seasonal, and varies among weeds, and among elevational/climatic gradients for a weed species.

Project level effectiveness monitoring is generally planned for IWM treatments. Treated sites are sometimes revegetated to prevent re-infestation, but not consistently. ODA monitors biocontrol establishments and insect nursery sites in Oregon NF's. One NF supports a technician in cooperation with FS Research and ODA to monitor new biocontrol organisms released on key westside weeds.

OBJECTIVE 4A

National Forests apply consistent criteria for delimiting and describing noxious weed infestations.

Action:

Implement National inventory standards beginning with 1998 inventory data. Regional staff monitors and follows up with NF where unusually large or small inventories are reported. Apple, Smith, June, 1999.

Clarify inventory assumptions and limitations re: ubiquitous, naturalized, or transitory weeds, and periodic inventory updates. Smith, Beard, summer, 1999.

OBJECTIVE 4B

PNW Region NF's record weed infestation and treatment data in a corporate database compatible with anticipated national TERRA data fields and definitions.

Action:

Adapt prototype NF databases into a single ORACLE compatible system for optional Regionwide use.

Apple, NF Weed Coordinator, FY 1999.

OBJECTIVE 4C

NF's maximize meaningful results obtained from limited monitoring to validate or adjust prevention measures and treatment methods in future projects.

Action:

NF's post monitoring plans and results to electronic noxious weed site for sharing of ideas and findings.

Sheehan, NF Weed Coordinators, fall, 1999.

Region review the type and detail of noxious weed monitoring in Forest Plan monitoring and in Regional monitoring efforts. Identify good examples of NF project monitoring. Explore opportunities to compile Regional or ecoregional noxious weed trends to communicate with Forest Service and external interests.

Smith, NF Weed Coordinator, 2000.

 

 

 

 

5. RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER    

Noxious weed research being conducted on PNW Region NF's is currently limited to three studies (Colville, Siuslaw, and Rogue River NF's). PNW Station, RM Station, and ODA are principal or cooperating investigators. All three studies receive SPF-Forest Health Protection funding. FHP grant

programs are the principal funding source for applied research to address noxious weed management needs.

Scientists at the PNW Wenatchee Lab are investigating ecosystem effects of noxious weed control in eastern Washington. Dr. George Markin, RMRS, Bozeman RWU supports continued development of biocontrol programs for several key PNW weed species. ODA supports development of IWM strategies for yellowstar thistle.

No other studies supported by FS Research are currently in progress in the PNW Region. Except for the PNW Wenatchee Lab studies, NF's rely on research findings from other institutions and states.

OBJECTIVE 5A:

National Forests have available and accessible information on latest applicable research findings on IWM for noxious weeds.

Action:

Region will ensure links to appropriate sources of noxious weed research information that are available through a FS noxious weed website. Sheehan, Iverson, Smith, Beard, 2000.

Sheehan, Iverson, Smith, Beard, 2000

Region will continue to inform NF Weed Coordinators of relevant grant programs, and encourage and assist NF's in proposal development. Smith, ongoing.

Region will explore opportunities for increased support of noxious weed management from PNW Research. Smith, Lindenmuth, PNW Station, 2000.