SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST HIDDEN SPRINGS RANGER DISTRICT

INVASIVE PLANTS REPORT LEE MINE HARDWOOD RESTORATION

HARDIN COUNTY

I. INTRODUCTION The objective of this report is to fulfill NEPA requirements of FSM (Forest Service Manual) 2900-Invasive Species Management. FSM Section 2901.19 states:

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C. 4321). Requires agencies to analyze the physical, social, and economic effects associated with proposed plans and decisions, to consider alternatives to the action proposed, and to document the results of the analysis. The provisions of NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations apply to invasive species management (FSM 1950; FSH 1909.15).

According to FSM Section 2904.08, it is the responsibility of District Rangers to, “Determine the risk of invasive species introduction or spread as part of the project planning and analysis process for proposed actions, especially for ground disturbing and site altering activities, and public use activities.” The purpose and need, proposed action, alternatives for Lee Mine Hardwood Restoration project are described in the biological evaluation of TES plants written for the project. Design criteria and monitoring are also described, as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative effects and impacts to rare plant species and their habitats. II. INVASIVE PLANTS ANALYSIS Almost a hundred plant species are classified as invasive on the Shawnee National Forest. A list of those plants is included in Appendix A at the end of this document. Several of those plants were found within the Lee Mine project area during vegetation surveys (plant lists are included in the Botanical Biological Evaluation for this project) and are listed in the table below: Table 1. Invasive Plants found within the Lee Mine Hardwood Restoration Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Habit Category

Achillea millefolium common yarrow forb 3

Achyranthes japonica Japanese chaff flower forb EDRR/1

Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental bittersweet vine 1

Daucus carota Queen Anne’s lace forb 3

Elaeagnus umbellata autumn olive shrub 1

Hypericum perforatum common St. Johnswort forb 3

Lespedeza cuneata sericea lespedeza forb 1

Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle vine 1

Melilotus officinalis sweetclover forb 1

Mentha x piperita peppermint forb 3

Microstegium vimineum Nepalese browntop graminoid 1

2

Scientific Name Common Name Habit Category

Morus alba white mulberry tree 1

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass forb 1

Robinia pseudoacacia black locust tree 1

Rosa multiflora multiflora rose shrub 1

Schedonorus arundinaceus tall fescue graminoid 2

Schedonorus pratensis meadow fescue graminoid 2

Securigera varia crownvetch forb 2

Taraxacum officinale common dandelion forb 3

Trifolium pratense red clover forb 3

Category: 1=Highly Invasive, 2=Moderately Invasive, 3=Invasive Primarily in Disturbed Habitats, EDRR=Early Detection Rapid Response

INVASIVE PLANTS NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL Six invasive plants found within the Lee Mine Hardwood Restoration project area are classified as Rank 3 in the State of Illinois: Achillea millefolium, Daucus carota, Hypericum perforatum, Mentha x piperita, Taraxacum officinale, and Trifolium pratense. Rank 3, or Lesser Threat, species are defined as, “Exotic plant species that spread in or near disturbed areas; not presently considered a threat to native plant communities, i.e. crop plant weeds (ruderal).” Those six species are unlikely to affect the native oak woodlands within the proposed project area; they are unlikely to persist except along roads, trails, and firelines. Therefore, they will not be analyzed further in this document. INVASIVE PLANTS ANALYZED Achyranthes japonica (Japanese chaff flower) Japanese chaff flower is a tall perennial herb belonging to the Amaranth family (USDA, NRCS). Native to eastern and southeastern Asia, this plant was first discovered in North America in 1981 along the Tug Fork River in Kentucky. Spreading along the Ohio and Mississippi River floodplains, it has now been reported in 9 states, including Illinois. This species prefers growing at sites with partial shade and moist soil, but can also be found in heavily shaded and dry areas. It has been found in bottomland and upland forests, and along riverbanks, agricultural fields, and roadside ditches. It flowers from late summer to early fall, with its seeds maturing in mid to late fall (Schwarz et al.). Japanese chaff flower has been found in all 10 counties in which the Shawnee National Forest has its lands, as well as in Pulaski County. It has been reported on Forest lands from several sites in Hardin County along the Ohio River, and was also reported from a site in Alexander County (EDDMapS). A small infestation of this species was found in the Lee Mine project area along a road/trail near a stream on October 19, 2015. Japanese chaff flower competes vigorously with both native and non-native plants. It grows rapidly, can produce seeds in its first year, is a prolific seed producer, has a high germination rate, and has a high seedling survival rate. Seeds are believed to remain viable for several years. This plant can form dense stands that grow up to 2 meter in height, shading out other vegetation (Schwarz et al.).

3

This species can spread quickly in a number of ways. Water, deer, birds, and humans are the primary vectors (Schwarz et al.). It produces abundant fruit that grows upside down against tall spikes. The fruits have two stiff bracts that attach to clothing or fur. Deer seem to prefer browsing dense thickets of this plant. Fruiting spikes can remain on plants well into winter. They are sometimes broken off by flooding, and spikes buried in silt have been observed to sprout the next spring (Evans & Taylor). Controlling infestations can be difficult. Small, young plants can be hand pulled effectively, but larger ones will re-sprout. Weed-eating and mowing can prevent flowering heads from setting seed during one season, but these perennials will return in subsequent years. Herbicide application is the most effective means of controlling this species. Several commonly used herbicides are effective in killing this species (Schwarz et al.). Environmental Impacts Alternative 1 should not impact the spread of Japanese chaff flower because there will be no project actions. There is a small roadside infestation of this plant, but the road is also part of the River to River Trail. The infestation is also near a stream, so is likely to spread by water when the stream rises. Besides water, hikers, horses, and wildlife, especially deer, are potential vectors for spreading this species. It will likely begin to spread along the trail and streams, and will eventually spread into the stands and bottomlands. Alternative 2 will accelerate the spread of Japanese chaff flower. It is likely that road reconstruction will destroy the present known infestation of this plant in the project area. However, the plant had already set seed when it was discovered. More than likely, seeds have already spread, and road construction equipment is likely to spread the seed even further. Disturbed conditions from timber harvest and hauling will increase habitat that this plant can to invade. Construction of vernal ponds will create additional moist, disturbed habitat preferred by this species. It is also likely that infestations will reach bottomland forests more rapidly than with the first alternative because of increased disturbance. The effects of fire on Japanese chaff flower are unknown. However, only dormant season burns take place on the Forest. Infestations are more likely to be located at moist sites, so established plants should survive prescribed burning. Plants surviving fire, construction and logging, can quickly flower and produce seed that will spread infestations into the project area and beyond. Alternative 3 should have reduced impact to the spread of Japanese chaff flower compared to the second alternative. Road reconstruction would probably be reduced and the infestation might not be destroyed. But there would be far less habitat disturbance without timber harvest and hauling. Cumulative Impacts There should be no cumulative impacts with Alternative 1 because there will be no direct or indirect impacts. Infestations of Japanese chaff flower won’t spread more rapidly. On the other hand, without fire or removal of non-native pine in the project area, the oak-hickory woodlands and the native vegetation will not be restored. Species diversity will not increase. Japanese chaff flower infestations should become more numerous with the implementation of Alternative 2. However, the removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of

4

fire should help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. Removal of pine after felling, as well as prescribed burning will open up more of the forest floor, accelerating the growth of native herbs and allowing germination of desirable woody species. A more open canopy will also create habitat that is drier and sunnier, making it less suitable habitat for Japanese chaff flower. A more diverse native plant community should be able to compete more effectively with non-native pines and many invasive plant species. With Alternative 3, Japanese chaff flower won’t spread as quickly as with Alternative 2. Fire and cutting non-native pine will help restore the native plant community without as much disturbance. However, leaving large numbers of pine trees on the forest floor will cover much of the ground, slowing the growth of native herbs and germination of desirable woody species (Nelson, et al.). Leaving large numbers of felled trees would also make monitoring and managing this species difficult within the project area. Restoration of the native oak-hickory woodlands will be slower than with Alternative 2. Celastrus orbiculatus (Oriental bittersweet) Oriental bittersweet is a deciduous, woody vine. Introduced from Asia as an ornamental (Miller, et al.), it is now found in the eastern United States and Canada (USDA, NRCS). This vine grows in a wide variety of sites, usually at forest edges, but can also be found in forests openings, along roadsides, and in meadows (Miller, et al.). It can climb or twine up thickets and trees or sprawl on the ground (Fryer 2011a). This plant flowers May to June and fruits from July to October, with seeds persisting through winter (Kurz 1997). Oriental bittersweet is highly invasive. It can spread rapidly in disturbed areas, and is difficult to eradicate once established. It reproduces by seeds, as well as by root suckering. This vine produces abundant fruit, which are eaten by birds and small mammals that disperse the seeds (Dreyer & Randall). Seeds sprout best in disturbed sites with bare soil and abundant light. Although it prefers growing in partial sun at disturbed sites, it is shade tolerant, persisting for many years under closed canopies. When disturbance such as fire or wind opens gaps in the canopy, infestations of oriental bittersweet can grow and spread rapidly. Damage to plants from disturbance can cause vigorous re-sprouting (Fryer 2011a). Oriental bittersweet can out-compete and displace native vegetation, as well as change the composition of natural communities. It can form dense stands on the ground that choke out native herbs and shrubs. It can also climb up shrubs, trees, and other vines, killing them by strangling or shading. Dense stands of this vine can also raise soil pH. Heavy infestations of oriental bittersweet severely reduce native plant abundance and diversity (Fryer 2011a). Environmental Impacts Alternative 1 should not impact the spread of Oriental bittersweet because there will be no project actions. There is a half-acre infestation of this vine present within the project area located under a closed canopy pine and hardwood stand in deep shade. The plants are sprawling on the ground, not yet climbing the trees. Spread of the infestation should be slow until there is natural disturbance, such as trees falling from wind or dying with age. When that happens, the infestation will probably grow rapidly and spread throughout the gap. Vines may begin growing up tree trunks, eventually strangling trees and shading out surrounding vegetation.

5

Alternative 2 will accelerate the spread of Oriental bittersweet. The infestation of this vine within the project area is not in one of the stands that will be logged. However, it will be subject to prescribed fire. Published accounts of Oriental bittersweet's response to fire are sparse, but it probably increases its spread after fire. Some studies have shown that late fall and early spring burns can kill seeds and reduce reproduction, especially since seeds do not remain viable for much longer than a year. On the other hand, damage to the plants will result in increased re-sprouting (Fryer 2011). Since logging will not take place at the site of the infestation, the canopy should not become much more open. The infestation is not likely to increase rate of spread by much. However, increased disturbance throughout the project area from logging, the construction of vernal ponds, and road maintenance will create disturbed sites more vulnerable to invasion by animal and bird dispersed seeds from Oriental bittersweet infestations within the project area and nearby. Alternative 3 should have reduced impact to the spread of Oriental bittersweet compared to the second alternative. Logged trees will not be removed from the project area with this alternative, so there will be fewer disturbances. The downed pines will also cover and shade out much of the forest floor, reducing the amount of ground where Oriental bittersweet can sprout. Disturbance from other project actions will remain the same. Alternative 3 is likely to increase the rate Oriental bittersweet spread in comparison to the first alternative, but likely to reduce spread in comparison to the second alternative. Cumulative Impacts There should be no cumulative impacts with Alternative 1 because there will be no direct or indirect impacts. Infestations of Oriental bittersweet won’t spread more rapidly. On the other hand, without fire or removal of non-native pine in the project area, the oak-hickory woodlands and the native vegetation will not be restored. Species diversity will not increase. Oriental bittersweet has the potential to spread aggressively if Alternative 2 is implemented. The known infestation of this plant within the project area is at a site that will not be logged, so it won’t be subject to that type of disturbance. However, fire is likely to cause this species to increase its growth and reproduction. It may eventually strangle trees and choke out surrounding vegetation. Its seeds are more likely to be spread throughout the project area and beyond, and there will be a substantial expansion of disturbed sites for this species to infest. However, the removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of fire should help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. Removal of pine after felling will open up more of the forest floor, accelerating the growth of native herbs as well as allowing germination of desirable woody species. A more diverse native plant community should be able to compete more effectively with non-native pines and many invasive plant species. With Alternative 3, Oriental bittersweet won’t spread as quickly as with Alternative 2. Fire and cutting non-native pine will help restore the native plant community without as much disturbance. However, leaving large numbers of pine trees on the forest floor will cover much of the ground, slowing the growth of native herbs and germination of desirable woody species (Nelson, et al.). Leaving large numbers of felled trees would also make monitoring and managing this species difficult within the project area. Restoration of the native oak-hickory woodlands will be slower than with Alternative 2.

6

Elaeagnus umbellata (autumn olive) Autumn olive is a deciduous shrub or small tree introduced from China and Japan in the early nineteenth century. It was widely planted for wildlife food and for surface-mine reclamation (Miller, et al.). Its North American range is primarily the eastern and central United States, but it is also found in a few northwestern states, as well as in Hawaii (USDA, NRCS). This shrub is a pioneer species, colonizing open, disturbed areas such as old fields, grasslands, and open forests. It can grow in poor soil because its roots can fix nitrogen. Seedlings may be shade intolerant. Mature trees can grow in light shade, but produce more fruit in full sun. It flowers from May to June, and its fruits ripen from September to October (Sather, Eckhardt, & Martin). Autumn olive can be highly invasive. It produces abundant seeds that are spread birds. Seeds can sprout in open, disturbed sites. Once established, this species is difficult to kill because any damage to plants can result in vigorous re-sprouting. Mature plants may also persist under moderate shade. Dense stands can form that out-compete native plants. Because autumn olive fixes nitrogen, it can change soils in natural communities that depend on infertile soils (Sather, Eckhardt, & Martin). Although autumn olive will re-sprout vigorously after a single fire, it is possible that multiple prescribed burns could be useful in its control. Periodic fire could reduce above ground tissue, reduce seed production, and deplete the energy reserves of plants. Autumn olive invasiveness may be reduced, especially if fire persists. Growing season burns appear to be more effective in controlling this species than dormant season burns. Invasion from off-site infestations is likely to occur after fire, especially with increased disturbance from prescribed burning (Huebner 2006, and Munger 2003). Environmental Impacts Alternative 1 should not impact the spread of autumn olive because there will be no project actions. Spread of infestations should be slow, occurring after natural disturbance, such as wind, causes trees to fall and creates canopy gaps. Seeds spread by birds are likely to cause new infestations of this shrub. Alternative 2 will accelerate the spread of autumn olive. There will be increased disturbance from logging and substantial opening of the tree canopy. Other project actions, including construction of vernal ponds, road maintenance and reconstruction, and prescribed burning will create more disturbances. Burning will also cause this species to re-sprout. Prescribed fire will not likely provide control of infestations because most prescribed fire on the Forest (Shawnee National Forest) takes place during the dormant season. Although growing season burns can be effective for controlling autumn olive, dormant season burns may not (Huebner 2006). Alternative 3 will also accelerate the spread of autumn olive, but it won’t be quite as fast. There will be fewer disturbances from logging because the timber will not be removed. The downed pines will also cover and shade out much of the forest floor, reducing the amount of ground where autumn olive can sprout. The effects from fire and other project actions will be about the same the second alternative.

7

Cumulative Impacts There should be no cumulative impacts with Alternative 1 because there will be no direct or indirect impacts. Infestations of autumn olive won’t spread more rapidly. On the other hand, without fire or removal of non-native pine in the project area, the oak-hickory woodlands and the native vegetation will not be restored. Species diversity will not increase. It is likely that the spread of autumn olive will increase with the implementation of Alternative 2. However, the removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of fire should help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. Removal of pine after felling will open up more of the forest floor, accelerating the growth of native herbs as well as allowing germination of desirable woody species. A more diverse native plant community should be able to compete more effectively with non-native pines and many invasive plant species. With Alternative 3, autumn olive won’t spread as quickly as with Alternative 2. Fire and cutting non-native pine will help restore the native plant community without as much disturbance. However, leaving large numbers of pine trees on the forest floor will cover much of the ground, slowing the growth of native herbs and germination of desirable woody species (Nelson, et al.). Restoration of the native oak-hickory woodlands will be slower than with the second alternative. Lespedeza cuneata (sericea lespedeza) Sericea lespedeza is a semi-woody, perennial herb. It was introduced from Japan in the late nineteenth century. Widely planted for erosion control and forage, it is still used in wildlife plots (Miller, et al.). Its range in North America is in the eastern and central United States and Canada. It is also found in Hawaii (USDA, NRCS). Although this species is most commonly found in open, disturbed sites such as roadsides, old fields, prairies, and open woodlands, there are some reports that indicate it can persist in light shade. This herb can grow in poor soils because it fixes nitrogen (Gucker 2010). Heavy infestations can inhibit growth of native herbs and woody species because of shading (Brandon, et al.). Sericea lespedeza flowers from late summer through early fall (Mohlenbrock 2002, and Yatskievych 2013), producing some flowers that are cross pollinated and others that are self-pollinated (Stevens, et al.). Sericea lespedeza invades open, disturbed areas, but is not always aggressive. It produces prolific seeds, which are spread by human activity, disturbances, livestock, horses, wildlife such as deer (Gucker 2010). A recent study shows it is spread along trails by horse dung (Stroh & Stuckhoff 2009). This species is not always competitive with existing forbs and grasses, requiring disturbed or bare soil to sprout, as well as sufficient light. Young seedlings may also be vulnerable to competition. Some infestations remain at sites with very little spread over several decades (Gucker 2010). Although sericea lespedeza is found primarily in open areas, it is also found in woodlands. Older infestations can persist under light shade conditions. It produces prolific seeds that can survive in the seedbank for decades (Gucker 2010, and Stevens et al.). Woodlands that become heavily shaded through succession can still harbor this plant’s seeds (Honu, et al. 2009). Infestations can be re-established when disturbance, such as from fire or logging, opens the canopy and reduces ground cover (Gucker 2010).

8

Once is established, sericea lespedeza can be difficult to eradicate. Plants have deep taproots, so they are difficult to remove mechanically. Plants re-sprout after mowing, although mowing shortly after flowers bud can reduce stand vigor if done for three or more successive years. Likewise, most burning encourages regrowth and seed sprouting of this species. Late summer burning is the exception since, it reduces adult plant vigor, destroys the year’s seedbank, and decreases seedling survival (Gucker 2010, and Stevens et al.). Environmental Impacts Alternative 1 should not impact the spread of sericea lespedeza because there will be no project actions. Animals and humans are likely to spread the seeds, which may sprout if they are at the site of canopy gaps caused by natural disturbance. Sericea lespedeza will continue to spread very slowly within the proposed project area. Alternative 2 will accelerate the spread of sericea lespedeza, but should not spread aggressively. There will be increased disturbance from logging and substantial opening of the tree canopy. Other project actions, including construction of vernal ponds, road maintenance and reconstruction, and prescribed fire will create more disturbances. Burning also causes sericea lespedeza to re-sprout. Prescribed fire will not likely provide control of infestations because most prescribed fire on the Forest takes place from late fall to early spring, not in late summer when fire is most effective in controlling this species. Alternative 3 will also accelerate the spread of sericea lespedeza, but it won’t be quite as fast as with the second alternative. There will be fewer disturbances from logging because the timber will not be removed. The downed pines will also cover and shade out much of the forest floor, reducing the amount of ground where sericea lespedeza can sprout. The effects from fire and other project actions will be about the same as the second alternative. Cumulative Impacts There should be no cumulative impacts with Alternative 1 because there will be no direct or indirect impacts. Infestations of sericea lespedeza won’t spread more rapidly. On the other hand, without fire or removal of non-native pine in the project area, the oak-hickory woodlands and the native vegetation will not be restored. Species diversity will not increase. It is likely that the spread of sericea lespedeza will increase with the implementation of Alternative 2. However, the removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of fire should help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. Removal of pine after felling will open up more of the forest floor, accelerating the growth of native herbs as well as allowing germination of desirable woody species. Over time, established native herbs and grasses should be able to out-compete sericea lespedeza (Gucker 2010) and eventually slow its spread. At first sericea lespedeza initially won’t spread as quickly with Alternative 2 as with Alternative 3, but it may eventually spread faster. Fire and cutting non-native pine will help restore the native plant community without as much disturbance. However, leaving large numbers of pine trees on the forest floor will cover much of the ground, slowing the growth of native herbs and germination of desirable woody species. Native herbs and grasses can out-compete sericea

9

lespedeza, so slowing their re-establishment will allow sericea lespedeza to be invasive for a longer period of time. Restoration of the native oak-hickory woodlands will also be slower than with the second alternative. Lonicera japonica (Japanese honeysuckle) Japanese honeysuckle is a semi-evergreen to evergreen woody vine. It can grow up to 80 feet in length as a high climbing or trailing vine. Introduced from eastern Asia in the early nineteenth century, it has been used as an ornamental, for deer browse, erosion control, and in wildlife food plots (Miller, et al.). Its range in North America is the eastern, south central, and southwestern United States, as well as Washington State, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico (USDA, NRCS). Japanese honeysuckle can grow in a wide variety of habitats, although it is most commonly found in forest margins, right-of-ways, and other disturbed areas. It is shade tolerant, growing in open woodlands (Miller, et al.), in densely shaded sites (Munger 2002a), and in wetlands and floodplains (Nuzzo & Randall). This vine flowers from May to June and bears fruit from September to October (Kurz 1997). Japanese honeysuckle frequently escapes from cultivation, but is invasive primarily in the eastern and east central United States. It colonizes disturbed, open areas. This species produces abundant berries that are spread by birds (Munger 2002a). It also spreads by rooting at the nodes and by woody rootstocks (Miller, et al.). At sites with favorable conditions, it can grow very rapidly. Plants may produce fruit in as little as three years (Munger 2002a). When it becomes established it can out-compete native vegetation and greatly alter natural communities. Vines can cover the ground and climb up trees. Trees can be eventually strangled and killed. Japanese honeysuckle infestations may become so dense that they shade and crowd out all other vegetation. Small trees and shrubs may literally be engulfed and collapse under the weight of the infestations (Munger 2002, and Nuzzo & Randall). Although Japanese honeysuckle is difficult to control once infestations become large, this species can be significantly reduced by periodic fire. Mowing and bush hogging can reduce regrowth for a season, but also stimulates dense regrowth. Hand pulling, with removal of all roots and shoots, is time consuming and practical only for relatively small infestations. Discing can be effective, but it also destroys the native vegetation (Nuzzo & Randall). Like mowing or bush hogging, fire can reduce and infestation, but stimulates heavy regrowth. However, repeated fire can control Japanese honeysuckle in fire adapted communities. Cessation of fire does allow this species to re-invade sites (Munger 2002a). A recent study of vegetation plots on the Shawnee National Forest indicates that Japanese honeysuckle can be controlled in areas that have been repeatedly prescribed burned (Gibson & Martinez). Environmental Impacts Alternative 1 should not impact the spread of Japanese honeysuckle because there will be no project actions. Spread of infestations should be slow and steady. Vines will continue to invade surrounding forests. Seeds spread by birds are likely to cause new infestations of this vine in canopy gaps caused by natural disturbance. Alternative 2 will accelerate the spread of Japanese honeysuckle at first, but will eventually be slowed and controlled. There will be increased disturbance from logging and substantial opening

10

of the tree canopy. Other project actions, including construction of vernal ponds, road maintenance and reconstruction, and prescribed fire will create more disturbances. Prescribed burning causes this species to re-sprout and spread. However, periodic prescribed fire has been shown to control this species on the Forest (Gibson & Martinez). In addition, erosion control measures should reduce disturbance in riparian areas, slowing invasion to some degree. Alternative 3 will not accelerate the spread of Japanese honeysuckle as fast as the second alternative, and its spread should also eventually be slowed and controlled. Repeated fire should eventually reduce the infestations. There will be fewer disturbances from logging because the timber will not be removed. The downed pines will cover and shade out much of the forest floor, reducing the amount of ground where Japanese honeysuckle is likely to sprout. The effects from fire and other project actions will be about the same the second alternative. Cumulative Impacts There should be no cumulative impacts with Alternative 1 because there will be no direct or indirect impacts. Infestations of Japanese honeysuckle won’t spread more rapidly. On the other hand, without fire or removal of non-native pine in the project area, the oak-hickory woodlands and the native vegetation will not be restored. Species diversity will not increase. Japanese honeysuckle should eventually be controlled with the implementation of Alternative 2, and project actions should help restore the native oak-hickory woodlands. Removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of fire should help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. Removal of pine after felling will open up more of the forest floor, accelerating the growth of native herbs as well as allowing germination of desirable woody species. Over time, repeated prescribed burning should help control Japanese honeysuckle. Japanese honeysuckle should eventually be controlled with the implementation of Alternative 3, and project actions should help restore the native oak-hickory woodlands. Removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of fire should help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. Over time, repeated prescribed burning should help control Japanese honeysuckle. However, leaving large numbers of pine trees on the forest floor will cover much of the ground, slowing the growth of native herbs and germination of desirable woody species. Restoration of the native oak-hickory woodlands will be slower than with the second alternative. Melilotus officinalis (sweetclover) Sweetclover is an annual to biennial herb in the legume family. It is native to the Mediterranean, as well as to Eurasia and Tibet. This plant has been reported in the United States as early as 1664. It was first planted for agriculture and beekeeping. In the twentieth century it was widely used for forage, erosion control, soil improvement, and land reclamation (Eckhardt, and Gucker 2009b). This plant is found in throughout the United States and Canada (USDA, NRCS), but is most common in the upper Midwest and Great Plains. Sweetclover grows at disturbed sites, grasslands and prairies, and riparian areas (Gucker 2009b). In Illinois, this species produces flowers and fruit from May to October (Mohlenbrock).

11

Sweetclover is present primarily on open, disturbed sites, where it can form dense infestations. Widely planted, this species is a prolific seed producer. Seeds usually drop near adult plants, but can spread through water, animal feces, and contaminated seed or animal feed. Seedbanks are important in regenerating populations since seed can remain viable for over a decade. Although sweetclover needs light to germinate, some studies indicate that mature plants can tolerate some shade. Moisture is necessary for seed sprouting, and plants survive better in moist habitats. Sometimes sweetclover survives under tree canopies at riparian sites (Gucker 2009b). Well established infestations of sweetclover are extremely difficult to remove. Plants develop woody taproots with extensive root systems, so larger ones are hard to pull. Damaged plants are unlikely to re-sprout unless injury occurs prior to flowering, so mowing or prescribed fire can reduce infestations for a season. However, the seedbank will usually replace plants the following year. Fire also provides bare ground that makes seedling establishment easier. Some studies suggest the frequent burning actually increases sweetclover infestations (Eckhardt, and Gucker 2009b). Environmental Impacts Alternative 1 should not impact the spread of sweetclover because there will be no project actions. Seeds will be spread by animals and by water. New infestations may occur in canopy gaps caused by natural disturbances. Sweetclover will continue to spread very slowly within the proposed project area. Alternative 2 will accelerate the spread of sweetclover. There will be increased disturbance from logging and substantial opening of the tree canopy. Other project actions, including construction of vernal ponds, road maintenance and reconstruction, and prescribed fire will create more disturbances. If prescribed fire occurs in the fall, it should kill plants, but infestations will regrow because of this species seedbanks. Erosion control measures could decrease disturbance in riparian areas, where this plant is likely to invade, and thus somewhat slow its spread. Alternative 3 will also accelerate the spread of sweetclover, but it won’t be quite as fast. There will be fewer disturbances from logging because the timber will not be removed. The downed pines will also cover and shade out much of the forest floor, reducing the amount of ground where sweetclover can sprout. The effects from fire and other project actions will be about the same as the second alternative. Cumulative Impacts There should be no cumulative impacts with Alternative 1 because there will be no direct or indirect impacts. Infestations of sweetclover won’t spread more rapidly. On the other hand, without fire or removal of non-native pine in the project area, the oak-hickory woodlands and the native vegetation will not be restored. Species diversity will not increase. It is likely that the spread of sweetclover will increase with the implementation of Alternative 2. However, the removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of fire should help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. Removal of pine after felling will open up more of the forest floor, accelerating the growth of native herbs as well as

12

allowing germination of desirable woody species. Erosion control may help maintain riparian areas by slowing or preventing the invasion of sweetclover. With Alternative 3, sweetclover won’t spread as quickly as with Alternative 2. Fire and cutting non-native pine will help restore the native plant community without as much disturbance. Erosion control may help maintain riparian areas by slowing or preventing the invasion of sweetclover. However, leaving large numbers of pine trees on the forest floor will cover much of the ground, slowing the growth of native herbs and germination of desirable woody species. Restoration of the native oak-hickory woodlands will be slower than with the second alternative. Microstegium vimineum (Nepalese browntop) Nepalese browntop is an annual grass. It is native to Asia and was accidentally introduced to the United States in the 1920’s. Its North American range is the eastern and south central United States and Puerto Rico (USDA, NRCS). It grows in disturbed, mesic sites, usually in moderate to dense shade. This species is found in riparian habitats, roadside ditches, lawns, thickets, damp fields, woodland borders, and forest interiors (Huebner 2010, and Tu 2000). It flowers in late summer, with seeds maturing until plants are killed by frost (Fryer 2011b). It spreads by its seeds in water, by wildlife such as deer, by shoes, clothing, soil and mulch transport, and by machinery used in road construction, logging, road work, and firebreak construction (Fryer 2011b, and Tu 2000). A study of its spread in southern Indiana showed that sites subject to natural disturbance generally had lower rates of spread than sites where timber harvest had taken place (Shelton). Nepalese browntop can rapidly invade mesic, disturbed sites. It is a prolific seed producer and can also spread vegetatively by stolons. It forms dense stands that out-compete other ground cover vegetation, both herbaceous and woody (Fryer 2011b, and Gibson, et al. 2002). Nepalese browntop infestations are established most easily at edge habitats such as roadsides, forest edges, and waterways. Dense populations at these sites may act as a seed sources, allowing populations in interior forest sinks to persist (Warren). Although its seeds sprout best in light shade, this grass can invade densely shaded forest interiors, albeit in small patches with relatively low reproductive rates (Huebner 2010, and Manee et al.). Nepalese browntop patches can persist under dense canopies at low levels. Disturbances causing canopy gaps and/or reducing leaf litter allow heavy growth and expansion of infestations (Fryer 2011b). Nepalese browntop infestations alter natural communities and decrease their diversity. Infested sites are subject to nitrogen cycling changes, increases in soil pH, and a decrease in soil microbes. This grass has allelopathic effects on other plants and can inhibit germination in herbs and some tree species. Infestations can alter forest succession, with decreased survival and recruitment of trees, including some oak species (Gage et al.). Nepalese browntop infestations have been shown to reduce native plant richness, and diversity, and overall ground cover in long term, experimental studies in southern Indiana (Flory & Clay) and New Jersey. Invaded sites showed reduced diversity and abundance of arthropods. Herbivore and carnivore abundance was also reduced, with a greater reduction of carnivores (Flory, and Simao). Native communities have little capacity to resist invasion by Nepalese browntop, although occasional failed invasions have been documented (Meiners). Infestations of Nepalese browntop are controllable if they are relatively small. Hand-pulling can be very effective if timed late in its growing season, but before seed production. Using a weed

13

whacker or weed eater can also be effective. Mowing before using herbicide to reduce biomass can increase mortality (Tu 2000). Prescribed fire is not generally useful in controlling Nepalese browntop and may actually accelerate its spread. Fire will kill plants, but will also reduce litter on the forest floor. This enhances the growth of seedlings from the seedbank. Ground disturbance associated with prescribed fire increases sites that this grass can invade (Fryer 2011b). According to a recent study, the presence of Nepalese browntop infestations is associated with reduced tree seedling survival at sites that are prescribed burned. Although maple and tuliptree survival was affected most, oak survival was also reduced compared to sites that were not infested prior to burning. For better tree seedling survival, Nepalese browntop infestations should be treated and controlled before prescribed burning takes place (Flory, et al.). Environmental Impacts Alternative 1 should not impact the spread of Nepalese browntop because there will be no project actions. Monitoring of two plots at the Harris Branch restoration area indicate that Nepalese browntop spreads throughout pine stands whether or not timber harvest takes place (Harris Branch Project record, Nepalese Browntop SIR). Two vegetation plots within the project area were monitored in 2015; both plots were located in areas that have been prescribed burned several times. A few Nepalese browntop plants were found within the plot located in a hardwood stand; the plot was located several hundred yards downslope of a heavily infested road (personal observations). This grass is present in scattered patches in most of the project area, but has become heavily infested within some areas that have been prescribed burned. It will continue to spread slowly in unburned areas where there is natural disturbance, especially in riparian areas. It will spread more aggressively at sites where burning has taken place. Native plant diversity will slowly decrease if this alternative is implemented. Alternative 2 will accelerate the spread of Nepalese browntop. There will be increased disturbance from logging and substantial opening of the tree canopy. Other project actions, including construction of vernal ponds, road maintenance and reconstruction, and prescribed fire will create more disturbances. Increasing the number of vernal ponds will increase mesic habitat for this plant. Erosion control measures, however, should reduce disturbances in riparian areas, and somewhat reduce the spread of this species. Limited use of herbicide to control infestations near rare plant sites within the project area would reduce the spread of Nepalese browntop only minimally. Prescribed fire is unlikely to kill these plants because only dormant prescribed burning takes place on the Forest. Fire would likely enhance re-sprouting from seedbanks because burning will remove litter from the forest floor. This grass has already spread aggressively at sites within the project area that have been prescribed burned (personal observations), so it is likely to spread even more aggressively with increased fire and with disturbances from other project actions. Although monitoring of the vegetation plots within the Harris Branch restoration in 2005 and 2012 before timber harvest took place indicated that Nepalese browntop had spread (see above), monitoring done just prior to and then two years after harvest, indicated explosive growth of that grass. When Elizabeth Shimp monitored the two plots in September 2013 before harvest, the number of Nepalese browntop plants were 2,475 and 1,215 respectively. In September 2015, after the harvest, the numbers of that grass in the plots were 35,310 and 14,360 respectively, a 14-fold and 12-fold increase. Nepalese browntop had become the dominant herb in those timber

14

stands. The infestation was so thick that fallen grass was beginning to cover the ground like straw in a layer at least 1-2 feet deep. Growth of native herbaceous vegetation had been suppressed by this dense infestation. Small oaks within the Harris Branch timber harvest have so far survived dense ground cover of Nepalese browntop (Elizabeth Shimp, personal communication). However, the heavy infestation will result in hotter fires when prescribed burning takes place. Survival of oaks and hickories after fire will probably decrease because of the Nepalese browntop. Harvesting timber within the Lee Mine project area will most likely result in the explosive growth and spread of Nepalese browntop, similar to the Harris Branch timber harvest sites. Alternative 3 will also accelerate the spread of Nepalese browntop, but it won’t be quite as fast. There will be fewer disturbances from logging because the timber will not be removed. The downed pines will also cover and shade out much of the forest floor, increasing densely shaded areas where this grass is less likely to germinate. The effects from fire and other project actions will be about the same as the second alternative. Nepalese browntop will still spread aggressively, but not as quickly as in the second alternative. Cumulative Impacts There should be no cumulative impacts with Alternative 1 because there will be no direct or indirect impacts. Infestations of Nepalese browntop won’t spread more rapidly, although they will continue to spread, especially in areas already being prescribed burned. On the other hand, without additional fire or removal of non-native pine in the project area, the oak-hickory woodlands and the native vegetation will not be restored. Species diversity will not increase. Nepalese browntop may eventually become the dominant herb within the project area. Nepalese browntop will spread more aggressively with the implementation of Alternative 2, although erosion control should somewhat limit its spread into riparian areas. Removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of fire would normally help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. However, Nepalese browntop will likely grow and spread exponentially after timber harvest takes place, as it has at Harris Branch. Native plant diversity will diminish rapidly. Even if a canopy of native oaks and hickories is restored, native herbaceous vegetation is unlikely to recover to anywhere near the richness and diversity of areas not infested. Periodic prescribed fire will serve to perpetuate this invasive grass within the project area. Heavy infestations will serve as a seed source, allowing it to spread into uninfested sinks within the project area, and eventually beyond it. With Alternative 3, Nepalese browntop won’t spread quite as quickly as with Alternative 2. Disturbance will be reduced because timber will not be harvested, so Nepalese browntop would not spread as rapidly as with the second alternative. Fire and cutting non-native pine without hauling it out will help restore the native plant community by opening up the canopy. However, leaving large numbers of pine trees on the forest floor will cover much of the ground, slowing the growth of native herbs and germination of desirable woody species. Restoration of the native oak-hickory woodlands may be slower than with the second alternative. However, Nepalese browntop will still spread. Infestations of this grass would slow oak seedling survival and recruitment, further slowing restoration of oak-hickory woodlands. Native plant diversity would be diminished. Even if a canopy of native oaks and hickories is restored, native herbaceous vegetation is unlikely to recover to anywhere near the richness and diversity of areas not infested. Periodic prescribed fire will serve to perpetuate this invasive grass within the project area. Heavy

15

infestations will serve as a seed source, allowing it to spread into uninfested sinks within the project area, and eventually beyond it. Morus alba (white mulberry) White mulberry is a deciduous shrub to small tree. It was introduced to North America from China in the early 1600’s in order to promote the silk industry. Trees continued to be imported for that purpose until the nineteenth century. This species spreads from seed; its fruits are eaten and dispersed by animals and birds (Stone 2009a). It is found in most states of the United States, as well as in several Canadian provinces (USDA, NRCS). White mulberry is common in riparian and floodplain communities, tending to occur in disturbed or second growth forest, although it has been found in some old growth forest (Stone 2009a). One study in southern Illinois showed that white mulberry can invade sites that have been salvage logged after tornado damage (Nelson, et al.). Trees flower from April to May and bear fruit from June to August (Kurz 2003). White mulberry is widespread but is usually uncommon. However, it has been reported as very common or dominant in riparian or floodplain forests in several states, including Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa. Infestations of this tree are not so much of a concern as is hybridization with the native red mulberry (M. rubra). Studies indicate that hybrids more closely resemble white mulberry than red mulberry. It is possible that red mulberry populations could be reduced because of hybridization (Stone 2009a). Little has been written about the control of white mulberry. Seedlings can be hand pulled. Larger trees can be girdled or can be cut and the stumps ground. However, plants can re-sprout from cut stumps or from roots. Not much is known about the effects of burning on this species. Because of its thin bark, white mulberry is likely to be top killed by fire. However, trees could possibly re-sprout from the roots after fire; disturbance after burning make it more likely for this species to re-invade. Prescribed fire is probably not an effective tool for controlling this tree (Stone 2009a). Environmental Impacts Alternative 1 should not impact the spread of white mulberry because there will be no project actions. Spread of infestations would likely be moderate. Seeds spread by birds and other animals are likely to cause new infestations of this tree, especially in riparian areas where natural disturbance, such as flooding, has exposed bare soil. Alternative 2 should moderately increase the spread of white mulberry. Logging is unlikely to take place in riparian and floodplain habitat where this tree is most likely to grow. However, timber hauling, road maintenance, and reconstruction will increase the number of disturbed sites this tree could invade. Adding vernal ponds will increase wet habitat suitable for this plant. Although prescribed fire should top-kill existing trees, they are likely to re-sprout from their roots. With erosion control measures, however, disturbances in riparian habitat, which is suitable habitat for this species, would be substantially reduced. Impacts from Alternative 3 should be similar to the second alternative, except that there would be fewer disturbances from logging. Timber would not be hauled from the project area, which would eliminate much of the disturbance. Impacts from construction of vernal ponds, fire, and road maintenance would remain the same, as would erosion control.

16

Cumulative Impacts There should be no cumulative impacts with Alternative 1 because there will be no direct or indirect impacts. Infestations of white mulberry won’t spread more rapidly, although they will continue to spread, especially in riparian areas. On the other hand, without additional fire or removal of non-native pine in the project area, the oak-hickory woodlands and the native vegetation will not be restored. Species diversity will not increase. White mulberry will spread somewhat faster with the implementation of Alternative 2. However, erosion control should limit its spread into riparian areas. Removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of fire should help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. Removal of pine after felling will open up more of the forest floor, accelerating the growth of native herbs as well as allowing germination of desirable woody species. White mulberry won’t spread as quickly as with Alternative 3 in comparison to the second alternative. Fire and cutting non-native pine without hauling it out will help restore the native plant community and reduce disturbance. However, leaving large numbers of pine trees on the forest floor will cover much of the ground, slowing the growth of native herbs and germination of desirable woody species. Restoration of the native oak-hickory woodlands will be slower than with the second alternative. Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass) Kentucky bluegrass is a perennial grass that grows from rhizomes, forming loose clumps or tufts. Native to Europe and Asia, it is a popular turf grass and is also planted as forage in pastures (Yatskievych 1999). It can spread rapidly from seeds and rhizomes and is a vigorous competitor with other herbaceous vegetation. It can become dominant in fields that have been overgrazed. This grass is present in every state in the United States and in every Canadian province. Kentucky bluegrass grows best at moist sites where the climate is cool and humid. It prefers full sunlight, but will tolerate light shade. It is found in prairies, fields, meadows, riparian woodlands, and open woods (Uchytil), as well as in disturbed habitats such as roadsides, railroads, and old fields and pastures (Yatskievych 1999). It is a cool season grass that is fertile in the spring, becoming dormant in mid-summer, and then fertile again in the fall (Uchytil). Kentucky bluegrass has been controlled by using herbicides and prescribed fire. Effective control by either method depends on timing. Herbicides are best applied prior to planting warm season grasses. Prescribed fire is more effective when it takes place during spring and fall when plants are actively growing. Although underground parts survive, biomass and food reserves are severely depleted. Because plants can sprout from seed after burning, sites must be burned successively for several years in order to effectively control this species. Dormant season burns are ineffective in controlling Kentucky bluegrass (Uchytil). Environmental Impacts

17

Alternative 1 should not impact the spread of Kentucky bluegrass because there will be no project actions. It is unlikely to spread very quickly because of its preference for full sunlight. Infestations could grow from seed where there are natural disturbance and canopy gaps. Alternative 2 will accelerate the spread of Kentucky bluegrass, but its spread should be moderate. There will be increased disturbance from logging and substantial opening of the tree canopy. Other project actions, including construction of vernal ponds, road maintenance and reconstruction, and prescribed fire will create more disturbances. Burning is unlikely to control this grass because most burns on the Forest are conducted during the dormant season. Kentucky bluegrass is not as aggressive some other invasive plants, but is especially difficult to eradicate without the use of herbicides. Erosion control should slow its invasion of riparian areas. With Alternative 3 Kentucky bluegrass should spread moderately, even slower than with the second alternative. There will be fewer disturbances from logging because the timber will not be removed. The downed pines will also cover and shade out much of the forest floor, reducing the amount of ground where this grass can sprout. The effects from fire and other project actions will be about the same as the second alternative. Cumulative Impacts There should be no cumulative impacts with Alternative 1 because there will be no direct or indirect impacts. Infestations of Kentucky bluegrass won’t spread more rapidly. On the other hand, without fire or removal of non-native pine in the project area, the oak-hickory woodlands and the native vegetation will not be restored. Species diversity will not increase. It is likely that the spread of Kentucky bluegrass will increase with the implementation of Alternative 2. However, the removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of fire should help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. Removal of pine after felling will open up more of the forest floor, accelerating the growth of native herbs as well as allowing germination of desirable woody species. With Alternative 3, Kentucky bluegrass won’t spread as quickly as with Alternative 2. Fire and cutting non-native pine will help restore the native plant community without as much disturbance. However, leaving large numbers of pine trees on the forest floor will cover much of the ground, slowing the growth of native herbs and germination of desirable woody species. Restoration of the native oak-hickory woodlands will be slower than with the second alternative. Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust) Black locust is a medium sized, deciduous tree in the legume family. It is native to the Appalachian and Ozark Plateau regions of the Unites States, with outlying populations in Illinois, Kentucky, Alabama, and Georgia. Widely planted, it has escaped cultivation (Stone 2009b) and is present in all of the lower 48 states of the United States, as well as in several Canadian provinces (USDA, NRCS). It grows in a wide variety of forest habitats, in forest openings and other early successional habitats, as well as at disturbed sites and waste areas. This tree invades logged sites and abandoned mines. Black locust is a shade intolerant species (Stone 2009b). It flowers from May to June and produces seed pods from September to October (Kurz 2003).

18

Black locust trees can form dense infestations that may alter native communities. Vegetative reproduction is more important for the spread of this species than seeds, although it does reproduce from seedbanks. Damage to stems or roots from cutting, wind, disease or fire can cause root sprouting. Root sprouting is quite common after logging (Stone 2009b). One study in southern Illinois showed that black locust can invade sites that have been salvage logged after tornado damage (Nelson et al.). Because this tree fixes nitrogen, it can change the fertility of the soil. This can be particularly harmful to natural communities that thrive in poor soils, such as savannas and barrens. Because it is an early successional species, black locust does not usually persist in old growth forests (Stone 2009b). Black locust has characteristics that allow it to survive and persist after fire. Its seeds require scarification, light, and bare soil in order germinate, conditions present after burning. Open conditions after fire allow the rapid growth of seedlings, and damaged trees will re-sprout. Because of disturbance associated with prescribed fire, black locust is more likely to invade burned sites and may actually increase in abundance (Stone 2009b). Environmental Impacts Alternative 1 should not impact the spread of black locust because there will be no project actions. It will continue to spread slowly in most of the project area at sites where natural disturbance produces canopy gaps. It will spread more rapidly in the areas that are currently being prescribed burned. Alternative 2 will accelerate the spread of black locust. There will be increased disturbance from logging and substantial opening of the tree canopy. Other project actions, including construction of vernal ponds, road maintenance and reconstruction, and increased prescribed burning will create more disturbances. Prescribed fire will not control this tree, because burning causes it to re-sprout and increase seedling sprouting from its seedbank. Erosion control will reduce disturbance in the project area, potentially slowing the spread of black locust at some sites. Alternative 3 will also accelerate the spread of black locust, but it won’t be quite as fast. There will be fewer disturbances from logging because the timber will not be removed. The downed pines will also cover and shade out much of the forest floor, reducing the amount of ground where black locust can sprout. The effects from fire and other project actions will be about the same the second alternative. Cumulative Impacts There should be no cumulative impacts with Alternative 1 because there will be no direct or indirect impacts. Infestations of black locust won’t spread more rapidly. On the other hand, without fire or removal of non-native pine in the project area, the oak-hickory woodlands and the native vegetation will not be restored. Species diversity will not increase. It is likely that the spread of black locust will increase with the implementation of Alternative 2. However, the removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of fire should help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. Removal of pine after felling will open up more of the forest floor, accelerating the growth of native herbs as well as allowing germination of desirable woody species.

19

With Alternative 3, black locust won’t spread as quickly as with Alternative 2. Fire and cutting non-native pine will help restore the native plant community without as much disturbance. However, leaving large numbers of pine trees on the forest floor will cover much of the ground, slowing the growth of native herbs and germination of desirable, woody species. Restoration of the native oak-hickory woodlands will be slower than with the second alternative. Rosa multiflora (multiflora rose) Multiflora rose is a perennial shrub with arching branches that trail or sprawl. It was introduced to the United States in the late nineteenth century from Japan as rootstock for ornamental roses. It was also widely planted as a “living fence” for livestock control in the mid-twentieth century (Eckhardt & Martin (1987, 2001)). Its range is the eastern, central, southern, and western states of the United States, as well as the eastern and western provinces of Canada (USDA, NRCS). Multiflora rose grows best at sunny, well-drained sites, frequently colonizing roadsides, pastures, prairies, savannas, open woodlands, and forest edges. It may also invade dense forests where disturbance provides canopy gaps (Munger 2002b). This shrub flowers from May to June and produces fruit from September to October (Kurz 1997). Its fruits are small rose hips that remain on the plant during the winter. Birds and other small animals eat the fruit and disperse the seeds. It also reproduced by rooting at the tip of its drooping canes (Eckhardt & Martin (1987, 2001)). Widely planted by various government agencies from the 1930’s to the 1960’s multiflora rose has become widespread and invasive. It can produce abundant fruit that is spread over many miles by birds and other animals. Its seed can remain viable for years (Eckhardt & Martin (1987, 2001)). Once established, this shrub can form dense, impenetrably thickets that displaces native vegetation and restricts movement of wildlife, livestock and humans. Although multiflora rose is able to colonize in gaps caused by disturbance within forests, it is a pioneer species and is unlikely to persist within mature forests (Munger 2002b). There have been few studies on the effects of fire on multiflora rose. In a savanna restoration project using prescribed fire in central Illinois, Hruska and Ebinger (1995) noted a reduction of multiflora rose after burning. In a study of the effects of burning on deciduous hardwood forest in Ohio, Glasgow & Matlock (2007) showed that sown seeds of multiflora rose germinated and grew best at sites with high intensity fire, litter removal, and canopy gaps. In Texas, burning was tested for controlling a similar species, Mccartney rose (R. bracteata). Burning at several times of the year was tested. Mccartney rose was top-killed by 90%, with regrowth occurring after two weeks, regardless of the time of the fire. Winter burning was especially effective for short-term reduction of brush and also had the greatest subsequent growth of herbs (Eckhardt & Martin (1987, 2001)). While a single prescribed fire is unlikely to eradicate multiflora rose, periodic burning in fire-adapted communities may control its spread and eventually reduce its presence (Munger 2002b). Environmental Impacts Alternative 1 should not impact the spread of multiflora rose because there will be no project actions. Spread of infestations should be slow, mainly in canopy gaps caused by natural disturbance throughout most of the project area. Where prescribed fire is currently being done, invasion at disturbed sites may be off-set by control by repeated burning.

20

Alternative 2 will accelerate the spread of multiflora rose at first, but it may eventually be slowed and controlled to some degree. There will be increased disturbance from logging and substantial opening of the tree canopy. Other project actions, including construction of vernal ponds, road maintenance and reconstruction, and prescribed fire will create more disturbances. Prescribed burning causes this species to re-sprout and spread. However, periodic prescribed fire may eventually control its spread. Alternative 3 will not accelerate the spread of multiflora rose as fast as the second alternative, and its spread should also eventually be slowed and controlled. Repeated fire should eventually reduce the infestations. There will be fewer disturbances from logging because the timber will not be removed. The downed pines will cover and shade out much of the forest floor, reducing the amount of ground where multiflora rose is likely to sprout. The effects from fire and other project actions will be about the same the second alternative. Cumulative Impacts There should be no cumulative impacts with Alternative 1 because there will be no direct or indirect impacts. Infestations of multiflora rose won’t spread more rapidly. On the other hand, without fire or removal of non-native pine in the project area, the oak-hickory woodlands and the native vegetation will not be restored. Species diversity will not increase. Multiflora rose may eventually be somewhat controlled with the implementation of Alternative 2, and project actions will help restore the native oak-hickory woodlands. Removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of fire should help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. Removal of pine after felling will open up more of the forest floor, accelerating the growth of native herbs as well as allowing germination of desirable woody species. Over time, repeated prescribed burning should help control multiflora rose. Multiflora rose may eventually be somewhat controlled with the implementation of Alternative 3, and project actions should help restore the native oak-hickory woodlands. Removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of fire will help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. Over time, repeated prescribed burning should help control multiflora rose may eventually be somewhat controlled with the implementation of. However, leaving large numbers of pine trees on the forest floor will cover much of the ground, slowing the growth of native herbs and germination of desirable woody species. Restoration of the native oak-hickory woodlands will be slower than with the second alternative. Schedonorus arundinaceus (tall fescue) Tall fescue is a cool season perennial grass. Native to Europe, it was introduced to North America in the early to mid-nineteenth century. It was widely planted as a forage grass beginning in the 1930’s. It has also been used as a turf grass and to control erosion (Miller, et al., and Walsh 1995a). This species has been found in all but two states in the United States and in most provinces in Canada (USDA, NRCS). It grows best in open, moist, disturbed sites such as along roads, ditches, and railroad tracks, in grazed woods, old fields, meadows, and marshes (Walsh 1995a). It is somewhat suppressed by shade (Batcher, et al.). Tall fescue spreads vegetatively from root crowns more readily than from seed (Miller, et al.), but can also spread from seeds,

21

which are spread by animal manure (Batcher et al.). It flowers from May to August in Illinois (Mohlenbrock). Tall fescue can invade grasslands, savannas, woodlands, and the edges of marshes. It strongly competes with native vegetation (Batcher, et al.), forming extensive colonies (Miller, et al.). It produces allelopathic compounds that suppress other plants (Walsh 1995a). This grass is also known to harbor an endophytic fungus in its seeds that can be poisonous to livestock and wildlife. Its growth can be slowed by competition with other plants, especially legumes (Batcher, et al.). Controlled burning has limited effectiveness in controlling tall fescue. Underground parts of this grass survive fire, as do its seeds (Walsh 1995a). Experimental prescribed fire studies on the Mark Twain National Forest comparing burning at different times found that spring burning reduced yield and that summer burning increased it (Walsh 1995b). An Iowa study found that spring burns increased shoot density the same year as the fire, but not afterward. Spring burns on the Great Plains have reduced infestations, but controlling larger infestations requires herbicides (Batcher et al.). Environmental Impacts Alternative 1 should not impact the spread of tall fescue because there will be no project actions. It will continue to spread slowly, probably mainly along roads and trails. This grass would probably be less likely to invade the interior of the woodlands within the project area because it is suppressed by shade. Alternative 2 may increase the spread of tall fescue somewhat. There will be increased disturbance from logging construction of vernal ponds, road maintenance and reconstruction, and prescribed fire where it can invade. However, tall fescue is not so much an aggressive invader as a persistent one. Prescribed fire will not likely provide control of infestations because most prescribed fire on the Forest takes place from late fall to early spring, during the dormant season of this grass. Spread of this grass should be moderate with this alternative Alternative 3 will increase the spread of tall fescue to a lesser degree than the second alternative. There will be fewer disturbances from logging because the timber will not be removed. The downed pines will also cover and shade out much of the forest floor, reducing the amount of ground where tall fescue can sprout. The effects from fire and other project actions will be about the same as the second alternative. Cumulative Impacts There should be no cumulative impacts with Alternative 1 because there will be no direct or indirect impacts. Infestations of tall fescue won’t spread more rapidly. On the other hand, without fire or removal of non-native pine in the project area, the oak-hickory woodlands and the native vegetation will not be restored. Species diversity will not increase. Tall fescue will spread moderately with the implementation of Alternative 2. However, the removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of fire should help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. Removal of pine after felling will

22

open up more of the forest floor, accelerating the growth of native herbs as well as allowing germination of desirable woody species. With Alternative 3, tall fescue will spread more slowly than with Alternative 2. Fire and cutting non-native pine will help restore the native plant community without as much disturbance. However, leaving large numbers of pine trees on the forest floor will cover much of the ground, slowing the growth of native herbs and germination of desirable, woody species. Restoration of the native oak-hickory woodlands will be slower than with the second alternative. Schedonorus pratensis (meadow fescue) Meadow fescue is a cool season, perennial grass. It is native to Asia and Europe. It has been planted and naturalized throughout the temperate parts of the world (Yatskievych 1999). In North America, this grass is found in all states of the continental United States, as well as in most provinces in Canada (USDA, NRCS). It grows primarily in moist, disturbed areas, but can be found in many habitat types, ranging from grasslands to intact forests. It grows more favorably in full sunlight. Meadow fescue tends to spread vegetatively from rhizomes or tillers. Seed production is rather low, and seeds do not remain viable for more than a year. It spreads in animal manure, machinery, and irrigation water (Stone 2010). This species flowers and produces seed from May to August in Illinois (Mohlenbrock). Meadow fescue appears to be most invasive in grassland communities. In an 18-year study of a forested recreational site in Illinois, this species disappeared after recreation ceased (Gibson, et al. 2000). In several open natural communities, meadow fescue has been reported to displace native species, such as Indiangrass. This grass tends to spread relatively slowly, but is difficult to eradicate because of its thick root mats and its ability to re-sprout vigorously when damaged. It is also allelopathic and suppresses the growth of nearby vegetation (Stone 2010). Fire, by itself, does not appear to effectively control meadow fescue. Although this grass is likely top-killed by growing season fire, below ground parts appear to survive and later re-sprout (Stone 2010). A study of an oak savanna restoration site in Illinois found no change in meadow fescue cover after two consecutive years of spring prescribed fire (Hruska & Ebinger). Similarly, in a mesic sand prairie in Illinois, there was little change in the frequency of this species following burning in a couple different years (Stone 2010). Environmental Impacts Alternative 1 should not impact the spread of meadow fescue because there will be no project actions. It will probably spread quite slowly because it is not an aggressive invader of woodlands, although it may spread in moist, eroded sites within the project area. Meadow fescue will probably spread more rapidly if Alternative 2 is implemented, but it should spread relatively slowly. Increased disturbance from project actions including timber harvest, timber hauling, road maintenance, and prescribed burning will increase sites for meadow fescue to invade. The creation of vernal ponds will increase moist habitat suitable for this grass. However, erosion control measures should decrease disturbed, moist sites. Although prescribed fire won’t control meadow fescue, it probably won’t increase its spread either.

23

The spread of meadow fescue will be slowed compared to the second alternative if Alternative 3 is implemented. Disturbance from logging will be reduced if timber is not hauled from the project area. The impacts from the other project actions should remain the same as with the second alternative. Cumulative Impacts There should be no cumulative impacts with Alternative 1 because there will be no direct or indirect impacts. Infestations of meadow fescue won’t spread more rapidly. On the other hand, without fire or removal of non-native pine in the project area, the oak-hickory woodlands and the native vegetation will not be restored. Species diversity will not increase. Meadow fescue will spread somewhat more rapidly with the implementation of Alternative 2, but it should not spread aggressively. The removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of fire will help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. Removal of pine after felling will open up more of the forest floor, accelerating the growth of native herbs as well as allowing germination of desirable woody species. With Alternative 3, tall meadow will spread even less rapidly than with Alternative 2. Fire and cutting non-native pine will help restore the native plant community without as much disturbance. However, leaving large numbers of pine trees on the forest floor will cover much of the ground, slowing the growth of native herbs and germination of desirable, woody species. Restoration of the native oak-hickory woodlands will be slower than with the second alternative. Securigera varia (crownvetch) Crownvetch is a perennial, vining herb in the legume family. Native to Eurasia and North Africa, it was first reported in the United States in the 1860’s and 1870’s. It has been widely planted in the United States for erosion control, revegetation of mining sites, as an ornamental, for a cover crop, and as green fertilizer (Gucker 2009a). It is found in all but two states in the United States and in most of the Canadian provinces (USDA, NRCS). This species prefers sunny, open areas and can be a pioneer plant in poor soils. It is typically found along roadsides, rights-of-way, fields, waste ground, and gravel bars in streams. It spreads from seeds dispersed by wildlife and humans (Miller, et al.). In Illinois, this species flowers and produces fruit from May to September (Mohlenbrock). Crownvetch can be invasive in a number of natural community types. It is a prolific seed producer, and its seeds are long-lived. It also spreads vegetatively from rhizomes. Large, dense infestations can choke out other species, eliminating diversity where it is present. Crownvetch has displaced native grasses and forbs at a number of sites including tallgrass prairies, dunes, open woodlands, forests, and shale barrens (Gucker 2009a, and Tu 2003). Prescribed fire is probably of only limited use in controlling crownvetch. Dense infestations don’t carry fire well, so plants re-sprout. Even if plants are destroyed, infestations can be regenerated from the seed bank. Crownvetch has persisted after burning at two tall grass prairies in Iowa and Kansas (Gucker 2009a). However, if infestations are small and are located in fire-adapted ecosystems, spring burning can be effective. Several burns in successive years are needed to control this species (Tu 2003).

24

Environmental Impacts Alternative 1 should not impact the spread of crownvetch because there will be no project actions. It will continue to spread slowly, probably mainly along roads and trails, but may also spread to canopy gaps in the forest. Alternative 2 would likely accelerate the spread of crownvetch, but its spread should be moderate. There will be increased disturbance from logging construction of vernal ponds, road maintenance and reconstruction, and prescribed fire where it can invade. However, crownvetch is not so much an aggressive invader as a persistent one. Prescribed fire will not likely provide control of infestations because most prescribed fire at most sites on the Forest does not occur in successive years, but every few years. Alternative 3 will accelerate the spread of crownvetch to a lesser degree than the second alternative. There will be fewer disturbances from logging because the timber will not be removed. The downed pines will also cover and shade out much of the forest floor, reducing the amount of ground where tall fescue can sprout. The effects from fire and other project actions will be about the same as the second alternative. Cumulative Impacts There should be no cumulative impacts with Alternative 1 because there will be no direct or indirect impacts. Infestations of crownvetch won’t spread more rapidly. On the other hand, without fire or removal of non-native pine in the project area, the oak-hickory woodlands and the native vegetation will not be restored. Species diversity will not increase. Crownvetch will spread moderately with the implementation of Alternative 2. However, the removal of non-native pine in the project area and the expansion of fire should help restore the native plant community and its diversity within the project area. Removal of pine after felling will open up more of the forest floor, accelerating the growth of native herbs as well as allowing germination of desirable woody species. With Alternative 3, crownvetch will spread even less rapidly than with Alternative 2. Fire and cutting non-native pine will help restore the native plant community without as much disturbance. However, leaving large numbers of pine trees on the forest floor will cover much of the ground, slowing the growth of native herbs and germination of desirable, woody species. Restoration of the native oak-hickory woodlands will be slower than with the second alternative. III. SUMMARY The invasiveness of non-native species can be difficult to predict. However, the above plant species were analyzed for possible impacts from the Lee Mine Hardwood Restoration project using the best available science, personal observations from Forest Service botanists, and consulting with experts from other agencies. Environmental Impacts

25

Alternative 1 Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, would have no direct impacts on existing native vegetation because there would be no actions. There would be no indirect impacts, but native vegetation within most of the project area would continue to deteriorate. The exception would be the 317 acres where prescribed fire is authorized and is being implemented; burning is providing a limited degree of native plant restoration. Invasives will continue to spread throughout the project area’s pine and hardwood stands. Alternative 2 Of all the non-native plants found within the project area, Nepalese browntop is most likely to spread aggressively if the proposed project alternative is implemented. It has already spread at sites within the project area that are currently being prescribed burned. Expansion of burning and increased disturbance from logging, timber hauling, the creation of vernal ponds, and road reconstruction and maintenance will greatly increase disturbed sites for this plant to invade. At the Harris Branch timber sales, Nepalese browntop has grown and spread exponentially after timber harvest, becoming the dominant herb and ground cover; it will most likely increase with similar rapidity in the Lee Mine project area. The spread of this grass would also reduce the survival and recruitment of oak seedlings. Erosion control measures may reduce disturbance to a degree, however, and somewhat slow its spread. Oriental bittersweet also has the potential to spread aggressively if the proposed project alternative is implemented. The known infestation of this plant within the project area is at a site that will not be logged, so it won’t be subject to that type of disturbance. However, fire is likely to cause this species to rapidly increase its growth and reproduction. It may eventually strangle trees and choke out surrounding vegetation. Its seeds are more likely to be spread throughout the project area and beyond, and there will be a substantial expansion of disturbed sites for this species to infest. A couple of non-native woody plants within the project area are likely to spread more rapidly if the proposed project alternative is implemented, but not as aggressively as Nepalese browntop and Oriental bittersweet. Those species are autumn olive and black locust. Increased disturbance from the project actions would increase sites for those species to infest. Prescribed fire would likely stimulate their growth and reproduction. However, they do not invade as rapidly as Nepalese browntop and Oriental bittersweet. Increased competition from the restored native plant community may slow the invasion of these species, but the rapid expansion of Nepalese browntop would inhibit restoration of native vegetation. Two species may spread rapidly if the proposed project action alternative is implemented, but will probably be controlled by the introduction of prescribed fire. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) has the potential to spread rapidly by seed because of disturbances associated with project actions. However, prescribed fire has been shown to be an effective tool in controlling this species on the Forest, so infestations may eventually be reduced. Multiflora rose also has the potential to spread with project action disturbances, but it is probable that repeated burning will reduce the spread of this plant.

26

Japanese chaff flower is likely to spread rapidly if the project alternative is implemented. However, this exotic is relatively new to the United States and little is known about how it is affected by timber projects or by fire. Increased disturbance from logging activities would likely increase its spread. However, fire may somewhat retard it by destroying infestations in drier areas. Rapid expansion of Nepalese browntop may also inhibit the spread of this species. Several more non-native species within the project area are likely to spread only moderately if the proposed project action is implemented. In some cases, project actions may even reduce their spread. Sweetclover, white mulberry and Kentucky bluegrass are likely to spread into disturbed areas. However, erosion control may actually decrease their spread. Sericea lespedeza is also likely to spread moderately, but may eventually be out-competed by native vegetation or Nepalese browntop. Tall fescue, meadow fescue, and crownvetch are fairly slow to invade and are more likely to invade sunny sites. They would probably invade the most disturbed sites and persist mainly along roads, trails, and firelines Alternative 3 If this alternative is implemented, the spread of invasive plants will be reduced compared to the second alternative. Disturbances will decrease because timber will not be hauled from the project area. Invasive plants would spread more rapidly than with the first alternative Cumulative Impacts Alternative 1 If the no action alternative is adopted, invasive plants in the project area will continue to spread at their present rate. However, restoration of the native oak-hickory woodlands would be severely limited, and would only occur within areas subject to prescribed fire. Native vegetation would continue to decline. Nepalese browntop may eventually become the dominant herb within the project area. Alternative 2 Implementation of the proposed project action would help restore native oak-hickory woodlands and increase native species diversity were it not for the presence of Nepalese browntop and oriental bittersweet. Over time, prescribed fire and competition from healthier native plant communities would slow the spread of most invasive plants. Others would remain confined to highly disturbed areas, such as roads, trails, and firelines. However, the presence of large infestations of Nepalese browntop and, to a lesser extent, an infestation of oriental bittersweet within the project area, is problematic. As Nepalese browntop spreads throughout the project area, its infestations are likely to reduce the survival of oak seedlings after prescribed burning. Even if a canopy of native oaks and hickories is restored, native herbaceous vegetation is unlikely to recover to anywhere near the richness and diversity of areas not infested. Periodic prescribed fire will serve to perpetuate this invasive grass within the project area. Heavy infestations will serve as a seed source, allowing it to spread into uninfested sinks within the project area, and eventually beyond it.

27

Oriental bittersweet is also likely to spread with increased prescribed fire and disturbed habitat from logging and other project activities. Large infestations could eventually choke out native vegetation, including oaks and hickories. Heavy infestations of this vine would make it more likely to spread beyond the project area boundaries. Alternative 3 Implementation of the third alternative would be similar to the proposed action, but the spread of invasive plants would be slower because timber harvest would not take place and disturbance would be greatly reduced. The canopy would still be opened when the pines are cut. Over time, prescribed fire and competition from healthier native plant communities would slow the spread of most invasive plants. However, the presence of Nepalese browntop and, to a lesser extent, oriental bittersweet, is problematic. The spread of Nepalese browntop would be slower compared to the third alternative because there would be less disturbance. However, Nepalese browntop would eventually spread throughout the project area, and its infestations are likely to reduce the survival of oak seedlings after prescribed burning. Even if a canopy of native oaks and hickories is restored, native herbaceous vegetation is unlikely to recover to anywhere near the richness and diversity of areas not infested. Periodic prescribed fire will serve to perpetuate this invasive grass within the project area. Heavy infestations will serve as a seed source, allowing it to spread into uninfested sinks within the project area, and eventually beyond it. Oriental bittersweet would spread more slowly than with the second alternative there will be less disturbance from logging. However, periodic prescribed fire will stimulate its growth and spread. Large infestations could eventually choke out native vegetation, including oaks and hickories. Heavy infestations of this vine would make it more likely to spread beyond the project area boundaries.

2/11/2016

X Shannan Sharp

Shannan Sharp

Botanist, Shawnee National Forest

Signed by: SHANNAN SHARP LITERATURE CITED: Batcher, Michael S (author), edited by John M. Randall and Barry Meyers-Rice. Undated. Element Stewardship abstract for Festuca arundinacea (Schre.) Synonym: Festuca elatior L., Tall Fescue, Kentucky Fescue. The Nature Conservancy. Accessed at: http://wiki.bugwood.org/Schedonorus_phoenix [February 20, 2015] Brandon, Alice L., David J. Gibson, and Beth A. Middleton. 2004. Mechanisms for dominance in early successional old field by the invasive non-native Lespedeza cuneata (Dum. Cours.) G. Don. Biological Invasions 6: 483-493.

28

Dreyer, Glenn D, and John M. Randall, editors. 1994. Stewardship Element Abstract for Celastrus orbiculatus. The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved from http://wiki.bugwood.org/Celastrus_orbiculatus on February 18, 2015 Eckhardt, Nancy. 1987. Element Stewardship Abstract for Melilotus officinalis, Sweetclover. The Nature Conservancy. Accessed at: http://wiki.bugwood.org/Melilotus_officinalis [February 19, 2015] Eckhardt, Nancy (1987), TunyaLee Martin (revision, 2001). Element Stewardship Abstract for Rosa multiflora, Rambler rose, Multi-flowered Rose. The Nature Conservancy. Accessed at: http://wiki.bugwood.org/Rosa_multiflora [February 20, 2015] EDDMapS. 2015. Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System. The University of Georgia - Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. Last accessed October 28, 2015 at http://www.eddmaps.org/ Evans, Chris, and David Taylor. 2011. New Invader Profile: Japanese Chaff Flower—Achyranthes japonica. Wildland Weeds, Summer/Fall 2011, pp. 4-6. Accessed October 28, 2015 at http://www.rtrcwma.org/chaffflower2011.pdf Flory, S.L. 2010. Impacts and management of Microstegium vimineum invasions. In 2010 Stiltgrass Summit. River to River Cooperative Weed Management Area, Carbondale, IL. URL: http://www.rtrcwma.org/stiltgrass/2010presentations/flory.cfm Flory, S. Luke, and Keith Clay. 2010. Non-native plant invasion alters plant composition in experimental communities. Biological Invasions 12: 1285-1294. Flory, S. Luke, Keith Clay, Sarah M. Emery, Joseph R. Robb, and Brian Winters. 2015. Fire and non-native grass invasion interact to suppress tree regeneration in temperate deciduous forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 2015, pp. 1-9. Fryer, Janet L. 2011a. Celastrus orbiculatus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2014, December 3]. Fryer, Janet L. 2011b. Microstegium vimineum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2014 March 17]. Gage, K.L, D.J. Gibson, C. Evans, and J. Shimp. 2011. White Paper: 2010 Stiltgrass Summit. River to River Cooperative Weed Management Area. Available at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/pb_reports/3/ [Accessed February 1, 2016] Gibson, David J.; Eric D. Adams, Joseph S. Ely, Danny J. Gustafson, Douglas McEwen, and Tracy R. Evans. 2000. Eighteen years of herbaceous layer recovery of a recreation area in a mesic forest. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 127(3): 230-239.

29

Gibson, David J., Greg Spyreas, and Jennifer Benedict. 2002. Life History of Microstegium vimineum (Poaceae), an Invasive grass in Southern Illinois. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, 129(3): 207-219. Gibson, David J., and Kelsey A. Martinez. 2014. “Shawnee National Forest Vegetation Plot Analysis.” Reports. Paper 4. http://opensiuc.lib.edu/pb_reports/4 Glasgow, Lance S., and Glenn R. Matlock. 2007. The Effects of Burning and Canopy Openness on the Establishment of Two Nonnative Plant Species in Deciduous Forest, Southeast Ohio, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 238(1/3): 319-329. Gucker, Corey L. 2009a. Coronilla varia. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2015, February 19]. Gucker, Corey. 2009b. Melilotus alba, M. officinalis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2015, February 19]. Gucker, Corey. 2010. (Revised from Munger, Gregory T., 2004). Lespedeza cuneata. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2015, February 18]. Honu, Yohanes A. K., Shibi Chandy, and David J. Gibson. 2009. Occurrence of Non-Native Species in Natural Areas of the Shawnee National Forest, Southern, Illinois, U.S.A. Natural Areas Journal, 29(2): 177-187. Huebner, Cynthia D. 2006. Fire and invasive exotic plant species in eastern oak communities: an assessment of current knowledge. In: Dickinson, Matthew B., ed. Fire in eastern oak forests: delivering science to land managers: Proceedings of a conference; 2005 November 15-17; Columbus, OH. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 218-232. Huebner, Cynthia D. 2010. Establishment of an invasive grass in closed-canopy deciduous forest across local and regional environmental gradients. Biological Invasions 12: 2069-2080. Hruska, Mary C., and John E. Ebinger. 1995. Monitoring a Savanna Restoration in East-Central Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science, 88(3&4): 109-117. Kurz, Don. 2003. Trees of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation. Jefferson City, MO. Kurz, Don. 1997. Shrubs and Woody Vines of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation. Jefferson City, MO. Manee, Christina, W.T. “Duke” Rankin, Gary Kauffman, and Greg Adkison. 2015. Association of Roads and Microstegium vimineum in Appalachian Forests of North Carolina. Southeastern Naturalis 14(4): 602-611.

30

Meiners, S. Lon-term dynamics and impacts of Microstegium invasion in the Piedmont of New Jersey. In 2010 Stiltgrass Summit, Carbondale, IL. URL: http://www.rtrcwma.org/stiltgrass/2010presentations/meiners.cfm Miller, James H., E.B. Chambliss, and N.J. Loewensteiun. 2013 (revised). A Field Guide for the Identification of Invasive Plants in Southern Forests. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research, Station, General Technical Report SRS-119. Asheville, NC. Available at http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs119.pdf Mohlenbrock, R.H. 2002. Vascular Flora of Illinois. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, Illinois. xiv plus 490 pp. Munger, Gregory T. 2002a. Lonicera japonica. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2014, March 17]. Munger, Gregory T. 2002b. Rosa multiflora. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2015, February 20]. Munger, Gregory T. 2003. Elaeagnus umbellata. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2014, March 17] Nelson, John L., John W. Groninger, Loretta L. Battaglia, and Charles M. Ruffner. 2008. Bottomland hardwood forest recovery following tornado disturbance and salvage logging. Forest Ecology and Management. 256(3): 388-395. Nuzzo, Victoria, and John M. Randall (editor). 1997. Element Stewardship Abstract for Lonicera japonica, Japanese honeysuckle. The Nature Conservancy. Accessed at: http://wiki.bugwood.org/Lonicera_japonica [February 19, 2015] Sather, N., and Nancy Eckhardt (1987), revision TunyaLee Martin (2001). Element Stewardship Abstract for Elaeagnus umbellata, Autumn Olive. The Nature Conservancy. Accessed at: http://wiki.bugwood.org/Elaeagnus_umbellata [February 18, 2015] Schwartz, LM, KM Smith, C Evans, KL Gage, DJ Gibson, and BG Young. 2015. Fact Sheet: Ecology and Control of Japanese Chaff Flower [Achyranthes japonica (Miq.) Nakai]. http://www.rtrcwma.org/Chaff_FactSheet.pdf Shelton, A. 2010. Predictive spatial model of Japanese stiltgrass spread. In 2010 Stiltgrass Summit. River to River Cooperative Weed Management Area, Carbondale, IL. URL: http://www.rtrcwma.org/stiltgrass/2010presentations/shelton.cfm Simao, M.C.M., S.L. Flory, & J.A. Rudgers. 2010. Experimental plant invasion reduces arthropod abundance and richness across multiple trophic levels. Oikos, 119: 1553-1562.

31

Smith, Jane Kapler, compiler. 2010. Research Project Summary: Effects of experimental burning on understory plants in a temperate deciduous forest in Ohio. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2015, February 20]. Stevens, Sandy, Mandy Tu, Barry Rice, and John Randall (editors). 2002. Element Stewardship Abstract for Lespedeza cuneata Dumont-Cours.) G. Don, Sericea Lespedeza, Chinese Bush Clover. The Nature Conservancy. Accessed at: http://wiki.bugwood.org/Lespedeza_cuneata [February 18, 2015] Stone, Katharine R. 2009a. Morus alba. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2014 March 19]. Stone, Katharine R. 2009b. Robinia pseudoacacia. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2014 March 19]. Stone, Katharine R. 2010. Schedonorus pratensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2015, February 18]. Stroh, Esther D., and Matthew A Struckhoff. 2009. Exotic Plant Species Associations with Horse Trails, Old Roads, and Intact Native Communities in the Missouri Ozarks. Natural Areas Journal, 29 (1): 50-56. Tu, Mandy. 2000. J. Randall (ed.). Element Stewardship Abstract for Microstegium vimineum, Japanese stilt grass, Nepalese browntop, Chinese packing grass. The Nature Conservancy. Accessed at: http://wiki.bugwood.org/Microstegium_vimineum [February 19, 2015] Tu, Mandy. 2003. Element Stewardship Abstract for Coronilla varia, Crown vetch, Trailing crown vetch. The Nature Conservancy. Accessed at: http://wiki.bugwood.org/Securigera_varia [February 19, 2015] USDA, NRCS. 2014. The PLANTS Database, (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. Yatskievych, G. 1999. Steyermark's Flora of Missouri: Volume 1. Published by Missouri Department of Conservation in cooperation with Missouri Botanic Garden Press, St. Louis, Missouri. 991 pp. Walsh, Roberta A. 1995a. Schedonorus arundinaceus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2015, February 20].

32

Walsh, Roberta A., compiler. 1995b. Tall fescue response to prescribed fire on the Mark Twain National Forest, Missouri. In: Schedonorus arundinaceus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2015, February 20]. Warren, R. 2010. Niche limitations of a vigorous exotic invader, Microstegium vimineum, across temperate forest ecotones. In 2010 Stiltgrass Summit, River to River Cooperative Weed Management Area, Carbondale, IL. URL: http://www.rtrcwma.org/stiltgrass/2010presentations/warren.cfm

33

Appendix A. Invasive Plants of the Shawnee National Forest (Provisional)* Category: 1=Highly Invasive, 2=Moderately Invasive, 3=Invasive Primarily in Disturbed Habitats, EDRR=Early Detection Rapid Response, W=Watch to Determine Invasiveness, Ex=Illinois Exotic Weed Scientific Name Common Name Habit Category

Acer platanoides Norway maple tree 2

Achillea millefolium common yarrow forb 3

Albizia julibrissin silktree tree W

Achyranthes japonica Japanese chaff flower forb EDRR/1

Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven tree 1

Alliaria petiolata P garlic mustard forb 1

Allium vineale wild garlic forb 3

Anthoxanthum odoratum sweet vernalgrass graminoid W

Arctium minus lesser burdock forb 3

Asparagus officinalis garden asparagus forb 3

Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry shrub EDRR

Bromus inermis smooth brome graminoid 1

Bromus racemosus bald brome graminoid 3

Bromus tectorum cheatgrass graminoid 2

Carduus nutans nodding plumegrass thistle forb 1

Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental bittersweet vine 1

Cichorium intybus chicory forb 3

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle forb 1

Cirsium vulgare bull thistle forb 3

Commelina communis Asiatic dayflower forb 3

Conium maculatum poison hemlock forb 2

Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed forb 3

Dactylis glomerataS orchardgrass graminoid 3

Datura stramonium jimsonweed forb 3

Daucus carota Queen Anne’s lace forb 3

Dioscorea oppositifoliaP Chinese yam vine 1

Dipsacus fullonum Fuller’s teasel forb 1

Dipsacus laciniatus cutleaf teasel forb 1

Egeria densa Brazilian waterweed forb EDRR

Eichhornia crassipes common water hyacinth forb W

Eleagnus angustifolia Russian olive shrub EDRR

Elaeagnus umbellata autumn olive shrub 1

Euonymus alatus burningbush shrub 2

Euonymus fortunei winter creeper vine 1

Glechoma hederacea ground ivy forb 3

Hemerocallis fulva orange daylily forb 3

Hesperis matronalis dames rocket forb 2

Humulus japonicus Japanese hops vine 2

Hypericum perforatum common St. Johnswort forb 3

Kummerowia stipulacea Korean lespedeza forb 3

Kummerowia striata Japanese lespedeza forb 3

Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce forb 3

Lespedeza bicolor shrub lespedeza forb 2

Lespedeza cuneata sericea lespedeza forb 1

Leucanthemum vulgare oxeye daisy forb 3

Ligustrum vulgare European privet shrub 2

Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle vine 1

Lonicera maackiiP Amur honeysuckle shrub 1

Lonicera morrowii Morrow’s honeysuckle shrub 2

Lonicera tatarica Tatarian honeysuckle shrub 2

Lysimachia nummularia creeping jenny forb 3

Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife forb 1

34

Scientific Name Common Name Habit Category

Maclura pomifera Osage orange tree 3

Medicago lupulina black medic forb 3

Melilotus officinalis sweetclover forb 1

Mentha x piperita peppermint forb 3

Microstegium vimineum Nepalese browntop graminoid 1

Morus alba white mulberry tree 1

Myriophyllum aquaticum parrot feather watermilfoil forb W

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil forb 1

Najas minor brittleleaf waternymph forb 3

Nasturtium officinale watercress forb 2

Ornithogalum umbellatum sleepydick forb 3

Pastinaca sativa wild parsnip forb 2

Paulownia tomentosa princesstree tree 2

Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass graminoid 1

Phellodendron amurense Amur corktree tree EDRR

Phleum pratenseS timothy graminoid 3

Phragmites australis common reed graminoid 1

Poa compressa Canada bluegrass forb 2

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass forb 1

Polygonum cespitosum var. longisetum Oriental ladysthumb forb 3

Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed forb 1

Populus alba white poplar tree 3

Potamogeton crispus curly-leaved pondweed forb 2

Pueraria montana var. lobataP kudzu vine 1, N

Rhamnus cathartica European buckthorn tree EDRR

Robinia pseudoacacia black locust tree 1

Rosa multiflora multiflora rose shrub 1

Rumex acetellosa common sheep sorrel forb 3

Rumex crispus bitter dock forb 3

Schedonorus arundinaceus tall fescue graminoid 2

Schedonorus pratensis meadow fescue graminoid 2

Securigera varia crownvetch forb 2

Setaria faberi giant foxtail graminoid 3

Setaria viridis green foxtail graminoid 3

Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass graminoid 1

Spiraea japonica Japanese meadowsweet shrub W

Taraxacum officinale common dandelion forb 3

Torilis arvensis spreading hedgeparsley forb 3

Torilis japonica erect hedgeparsley forb 3

Trifolium campestre field clover forb 3

Trifolium pratenseS red clover forb 3

Trifolium repens S white clover forb 3

Ulmus pumila Siberian elm tree 1

Verbascum thapsus common mullein forb 2

Vinca minor common periwinkle vine 2

Vulpia myuros annual fescue graminoid W

* This list of non-native invasive plants and native invasive plants on the Shawnee was compiled using information from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, USDA Forest Service Eastern Region, natural resources specialists on the Shawnee, and experts from other agencies. This list is likely to change with additional information. P Shawnee National Forest Priority NNIS species S Used in Shawnee National Forest seed mixes