new weed invaders (category 2 & 3) and implement some limited control 

 measures, as funds are available. 



Some noxious weeds may have been introduced from suppression 

 activities. DNRC would monitor the area for new weeds, and treat as a 

 priority. Under the Alternative A: No Harvest (No Action) we would have 

 a continuing effort at weed control, but expect less funds would be 

 available to treat noxious weeds, as current funding is limited. 



4.3.1.4.2 Alternative B: Harvest 



With the proposed timber harvest action, ground-disturbing activities have 

 the potential to introduce or spread noxious weeds in susceptible habitat 

 types. Alternative B: Harvest objective for weed management is to prevent 

 new establishment of noxious weeds and control established populations 

 along open roads, by promoting stable vegetation. 



As part of Alternative B: Harvest, DNRC will complete seeding of 

 disturbed sites and some weed control on forest roads to help offset the 

 inevitable advance of knapweed. In larger infestations we would have to 

 tolerate weeds and promote biocontrol and long-term revegetation. We 

 would expect an increase of noxious weeds near established weeds, but 

 would also reduce some weed infestations and expect to increase the level 

 of long-term treatments with funds from the action project. Grass seeded 

 roadsides should provide competition with weeds. As trees reoccupy the 

 forest sites and grow to a stage that will increase shade, the shade 

 intolerant weeds, such as knapweed, and sulfur cinquefoil, should decline 

 in vigor and native plants increase, yet weeds will remain prolific in open 

 areas. 



For this project an Integrated Weed Management (IWM) approach would 

 be implemented that would include a combination of: prevention, 

 revegetation, biocontrol and spot herbicide treatments, which are 

 considered the most effective weed management treatments. Herbicide 

 applications would be primarily along disturbed roadside edges and spot 

 treatments of new infestations to promote native plants and seeded 

 grasses. To protect water quality, herbicide would be limited and not be 

 applied where runoff could enter surface waters or riparian features. 

 Where weeds are replaced with grasses and desired plants, erosion could 

 be reduced due to the improved plant cover. Long term, our reforestation 

 efforts would provide better coverage of the severe burned areas, which 

 should enhance shade and competition against noxious weeds. 



Mitigation measures would include washing equipment to prevent weed 

 introduction, minimizing disturbance through logging design, monitoring 

 revegetation, reseeding as necessary, and control measures, including 

 biocontrol where most effective. 



Fish Creek Salvage Environmental Assessment 4-13 



