skip to content
marilyn.marler@mso.umt.edu

Grassland Restoration

 

Vegetation Management Plan for Selected Conservation Lands as adopted by Missoula City Council on 3/26/01

Photo by Sue Brown, Missoula, in the North Hills, June 1974, prior to exotic plant invasions. Display of arrowleaf balsamroot, silky lupine, and paintbrush.

Photo by Sue Brown, Missoula, in the North Hills, June 1974, prior to exotic plant invasions. Display of arrowleaf balsamroot, silky lupine, and paintbrush.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to these professionals for their thorough reviews of this plan:
Mary Jean Gilman, Missoula Parks and RecreationAlan Knudsen, Missoula Co. Weed DistrictAndy Kulla, Lolo National ForestMary Manning, US Forest Service Region 1Jerry Marks, Missoula Co. Extension ServiceBill Otten, Missoula Co. Weed DistrictJohn Pierce, BotanistJanet Sproull, Save Open SpaceDr. Jim Habeck, UM Botany Professor Emeritus, andKate Supplee, City Open Space Program Manager provided background sections that are included in this plan.

Thanks to the 100 or more members of the public who attended the February 20, 2001 Vegetation Open House at the Boone and Crockett Club and to Mayor Mike Kadas, City Councilman Jerry Ballas, Celestine Duncan, and Jerry Marks for speaking,

Thanks also to everyone who helped staff the event: Jim Berkey, Teresa Brainard, Kelly Chadwick, Dan Corti, Dusty Deschamps, Sara DeSilvey, Sylvie Johnson, Cynthia Kingston, Andy Kulla, Mary Manning, Bob Oaks, Deborah Richie Oberbillig, Bill Otten, Kendra Sewall, Minie Smith, Janet Sproull, Eric Sweet, Dennis vander Meer, and Jane Van Fossen.

Finally, a special thanks to Jim and Sue Brown for sharing their family photos (including the cover photo) and memories of the North Hills prior to its degradation by noxious weeds.

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction and overview

1.1 Background
1.2 Scope and need
1.3 Planning Background
1.4 Project areas
1.4 Vegetation management objectives
1.5 Vegetation management strategy: an ecological and social framework

2.0 Elements of the management plan

2.1 Setting objectives..9
2.2 Prevention of new infestations
2.3 Early Detection
2.4 Education
2.5 Mapping
2.6 Baseline monitoring
2.7 Control actions
2.8 Revegetation with native species
2.9; Response monitoring.
2.10 Re-evaluation.
2.11 Cooperation

3.0The Properties

3.1 The North Hills
3.1.1 Historic condition
3.1.2 Current condition
3.1.3 Management recommendations
3.2 Mount Sentinel
3.2.1 Historic condition
3.2.2 Current condition
3.2.3 Management recommendations
3.3 Kim Williams Trail
3.3.1 Historic condition
3.3.2 Current condition
3.3.3 Management recommendations
3.4 John Toole Park
2.4.1 Historic condition
2.4.2 Current condition
2.4.3 Management recommendations

4.0 Literature cited

Appendix A. Letter from Fish, Wildlife and Parks regarding disease transmission from domestic to wild sheep
Appendix B. Public comment
Appendix C. City of Missoula 2000 Weed Ordinance

1.0 Introduction and Overview

1. Background
The Missoula Community is fortunate to have a diverse open space system of parks, trails, agricultural land, urban forest, and conservation lands. The City's conservation lands range from rugged mountainsides to gentle and accessible riparian areas along the Clark Fork River. These open spaces support globally rare plant communities in addition to familiar forests and grasslands. Although the City has been successful at conserving open space for future generations, with the exception of Mount Jumbo the City has not yet implemented noxious weed control or native plant management on its conservation lands (Parks and Recreation 1999).

Conservation biologists and ecologists recognize invasive species as a leading threat to North American biodiversity. Noxious weeds, which are a legal category of invasive species, evolved on other continents and were introduced here both intentionally and unintentionally by humans. Impacts of noxious weeds to their invaded ecosystem include loss of biodiversity of native plants, loss of wildlife habitat, increased soil erosion, and loss of agricultural productivity.

The most common noxious weeds in the Missoula Valley are spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) and hound's tongue (Cynoglossum officinale). Combined, these species infest several thousand acres of Missoula's Open Space system, reducing the biodiversity and conservation values for which the lands were acquired. Additionally, the unchecked proliferation of noxious weeds on city property is a violation of state laws.

top

2. Scope and need

This document provides a vegetation management plan for City Conservation lands. It does not address other elements of the open space system, such as parks and trails (with the exception of the Kim Williams Trail). A plan and its implementation is necessary in order to comply with the Montana Code Annotated Section 7-22-2151 (HB 395), which requires that municipalities within weed control districts enter into cooperative noxious weed management agreements with the respective weed boards. A written plan is useful to solicit public input to the management process on public lands. Finally, an active vegetation management plan is needed for the City to meet goals of the 1998 Update of the Urban Comprehensive Plan. Two main goals from the vision statement on page 3 are:

top

In December 1999 the City Council adopted "A Resolution (6289) of the Missoula City Council Identifying and Establishing a Policy for Management of Weeds and Non-Native Vegetation on City Owned Open Space Conservation Lands." This resolution "instructs the City Parks and Recreation staff and the City Parks Board to develop in light of adopted city goals, including restoration of native plant communities, a management plan for weeds and non-native plants on city owned open space conservation lands. This plan shall include:

This resolution is attached as Appendix

Finally, the City of Missoula will comply with the requirements of HB 395 for reporting progress and budgets biannually to the Montana Department of Agriculture.

In 1995, as an amendment to the Urban Comprehensive Plan, the City and County adopted the Missoula Urban Area Open Space Plan. The goal of the plan is to develop a coherent open space system distributed throughout the Missoula Valley by the year 2010. "Cornerstones," large parks and high-value conservation lands, anchor the system in a fundamental way.

That fall Missoula City voters passed a $5 million open space bond. The primary purpose of the bond was to purchase cornerstone lands, specifically hillsides and areas near rivers. The purpose was to protect wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and rare and unique plant communities by preserving them in their natural state.

The first use of open space bonds was for Mount Jumbo. The Mount Jumbo Campaign was a community-wide effort to preserve the area's natural values, including an elk migration corridor and winter range. A three-year planning process, including extensive public involvement, culminated in the City Council's adoption of a management plan for Mount Jumbo. Recognizing the threat of noxious weeds to the elk winter range, wildlife habitat, and other natural values, the plan included a chapter on vegetation management. The Council adopted this chapter in May, 1999.

In order to implement the plan, the City entered into a $33,500 contract with the University of Montana for the services of Marilyn Marler, Botanist. Services included in the contract included public education, integrated weed management on Mount Jumbo, and drafting plans for several additional City conservation lands. In addition to completing these tasks, Marilyn Marler was able to nearly double the City's budget through external funding sources. The first year of the contract presently is concluding. It was seen to be highly successful and it is likely the contract will be renewed on an annual basis.

Since 1995 the City has acquired additional conservation lands using open space bond funds. It purchased the 470-acre North Hills Randolph property in October 1996 and 475 acres on the face of Mount Sentinel in April 2000. The present plan addresses both of these properties as well as the Kim Williams Trail and John Toole Park, both of which were purchased with 1980 open space bond funds.

Marilyn Marler drafted the Vegetation Plan for Selected Conservation Lands during the winter of 2000-2001. The draft plan was presented at a public open house on February 20, 2001. Public comments (attached as Appendix A) received during and after the open house strongly supported the plan. The City Council held a public hearing on the plan on March 12, 2001 and adopted the plan on _______________________

City Council Resolution #6289 (referenced in Section 1.2) specifically asks the City/County Health, Air Pollution, and Water Quality District Boards and Health Department staff to review the research-based information about health and environmental implications of various herbicides, herbicide application, and other weed management methods that might be used in the City's integrated weed management program, and to provide an evaluation of the relative health and environmental risks of the different herbicides and weed management methods. The report may include a study of the health and environmental effects of noxious weeds on a portion of the population.

At this time (March 2001) the report is in draft form. The City understands the need to respond to concerns and recommendations of the report to achieve our goal of protecting human and environmental health. At such time as the completed report is available, the Council may make additions and changes to the plan.

top

1.4 Project areas

This plan addresses four areas: The North Hills including the Randolph Homestead (section 3.1.), Mount Sentinel (section 3.2), the Kim Williams Trail (section 3.3), and John Toole Park (section 3.4). Detailed descriptions of these properties are included in the appropriate section.

A vegetation management plan for Mt Jumbo already exists within the larger Mt Jumbo Management Plan, and was adopted by City Council in May 1999 (Parks and Recreation 1999). The philosophy and goals behind each of these additional properties is similar to the Mount Jumbo vegetation plan in that the "objective for vegetation management is the preservation and restoration of native plant communities (Parks and Recreation 1999)." The only exception to this objective is at the Randolph Homestead in the North Hills, where the target vegetation consists of pasture grasses, orchards, and so on, in order to preserve the human history of the site. Likewise, each of the properties has unique site characteristics and vegetation, and is considered separately within the relevant section of this document.

In general, the native plant communities on these properties include bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoreugnaria spicata), rough fescue (Festuca scabrella), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) and junegrass (Koeleria macrantha) as dominant grasses. Silky lupine (Lupinus sericeus), larkspur (Delphinium bicolor), arrowleaf balsamroot (Balsamorhiza saggittata), and penstemon (Penstemon wilcoxii) are common spring wildflowers, and hairy golden aster (Chrysopsis villosa), blanket flower (Gaillardia aristata), and asters (including Aster pansus and A. falcatus) are common late-season wildflowers.

top

1.5 Vegetation management objectives

Objectives for the above named areas are to:

These objectives are the same as those outlined in the Mt Jumbo vegetation management plan, which was intended as a template for other City conservation lands. None of these objectives are compatible with continued inaction to control noxious weeds.

Thus, goals include:

While attempting to reach these goals, the City of Missoula will take a long-term, integrated approach. It will strive to reduce herbicide use over the long term while making measurable progress toward vegetation management goals over the short term. Reliance solely upon broadleaf herbicides without additional tools would be expensive, increase health concerns, and ultimately lead to losses in native broadleaf diversity. An aggressive, creative, and fully integrated management approach is needed.

top

1.6 Vegetation management strategy: an ecological and social framework

This management plan exists within the context of an overall strategic ecological framework that addresses social and political concerns as well as public and environmental health effects of both weed treatments and noxious weeds themselves in the Missoula Valley. The plan is based on current understanding of the biology and ecology of Missoula Valley grassland species, as well as social experiences during the past 2 years of weed control implementation on Mt Jumbo and Mt Sentinel. Education and participation remain important components of the vegetation management plan.

All plant communities are in a constant state of flux, and the plant communities of the Missoula Valley are constantly changing in response to disturbances, annual variation in weather, abundance of pollinators and herbivores, spread of exotic species, and many other factors.

Changes in plant community structure in response to these factors depend largely on

  1. plant site availability (or "niche" availability), usually caused by a disturbance
  2. species availability, and
  3. species performance.

Sheley et al. (1996) provide a helpful framework for restoration of noxious weed-infested areas based on these three points. The framework is called "successional weed management (Figure 1). Weed control creates a vacant niche (site availability). A desirable species that is able to establish and grow in an acceptable time frame (performance) must be either already present, or introduced via seeding to occupy that niche (species availability). If the availability and performance of desirable species are not addressed, then it will not be possible to achieve plant community succession in a direction that addresses the management goals of restoration and preservation of native species.

top

2.0 Elements of the management plan

To reach the stated objectives, the City will adopt an integrated weed management plan for its conservation lands. Tools will include herbicides, manual removal, burning, biological control agents, mulching, grazing, seeding, education, and monitoring, implemented within a framework of setting long-term objectives and cooperation with local agencies and private landowners. Each of these tools must be considered in the context of specific goals and site conditions (soils, proximity to water, steepness, aspect, biology of target species, size of weed infestation, etc.).

It is important to emphasize that the rehabilitation of these lands will be a long-term process, without quick fixes or simple prescriptions. This plan is intended to be dynamic, and incorporate adaptive management in a document that allows for incorporation of new technologies and evolving understanding of these biological systems. Monitoring and analysis of results are crucial, because they allow incorporation of experience to future efforts.

This weed management plan consists of eleven basic elements:

top

2.1 Setting objectives.

General objectives for these City conservation lands were identified in section 1.4 Plan. More detail for each property is included in the appropriate section of this Plan.

2.2 Prevention of new infestations.

The single most effective method of managing noxious weeds is to prevent them from establishing. The success of this method will depend on public education on ecology of weeds, their spread, and their impacts to biodiversity and wildlife habitat. Success also requires keeping field equipment and vehicles clean of weed seeds and treating existing infestations so that they do not spread into new areas.

top

2.3 Early Detection.

Following prevention, early detection is important for effective noxious weed control. When infestations are small, there are far more options for successful control, and control at this stage is less expensive. For example, if a patch of 10-100 white top (Cardaria draba) plants is found, they can be handpulled and checked annually for follow up treatments. If the plants are not detected until they densely occupy several acres, comprising a population of several thousand plants, successful control is unlikely without the use of herbicides, including follow up treatments.

2.4 Education.

Education is necessary for the general public, for decision-makers, and for professional land managers. Employees responsible for implementing the vegetation management plan should receive annual training to acquire and implement new technologies as they become available and share experiences with other land managers.

As with all long-term ecological problems, resolution is unlikely unless the public is educated and aware of the problem and possible solutions. If people do not appreciate negative impacts of noxious weeds on the regional ecology, it is very unlikely that there will be "emotional" or financial support for the objectives outlined in this vegetation management plan. Recent passage of a mill levy in Missoula County indicates that the community is supportive of vegetation management. Also, a 1998 Needs Assessment report prepared for Missoula Parks and Recreation by Management Learning Laboratories indicated that the Missoula public feels strongly that the City needs to adopt weed management practices. However, ongoing education efforts are needed.

Public education should include education signage at trailheads, field trips for adults and schools, press releases, Internet resources, and public presentations. Educated users of the Open Space lands are also an important source of early detection for new infestations of weeds.

top

2.5 Mapping.

Weeds should be mapped at regular intervals (such as every five years) so that progress can be assessed and strategies developed. The Montana State Weed Mapping Guidelines should be used (see Cooksey and Sheley 1998) and managed with Arc View geographic information systems software. It is beyond the scope of this document to outline mapping procedures in detail.

2.6 Baseline monitoring.

Before management activities are initiated, pre-treatment data should be collected from established monitoring sections so that changes over time can be determined. This is a way of measuring progress at a finer scale than at the mapping scale. Permanent monitoring transects or plots should be established at each property.

top

2.7 Control actions.

There are several actions that can be taken to control weeds, and each is considered on a site-by-site basis in this report.

Hand pulling. This is a useful method for dealing with small infestations, or infestations within a limited area. Hand pulling is most effective on tap rooted weed species such as knapweed or dyer's woad and least effective on rhizomatous species such as leafy spurge and St Johnswort. Since it is very time consuming when used to control more than a few plants, it is best accomplished with unpaid labor. Sources of weed pulling labor for the Mt. Sentinel and Mt. Jumbo programs have been community volunteer groups, school groups, youth offenders working off community service sentences, Montana Conservation Corps, Americorps National Community Civilian Corps, and public volunteer days on Earth Day (April) and National Public Lands Day (September).

Pros: Non-toxic (excluding allergic reactions in many people), fun (for some people), results in education, can be very selective in the appropriate conditions.

Cons: Can result in disturbed bare ground (that provides niches for more weeds) and trampling of non-target species, labor intensive.

Mowing:This is a useful tool to reduce flowering and seed set in noxious weeds, and may be helpful in concert with other tools, especially biocontrols and herbicide application.

Pros: Non-toxic (excluding CO emissions), reduces seed production.

Cons: Non-specific (can be detrimental to non-target species), doesn't kill any of the weed species, just suppresses them.

Biological control agents: Biocontrols are insects that are the "natural enemies" of the pest plants. These are located in the home range of the invading plant, screened for specificity, and eventually released onto infestations. The goal of biocontrol programs is to reduce the pest plant density to an acceptable level, so that desirable vegetation can respond positively. Biocontrol is not intended to eradicate noxious weeds.

Biocontrols are appropriate for addressing long-term control of large, established weed infestations of which there is little chance for eradication. Biocontrols are not appropriate for small, new infestations that can often be eliminated via hand pulling or herbicide application

Although biocontrols are often promoted as possessing a lower environmental risk than herbicides, it is important to note that there is a tremendous degree of uncertainty involved in the release of exotic insects. Although insects are screened to ensure that they do no attack non-target plants, there is no way to screen for the impact on trophic level interactions, i.e. interactions between different levels in the food chain such as between plants and herbivores or insects and birds. An example of biocontrols influencing trophic level interactions in western Montana is the relationship between the knapweed gall fly (Urophora sp.) and deer mice (Pearson et al.1999). Establishment of Urophora gall flies has altered deer mouse diets and habitat selection by effecting changes in foraging strategies, and could lead to measurable increases in deer mouse populations.

Many biocontrol agents are available to the City at no cost through the Missoula County Weed District or through private collections. Releases of biocontrol agents should be coordinated with those offices.

The following insects are currently available or already established for the following noxious weeds in Missoula County:

  Species Establishment stage
Leafy spurge Aphthona species (flea beetle) Still establishing
  H. euphorbia (Spurge hawkmoth) Well established
Spotted knapweed Cyphocleonus (weevils) Still establishing
  Larinus minutus, L. obtusis (Larinus) Still establishing
  Urophora spp. (seed head gall flies) Well established
  Agapeta zoegana Well established
Dalmatian toadflax Gymnatron Still establishing (difficult)
  Brachypterolus spp. (Ovary feeding beetles)

Established on Mt Sentinel
  Calophasia Still establishing
  Mecinus janthenus Still establishing

Pros: Non-toxic, offers potential of long-term control after release

Cons: Some degree of ecological risk, takes a long time to show results

Grazing. Grazing with sheep and goats has been well documented to successful control noxious weeds, especially spotted knapweed and leafy spurge (Olsen 1999). Grazing will not eradicate weeds, but can help maintain them at acceptable levels, and can improve the efficacy of herbicide treatments. Two separate goals can be achieved through a grazing program: weeds are controlled and the sheep rancher makes an income.

The Mt Jumbo and Mt Sentinel programs have worked with a local sheep rancher who has provided sheep and their transportation for no charge. The use of sheep on Mt Jumbo and Mt Sentinel has proven challenging due to conflicts with domestic dogs and big horn sheep. Dogs have killed several sheep and harassed many more. Domestic sheep came into contact with big horns on Mt Jumbo in summer of 2000, resulting in the destruction of the big horns to prevent re-transmission of pneumonia to the rest of the herd. Catastrophic die-off of wild bighorn sheep has been documented several times following encounters with domestic sheep or goats (Goodson 1982). Wildlife biologists at Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks have made many recommendations for minimizing the chance of contact between big horns and domestics on Mt Jumbo (Appendix A), and the same mitigation steps should be followed on all City conservation lands.

Pros: Non-toxic, can cover a large area

Cons: Dogs must be leashed during grazing season, possible disease transmission to bighorn sheep, possible erosion if animals are mismanaged, labor intensive, non-specific and can thus negatively impact some native plant species

Herbicides. Tordon 22k; (active ingredient picloram) and Transline; (active ingredient clorpyralid) are the two primary herbicides that will be used on City conservation lands. Escort; (metasulfuron) will be used on a more limited basis for control of white top and hound's tongue (in combination with other tools), since these species do not respond other chemicals. Other herbicides, including Plateau will be considered for plot studies and use on a trial basis, and their use integrated into the program if they prove effective. Herbicides will be ground applied by truck, ATV, pack stock, or backpack by licensed/certified contractors or staff.

This management plan will not rely solely on applications of broadleaf herbicides at 3-5 year intervals. Such an approach would ultimately result in loss of native forb diversity. This plan advocates complementing herbicide treatments with biological controls, mechanical approaches, grazing, re-vegetation, and cultural methods to "spread out" the treatment interval and reduce reliance on herbicides. Additionally, spot treatments are preferred to broadcast treatments when feasible, also in order to minimize impacts to non-target species.

Adequate public notification will accompany herbicide applications, including visible signage at trailheads and at the site of application, and at minimum compliance with the City of Missoula pesticide notification ordinance.

In addition, develop a protocol in cooperation with the extension office to determine if soils are geologically appropriate for herbicide application on each site.

Tordon 22K label and Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) are available at http://dowagro.com/label_system/label_files/us/speclbl/2472.pdf and http://dowagro.com/label_system/label_files/us/msds/2424.pdf, respectively.

Transline label and MSDS are available at http://dowagro.com/label_system/label_files/us/speclbl/2723.pdf and http://dowagro.com/label_system/label_files/us/msds/2426.pdf, respectively.

Escort label and MSDS are available at

http://www.dupont.com/ag/us/prodinfo/prodsearch/information/H63665.pdf and http://www.dupont.com/msds/05_05_m0000027.html, respectively.

Pros: High degree of invasive plant control in a short time period, longer interval between treatment than other methods, can be applied to more acres in a shorter time interval than other methods, minimal ground disturbance and erosion.

Cons: Toxic, varying degree of impact to non-target vegetation (native broadleaf plants) depending on rate of application and product used.

Fire.Fire by itself is will not control any species of noxious weed addressed in this plan (Sheley and Petroff 1999). However fire has been shown to improve efficacy of herbicide treatments, especially on spotted knapweed (Sheley et al. 1999a) and leafy spurge (Lajeunesse et al. 1999). The removal of dead standing stems by burning allows for better contact of herbicides with live plant tissue, and improves uptake. The City of Missoula is currently cooperating with the US Forest Service on a study to determine interactions of burning, spraying, and timing of these treatments on leafy spurge and dalmatian toadflax in the North Hills.

Local native plant communities have evolved with fire (Antos et al. 1983), and therefore controlled burns within uninfested areas of grasslands may help to promote native plant vigor and discourage weed infestation (Sheley et al. 1999b)

Pros: Can improve efficiency of herbicide treatments.

Cons: Can promote weed growth, air pollution, risk of fire escaping.

top

Revegetation with native species

Depending on the severity of the noxious weed infestation at a given site, revegetation may or may not be required. Typically, revegetation is recommended if the cover by desirable species is less than 30% at the time of weed control (G. Marks and R. Sheley, MSU Extension Service, personal communications).

To preserve genetic diversity and ensure that the plants used in revegetation projects are adapted for local conditions, it is important to use local ecotypes of native species. Ecotypes are populations of a plant species that are genetically adapted for a given set of conditions. Current literature indicates that the use of appropriate ecotypes can significantly affect restoration project success (Knapp and Rice 1996). This is a greater factor for some species than others (Lesica and Allendorf 1999) depending on their reproductive system, genetic variation among and withing populations, and the degree of disturbance at the restoration site.

Choices of seed sources are listed below, beginning with the most desirable options and ending with the least desirable.

Non-native, persistent species should never be used because they do not promote the management goals of restoring and preserving native species.

top

Response monitoring.

Data from permanent monitoring sections established for baseline monitoring (section 2.6) should be collected after control treatments have been applied. This will allow an evaluation of the changes in vegetation in response to weed control efforts.

Review and Re-evaluation.

Re-evaluation allows for adaptive management, in which managers learn from past experience what is working and what is not, so that future actions can be adapted accordingly. If it doesn't work- don't keep doing it! This plan will be reviewed annually by the Parks and Recreation Department and re-evaluated by the Parks and Recreation Department and the Parks Board and City Council every 3 years.

top

Cooperation

Communication and active cooperation with neighboring landowners and local agencies will ensure maximum efficiency of vegetation management efforts. The Lolo National Forest (USDA Forest Service) has entered into a partnership with the City to locate two research studies in the North Hills. The City should continue to work with the Forest Service, other agencies, and independent researchers to pursue new technologies and new information on effective weed control methods.

In fall 2000, a cooperative weed management area was formed to encompass UM and City land on Mt Sentinel, City and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks land on Mt Jumbo, and private landowners adjacent to each property. Formation of weed management areas improves communication among various parties and allows those involved to pursue funds from the state Noxious Weed Trust Fund. In the future this weed management area should be expanded to include other City conservation lands and more adjacent landowners. The cooperation and good will engendered by these cooperative efforts furthers the goals of the City's "Good Neighbor" program for establishing good relationships with larger private agricultural private landowners.

top

3.0 The Properties

3.1 The North Hills

Historic condition

3.1.1.1 Plant communities

For the North Hills property, two different standards of "historic" are needed to reflect the both the human-interest values of the homestead site as well as the conservation values of the surrounding land. Prior to European settlement, bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue grasslands dominated the North Hills. Exposed ridges with shallow soils supported (and still support) alpine cushion plant communities that include Missoula phox (Phlox missouliensis), Douglasia (Douglasia sp.), bitterroots (Lewisia rediviva), and dog's tooth groundsel (Senecio canus).

Waterworks Hill was nominated as a Montana State Natural Area was done in the early 1970s (J. Habeck, personal communication). At that time there was a State Natural Area Program in Helena, with a paid director. Waterworks Hill's ridgeline "fellfield" cushion plant community was then owned by the Montana Power Company, and a representative from that company was in agreement that the unusual plant community, supporting the famous "Missoula Phlox", was worthy and deserving of being nominated as a state natural area.

A nomination form was submitted, along with maps, air photo and colored ground photos. The site's natural values centered on the occurrence of several cushion plant populations exhibiting timberline/alpine life forms, which are expressed at an unusually low elevation. The wind-swept ridgeline is water stressed because of the nearly constant wind, both from the west and through the Hellgate Canyon, which reduces the amount and effectiveness of available water. Many of the cushion plants, representing a variety of plant families, have more or less arrived at a common life form solution for the rigors of the ridgeline environment. This is an example of convergent evolution. Other species have special, one-of-a-kind adaptive strategies (leaf & stem modifications) to deal with the moisture shortages. The reproductive biology of the cushion plants (phases involving germinants to full-sized cushions) has been given only minor attention.

The thrust of the nomination of Waterworks Hill focused on the intactness (at that time, in the early 1970s) of an unusual ecosystem. UM biologists suspected the presence of a nocturnal "crypto-fauna" that adapted itself to the cushion habit by spending daytime in the cushions for protection, and moving about at nighttime (J. Habeck, personal communication). There are also interesting facilitative interactions between plant species, for example, some plants use the "adult" cushions to start their lives, by germinating their seeds within the cushions.

The State's Natural Area Program lost its funding after a few years, and that ended Water Works Hill's natural area episode, without achieving the special status.

The 13 acres around the Randolph Homestead were likely dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass grassland and rough fescue grasslands, with pockets of riparian vegetation including chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), wild cherries (Prunus americana) and serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia). Exotic pasture grasses including smooth brome and bluegrass species would have been common for grazing animals. Fruit trees dominated the orchard section. See Figure 2 for a map of the vegetation and land use at the homestead.

top

3.1.1.2 Land use

Aside from the 13 acres that were homesteaded and used to farm fruit, vegetables and alfalfa (DeSilvey 2000), the North Hills were grazed by livestock at some point, and used extensively by deer, elk, birds, and other native wildlife.

Current condition

3.1.2.1 Existing Vegetation

In the Homestead area there is very little native vegetation; the dominant grass is the non-native aggressive plant smooth brome (Bromus inermis), which is recognized as an invader species in several states (Grilz and Romo 1995, Willson and Stubbendiek 1997, 2000). There is an orchard of heirloom apples at the site, which is need of pruning and re-planting. A return to the "homestead era" gardens and pastures has been identified as a management goal of the City of Missoula and the Northern Missoula Community Development Corporation (2000).

On the rest of the property (excluding the 13 acres of the homestead), native plants increase, mostly bluebunch wheatgrass, rough fescue and Idaho fescue grassland. Wonderful cushion plant communities dominate the top of the ridge- these communities are very rare and special, and include the largest known populations of Missoula phlox, a rare plant endemic western Montana. Spotted knapweed is a dominant plant throughout the entire property. Leafy spurge, dalmatian toadflax and sulfur cinquefoil are established along the southern half of the property, and are displacing native plant species as they progress north.

top

3.1.2.2 Current land use.

The North Hills are heavily used for walking, wildlife watching, education, and for scenic value.

The North Missoula Community Development Center's Hill and Homestead Preservation Coalition signed a Cooperative Management Agreement for the Randolph Homestead Site with the City of Missoula in the summer of 2000. The agreement states, in part, "[T]he City recognizes the public benefit of protecting and restoring the Randolph Homestead, as well as the benefit of mutual cooperation in accomplishing these goals. The Missoula community benefits through its enjoyment of the historical, recreational, and educational values of the homestead, including the opportunity to experience a "living history" of early Missoula Valley homesteaders. The City benefits by enhancing public awareness of open space and historical values, and by receiving assistance in site management and restoration." The Coalition is active in preserving the homestead as a historical feature, hosts public tours of the site, and is actively pursuing funding to further these activities.

top

3.1.3 Management recommendations

These recommendations are made with the end goals of

The first goal takes into consideration the fact that the native plant communities around the homestead buildings have long been replaced with cultivated non-native species, to the point that restoration of the native plant communities would be prohibitively expensive. Further, this approach will reinforce the work of the Hill and Homestead Coalition in restoring that area to the homestead era conditions by enhancing the historical value and interest of the site.

Immediate priority actions include:

(The biologically unique cushion plant community along the ridge should not be broadcast sprayed until we have data on their responses to herbicide treatments. Study plots are needed to determine this (see long term goals). Biological and mechanical controls, as well as education, are the preferred methods for the ridgeline community at this time.)

Long-term priorities include:

Current actions:

figure 2 map of land ownership in the Northern Hills, and location of the Peace Sign and Randolph Homestead

figure 3 map of Randolph Homestead management goals for 13 acre parcel will reflect the land use of this era, with the exception of alfalfa farming. Those areas may be used for grazing small livestock

top

3.2 Mount Sentinel

3.2.1 Historic condition

3.2.1.1 Vegetation

Mt. Sentinel was historically dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and rough fescue grasslands. Ravines had more mesic and shrubby plant communities, including serviceberry, chokecherry, and mountain maple (Acer glabrum).

3.2.1.2 Land use

The west face of Mt Sentinel is important habitat for many species of wildlife, including deer, grouse, and mountain lions. It has been used for grazing livestock, by both Native Americans and by European settlers. The Cox family allowed grazing leases on the property until they sold it to the City in 2000.

top

3.2.2 Current condition

3.2.2.1 Vegetation

Above the fire road, the land has been treated repeatedly with aerial applications of Tordon 22K at a rate of 1-2 pt/acre for spotted knapweed control (L. Newman, personal communication). The most recent application was in spring 2000, prior to acquisition by the City. As a result, there is a very visible difference in the plant communities above the road and below the road.

Above the road, spotted knapweed is present but at much lower densities than elsewhere. Small patches of leafy spurge and dalmatian toadflax are also present. Cheatgrass is abundant in the area, and this presents a management challenge.

Below the fire road, the property is heavily dominated by spotted knapweed. There are remnants of native grassland communities, but these have not been mapped.

3.2.2.2 Land use

The land was purchased conservation values, for recreational opportunities and for preservation of open space and scenic beauty. Walking and wildlife viewing are the primary uses of the area by humans.

An additional interesting aspect of this property is the existence of the visible beach lines from Glacial Lake Missoula (see Alt and Hyndman for more information). Several faculty members at the University of Montana Department of Geology are involved in a regional project to promote this as a site for study and appreciation of Glacial Lake Missoula. They have expressed concern that grazing could impair the beach lines and have requested that no grazing take place in those areas.

top

Management recommendations

These recommendations are made with the end goal of restoring the property to native grassland. Activities should be done in cooperation with the UM IPM program activities for efficiency (e.g., trips to plant seeds, scheduling of herbicide applications, etc).

Currently (at time of drafting this plan)

Biological control agents are well established for:

map of Mount Sentinel

top

3.3 Kim Williams Trail

3.3.1 Historic condition

Vegetation

The Kim Williams Trail follows the Clark Fork River, and was dominated by riparian plant communities, including black cottonwood and willow species in the overstory and snowberry, currant and dogwood in the understory.

Mount Sentinel rises steeply less than 100 yards from the river's edge. The north face of Mount Sentinel was dominated by Douglas-fir forest.

Land use

The railroad tracks ran on the present trail. The University of Montana has an irrigation ditch in the area. Any other uses have probably including only walking, biking, and other recreational pursuits.

top

3.3.2 Current condition

Vegetation

Native trees and shrubs still dominate overstory, although the non-natives box elder and Norway maple are now common there as well. The understory has been largely replaced by common tansy and spotted knapweed. Patches of leafy spurge are also present.

A mesic forest community dominates the north-facing slope of Mt Sentinel. The site was partially burned in the mid-1980s, and shrubs currently dominate the area. Noxious weeds are not yet prevalent.

Land use

The Kim Williams Trail is used heavily for hiking, running and walking. It connects with the Smokejumpers (or Fire Fighters) Trail on the North face of Sentinel, which, in turn connects with both the University's "M" trail on the mountain's face and the Crazy Canyon Trail on Forest Service land.

top

3.3.3 Management recommendations

Short term goals

Long term goals

Treat weeds that least prevalent first (probably leafy spurge), then work towards suppression of the most common species (spotted knapweed and tansy). Grazing, spraying (only herbicides that are labeled for use near water), and mechanical methods (mowing, pulling) are appropriate in this area.

Use education and volunteer days for manual weed removal and re-planting native riparian species.

3.4 John Toole Park

2.4.1 Historic condition

2.4.1.1 Plant communities

The area was a bunchgrass prairie, probably dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass, prairie junegrass, etc. Vegetation was severely degraded during the time that the site was used as the railroad-switching yard.

2.4.1.2 Land use

This was historically an important site for Native Americans to collect bitterroots for food. During the mid-1900s this was the site of the railroad-switching yard in Missoula. It was purchased with 1980 Open Space Bond funds.

top

2.4.2 Current condition

2.4.2.1 Vegetation

The site has been painstakingly restored to a native bunchgrass prairie and woody ravine. Noxious weeds (spotted knapweed, field bindweed, and leafy spurge) and non-native weedy species (dandelion, desert alyssum, annual brome grasses, etc) are present at very low levels. During the early 1990s, local botanist John Pierce relocated salvaged native plants from local construction sites to this riverside park, with the long-range vision of creating a site for native plant education and seed production for off-site restoration projects.

2.4.2.2 Land use

John Toole Park is used for educational purposes and as a seed orchard for restoration on Missoula conservation lands. Pedestrians and cyclists also use it for recreation, mostly as a throughway as part of the larger Kim Williams Trail system.

2.4.3 Management recommendations

This site should continue to be managed for native prairie species, using John Pierce's volunteer program. Mowing and irrigation are not included as management practices for this area. Weeds will be controlled by hand pulling and mulching, unless it is decided that the density of weeds is intolerable, or if John Pierce decides that he will no longer implement to program at no cost to the city. At such point in time, other tools will be discussed.

figure 4 map of John Toole Park a site used for public education on native plant ecology and conversation and as a seed orchard

top

4.0 Literature cited

Alt, D. and D. Hyndman. 1986. Roadside Geology of Montana. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Missoula, MT USA.

Cooksey, D. and R. Sheley. 1998. Mapping noxious weeds in Montana. Montana State University Extension Service, Extension Bulletin 148. Bozeman, MT.

City of Missoula. 2000. Cooperative management agreement between the City of Missoula and the North Missoula Community Development Corporation for the Randolph Property Homestead site. Contract dated August 1, 2000.

DeSilvey, C. 2000. Butterflies and railroad ties: the history of a homestead in Missoula's North Hills. North Missoula Community Development Corporation. Missoula, MT.

Goodson, N. 1982. Effects of domestic sheep grazing on bighorn sheep populations: a review. Proceedings of the biennial symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 3:287-313.

Grilz P., and J. Romo. 1995. Management considerations for controlling smooth brome in fescue prairie. Natural Areas Journal 15:148-156.

Knapp, E. and K. Rice. 1996. Genetic structure and gene flow in Elymus glaucus (blue wildrye): Implications for native grassland restoration. Restoration Ecology 4:1-10.

Lajuenesse, in R. Sheley and J. Petroff (eds), Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Lesica, P. and F. Allendorf. 1999. Ecological Genetics and the Restoration of Plant Communities: Mix or Match? Restoration ecology 7:42-50.

Management Learning Laboratories. 1998. Final Report Missoula Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment. Available on line at: http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/ParksRec/images/needs%20assessment/sld001.htm

Missoula Urban Area Open Space Plan. 1995. Parks and Recreation, 101 Hickory Street, Missoula, MT 59801.

Missoula Parks and Recreation. 1999. Mount Jumbo Management Plan. City of Missoula Parks and Recreation. 101 Hickory Street, Missoula, Montana 59801.

Olsen, B. 1999. Grazing and weeds. Pages 85-96 in R. Sheley and J. Petroff (eds), Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Pearson, D., K. McKelvey, L. Ruggiero. 2000. Non-target effects of an introduced biological control agent on deer mouse ecology.Oecologia122:121-128.

Sheley, R., T. Svejcar, and B. Maxwell. 1996. A theoretical framework for developing successional weed management strategies on rangeland. Weed Technology10:712-720.

Sheley, R. and J. Petroff. 1999. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon.

Sheley, R, M. Manoukian, and G. Marks. 1999a. Spotted knapweed. Pages 350-361 in R. Sheley and J. Petroff (eds), Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Sheley, R, J. Jacobs and M. Carpinellia. 1999b. Preventing noxious weed invasion. Pages 69-71 in R. Sheley and J. Petroff (eds), Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Rice, P. and C. Toney. 1996. Exotic weed infestations and grassland restoration on Mt Sentinel: recommendations for implementing a management plan. Report to the IPM Committee, University of Montana.

Willson, G. and J. Stubbendieck. 1997. Fire effects on four growth stages of smooth brome (Bromus inermis Leyss.) Natural Areas Journal 17:306-312.

Willson, G. and J. Stubbendieck. 2000. A provisional model for smooth brome management in degraded tallgrass prairie. Ecological restoration 18:34-38.

Appendix A. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks recommendations for mitigating risk of disease transmission from domestic to bighorn sheep.

Appendix B. Public comments received.

Appendix A - Letter to Marilyn from Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks
Appendix A.

Appendix A continued

top

Vegetation Plan for Selected City Conservation Lands

Public Comment as of 3/26/01

From Comment Sheets:

What are your ideas for improving the plan?

top

Imagine you are a public lands manager! What two things would you do to manage noxious weeds and restore native grasslands?

top

Do you have any additional comments on the plans, open house, or community weed management generally?

top

Letters and e-mails

The Citizens for a Weed Free Future is a Missoula-based corporation whose goals are protection and restoration of native plant communities and wildlife habitat, reduction of erosion and restoring the hillsides around Missoula back to wildflowers and bunchgrasses. We have reviewed the Vegetation Management Plan for Selected City Conservation Lands.

We find this plan to be an excellent example of fully integrated weed management. We are impressed by the leadership role the City has recently established in the battle against noxious weeds. Marilyn Marler, your weed manager, is a leader in her field and an incredible credit to the City. We whole-heartedly support her weed control efforts, communication skills, and educational programs. She is an asset to the City staff. Kate Supplee's efforts in the management of City Open Space lands and addressing noxious weeds on those lands has been outstanding.

We support the vegetation plan and hope the City will continue your work to restore the grasslands around Missoula.

Sincerely,

Robert (Dusty) Deschamps

President
Citizens for a Weed Free Future

[E-mail from Dave Havlick]

Hi Marilyn, I know I'm late, but I've read the veg plan and figured I'd still share my comments with you... since you went to the effort of sending me the printout and all!

I think you've done a pretty nice job of it. The cover photo, alone, sends a mighty powerful message about what we've lost and might yet be able to restore... nice article in the Missoulian, by the way.

So, overall my impression was positive. As you probably know, I'm not very fond of chemical treatment--though I do understand why people turn to it--so my comments are framed largely by that view.

1. You don't detail how truck or ATV use would be managed in applying herbicide, but you do say that these methods would be included/considered. In light of your (very good) comments on prevention of new infestation being the very best way to manage weeds, I encourage you not to use motor vehicles for applications. I know it is more efficient and allows you to cover more area, but it risks spreading more seeds and avoiding that seems like a higher priority to me.

2. Hand-pulling and herbicide use should be separated in time or distance in order to protect hand-pullers' safety and (for some, like me) antipathy for herbicides. I am not interested in hand-pulling on the M trail, for instance, if it's been sprayed up there in the

previous month.

3. Since burning, mowing and grazing each improve the effectiveness of herbicide treatments, at least one of these methods should be applied routinely before any herbicide use. This would increase the efficacy of herbicides and minimize the amount of chemicals needed (over time).

4. No aerial spraying. (I didn't see it mentioned but in the past tense in the plan.)

5. Continually evaluate conditions to work to reduce dependence of herbicide treatments.

Thanks again, Marilyn, for getting the plan to me. I appreciate your work and applaud your devotion to native plant communities in the area. Dave Havlick

[E-mail from Dean Pearson Research Wildlife Biologist, Forest Service]

Marilyn, The Sentinel weed plan looks great. I am actually glad to hear that the sheep grazing will not occur there as I see it as an extreme measure that does not restore prairie but rather favors some natives at the cost of potentially many others. I also wonder how sustainable it is over the long haul since ceaspitose grasses in North America did not evolve under heavy grazing pressure (Mack and Thompson1982). I may be off on this issue. I am sure you know the literature better than I do, but it is a concern that I have unrelated to beach lines.

I also think an overall strategy of weed pulling that focuses on saving the pristine prairie patches higher up the mountain and moving the weed invasion back from this front could be very effective. I know it is more difficult to get folks up there, but if you used the fire road to carry folks up they might still have energy left for pulling weeds when they get there. I really believe the first strategy should be to save the most pristine places and work back from there. Of course these are not areas where you would want to spray given the high species richness in native forbs. I would be glad you walk you over some such sights on the hill when the snow is off.

I think the overall plan looks excellent and I am actually excited that we might save some of this amazing habitat because of your efforts and those of others. Thanks much for what you are doing. --DP

E-mail from Kathy Knudsen
Friday, March 09, 2001
Subject: Re: Weed Plans

Hi Marilyn,

Just wanted to say that I thought the open house was great. I think the City and open space plans are well done. They incorporate a very balanced approach to the weed problem. The monitoring will allow assessment of the effectiveness of the different methods in different situations. The native plant nursery is a great thing and hopefully it will expand greatly over time.

I guess I would have liked to see some aerial spraying but can understand what a hot button topic that is. The trail from Kim Williams to the new bridge at California street was not covered in the plan so I hope that doesn't mean it won't be managed. One other thing I thought was not addressed and I guess Tom mentioned it to you was how to deal with the tansy which is so prevalent along the ditches.

Good job and good luck on Monday,

Kathy

Kathy L. Knudsen
Division of Biological Sciences
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812

Letter from Members of the Open Space Advisory Committee

March 12, 2001
The Missoula City Council
Mike Kadas, Mayor, City of Missoula
435 Ryman
Missoula, Montana 59802

Dear Mayor Kadas and Council Members:

We strongly support City Council adoption of the Vegetation Plan for Selected City Conservation Lands. The plan takes a thoughtful, creative, aggressive approach to integrated weed management and restoring native grasslands on City conservation lands.

Noxious weeds are a tremendous threat to our local ecosystem. City conservation lands are badly infested with knapweed, leafy spurge, sulfur cinquefoil, St. John's Wort, Hounds tongue, and other noxious weeds. These weeds severely degrade the very values for which these lands were purchased: wildlife habitat, native plant communities, recreation opportunities, and scenic values.

We have noted increasing public support for doing something about the weeds, both through the passage of the 2000 Noxious Weed Mill Levy increase and the many public comments strongly supporting the present plan, both written and verbally at the open house.

As good as the Plan is, it will be worthless unless there is adequate, long range funding to support and strengthen the City's noxious weed program. Please provide the Parks Department with the means to implement the plan through adequate funding. This plan more than doubles the number of acres of City conservation land under active weed management. We believe the FY '2002 budget should reflect that increase commensurately.

Finally, we wish to express our thanks to Marilyn Marler for all her hard work and dedication to restoring native grasslands on our community conservation lands.

Sincerely,

Jim Berkey
Minie Smith
Karen Knudsen
Jeff Stevens
Jim Parker
Glenn Marangelo

Cc: Marilyn Marler

Letter from Mike Hillis, Wildlife Biologist, Lolo National Forest

March 22, 2001
City Council
435 Ryman
Missoula, MT 59802

Dear City Council:

Andy Kulla and I attended the 3/21/01 Conservation Committee meeting as Forest Service representatives. As Andy stated in his comments, the Lolo National Forest is very interested in how the City elects to manage weeds, since the treatment of valley-bottom weeds will reduce the spread of weeds onto adjacent National Forest lands. We appreciate the opportunity to work in a partnership with the City on this issue. We understand the challenges in dealing with invasive weeds in the Missoula Valley. Since the opportunity for public comment at the meeting was limited, I have a few comments that I'd like to share for the record.

Do Herbicides Work for Controlling Weeds?- A past council member stated that "herbicides don't work." Let me offer some data. On our Mormon Ridge project, after one treatment with picloram, we had reduced weeds by 98%, increased grass production by 800% and significantly reduced the weed seed source in the soil. The native vegetation had reestablished its full vigor one year after treatment, which will give the natives a competitive edge against reinvading weeds. Those native plants are now contributing large amounts of leafy litter to the soil surface, which will significantly reduce invasive weed seed germination, again adding to the native plant's competitive advantage. Where we applied picloram at one pint/acre, wildflower survival was excellent and consistent with the research literature. Where we applied Picloram at 1.5 pints/acre, there was significant wildflower mortality, although wildflowers in the area are still better off then they would be in another decade or two without treatment. This is just one example of how well herbicides work. I can provide other examples if you'd like.

Confusion about herbicide effectiveness may occur when observers compare wildlands with private ranches. In wildland situations like Mount Jumbo, native deer and elk graze grass when the grass is dormant. This has little effect on the plant's vigor or litter-producing capacity. Conversely, on private ranches, grasses are grazed during the growing season which both reduces the plant's vigor and its ability to compete with weeds. Also, heavy summertime grazing robs the plant of any surplus leaf litter, which results in more bare soil, which of course provides knapweed the perfect microsite for seed germination. It's not uncommon for ranchers to have to apply herbicides repeatedly, as a result of their grazing management. Where herbicides are applied repeatedly, wildflowers tend to disappear. This is a very different scenario than what I described in the Mormon Ridge project. The City's wildlands will very clearly respond to herbicide treatment like Mormon Ridge, not private ranches, for the simple fact that City lands won't be heavily grazed for red meat production. Carefully managed sheep grazing to control invasive weeds shouldn't compromise the native grass response.

During the summer of 1997 and 1998, we extended numerous invitations to Council, to visit Mormon Ridge and see these results firsthand. No council members took us up on the offer. Please schedule a tour. The best time for us is June or July.

Does Knapweed Pose Severe Health Risks?- During the March 2001 International Knapweed Symposium that Marilyn Marler, Kate Supplee, Andy Kulla, and I attended, Dean Pearson, a researcher with the Forests Sciences Laboratory, gave a rather alarming presentation. In a nutshell, Dean's research showed that extensive knapweed communities, when occupied by gallflies (an abundant biological control that preys on knapweed seed heads), are also occupied by extremely high densities of deer mice. These deer mice are disproportionately infected with hantavirus. The deer mice have learned to exploit gallfly larvae. With this rich protein source, they can occur at extremely high densities in knapweed stands, and because of that increased density, infectious diseases (hantavirus in this case) are more prevalent. Montana Tech has been monitoring hantavirus levels among deer mice for several years. The levels of hantavirus among sampled mice on the eastside of the State were roughly 2-7% of the population. Not surprisingly, however, 33% of the mice within the one plot on the westside (by chance, in an area heavily-infested with knapweed), were infected with hantavirus. Kate or Marilyn can give you more details, but the bottom line is- you couldn't design a situation more likely to result in a hantavirus outbreak, if you tried! I encourage you to have the Health Department investigate this relationship in their ongoing human health risk analysis. Dean's work number is 542-4159.

Barry Dutton, a Rattlesnake resident, shared a personal experience with Ed Childers. Barry, like many Missoulians, is allergic to knapweed. Unlike most of us, Barry has had life-threatening allergic reactions after exposure to the weed. One of the private citizens at the Conservation Committee meeting tried to downplay the effect of allergic reactions with the statement that "humans evolved with knapweed" implying that allergies are at worst an inconvenience, and insignificant compared to (in his view) the more alarming risk of herbicide toxicity. While I'm sure Mr. Dutton would object to that statement, the statement in itself is clearly false. North Americans didn't "evolve with knapweed." It's only been here for 3-4 human generations, and it's only been abundant for one generation- absolutely not enough time for humans to develop any particular tolerance for its allergic capacity. Dr. Gillespie, an allergist, deals with a lot of knapweed-related allergies. I suggest you encourage the Health Department to explore this issue with Dr. Gillespie in their ongoing human health risk analysis.

Use of Science in Evaluating the Effects of Herbicides- At a previous Council Meeting, I listened while a council member read a letter from a rancher in Drummond about his experiences. According to the rancher, an entire Columbian ground squirrel colony disappeared after an application of picloram. I found this disturbing for two reasons: 1) the literature regarding toxicology and rodent disease incidence would strongly suggest the population crash was not herbicide-related. Therefore, inferring that the population crash was herbicide-induced was purely conjectural; and 2) using such anecdotal information in a public forum is confusing and polarizing, especially when scientific information is readily available.

Based on: 1) data for LD50's (the dose at which 50% of a sampled population dies); 2) data on picloram's inability to bio-accumulate; and 3) the lack of other scientifically-confirmed examples of rodent mortality to field-applied levels of picloram, there is no logical way to explain how an application of picloram could result in total mortality of a population of Columbian ground squirrels.

There is, however, a probable explanation.. Colony-dwelling rodents (i.e. Columbian ground squirrels and prairie dogs) are highly susceptible to infectious diseases (plague and distemper to name a couple), because they live in such close proximity to one another. Those diseases frequently wipe out entire colonies. Because colonies tend to be isolated from one another, the outbreak is often confined to a single colony. For this reason, such outbreaks often go unnoticed by the scientific community. I'm not implying this is what happened to the rancher's ground squirrels, but if scientific inquiry had been made after the die-off, this would have been a more likely cause.

The second reason I found the letter disturbing was in how it was used. Several years ago I would have thought the letter valuable for identifying issues and public values (i.e. in this case, the rancher is obviously sincerely concerned about herbicides). If, however, I understand your current task, it's to investigate how to implement weed-control measures. There's a ton of information about herbicide toxicology written by unbiased, objective toxicologists from reputable institutions. In other words, why focus on conjecture, when there's hard data available? If you need more toxicological information, contact Andy Kulla at 329-3962. He has reports prepared by reputable toxicologists that summarize the research in very understandable language.

Herbicide Resistance- One of the commenters at the Conservation Committee meeting mentioned herbicide resistance (inferring once again that "herbicides don't work"). Resistance of some weeds to certain herbicides is theoretically an evolutionary certainty. The pertinent question however, is will herbicide resistance compromise weed control efforts in the City?

Everyone's heard of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, so it's easy to assume herbicides could become ineffective for the same reason. The differences between bacterial resistance and weed resistance are enormous. Consider this- Some antibiotics have been around for 50+ years. Bacteria regenerate very few hours. So in that 50 year interval, some bacteria will have undergone 50,000 to 100,000 generations. That's plenty of time for natural selection to strongly favor individual bacteria that have, via mutations, some resistance to antibiotics. The current generation of herbicides, conversely, has been around for 10-30 years. Weeds reproduce once a year. So in that time frame, weeds have only undergone 10-30 generations. That's not much time for natural selection to favor individuals that might have genetic resistance to a given herbicide. Nonetheless, there are herbicide-resistant weeds in some mono-crop, farmland situations. Farmers deal with that resistance by switching herbicides.

Relating that to our situation, most weed populations in the west have never been sprayed! Therefore, even if there are individuals that have inherent genetic resistance to a given herbicide, those plants currently have no evolutionary advantage over nonresistant individuals.

Could Herbicide Resistance Compromise the City's Efforts at Weed Control? The answer's clearly "no." One compelling reason requires looking only at the chemical industry's evolution from fairly toxic, nonselective chemicals used in the 1960's (such as 2,4,5-T), to relatively nontoxic, very selective chemicals (such as Cloperylid). Clearly the industry's ability to respond with newer, less toxic, more selective chemicals, exceeds the weeds' ability to exhibit resistance.

Lastly, there's even more compelling logic to suggest herbicide resistance is not a significant management issue. If weeds were indeed able to quickly exhibit widespread resistance to herbicides via natural selection, then we'd see natural selection providing native species the same ability to compete with exotic organisms. Bluebunch wheatgrass would suddenly be able to hold its own against knapweed! White pine would suddenly evolve to be resistant to blister rust. Leopard frogs would instantly develop escape mechanisms to avoid being eaten by introduced bullfrogs. And most assuredly, you folks wouldn't be meeting to address invasive weed management strategies! Unfortunately, that's not the case. As we all know, evolutionary processes don't work that fast.

This is probably way more information that you wanted or can digest. Hopefully, it'll stimulate some useful discussion. If you'd like to discuss anything else relative to wildlife and weeds, call me at 329-3792

Sincerely,

MIKE HILLIS
Wildlife Biologist
Synopses of Open House Conversations

top

Celestine Duncan (Herbicide Table) Most of the questions I received were on herbicides. A couple on herbicide application methods specifically aerial application (was it a safe method). Only one person was against herbicide use, most just wanted information on what herbicide to use and application timing.

Cynthia Kingston (Reception): Because I was a greeter, I didn't hear many direct comments regarding the plans. I do think people really enjoyed the educational nature of the event.

Jim Berkey (Weed ID Table): The overwhelming majority of the people that I spoke with were in strong support of the veg management plan, though I also gathered that most had not read the actual plan. All were in support of action to prevent further weed spread and to restore native vegetation. One woman I spoke with who lives in the Blue Mountain area thought that the City should have large weed barrels or bags at select trail locations so that those who wish to pull can deposit their seed heads effectively.

Dan Corti (Plans Table): The prevailing comment I heard repeatedly was that we should be more aggressive in the use of herbicides and revisit the use of aerial application. I had numerous conversations about ours being a "Missoula" plan and that we had to consider more diverse points of view on weed control here than in Plentywood.

That was the only criticism. On the plus side everyone thought the open house was spectacular, well organized and educational. Aside from the comments on the use of herbicides, the comments were basically all positive and most downright complimentary.

Andy Kulla (Weed ID Table): I talked to about 10 to 15 people and all were very supportive of weed management, wanted to learn more about weed control and weed ID, several felt city needed to do more in terms of herbicides and aerial spraying... about 5 to 7 made that comment I'd guess. I didn't get any anti herbicide comments at my table.

Dusty Deschamps (Grazing Table): The people I talked to fell into two groups. The first group was comprised of Judy Hoy and some person I recognized but don't know the name of. These people were there with one thought on their minds: Herbicides are bad and everyone needs to know that.

The second group was citizens who had questions about how to deal with weed

issues on their own land. No one I talked to said a single thing about the city veg plan!!!

Bob Oaks (Homestead Table): Comments frequently made at the homestead table: Where exactly is it? I want to visit; I knew Bill Randolph years ago; Where is Caitlin and how long will she be gone?

Mary Manning (Native Plants Table): No unusual comments; people were interested in how they could landscape their backyard with native plants.

top

**********

RESOLUTION NUMBER __6289__

A RESOLUTION OF THE MISSOULA CITY COUNCIL IDENTIFYING AND ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR MANAGEMENT OF WEEDS AND NON-NATIVE VEGETATION ON CITY OWNED OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION LANDS

WHEREAS the registered electors of the City of Missoula voted favorably on November 4, 1980 and November 7, 1995 to issue bonds in part for the use of acquiring interests in real estate for preserving hillsides and areas near waterways as open space lands; and

WHEREAS the City of Missoula has from time to time acquired interests in open space conservation lands with proceeds of the bonds issued pursuant to these successful city elections, guided primarily by recommendations from the City of Missoula citizen Open Space Advisory Committee created pursuant to section 12.56.070 of "The City of Missoula Open Space Conservation Ordinance" set forth in chapter 12.56 of the Missoula Municipal Code, which committee is charged with the responsibility to provide the Missoula City Council "with written recommendations concerning open space conservation proposals, including proposed acquisitions and trail development proposals"; and

WHEREAS the City of Missoula has from time to time acquired interests in open space conservation lands by other means, for example, the Sunlight Development Lands, also known as the Rattlesnake Greenway; and

WHEREAS these lands are infested with growing numbers of non-native plants, including noxious weeds as that term is defined in subsection 7-22-2101(7) MCA of Montana state law pertaining to "County Weed Control"; and

WHEREAS on various of these lands the City holds goals that are threatened by infestations of noxious weeds and other non-native species; and

WHEREAS the Stewardship Subcommittee of the Open Space Advisory Committee in the "Vegetation" chapter of the "Mount Jumbo Management Plan" created and recommended an integrated weed management plan for the City-owned Mount Jumbo lands, and the Missoula City Council adopted the final version of that chapter and program on May 17, 1999; and

WHEREAS Montana state law pursuant to section 7-22-2116 provides that "it is unlawful for any person (defined in subsection 7-22-2101(8) MCA as including local governments) to permit any noxious weed to propagate or go to seed on his land, except that any person who adheres to the noxious weed management program of his district or who has entered into and is in compliance with a noxious weed management agreement is considered to be in compliance with" section 7-22-2116 Montana Code Annotated; and

WHEREAS Montana state law pursuant to section 7-22-2121 MCA provides that "the noxious weed management program must be based on a plan approved by the [district] weed board"; and

WHEREAS section 7-22-2121 MCA pertaining to weed management programs provides that the weed management plan must "specify the goals and priorities of the" weed management program including specifying "pesticide management goals and procedures, including but not limited to water quality protection, public and worker safety, . . . pesticide selection, . . . " and that the district weed "board shall provide for the management of noxious weeds on all lands or rights-of-way owned or controlled by a . . . municipality within the confines of the [weed] district " and that the weed district board "shall take particular precautions while managing the noxious weeds to preserve beneficial vegetation and wildlife habitat." And that "Where at all possible, methods for such control shall include cultural, chemical and biological methods"; and

WHEREAS the City-County Health, Air Pollution, and Water Quality District Boards have a role in evaluating the health and environmental risks associated with herbicide applications and other methods of weed management that might be used in the City's integrated weed management plan; and

WHEREAS the Missoula City Council desires to protect the health, safety and general welfare of its citizens and visitors and pursuant to Article IX, Section 1 of the Montana Constitution, the State and all persons shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment for present and future generations, and pursuant to Article II, Section 3 of the Montana Constitution all persons have a right to a clean and healthful environment, and

WHEREAS the health and safety risk of herbicide use is a cause of controversy among both citizens and Missoula City Council Members; and

WHEREAS the health and safety risk of herbicide application methods, specially aerial spraying, is a cause of controversy among both citizens and Missoula City Council Members; and

WHEREAS the Missoula City Council wishes to address these controversies in light of the best research-based information;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Missoula City Council:

1. Asks the citizen Open Space Advisory Committee to describe the extent that noxious weeds are present on lands recommended for acquisition and convey these findings with any recommendations to the Missoula City Council; and

2. Asks the City/County Health, Air Pollution, and Water Quality District Boards and Health Department staff to review the research-based information about health and environmental implications of various herbicides, herbicide application, and other weed management methods that might be used in the City's integrated weed management program, and to provide an evaluation of the relative health and environmental risks of the different herbicides and weed management methods;

3. Commits to collaborate with the Missoula County District Weed Control Board, including meeting the requirements of state law; and

4. Commits to collaborate with agencies and organizations that can provide resources of personnel, funding, education and knowledge to leverage the City's investment for vegetation management projects of mutual interest; and

5. Instructs City Parks and Recreation staff and the City Parks Board to develop in light of adopted City goals, including restoration of native plant communities, a management plan for weeds and non-native plants on City owned open space conservation lands; this plan shall include:

implementation of practices that prevent the establishment of weeds and non-native plants;
commitment to continued aggressive eradication of small isolated weed incursions and of weeds classified as new invaders;
thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of herbicides as part of an integrated weed management program ;
thorough evaluation of all weed management methods;
details for addressing widespread weed infestations by specific area or niche, with projected time-lines to measurable goals;
recognition of City financial constraints and responsibility for citizen health;
recognition of the limitations of present technology;
projections regarding implementation costs; and
the protection of public safety and health
procedures for annual evaluation and update.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _13th___day of December, 1999

Martha L. Rehbein
City Clerk

Mike Kadas
Mayor

(SEAL)

top

Web Design and Graphics by Dani Taylor Copyright© Spectral Fusion Designs 2004