The URL can be used to link to this page

09/05/2024 - Meeting Materials Capital Improvement Program ( CIP ) Overview for the PNUTAdvisory Board September 5, 2024 • Overview PNUT Board's Duties • Chapter 2.94 of the city code details how the PNUT Board is to function. PNUT board powers and duties related to capital improvement (Section 2.94.060): A. Review and advise the parks, natural lands, urban forestry and trail managers with respect to the annual budget and budget adjustments. B. Review, rank, prioritize, and make recommendations on capital improvement program funding applications and construction designs pertaining to the parks, natural lands, urban forestry and trails programs. C. Review and make recommendations regarding annual financial priorities including budget, capital improvements, fees and concession agreements. • Overview Timeline, Eligibility, and Application Types Timeline and Eligibility • Due December, funding next September • What is a "Capital" project and what isn't? Internal • Prioritized and developed by staff • Sometimes additional funding for existing projects, sometimes new projects Constituent • Submitted by any constituent or organization that lives or is based in Salt Lake City • Overview How do projects happen? Project Sources • Master Plans or Studies • "Reimagine Nature" Public Lands Master Plan, citywide master plans, community master plans, or other park management plans • SLC Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) • 10-year plans for capital improvements throughout SLC • Citizen and stakeholder requests at public forums, letters, etc. • City Council directives • Land acquisitions opportunities • Mayoral or internal priorities Fund 'ing Funding Sources • Parks impact fees: must increase level of service (charged to developers) • General fund: may but doesn't need to increase level of service (all local taxes, fees) • Funding our Future (FOF) (1/2 Cent Sales Tax) for parks maintenance: capital maintenance • 1/4 Cent Sales Tax (Transportation): for trails, sidewalks, bike lanes, roadways • And how do projects happen anyway? Past Funded Past Three Fiscal Years - FY 22/23 ($415821086) 1 . Three Creeks West Roadways, Trail, and Bank Stabilization ($1 ,359,130) 2. Rose Park Neighborhood Center Community Garden ($160,819) 3. Public Lands Asset Management Plan ($160,160) 4. Urban Farm Development at 2200 West ($425,040) 5. RAC Playground Phase II ($521 ,564) 6. 900 South River Park Soccer Field ($287,848) 7. Memorial Tree Groves Design and Infrastructure ($867,962) 8. Gateway Triangle Property Park ($499,563) 9. Lighting for NE Baseball Field at Riverside Park ($300,000) Past Funded Past Three Fiscal Years - FY 23/24 ($4,835, 689) 1 . Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning ($190,000) 2. Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion ($507,000) 50% IF 3. Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet ($850,000) 76% IF 4. Fire Station No. 7 Tennis & Pickleball ($855,000) 49% IF 5. 337 Park Development ($550,000) 6. Jefferson Park Improvements ($530,000) 7. Parks Bilingual Signage Installation ($414,000) 80% IF 8. Restorations/Conservation Work at Peace Gardens ($325,000) 9. Richmond Park Community Playground ($212,000) 10.North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements ($192,689) 11 .Ensign Peak Nature Park Improvements ($210,000) Past Funded Past Three Fiscal Years - FY 24/25 ($ 13,283,990) 1 . Liberty Park Greenhouse Restoration ($1 ,045,700) 23% FOF 2. Sugar House Park Pavilion Replacement ($960,000) 3. Adapting Irrigation Systems, Waterwise Landscaping ($500,000) 4. Citywide Park Restroom Study, Fairmont Concept Design ($100,000) 5. Courts & Playgrounds ($1 ,508,090) 3.5% FOF, 60% Cap Maint 6. Memory Grove Park Urgent Repairs, Pres and Maint Plan ($1 ,910,000) 7. Amplifying Jordan River Revitalization ($1 ,500,000) 87% IF 8. Jordan River Trail Food Forest + Partner Garden ($20,000) continued on next page Past Funded Past Three Fiscal Years - FY 24/25 continued from previous page 9. Green Loop Implementation ($3,140,000) 1ACent Sales Tax 10. Riverside Park Pathway Loop ($530,000) IF 11. Fairmont Park Basketball Court ($754,000) 90% IF 12. Street Futsal Courts 1:1 Match ($350,000) IF 13. Playground Shade ($500,000) 14. Jake Garn Way Pocket Park Community Space ($330,000) 15. Equal Grounds Project (Calisthenics) ($86,200) 16. 5t" West Commons Conversation Centers ($50,000) P N U T Til m e 1in • September 2024: Discussion about possible projects • October: Additional discussion, input on draft applications • November: Internal & constituent application presentations, maps, Board prioritizes • December: Board finalizes letter of support • February to April 2025: CDCIP Board meetings and recommendations • May: Mayor's Recommended Budget • June to August: City Council Budget deliberations • September: Funding available r Ap �,. :. 0 = _ i1w r PUBLIC LANDS PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRYAND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY Formal Meeting Thursday,September 5,2024 5:00 p.m.-7:15 p.m. Join Via Zoom:https:.Z/us02web.zoom.us/j/84607536504?pwd=Zgg6bZD47ONoCAaBmOBUZMYpfBchu0.1 Or Join at the Public Lands Administrative Building:1965 W.500 S.Salt Lake City,UT 84104 Upstairs Parks Training Room Join by phone Phone:1-253-205-0468 Webinar ID:846 0753 6504 Access code:962617 Agenda 1. Convening the Meeting 5:00 PM A. Call to order B. Chair Comments 5 mins 2. Approval of Minutes&Action Items 5:05 PM - Approve August 1, 2024 meeting minutes 5 mins - Approve non-PNUT members for the Urban Trails Committee 5 mins - Approve Stakeholder Presentation Process 5 mins 3. Public Comment 5:20 PM - Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total.Written 15 mins comments are welcome. 4. Director's Report 5:35 PM - Summary of current high-priority department items. -Tyler Murdock 5 mins 5. Staff Presentations, Updates& Discussions 5:40 PM A. Green Loop Update - Nancy Monteith &Jesse Dean 20 mins B. Capital Improvement Projects Presentation -Tom Millar 60 mins 6. Board Discussion 7:00 PM A. Committee Reporting 10 mins B. Board comments and question period 10 mins C. Next meeting: October 3, 2024 D. Request for future agenda items 7. Adjourn 7:15 PM irill . j T Parks I Trails & Natural Lands I Urban Forestry I Golf Staff Responses to Public Comments Janet Hemming I originally intended to speak during the public comment period of your Thursday(August 1) board meeting but had an emergency. I hope you will consider these comments and requests. • Please ensure that a thorough and transparent investigation into the poisoning of 200 healthy trees along North Temple is conducted; one that results in full disclosure of internal policies and practices that led to the error and new, corrective actions. Will your board review and comment on any internal examination, if it's conducted? • The death of so many trees along North Temple is symptomatic of a larger "herbicide/chemical poison friendly"culture inside Public Lands. I don't say this lightly. o PL introduced a non-native"tree kill" policy in 2014 to the Miller Bird Refuge and Nature Park.This, despite the fact, that 75% of the trees were non-native and the park is an official Riparian Corridor. In 2014, one-third of the trees were destroyed. Sadly, new replacements never prospered. Most died leaving gaps and bare spots. o Between 2014-2022 about 300 trees/saplings were removed yearly for a staggering death rate in the thousands, and their trunks/stems/growth areas poisoned. o Tordon, with chemical properties (picloram) used during the Vietnam War, and Rodeo,with Glyphosate (53.8%)-were the herbicides/chemicals PL regularly used in Miller. o These poisons have not only impacted trees, but had noticeable effects on reducing the bee, owl, butterfly and bird populations. In many ways, Miller is a bird refuge in name only. • Alarmed by this carnage, the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council requested and was granted a chemical moratorium.As of this writing, it's unclear if it has resumed. The side effects and environmental dangers from herbicides and poisonous chemicals are well documented - despite what manufacturers say. Milestone - used along North Temple - is known to stay in the soil for up to 533 days, according to a report by the State of Washington. Ironically, in 2017, Salt Lake City promoted a "pesticide free"city to encourage residents to stop using harsh chemicals including herbicides, citing the harm they cause to the environment and humans.The city's goal then was to promote"proven natural alternatives."What happened to that idea? Some of the organizations PL has relied on for herbicide and weed management advice are actually part of the problem - not part of the solution.These groups put too much trust in product labels written by manufacturers. The city must avoid "one size fits all"thinking when it comes to the application of chemicals and employ a more customized approach that takes into account the delicate nuances and environmental challenges presented by a riparian corridor, a riverway, an urban streetscape, an enhanced green space, a neighborhood pocket park or a larger destination like Liberty Park.Just because a chemical is in SLC's inventory doesn't mean it should be universally used. A concern we regularly observed in Miller Park was PL's heavy reliance on part-time, seasonal workers.Are they properly trained in weed control and habitat management? Has old-fashioned weed pulling gone out of style? Cities in 28 states have adopted pesticide free policies for their parks and open spaces https://www.nontoxiccommunities.com/cities.html. I urge the PNUT board to actively pursue a similar policy for Salt Lake City and work towards the gradual removal of harsh pesticides and herbicides in favor of non-toxic options. Staff Response: The State Department of Agriculture conducted an investigation into the incident and issued a warning letter to the park employee that violated the restricted use of the chemical herbicide. Public Lands' investigation is focused on internal HR matters. As such, the details of Public Lands'disciplinary actions will not be shared publicly or with the board. SLC Parks currently does not use any organic pesticides or herbicides. Instead, we manually weed many areas,particularly around playgrounds, dog parks,flower beds, riparian zones, and other high-traffic or sensitive locations. This hand-weeding process is quite time-consuming and can sometimes leave behind root systems. We have experimented with vinegar-based and other organic sprays, as well as hot-water pressure washing. However, our experience has shown that there is no effective organic herbicide that completely eradicates weed roots. The Department does continue to explore alternatives as recommended in our Reimagine Nature Master Plan Strategies and work with industry best practices to identify these alternative options. • Action 1.3 8 Update Public Lands'2012/2016 T&NL Invasive Pest Management Plan (IPMP) to include current best practices for invasive species control in natural areas, as well as current functional practices for low-pesticide/no-pesticide parks,golf courses,gardens,farms&orchards. • The Trails and Natural Lands Division has completed this update specifically for SLC natural areas, see attached. This report includes best practices for invasive species management including biological, chemical, and mechanical control methods. The Trails and Natural Lands team does rely heavily on seasonal labor to maintain natural areas throughout the City. When chemical herbicide is used in natural areas it is only done so if a certified noxious weed applicator is present on site. Within Miller Park specifically, The Trails and Natural Lands Division has not used any chemical herbicide in this natural area for over three years. Prior to this pause, crews primarily used an organic vinegar-based herbicide to treat herbaceous weeds in Miller Park from 2017-2020 and chemical herbicide only on stump treatments for invasive woody vegetation. Trails and Natural Lands does conduct training regarding herbicide handling with all seasonal employees and have a seasonal handbook that is used for training seasonals who will be working with a State certified applicator. The updated IPMP outlines invasive species control methods for biological, chemical, and mechanical control methods. The Trails and Natural Lands program uses all three types of invasive species control as outlined in the updated IPMP. Manual weed removal is still very common for our Division, particularly with support from volunteer efforts. Diane Walker I just learned about a large Living Room "renovation" project that sought NO public input before accessing taxpayer money to pay a private company without a bidding process. I understand that neither the Mayor's office nor the City Council knew about this massive project beforehand, despite a pledge by Public Lands in February 2024 to provide transparency and inclusivity in the planning and implementation of trail improvement projects. Instead, Public Lands has engaged with Trails Utah on this project covertly and in secret since autumn 2023,wholly undermining their so-called commitment to transparency and inclusivity.They stated they would follow the SE Group recommendations to work with community stakeholders and obtain scientific and user data BEFORE implementing any Foothills trails projects. Public Lands has not. I also understand that the changes Trails Utah plans to make, which includes blasting bedrock, are substantial enough to be considered construction and not merely"renovation." Further, trails in George's Hollow are slated for construction under this project name. No one asked for these changes. Why are public funds being offered up without public knowledge and input? Knowing these facts, how can anyone have faith in Public Lands and their leadership? We should oppose this project both on the merits and on principle. Public Lands must follow their stated commitments of transparency and inclusivity when planning projects involving taxpayer money on our public lands. Public Lands officials involved in this Living Room "renovation" project need to explain themselves. Why are they lying to the public and engaging in shady deals that will significantly alter our most beloved Foothill trails? Please help us to immediately halt this massive and unwarranted construction project. Jeffrey Campbell Listen to Save Our Foothills!!! Mona Mader Please call or email the Council and request they NOT release the full sum of remaining funds to Public Lands. Ask that they release funds only for specific non-trail building projects that are necessary to fulfill the SE Group recommendations. This will ensure that all projects are thoughtfully planned, implemented and completed, and ensure that public funds are spent responsibly. Please ask the City Council to ensure that Public Lands has made progress with the following projects that have either not been started or have not been completed before releasing additional funds: • Scientific and user data studies • Foothills land use management plan • Trail maintenance plan and protocols • Trail signs,wayfinding maps, information signs • Formation of stakeholder engagement committee • Environmental impact statements • Completion of trailheads Staff Response: In 2020, the Salt Lake City Council requested an evaluation of the Foothills Plan after public concerns regarding trail-building impacts were raised. The City's administration determined that a holistic evaluation of the Plan would ensure that future implementation phases would meet the Plan's vision and goals. In February 2024, Salt Lake City Public Lands completed its evaluation and shared its findings with the public. On August 27, 2024, Salt Lake City Public Lands presents the evaluation's recommendations to the Salt Lake City Council and requests funding be released to continue implementing the Foothills Plan, which will now be informed and guided by the evaluation outcomes and recommended planning processes. What is the Evaluation? The evaluation is a document created by third-party consultants who specialize in natural area recreation and trail management that provided Salt Lake City with a thorough analysis of the Foothills Plan and the City's initial implementation of the Plan. It has also provided essential recommendations that Public Lands will incorporate into future Foothills Plan implementation efforts. These recommendations will help Salt Lake City provide a more balanced and environmentally sensitive planning process, and they include: • Adopting a zone-by-zone planning and implementation process • Adopting a segment-by-segment trail planning and implementation process • Developing consistent communication strategies • Prioritizing the maintenance of existing trails • Developing a unified wayfinding system • Increasing trail data collection to inform decision making Developing management plans alongside each zone Has Salt Lake City approved projects and maintenance in the Foothills before receiving approval from the City Council? Salt Lake City has conducted routine maintenance and existing trail restoration on City-owned land throughout the Foothills over the past three years, as allowed by the City Council in 2021. Salt Lake City has not initiated or approved any new trail construction in the Foothills. Salt Lake City Council and Administration only have jurisdiction on city-owned land. What happens next? The Salt Lake City Council reviews the evaluation on Tuesday,August 27, and determine whether Salt Lake City Public Lands may continue implementing the Plan. If approved, Salt Lake City will begin implementing the Foothills Plan and evaluation guidance and processes.Additionally, in accordance with the evaluation, Salt Lake City will work with other Foothills landowners to explore the development of a joint land management agreement. Where can I learn more about the Foothills Plan and the evaluation? Visit slcfoothills.com to learn about the Plan, review the evaluation process and consulting groups, and read the evaluation. Staff Written Updates Taufer Park and Richmond Park Project Update: Taufer Park and Richmond Park GO bond projects started in Spring/Summer 2023. Since then, Public Lands hired a Consultant to do engagement and design services for both parks with the City. Both projects will showcase two concept plans per park for public evaluation and feedback in September 2024. Liberty Rotary Play Park Project Update: Liberty Rotary Play Park Project started in Spring/Summer 2023. Since then, Public Lands hired a Consultant to do engagement, design, and construction administration services with the City.The three concept plans for public evaluation and feedback were released May 2024.We obtained 1,319 survey responses and tabled at the playground two times. PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY Formal Meeting Thursday,August 1,2024 5:00 p.m.-7:15 p.m. Join Via Zoom:https:.Z/us02web.zoom.us/�/84421902017?pwd=DkGbMvOM10srCSxTgNa-jIWXKY8Gi7Z.1 Or Join at the Public Lands Administrative Building:1965 W.500 S.Salt Lake City,UT 84104 Upstairs Parks Training Room Join by phone Phone:+1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 844 2190 2017 Access code:580007 UNAPPROVED MINUTES 1. Convening the Meeting 5:00 PM A. Call to order - Samantha Finch - Talula Pontuti - Clayton Scrivner - Michael Dodd - Jenny Hewson - Aaron Wiley - Steve Bloch - Kerri Nakamura B. Chair Comments 5 mins Mr. Scrivner introduced himself as the Chair of the PNUT Board to the new Board members. He commented on the weather and smoke. He's glad to see everyone here. The Board will hold off on the minutes and public comment while waiting for more Board members. 2. Approval of Minutes&Action Items 5:05 PM - Approve June 6, 2024 meeting minutes 5 mins Ms. Nakamura motioned to approve the June meeting minutes. Ms. Pontuti seconded the motion.The Board unanimously voted to approve the June meeting minutes. 3. Public Comment 5:10 PM - Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total. Written comments are welcome. No public comments. 4. Introductions 5:25 PM A. Introduce New Board Members: Michael Dodd &Steve Bloch - Kristin Riker 5 mins Ms. Riker welcomed Mr. Michael Dodd to the Board. We are excited to recommend Michael Dodd for the D6 position on the PNUT Board. Mr. Dodd is a passionate, highly active member of his community. His communication skills and technical expertise could greatly assist in conveying board issues and concerns to the Mayor's Office, the City Council, and the public.As former Chair of the Wasatch Community Council for six years, he prioritized inclusivity and collaboration with various city departments and officials, including the Mayor's Office and City Council members. His achievements include organizing community meetings, securing funding for infrastructure projects, and enhancing amenities within the neighborhood. Mr. Dodd's experience and PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY community connections make him a valuable asset for promoting community engagement and advancing the Department's goals. Mr. Dodd shared that he's lived in Wasatch Hollow for about 15 years and was in Central City before that. He's a San Francisco native who came to Utah to ski and has been here ever since. He enjoys an array of outdoor activities. He's worked with many people at the meeting on various projects. He always strives for inclusivity and interacts with and involves people with points he doesn't agree with. Mr. Dodd continued to introduce himself. Ms. Riker introduced Mr. Steve Bloch. We are pleased to recommend Stephen Bloch for the At- Large position on the PNUT Board. Mr. Bloch is an attorney with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA),where he has demonstrated unwavering dedication to protecting Salt Lake City's parks, natural lands, urban forests, and trails. His professional background equips him with a robust understanding of environmental protection and conservation efforts, making him an outstanding candidate for this position. His frequent use of the City's parks and open spaces reflects his deep appreciation for the recreational and communal opportunities these areas provide to residents and visitors alike. Mr. Bloch's passion for preserving natural spaces, legal expertise, and hands-on community involvement will be invaluable in guiding Public Land's staff. His insights and leadership will help enhance the quality and accessibility of our public lands and recreational spaces, ensuring they continue serving as vital community resources. Mr. Bloch said he's grateful to be on the Board. He's lived in Salt Lake for about 30 years and has been to most of Salt Lake's parks, fields, and urban and foothill trails. He's excited to be here and doing this work.The Board members went around the room and introduced themselves and representation. 5. Director's Report 5:30 PM - Summary of current high-priority department items. - Kristin Riker 10 mins Ms. Riker highlighted a few events in July, such as the July 5th Independence Day drone show at Jordan Park and the drone show on July 24t"for Pioneer Day at Liberty Park. Both were a huge success.This year,the department scheduled staff to work around the clock for 48 hours cleaning up the park during the event. They also increased the number of police officers present and CDI to help participants comply with park rules. Ms. Riker shared there was a fire around Ensign Peak. They were able to utilize the Park Rangers to communicate with the public so that they could safely recreate.Additionally, they helped the firefighters know different paths to get to the fires. Ms. Nakamura asked if they learned the cause of that fire. Mr. Murdock said they currently don't. Ms. Riker said Urban Forestry will remove some high-profile trees in Washington Square.There are three dead trees they'll be taking out, and they'll need a crane to remove these trees. Ms. Finch asked if it was because of natural causes. Ms. Riker said yes, as there's a lot of strain on the trees in that park due to all the events there. The staff has to turn off the water for two weeks, all the compaction of people during events, and a beetle infestation. Due to these strains, the trees became more susceptible. Ms. Nakamura asked if staff could contact Ms. Benally regarding her request to inform her community of tree removal and Indigenous groups possibly using that wood. The Board and staff continued to discuss tree removals and wood reutilization. PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY Ms. Riker shared some upcoming events—the last two Outdoor Film Series on Fridays,Yappy Hour on August 8th, and Kensington Street Festival. She also shared that their Associate Golf Director, Kelsey Chugg, became the Utah Women's State Amateur's six-time winner in July. Ms. Riker shared the staff talking points regarding the trees on North Temple.Additionally, she shared these talking points so that if the Board was getting questions from the public, Board members would know exactly what Public Lands was saying. In October, the trees were sprayed with an herbicide called Milestone, and this was done to try to control weeds in the park strips along North Temple and 300 West near Warm Springs. It's used for trails and natural lands like riparian zones to control things like brush and thistle. Unfortunately, one of the staff's trained, licensed spray applications chose it on North Temple.This employee overlooked the fact that it was not supposed to be used near decorative trees.Additionally, Public Land's protocols for herbicide were not followed in this instance. Something similar happened in 2015. It wasn't this disastrous, but it was an herbicide sprayed on the grass at the Cemetery, killing a lot of the grass there.At that same time, strict protocols were implemented for all staff's licensed herbicide applicators. One person went outside protocols, and approximately 200 trees were discovered in late June. Public Lands reported this to the Utah State Department of Agriculture,who licensed staff and took some soil samples.The applicator that sprayed kept good records of the spray so staff could determine what date it was sprayed, how much was sprayed, and where it was sprayed. Not all the trees were affected -some London Plane and Elms are doing fine. The average of the impacted trees was nine to twelve years old. Dying trees are recommended for removal, and the concept of large planters with adolescent trees placed above ground until the soil is devoid of the herbicide is being explored as an option. Ms. Riker said they would present some ideas to the community and try to come up with a solution, but it is unknown at this time how long staff might not be able to plant trees in that area until they get the soil samples. Ms. Riker continued to discuss the North Temple trees. Ms. Riker said discipline for the employee who made the mistake is pending. Parks protocols have been bolstered to include a double-safe system that involves supervisor and warehouse oversight at every step of the spraying process.All groups that handle spraying of any type have been introduced to this new system, and spring retraining will become an annual event. This incident will be a front-and-center case study for lessons learned. She said that Mr. Hazelbaker is the staff spokesperson at this time. Staff is also working with the Mayor's office to develop a plan to share information for the council newsletters through social media, blogs, and other means. Ms. Finch said she was very sad when she heard the news. She asked for clarification on staff annual training. Ms. Riker said no; these folks are trained and licensed. Staff does have to go through retraining when their license expires. No one else uses the herbicide, so this would be on top of the State-mandated training and testing. Ms. Finch said she heard a comment from the Friends of Allen Park,who were concerned about protecting their legacy and native plants. She said Friends of Allen Park discussed wanting to put down flags, notices, or signs to protect plants in Allen Park. She shared that the group is wondering what interaction they can have with staff to assist and be trained.The Board and staff continued to the impacted trees. Ms. Riker said they will be attending community councils, especially in the affected area, and this information will also be shared with the liaisons who attend. Ms. Nakamura said she felt very sorry and sad for the Urban Forestry team. Ms. Riker clarified that it was the park staff, not the Urban Forestry staff, who sprayed the herbicide. Ms. Riker emphasized how sad and frustrated the Department is that this happened. Mr. Scrivner said he was very sad to hear the story and how he feels for people who go out and do theirjob every day and never get credit for doing it right. He's glad to hear how the staff has reviewed and updated their protocols.As the Chair of PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY PNUT, he hopes they go back and look at how this is rolled out and for community information because he had some people approach him before this hit the news, and he didn't know anything about it. He'd like to be able to get ahead of instances like this so PNUT Board members have the tools to respond. Ms. Riker thanked Mr. Scrivner for the feedback; the staff will try to do that. The Board and staff continued to discuss the North Temple trees. 6. Staff Presentations, Updates& Discussions 5:40 PM A. Allen Park Update - Katherine Andra 15 mins Ms.Andra introduced herself as a Public Lands Planner and focused on plans for parks and managing new capital improvements for the parks. Ms. Andra shared her screen to display the Allen Park Adaptive Reuse and Management Plan. Public Lands received Allen Park in its inventory back in 2020.The park has many structures on it, is maintained by the Trails and Natural Lands team, and Emigration Creek runs through it- it's a unique property.Tonight, Ms. Andra will be sharing the final draft. Public Lands completed a cultural landscape report in November 2022, an inventory of all the historical elements on site. It is not officially a historic property, but staff is working on this. Staff completed robust community and stakeholder engagement throughout 2023. She highlighted the goals and project benefits. She continued by sharing that a vast majority of the plan's creation was built around public engagement. Staff had three different phases. The goals of all three phases were to build awareness of the plan and park itself and to understand the community priorities and desires for Allen Park.The phases were: - Learning: information gathering and interviews, stakeholder development - Visioning: surveys and conceptual design alternatives (three concepts) - Planning: final plan and concept drafting and reviewing with stakeholders and the public - Coming soon: informing the public of the final plan This will be a regional park, even though it's nestled in a community space. From the key takeaways, the preferred concept highlights: - Retains 10 of the 14 structures on site for rehabilitation and adaptive reuse and artist- and-scientist-in-residence programming - Replaces removed structures with public community gathering spaces - Rehabilitates and restores Emigration Creek, riparian zone, and floodplain function - Restores and introduces wildlife habitat - Increases ADA and public access to a majority of the park(including ADA parking) - Creates citywide trail connections - Celebrates the original history of the site, including ornamental plantings and artwork throughout the park Ms.Andra displayed the visual rendering of the preferred concept. Ms. Andra continued to discuss the Allen Park update.Additional elements within the plan include: - Public engagement and plan creation process - Context and history of the site - Best practices study on Cultural Landscapes and existing plan review - Site use recommendations and interpretive plan - Phasing and funding recommendations for plan implementation - Operations and Maintenance Plan - Management Plan - Programming plan with budget and staffing recommendations and recommended partnerships - National/Local Historic Landmark Status recommendation - Environmental and Riparian recommendations PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY - Certified translation into Spanish She encourages Board members to review their packet with the plan and to visit the website.The full build-out of the plan is costly, and staff has $4.5 million from the GO Bond to accomplish phase one.The next steps are: - Week of August 5th:Transmitting draft to City Council - Week of August 191h: Send to TAC(Technical Advisory Committee)and CAC(Community Advisory Committee) members - August 215Y: Presentation to Friends of Allen Park - Week of August 261h: Engagement push to share with the public - Fall 2024: RFQ Selection process for Phase One Design - 2025: Phase One Design - 2026: Begin implementation of Phase One Ms.Andra shared that Public Utilities is fronting a little bit of money to do work along Emigration Creek. Part of Phase One will be some riparian work, including riparian restoration of the culvert and adding a bridge to improve creek flow, potential removal of a couple of the buildings and restoration into those community gathering spaces, and work to restore native plantings for wildlife habitat.The Board and staff continued to discuss Phase One of the plan and other project work. Ms. Hewson asked Ms.Andra about the demographics of the CAC. Ms. Andra said there's a list with all the CAC members in the plan. It shows who was on it and what their affiliation was. She shared that they did an initial survey when Public Lands first acquired Allen Park and got a lot of information about folks intimately involved in that process. Many of the CAC members were interested neighbors, folks staff heard from during the first round of engagement, key stakeholders,technical experts, and people from Preservation Utah, Seven Canyon's Trust, Tracey Aviary, PNUT Board representative, and Friends of Allen Park Representative. The Board and staff continued to discuss the plan. B. Native Plantings,TNL, D6 Updates -Tyler Murdock &Team 30 mins Mr. Murdock shared his screen to display the presentation of the SLC Trails and Natural Lands Division. Mr. Murdock gave a shout to Ms.Andra and her excellent work. He shared how the planning team is growing; each planner works on six to eight projects simultaneously. He said a lot is happening behind the scenes for Allen Park. He said they will focus on the native plant and habitat restoration program of Trails and Natural Lands today. He introduced Blake Wellard as the team's restoration ecologist. He shared a lot of information that the Board will hear today regarding the native plant program,which stems from Mr.Wellard's research and ideas. Mr. Murdock introduced Melissa Lewis as the Natural Lands Supervisor. She oversees the operations team. Mr. Fonarow,the Trails Manager, was also present but won't be presenting today. Mr. Murdock shared there are 2,400 acres of natural land in Salt Lake City, which makes up about 46 total natural land properties. This land is further separated into three core program areas, which are the Foothills Natural Area (around 2,100 acres of SLC-managed property and 6,000 acres of co-managed land with Public Utilities, Public Lands, University of Utah, United States Forest Service, and This Is the Place State Park), Urban Natural Areas, and Native Habitat Restoration Program. He shared that the staff is working on a co-management system for the Foothills Natural area. He invited the Board to sign up for the Foothills newsletter. Mr. Murdock said Ms. Lewis manages the Urban Natural Areas,which focus on riparian corridors such as Wasatch Hollow, Miller Park,Allen Park, Hidden Hollow, etc.Today, they are primarily focusing on the Native Habitat Restoration Program.This is a new program with one full-time PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY staff. He shared the current staff structure of the Trails and Natural Lands (TNL)team. He added Public Lands was awarded a position by the Council this year to hire a Trails and Natural Lands Division Director. Mr. Murdock continued to discuss the TNL team. He displayed a chart highlighting the performance metrics TNL uses. He highlighted the team's growth by sharing how,from 2022, staff went from 633 acres per full-time staff to 2024 with 211 acres per full-time staff. He shared that Park metrics are to have about 10 acres per full-time staff.The Board and staff continued to discuss TNL metrics. Ms. Lewis said many people do not know what Trails and Natural Lands are, so the team is working towards more brand awareness about the TNL programs throughout the City.They've been working with the Communications team to find more educational messaging for the public. The three areas the team is focusing on are: 1. What are Salt Lake City's TNL? 2. What does TNL do, and why do we do it? 3. How does TNL want to promote public interactions with natural spaces? What are Salt Lake City's TNL? - Our trails and natural lands are crucial ecological habitats primarily maintained in their natural state and provide unique recreational opportunities within SLC. What does TNL do, and why do we do it? - SLC's TNL Division actively restores, enhances, and protects our natural spaces to ensure a long-term balance of environmental conservation and user recreation. How does TNL want to promote public interactions with natural spaces? - SLC's TNL encourages connections with nature and empowers individual and community conservation and stewardship. - Staff's Be W.I.L.D. campaign came as part of this. Ms. Lewis shared some notable improvements of consistent maintenance on some properties for the first time, responsiveness to community requests is faster, smaller restoration projects being taken on by NRTs, increased collaboration with other partners, a broader range of skills on the team, maintenance on some trails in the Foothills for the first time, updated property web pages, and increased capacity of design signage and educational materials. Mr. Wellard shared he's very excited to be part of the Native Habitat Restoration Program. He will share some background,why the program is needed, and where the program is going. He shared some issues facing Salt Lake regarding biodiversity, such as land use and alterations, invasive species, and climate change. With 175 years of economic development in settlements, much of SLC's landscape is void of biodiversity. Since settlement in Salt Lake City, some local impacts have been a 30% loss of wetlands, invasive species, monocultures, early drying fuels, reduction or loss of ecological services, ecosystem shifts, phenological disruptions, location extinction, and range contractions. Mr.Wellard continued to discuss the background of the program. The Native Habitat Restoration Program started in 2019 out of Liberty Park Greenhouse, with Fairmont Park being the first project.The program aims to restore ecosystem services with biodiversity, focusing on insect-focused restoration, conserving locally imperiled species, and benefiting wildlife and people. Mr. Wellard is focused on creating a base-level food web. He shared he's excited about how the program aligns with the Reimagine Nature Master Plan and Emerald Ribbon Master Plan. He shared an overview of the program methodology, including seed collection, solarization/occultation, seed farming, wetland in-box/greenhouse production, and weed barrier. Mr.Wellard continued to discuss the Native Plant Program. He highlighted some successful projects from the Native Plant Program, such as the Cornell Wetlands and Mary PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY Springs. He shared some species they've identified in these spaces. Due to how quickly Salt Lake City is losing diversity, Mr. Wellard shared he builds projects around certain species. He highlighted some of his favorite projects centered around Wheeler's Angelica, Fringed Loosestrife, and approximately 1,000 cacti planting at Parley's Pointe. Mr. Wellard shared that the Utah DNR recently awarded the staff a grant. Some of TNL's partners are Sage Land Collaborative, Raising Butterflies, Utah Friends of Monarchs, Natural History Museum of Utah, University of Utah, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, Utah DNR, Utah State, and Utah Department of Corrections.The Utah Department of Corrections is helping bridge some capacity shortfalls by having greenhouse space for staff to work out of. He shared what's needed to help grow the program. - Documentation - Master Plan Development - Additional FTEs (greenhouse manager,farm manager, restoration practitioners) - Infrastructure needs (permanent greenhouse, wetland nursery, outdoor holding area, and additional seed farms) Some future work needed to help this program would be to expand public education opportunities, increase wetlands, have more community collaborative projects (citizens, non- profits), and utilize golf courses for conservation projects. He shared that he can make a good wetland habit in a year. Ms. Nakamura shared she is working on a project in her area to reimagine an underpass. She asked if the staff would want to talk to the community about partnering to see what could be done regarding native grasses. Mr. Murdock said that while they have staff that can grow and plant plants, he thinks a critical component of the long-term success of this program is the growth of their partnerships and community programs. He said they're still figuring that out, but Friends of Fairmont is an excellent example of how it can work. He added a key message for the PNUT Board, which is sharing with the public that there are opportunities to partner with public land, and having some stewardship and ownership of those spaces from a community standpoint is critical to long-term success. The Board and staff continued to discuss the Native Habitat Program. Mr. Murdock shared they didn't talk about all their priority areas. Still, almost all of them are focused primarily on ephemeral streams and wetlands so that staff doesn't have to increase the need for additional water. Mr. Wellard mentioned many buried wetlands, and Mr. Murdock mentioned the Cornell Wetlands with the stormwater system. Mr. Wellard shared that Public Utilities has expressed verbal interest in giving Public Lands acres of land as part of their water treatment plants.The Board and staff continued to discuss the Native Plant Program. Ms. Finch asked if the staff has had any engagement with Community Councils. Mr. Wellard said he hasn't, but he'd be happy to. Mr. Murdock said they've done a little bit with Community Councils. Mr. Murdock said the staff is still implementing this program on a tiny budget and with a small team, and with that comes lots of limitations. The Board and staff continued to discuss the Native Plant Program. Mr. Wiley asked if other people were doing this throughout the state. Mr. Wellard said he thinks they're the only municipality doing this. There are practitioners at the academic, state, and federal levels, but it's similar to the TNL team. In terms of comprehensive restoration,there's not a lot of additional work happening. Restoration is challenging, and leaving the space alone is easier than restoring it. Multiple universities are devoting resources to seeking answers to these PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY questions about restoration. He shared he hopes they can be a regional or state example of how a program like this can work.The Board and staff continued to discuss the Native Plant Program. Ms. Finch asked how TNL works regarding species biodiversity with Parks and Urban Forestry. Mr. Murdock said yes, and Fairmont Park is an excellent example. One of the key outcomes of the Reimagine Nature Master Plan is diversity, reducing water usage in parks, and adding more biodiversity.There are a lot of opportunities within golf courses, too. Lindsay Gardens has a fantastic stream that's currently buried. Ms. Lewis said they already have a lot of property to manage, so if we add data spaces into golf courses and parks, they can't necessarily maintain those. Mr. Murdock doesn't want to make that sound easy, but that is a significant shift in operational maintenance and management of parks. Parks crews aren't familiar with this type of work so that it would require another level of training. The Board and staff continued to discuss the Native Plant Program. C. Consolidated Fee Schedule - Kristin Riker 10 mins Ms. Larsen shared her screen to display the Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). Ms. Riker referenced the CFS,which is also in the packet. She said she wouldn't go through all the changes, but all changed fees are marked in red. So many rates have gone up because the CFS is reviewed annually, and most of those increases are subject to the annual Consumer Price Index increase, which was 3.9%this year.This gets done automatically by Finance. Most of the mare is based on the yearly increases for the CPI. She encouraged the Board to review the document in their packet. Ms. Nakamura said she likes seeing the resident versus non-resident rate and wonders why it's not on other things. Ms. Riker noted it is difficult to prove residents, especially teens. Ms. Nakamura asked if leagues from outside the City were coming in using fields. Ms. Riker said our fields are some of the least well-maintained, so she doesn't think so.The Board and staff continued to discuss field reservations and CFS. Ms. Riker said they manage fees for the Cemetery, Public Lands, Special Events, Regional Athletic Complex,Tennis Center, Urban Forestry, and Golf. Changing an existing fee or adding a new one requires a cost analysis done by the finance department.They're responsible for working with the departments to complete the analysis and calculate the cost for all the associated fees before it can be modified on the CFS. The City Council adopts the updated CFS during the annual budget process.The Board and staff continued to discuss CFS. D. General Staff Updates -Ashlyn Larsen 5 mins Ms. Larsen shared she will not be at the meeting in September.There will be another member of staff covering for her that month. Ms. Larsen will make sure everything is prepared and ready ahead of time. She asked Board members to please confirm their attendance so she can confirm catering by August 29th and also to let the staff member covering her know which Board members she can expect to be in attendance. She said the packet will not be updated after August 291h. She needs everything to be included in the packet, such as the Indigenous Commission Letter, Stakeholder Presentation, or any work your committee is working on, by Wednesday,August 281h She shared the feedback the attorneys gave regarding cameras in the Bylaws. Ms. Larsen said staff shared the Board's reasoning for why Board members attending virtually would not want their cameras on, and the attorneys were okay with it. She shared that she also made minor updates to the Onboarding Presentation, including additional links to the resource page. Ms. Larsen also made minor updates to the Staff Requests at Committee meetings. She added that multiple dates were provided as options to meet with staff. PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY 7. Board Discussion 6:40 PM A. Review non-PNUT member form - Bylaws Committee 10 mins Ms. Larsen shared her screen to display the Non-PNUT Member Form. Ms. Finch explained briefly the Bylaws to the new Board members. She explained they created this additional form when a Committee would like a non-PNUT Board member to become a Committee member. She said this is an informational form for PNUT Committee members to share with non-PNUT Committee members as theyjoin. It sets a foundation and standard for expectations about their roles and duties on the Committee. Ms. Larsen said the Onboarding Presentation in their Google Drive contains a list of all active Committees and members. Ms. Larsen shared her screen to display the Committees'folder. Ms. Finch walked new Board members through the Committee folders.The Board continued to discuss Bylaws and PNUT Committees. B. Review draft Indigenous Commission Letter 10 mins The Board decided to table this item at the October meeting. C. Review and update Stakeholder Presentation Process 5 mins Ms. Larsen shared her screen to display the Stakeholder Presentation Process. Ms. Pontuti explained the purpose of the Stakeholder Presentation Process to new Board members,which is to let groups give longer presentations outside of the Public Comment Period to the Board. She shared that Ms. Binnebose and herself created social media drafts that can be used to advertise this option and a form the Board can manage and review. Ms. Riker said she would review this. D. Committee Reporting 15 mins Bylaws Committee Ms. Finch said the Bylaws Committee met to review and prepare to present the form they shared tonight. She invited Board members to review and make comments. Jordan River Trail Committee Ms. Hewson said the Jordan River Trail Committee has not met. Still, there was an expressed interest in working potentially with a university or academic institution majoring in GIC information to support the project and committee. She shared that Ms. Pehrson and she have met with some contacts, but there needs to be another conversation to get more clarity, such as the project's long-term sustainability. Ms. Hewson continued to share updates regarding the Jordan River Trail Committee. Ms. Pontuti said she has connections in the Geography Department at the U, so she's happy to help build connections. Communications Committee Mr. Scrivner said when the Communications Committee met,they prepared the Stakeholder Presentation Process, which was discussed tonight, and prepared the Indigenous Commission Letter. Ms. Pontuti said Ms. Binnebose is working on a form for Committee SMART Goals. E. Board comments and question period 10 mins Mr. Wiley said some bathrooms haven't been accessible to the community because of issues with their treatment. He asked Ms. Riker if there were any updates on that at Riverside. He's wondering if there's an easy way for people to access the bathrooms with wireless logs or Wi-Fi so they can access the bathrooms, something that will open the bathroom at certain times during the day. Ms. Riker said keypads and things like that get destroyed. She said she will look into why they are closed. Ms. Riker asked Ms. Larsen to remind her of this. PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY Ms. Nakamura thanked staff for the landscaping work on the 9-Line. Ms. Riker said Mr. Ramos, Parks Operations Manager, has been working on that. She shared that the project was delivered to Public Lands, RDA funded it, Engineering managed the contract, and there were some miscommunications regarding maintenance after the project was completed. Mr. Ramos has regularly met with the community to figure out a new plan.The Board and staff continued to discuss the 9-Line project. Mr. Scrivner commented on seeing kids free-play soccer at Madsen Park, which was so cool to see that park being used. Ms. Riker said staff put soccer goals out last about a year and new nets this year. She said some of the community wants the whole thing to be a dog park.There's about $7S0,000 from the GO Bond dedicated to that park. Staff closed the park last year and put fencing home to disrupt the behavior of the homeless folks, which helped. Ms. Hewson shared she saw Public Lands staff engaging at the farmer's market. Ms. Riker said the Mayor's office approached her and will probably close a portion of the Jordan River Trail by Fair Park. She said they supported them due to how scary that section of the Jordan River Trail is. More information will be coming out. It's not Public Lands closing it but the homeless group and police department. Ms. Pontuti shared that she's involved with a group doing a kid's Goat Club and invited the Board to attend on August 17th.There will be farm animals, music, and food trucks. Ms. Finch shared that Friends of Fairmont is hosting an event with Mr.Wellard on August 18th to discuss native species at the park. Mr. Bloch said he would love a map of the city parks and natural spaces to understand better all the spaces that Public Lands manages. Ms. Riker said the Public Lands webpage has a map, and staff is working on revamping it. F. Next meeting: September S, 2024 G. Request for future agenda items Ms. Larsen shared some staff requests for agenda items: - CIP - Green Loop - Emerald Ribbon Final Plan Ms. Nakamura suggested having an action item of non-PNUT members who would like to join the Urban Trails Committee, one from the Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Transportation Advisory Committee, at minimum. The Board discussed that they've already adopted the Urban Trails Committee, so they only need to approve the non-PNUT members. Mr. Scrivner invited the Board to let himself or Ms. Larsen know if there's another topic they'd like to add to the agenda. Ms. Larsen reminded everyone the agenda needs to be finalized by August 29th Ms. Nakamura motioned to adjourn the meeting, and Ms. Finch seconded it. The Board unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting. 8. Adjourn 7:30 PM 5/3/22, 10:43 AM BCA-00125 I Salesforce BC Boards and Commissions Application BCA-00125 New Contact New Case Edit Related Details BC Boards and Commissions Application Name Case BCA-00125 00036930(/lightning/r/5005G000OOuNwRrQAK/view) .............................. Board Applied For Owner Transportation Advisory Board Vlightning/r/a7Q5G000000GxzdUAC/view) SLCCRM(/lightning/r/005f4000004wRrBAAU/view) .............................................................................................. .......................... Applicant Stage Johnnae Nardone Contact Is Test Applicant Phone Previous Contact No Applicant Address Previous Contact Details Applicant City Council District How Heard Current Board or Commission member Profession Questionaire Reason of Interest Membership In the past few years,I've become more interested in how street design and I have stepped back from community council to make way for new transportation in city's affect so many factors.I've always been transit opportunities such as this,but still closely engaged albeit not on the board. enthusiast and bike commuter.I chose Liberty Wells to call home because of how easy it is to bike and use transit.In addition to the subject matter, I've been active in helping to shape my community for many years and I'd feel like this good opportunity to serve the city I love in meaningful way. Community Service other Information I have served on my the Liberty Wells Community Council since 2018 and Full disclosure I am a UTA employee but I am not involved in any policy, the city's Housing Advisory and Appeals Board since 2019(?).I worked in financial contract,or service planning decision making.We have clear mission-oriented/nonprofit sector for the most of my career.Every city I conflicts of interest policies that I adhere to.I would like to serve on the have lived in a found some way to give back and volunteer. board as a community representative and multi-modal enthusiast.I choose Salt Lake City to call home,and Liberty Wells in particular.so that I could live a less car-dependent lifestyle.I'm well versed in the nature and concerns of IDS and I'd love the opportunity to serve my neighborhood and city in this capacity. References Reference 1 Name Reference 3 Name Sara Myron Reference 1 Last Name Reference 3 Last Name Adelman Wilson Reference 1 Phone Reference 3 Phone 646 821 2708 8015412922 Reference 2 Name Tim Reference 2 Last Name Cosgrove Reference 2 Phone 801-598-8047 hftps://slcgov.lightning.force.com/lightning/r/BC_Boards_and_Commissions_Application_c/a7S5G000001 QojTUAS/view 1/2 5/3/22, 10:43 AM BCA-00125 I Salesforce Demographics Ethnic Group Gender Identity White/Caucasian/Anglo Female Disabled Veteran No BC Boards and Commissions Application No New Contact New Case Edit LangiBCA-00125 Housing Ovm u, ID as LGBTQ Education Level No Bachelors Degree Created By Last Modified By SLCCRM Site Guest User(/lightning/r/005f4000004ysvwAAA/view). SLCCRM Site Guest User(/lightning/r/005f4000004ysvwAAA/view). ........................................................................... ........................................................................... 12/15/2021 2:33 PM 12/15/2021 2:33 PM hftps://slcgov.lightning.force.com/lightning/r/BC_Boards_and_Commissions_Application_c/a7S5G000001 QojTUAS/view 2/2 J0 H N N A E SKILLS • Systems thinking • Project management N A R D O N E • Training & instruction • Audience research • Consensus building • Copywriting • Highly organized • Empathy/ High EQ DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER EXPERIENCE driven,analytical and creative SENIOR SOCIAL MEDIA STRATEGIST UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY I APRIL 2019 - PRESENT • Manage and grow UTA's social media presence, email list, and blogs. • 10+years of helping . Created UTA's first rider email newsletter: Rider Insider. nonprofits and businesses • Coach, monitor and advise eight-person team of social turn ideas and goals into media customer service agents. • Established process and ongoing improvements to email and engaging content. text alert system for riders. • Experienced in a variety of DIGITAL STRATEGIST + PROJECT MANANGER digital tools and channels. THIRD SUN I JUNE 2016 - APRIL 2018 • Provided project management, content consultation, and ongoing support and training to our clients as part of a • Particularly skilled at small, creative team serving small businesses and nonprofits planning,defining and in Utah and beyond. improving process, and • In order to meet production goals and empower our clients to use our products, I: thinking Systems and - Coached clients through content strategy and production. details. - Designed and lead trainings in digital communications. - Managed over 20 branding and web design projects. COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATE PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK I MAR 2013 - MAY 2016 FOR MORE INFORMATION • Managed, measured, and engaged online communities to LINKEDIN.COM/IN/JOHNNAENARDONE increase participation with PAN's issues. W@JOHNNAESHINES • Drafted, proofed, and edited blogs, web pages, posts, and other collateral to educate and sway public opinion of our issues. • Created and maintain communications calendar to produce timely and relevant content. • Coached, mentored, and motivated staff to participate in social media to increase PAN's reach and share its expertise. CONTACT EDUCATION 714-369-3066 BACHELOR OF ARTS, ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE JOHNNAENARDONE@GMAIL.COM GRADUATE COURSEWORK, COMMUNICATION INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATION CERTIFICATE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 7/20/22,4:43 PM BCA-00264-Salesforce-Unlimited Edition • Close Window •ZD - Print This Page Expand All I Collapse All BCA-00264 BC Boards and BCA-00264 Outcome Commissions Application Name Board Applied For Bicycle Advisory Case 00053460 Applicant Greta Sommerfeld Contact Greta Sommerfeld Applicant Phone 6128165914 Owner SLCCRM Applicant Address 163 West 200 South 310 Salt Lake City, Stage New UT 84101 Applicant City Council Previous Contact No District How Heard Other Previous Contact Details Profession Marketing Analyst Questionaire Reason of Interest As an avid bike commuter in SLC proper- Membership NA I'd love to help in any way I can! Community Service Board member for SLC Track Club Other Information Volunteer at Best Friends Humane Society References Reference 1 Name Maria Reference 3 Name Alla Reference 1 Last Name McLeod Reference 3 Last Name Chernenko Reference 1 Phone 8013269105 Reference 3 Phone 6156058038 Reference 2 Name Annabelle Reference 2 Last Name Schwab Reference 2 Phone 8019278404 Demographics Ethnic Group White/Caucasian/Anglo Gender Identity Female Disabled No Veteran No Languages English Housing Own Home ID as LGBTQ No Education Level Bachelors Degree Created By SLCCRM Site Guest User,7/5/2022 2:20 Last Modified By Dan Milam,7/19/2022 2:29 PM PM Files GSommerfeld Resume Last Modified 7/5/2022 2:21 PM Created By SLCCRM https://slcgov.my.salesforce.com/a7S5GOOOOOlQt4WUAS/p 1/2 Greta Sommerfeld 612-816-5914; 163 W 200 S Unit 310, Salt Lake City UT 84101 Experience Senior MarketingAnalyst Progrexion, Salt Lake City,UT May 2019-Present • Assist in the strategy,budgeting,testing,planning,optimization,measurement,and analysis of TV&Radio channels for CreditRepair.com&Credit.com brands • Own data for the TV&Radio channels-creating&maintaining Tableau dashboards to enable decisions to be made both in real-time&summarizing prior periods for broader analysis&strategy • Maintain relationships with media agencies-communicating our campaign strategy,media budget,and testing goals;while optimizing the network and creative mix to increase efficiencies • Key decision maker in new&existing creative content for the channels-providing feedback,editing copy, working hand-in-hand with the creative team during production Senior FinancialAnalyst Progrexion, Salt Lake City,UT June 2018-May 2019 • Consult to the Operations division-performing key analyses on both day-to-day operations to improve efficiencies as well as analyses on long term plans&special initiatives to drive growth for the business • Created&implemented weekly reporting to give Operations team up-to-date details on the business,helping drive real-time decisions&inform the team of performance on a more frequent basis • Spearheaded effort of five fellow analysts to create an ROI model for business cases for use across departments FinancialAnalyst Ancestry,Lehi,UT February 2017-June 2018 • Aided in overhauling Member Services model to better serve our customers:reducing average wait times by 50%in a cost effective manner • Supported Canadian Family History business in growing inventory by over 20%2017 v 2016,with projections to continue the growth trend in 2018;while also supporting DNA growth of 40% • Consult to US Marketing VPs:accountable for their budgets,lead analysis on projects to determine strategy, profitability,&efficiency FinancialAnalyst General Mills,Inc., Minneapolis, MN July 2014-February 2017 • Awarded prestigious Champions of Finance award for analysis to mitigate profit impact during the avian flu crisis;efforts led to the maintenance of key customers without a detrimental business impact • Implemented a database for company's hundreds of bank accounts managed across both different countries and different subsidiaries,replacing a myriad of paper files&spreadsheet records • Prevented over$3MM of incorrect bank transfers through diligence in reviewing wire transfer documentation Education Michigan State University,East Lansing,MI -BA Accounting August 2010-May 2014 Minor in Mathematics,International Business Specialization;Semester Abroad-Barcelona,Spain Other+ Community Involvement Board Member: Vice President - Salt Take City Track Club Volunteer- Utah Humane Sociely,Besl Friends Registered Yoga Teacher(RIf200) - Radiant Life Yoga StrengthsFinder:Analytical,Discipline,Learner,Focus,Input 3/8/24, 11:20 AM BCA-00661 —Salesforce-Unlimited Edition • Close Window • Print This Page • Expand All Collapse All BCA-00661 BC Boards and BCA-00661 Outcome Commissions Application Name Board Applied For Transportation Advisory Board Case 00134591 Second Choice Bicycle Advisory Owner B&C Application Queue Third Choice Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, Stage New and Trails Advisory Board Profession Product Management(Software Previous contact with Yes Products) board or members Previous Contact Emailing with Amy Details How Heard Current Board or Commission member Applicant Applicant Miranda Bradshaw Applicant City Council District Applicant Email bradshaw.miranda@gmail.com Contact Miranda Bradshaw Applicant Phone 3854224126 Contact Email bradshaw.miranda@gmail.com Applicant Address 438 North Center Street 209 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Questionaire Reason for interest in I have worked in the parking and Civic/Professional Org International Parking and Mobility this board transportation industry and have a Memberships Institute(IPMI) thorough understanding of policy, operations, and, in particular,technology relevant to this space.Thoughtful transportation policy is key to the city's sustainability, economic growth, and accessibility goals. Community Service Public speaking and advocating for Other Information I love our city and would welcome an activ. past/present parking reform opportunity to serve on this board. References Reference 1 Name Jason Reference 3 Name Cole Reference 1 Last Sutton Reference 3 Last Jaillet Name Name Reference 1 Phone 770-8833162 Reference 3 Phone 603-501-9927 Reference 2 Name Sarah Reference 2 Last Ratcliffe Name Reference 2 Phone 773-860-7314 Demographics https://slcgov.my.salesforce.com/a7S50000000kLk5UAE/p 1/2 3/8/24, 11:20 AM BCA-00661 —Salesforce-Unlimited Edition Ethnic Group White/Caucasian/Anglo Gender Identity Female Disabled No Veteran No Languages English, Spanish, Danish Housing Own Home ID as LGBTQ Yes Education Level Masters Degree Created By mySLC Site Guest User, 3/8/2024 11:18 Last Modified By mySLC Site Guest User, 3/8/2024 11:18 AM AM Files CV Miranda Bradshaw_2024 Metropolis Last Modified 3/8/2024 11:18 AM Created By Salt Lake City System Account Copyright©2000-2024 salesforce.com, inc.All rights reserved. https://slcgov.my.salesforce.com/a7S50000000kLk5UAE/p 2/2 Miranda Bradshaw Iinkedin.com/in/miranda-bradshaw/ bradshaw.miranda@gmail.com 438 N Center St,APT 209, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103 385-422-4126 RELATED WORK EXPERIENCE Senior Product Manager April 2022—Current Passport Labs, Remote • Created industry-first collaboration tools that enabled city leaders to share municipal parking data • Leveraged data-modeling and predictive occupancy estimates to provide new insights for users • Lead product discovery work through on-site visits, online interviews, workshops, surveys, etc. • Presented and demoed at the parking and mobility industry's largest conventions • Worked cross-functionally to create, test, and evaluate experimental new features • Created launch plans, trained internal teams, and ensured that new features were successfully launched • Created Passport's first monetized add-on features and performed extensive WTP and price modeling research IT Product Manager I Canyon Laboratories December 2020—April 2022 Ultradent, Salt Lake City, UT • Worked with a team of chemists, business managers, and marketers to build a lab-facing B2B laboratory services platform • Built a B2B business development platform that visualized sales data and automated key workflows • Hired and onboarded UX designers, participated in UX testing for usability and accessibility • Worked with diverse stakeholders worldwide • Lead an agile team of developers, testers, and designers Product Manager I Global Design Services December 2018—November 2020 3Shape, Copenhagen, DK • Lead UX research initiatives through customer visits, prototyping, and user testing • Worked with agile teams to build a customer facing,Al powered dental design platform • Lead a significant redesign for a B2B enterprise grade medical services platform to increase usability • Created the R&D and product strategies for the Global Design Services business unit • Pioneered the entry into new customer segments through the design and delivery of clinical workflows and platform integrations for both mobile and desktop applications • Designed and automated a new customer onboarding process Product Manager I Data Quality January 2018—November 2018 Nordea Bank, Copenhagen, DK • Worked with agile teams to build big data exploration tools on the Hadoop platform • Prioritized user-center design while managing the software development lifecycle • Gathered feedback from users and stakeholders to create a prioritized product backlog • Developed product strategies and roadmaps, presented to stakeholders and management • Planned deployments with the development team and participated in scrum rituals • Defined and documented processes for the development team Business Analyst I Data Engineering July 2017—December 2017 Nordea Bank, Copenhagen, DK • Trained and on-boarded users for a variety of big data exploration and BI visualization tools • Oversaw installation, upgrades, and performance testing for BI tools • Worked with cross-functional agile teams to ensure that technical requirements were met Research Analyst I Applied Economics Department August 2014—December 2015 Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA • Created consumer segments and a targeted marketing strategy based on sales data and statistical modeling • Taught undergraduate classes on business and entrepreneurship OTHER WORK EXPERIENCE Economics Instructor August 2016—July 2017 Independence University, Utah, USA • Taught economics courses via a remote learning platform • Assisted at-risk students with study and composition skills Professional Athlete I Volleyball August 2016—April 2017 Brondby Volleyball Klub, Brondby, DK • Trained and competed in the top volleyball leagues in Denmark and the Nordics-2016 Danish National Championship team member SERVICE AND LEADERSHIP Mentor February 2016—August 2016 Women of the World, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA • Met weekly with a refugee to study for her citizenship exam and practice English and interviewing skills SKILLS AND PROFESSIONAL QUALITIES • Fluent in English and Spanish, intermediate Danish • Able to work and communicate effectively with people from a variety of backgrounds EDUCATION Economics, MSc Graduated May 2016 Utah State University, Logan, UT • GPA: 3.9 Economics, BS Graduated May 2012 Boise State University, Boise, ID • GPA: 3.89 Stakeholder Presentation Process Purpose: To permit organizations or a stakeholder group (such as a community group, business, etc.) to present to the PNUT Board on matters regarding Public Lands within Salt Lake City that are not part of the Board's regularly scheduled Agenda. This would exclude topics such as CIP proposals and budget requests. When Available: At regular Board meetings, subject to approval by the Board and availability on the Agenda. Conditions: • No more than one (up to 10 minute) presentation per meeting, allocated on a first come, first serve basis. If topics are more urgent, public comment and electronic communication are still available. • Repeat topics within the same calendar year will be reviewed at the Board's discretion to allow for diverse topics to be discussed as applicable. o If multiple requests are made for the same meeting, preference will be given to stakeholders who have not presented to the Board within the calendar year. After that, presentation order will be determined by the timestamp on the request form. • If multiple requests are made for the same meeting and all stakeholders have not presented to the Board within the calendar year, presentation order will be determined by the timestamp on the request form as there can be only one stakeholder presentation per meeting. • Requests need to be made no less than one month in advance of a meeting in order to allow for agenda approval and planning, according to the open meeting requirements. Communications: • This process will be advertised on the Board website. • Requests for presentations should be directed to and planned with the Board Communications Subcommittee, beginning with completing a request form on the PNUT website. Request Form Language: Thank you for your interest in sharing with the PNUT Board. Please fill out the form below to begin the scheduling process. A PNUT Board Communications Subcommittee member will respond to the email provided within 7 business days to coordinate a presentation time and to follow up with any additional questions and considerations. Please review our community guidelines before continuing: `Board meetings are intended to be a place for people to feel safe and comfortable in participating in their government. A respectful and safe environment allows Board meetings to be conducted in an orderly, efficient, effective, and dignified fashion, free from distraction, intimidation, and threats to safety. We welcome everyone and ask all meeting participants to keep comments free of discriminatory language. In order to support a respectful meeting, items that disrupt the meeting, intimidate other participants or that may cause safety concerns are not allowed. If any person fails to conduct themselves in a civil manner, that person may be directed to leave the meeting, or the chair may elect to terminate a Board meeting if Board business cannot be conducted.' o Please describe the presentation's purpose to the Board. o Describe how this presentation relates to parks, natural lands, or urban trails in Salt Lake City, UT. o Preferred Board meeting dates available to present (must list at least 2 Board meeting dates). o Please describe any accommodations that would be helpful to the presenter. o Contact information: Email and phone number. o Please add relevant district numbers so that the associated PNUT Board members can be informed ahead of time. • Outcomes o What would be helpful for the Board to consider with your presentation? • Reminders: o Presentations may not exceed more than 10 minutes and presentation materials have to be shared with the Board's communications subcommittee at least 14 business days before the presentation date. o Presenting to the Board does not guarantee any future actions will be taken. Please review the Board's powers and duties for more information on our scope. o Topics that are regularly covered in meeting agendas will not be considered for this avenue. Excluded topics include CIP projects, budget considerations, etc. Please use the public comment period for those discussions. o We also encourage other forms of communication with the Board, such as emails, phone calls, and letters. o The Board reserves the right to stop or end the presentation at any time if the process does not adhere to the Board's community guidelines. Thank you for your interest in connecting with the PNUT Board! We look forward to working with you! In the meantime, feel free to utilize the public comment period at the beginning of each PNUT Board meeting (advertised on our website) or reach out with any thoughts or ideas to our Board email. Thank you for your engagement! 8/28/24,8:56 AM PNUT Stakeholder Presentation Request Form PNUT Stakeholder Presentation Request Form Thank you for your interest in sharing with the PNUT Board. Please fill out the form below to begin the scheduling process. A PNUT Board Communications Subcommittee member will respond to the email provided within 7 business days to coordinate a presentation time and to follow up with any additional questions and considerations. Presentation information: 1. Presentations may not exceed more than 10 minutes and presentation materials have to be shared with the Board's communications subcommittee at least 14 business days before the presentation date. 2. Presenting to the Board does not guarantee any future actions will be taken. Please review the Board's powers and duties for more information on our scope. 3. Topics that are regularly covered in meeting agendas will not be considered for this avenue. Excluded topics include CIP projects, budget considerations, etc. Please use the public comment period for those discussions. 4. We also encourage other forms of communication with the Board, such as emails, phone calls, and letters. 5. The Board reserves the right to stop or end the presentation at any time if the process does not adhere to the Board's community guidelines. Please review our community guidelines before continuing: 'Board meetings are intended to be a place for people to feel safe and comfortable in participating in their government. A respectful and safe environment allows Board meetings to be conducted in an orderly, efficient, effective, and dignified fashion, free from distraction, intimidation, and threats to safety. We welcome everyone and ask all meeting participants to keep comments free of discriminatory language. In order to support a respectful meeting, items that disrupt the meeting, intimidate other participants or that may cause safety concerns are not allowed. If any person fails to conduct themselves in a civil manner, that person may be directed to leave the meeting, or the chair may elect to terminate a Board meeting if Board business cannot be conducted.' * Inriiratac raniiirari niiactinn 1. Email https://docs.google.com/forms/d/lISVs8EY18MZjCDbilgr HbvOEkbAq4g3G7XQUOgfpko/edit 1/3 8/28/24,8:56 AM PNUT Stakeholder Presentation Request Form 2. Please describe the presentation's purpose to the Board. * 3. Describe how this presentation relates to parks, natural lands, or urban trails in Salt Lake City, UT. 4. Preferred Board meeting dates available to present (must list at least 2 Board meeting dates). 5. Please describe any accommodations that would be helpful to the presenter. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/lISVs8EY18MZjCDbilgr HbvOEkbAq4g3G7XQUOgfpko/edit 2/3 8/28/24,8:56 AM PNUT Stakeholder Presentation Request Form 6. What would be helpful for the Board to consider with your presentation? 7. Please share a contact email: * 8. Please share a contact phone number: 9. Please add relevant district numbers so that the associated PNUT Board members can be informed ahead of time. Check all that apply. ❑ District 1 ❑ District 2 ❑ District 3 ❑ District 4 ❑ District 5 ❑ District 6 ❑ District 7 This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Google Forms https://docs.google.com/forms/d/lISVs8EY18MZjCDbilgr HbvOEkbAq4g3G7XQUOgfpko/edit 3/3 Social Media : We have a new way for you all to engage with the community PNUT Board! In addition to being able to give public comments, email, and call the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory (PNUT) Board , community groups and organizations can present to our board to keep them informed of the issues that matter to you. Check out our website [link in bio] for more information if you would like to present to the PNUT Board on anything around our parks and natural land systems! Newsletter: Title:A New Way to Engage with the PNUT Advisory Board! In addition to being able to give public comments, email, and call the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board (PNUT Board), we can host presentations from groups and organizations. Check out our [website] for more information if you are looking to share information with the Board on anything around our parks and natural land systems! Website: Stakeholder Presentations Purpose: To permit organizations or a stakeholder group (such as a community group, business, etc.) to present to the PNUT Advisory Board on matters regarding Public Lands within Salt Lake City that are not part of the Board's regularly scheduled Agenda. This would exclude topics such as Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) proposals and budget requests. When Available: At regular Board meetings, subject to approval by the Board and availability on the Agenda. Conditions: • No more than one (up to 10 minute) presentation per meeting, allocated on a first come, first serve basis. If topics are more urgent, public comment and electronic communication are still available. • Repeat topics within the same calendar year will be reviewed at the Board's discretion to allow for diverse topics to be discussed as applicable. • If multiple requests are made for the same meeting, preference will be given to stakeholders who have not presented to the Board within the calendar year. After that, presentation order will be determined by the timestamp on the request form. • If multiple requests are made for the same meeting and all stakeholders have not presented to the Board within the calendar year, presentation order will be determined by the timestamp on the request form as there can be only one stakeholder presentation per meeting. • Requests need to be made no less than one month in advance of a meeting in order to allow for agenda approval and planning, according to the open meeting requirements. Interested in presenting to the Board? Fill out this form to get started! [Add button for form] https://forms.gle/4axWyt5gzECFoXE9A Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum JANUARY 2023 PREPARED FOR Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands PREPARED BY SWCA Environmental Consultants SALT LAKE CITY TRAILS AND NATURAL LANDS NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN ADDENDUM Prepared for Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands 1965 West 500 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Attention: Tyler Murdock Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants 257 East 200 South, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (801) 322-4307 www.swca.com SWCA Project No. 42930-003 January 2023 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum CONTENTS Chapter1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Utah Weed Regulatory Guidance...........................................................................................1-3 1.2 Adaptive Management Strategy.............................................................................................1-6 1.3 Integrated Weed Management................................................................................................1-8 1.4 Cooperative Weed Management Areas..................................................................................1-8 1.5 The Ecology of Plant Community Composition....................................................................1-9 1.6 Managing Plant Community Composition.............................................................................1-9 Chapter 2. Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Plant Communities....................................2-1 2.1 Sagebrush Grasslands and Sagebrush Shrublands..................................................................2-1 2.2 Bigtooth Maple and Gambel Oak Woodlands........................................................................2-1 2.3 Riparian Woodlands and Shrublands.....................................................................................2-1 2.4 Emergent Marsh Wetlands.....................................................................................................2-2 2.5 Managed Lawns and Landscaping.........................................................................................2-2 Chapter 3. Weed Management Goals and Objectives.....................................................................3-1 Chapter 4. Weed Management Techniques.....................................................................................4-1 4.1 Prevention...............................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Biological Controls.................................................................................................................4-2 4.2.1 Plant Pathogens and Insects..........................................................................................4-3 4.3 Chemical Controls..................................................................................................................4-4 4.4 Mechanical Controls...............................................................................................................4-4 4.4.1 Disking and Plowing ....................................................................................................4-4 4.4.2 Mowing.........................................................................................................................4-5 4.4.3 Removal........................................................................................................................4-5 4.4.4 Solarizing......................................................................................................................4-6 4.4.5 Cut-Stump Treatment and Mastication.........................................................................4-7 Chapter 5. Weed Management Strategies........................................................................................5-1 5.1 Riparian Corridors..................................................................................................................5-1 5.1.1 Herbicide Application Considerations..........................................................................5-2 5.2 Upland Areas..........................................................................................................................5-3 Chapter 6. Restoration Techniques...................................................................................................6-1 6.1 Evaluation of Ecosystem Characteristics...............................................................................6-2 6.1.1 Plant Communities and Soils........................................................................................6-2 6.1.2 Wildlife Considerations................................................................................................6-2 6.1.3 Pollinator Considerations .............................................................................................6-2 6.1.4 Drought Tolerance Considerations...............................................................................6-3 6.1.5 Fire Considerations.......................................................................................................6-3 6.2 Revegetation...........................................................................................................................6-3 6.2.1 Site Preparation.............................................................................................................6-3 6.2.2 Seeding.........................................................................................................................6-4 6.2.3 Shrub and Tree Planting...............................................................................................6-4 6.2.4 Seedling Protection.......................................................................................................6-5 6.2.5 Seasonal Timing of Seeding/Planting Efforts...............................................................6-5 Chapter 7. Monitoring Program.......................................................................................................7-1 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum 7.1 Monitoring Objectives............................................................................................................7-1 7.2 Monitoring Program Implementation.....................................................................................7-1 7.2.1 Evaluation of Successful Revegetation........................................................................7-2 7.2.2 Contingency Measures .................................................................................................7-2 Chapter 8. Integrated Pest Management Plan Summary...............................................................8-1 Chapter9. Literature Cited...............................................................................................................9-1 Appendices Appendix A. Best Management Practices Appendix B.Urban Forestry Guidance Appendix C. Treatment Matrix Appendix D. Listed and Non-listed Weed Species Accounts Appendix E. Herbicide and Pesticide Information Figures Figure 1. Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands overview map.............................................................1-2 Figure 2. Weedy plant species terminology and definitions......................................................................1-3 Figure 3. Adaptive management strategy. .................................................................................................1-7 Tables Table 1. State of Utah and Salt Lake County Invasive and Noxious Weed List.......................................1-3 Table 2. Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Non-listed Control Species .........................................1-5 Table 3. State-Listed Noxious Weed Species and Current Biological Control Status...............................4-2 Table 4. Best Management Practices Guidelines.......................................................................................6-1 Table 5. Details of Qualitative Monitoring Data.......................................................................................7-2 ii Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum CHAPTER 1 . INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City(SLC)Trails and Natural Lands(TNL)(formerly known as SLC Open Space Lands Program)is a division within the SLC Public Lands Department that manages approximately 2,100 acres of natural areas around SLC(Figure 1). The TNL acts as a steward of these natural areas and is committed to protecting native vegetation,water quality, and wildlife habitat while also making these natural areas more accessible and relevant to the public through education(SLC Public Lands Department 2022).Noxious and invasive weeds threaten water quality,wildlife,biodiversity,and the overall ecological functioning of high-quality natural lands.For this reason,managing noxious and invasive weeds is essential to protecting TNL-managed lands and critical natural areas adjacent to and near these lands,particularly lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service(USFS) and SLC's protected watersheds. The guidance presented here considers current management conditions and emphasizes the restoration of native and desirable non-native vegetation by cultural,mechanical,biological, and chemical weed management strategies. This document serves as an addendum to the Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan for Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands (SWCA 2016) and is intended to provide updated best management practices (BMPs) and treatment options for identified weed species (Appendix A). This plan also provides guidance regarding urban forestry management of non-native tree species in riparian corridors (Appendix B). This plan applies to all SLC TNL properties. This plan does not apply to other lands owned by SLC or lands managed by SLC Public Utilities,including watershed protection areas. Specific weed accounts are informed by data provided in the Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan for Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands (SWCA 2016),the Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Monitoring Report 2019(Wellard 2020),the 2022 Annual Vegetation Monitoring Report(SWCA 2022a), and the Salt Lake City Riparian Corridor Study Final Red Butte Creek Management Plan (BIO- WEST,Inc. 2010). The results of these data collection efforts have been used to prioritize TNL management areas for treatment methods,restoration plans,and monitoring efforts. 1-1 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum North Bonneville v 1820 N Beck Street Natural Area Foothill 2200 West Bonneville Shoreline Open Space Preserve — _ Foothill - t= Open Space Rac-open � �. Hell'Canyon Space -;.;*' � Natural Area Bonne`IeDrOs Foothills 1800 N Open Space; a ~�, Foothill Open Space Trailhead North Foothills � � - 1215 13, UUAddition a RichlandDrive Riverview EnsignPeak °••4� �� Victory Road _ � � _ Natural Area ,+r.Ensign Peak Nature Park Entry North Gateway /// t• North Natrual Area � Tomahawk ` Riverside Cornell Wetlands ��Natural%Area Columbus Court) y ;,, . Natural Area ,. ��Popperton Park;' Northwest City CreekNatualArea,• 1 ��•`Open Rec Center ., Kay Rees Natu_ral Area. Federal Heights �� - r Detenti;n' a - ,�_. Chandler�Dr " Perrys Hollow .�,.. 0 Natural Area �`• •Prop gation - -' �rL�� Area 921 East' • � 9Line Natural Area �/ 'Fife Wetland 9Line Community Miller Park Park � ' Preserve Garden :� - - Rotary Glen Pa�rk70ff'Leash Three Creeks Wasatch Hollow Rosecrest' - Peace Tree Natural Area Blaine Natural -Bend Wasatch Hollow Open Space Area 215, Wasatch Hollow South H-rock 2.100 S Allen Park Arcadia,I•f Restoration Hidden Trailheadl 89 Hollow Cohen Property ` Siigarhouse Draw :I Fairmont Parleys Pointe Natural Area y', Parleys _ Historic Trails and Natural Lands Salt Lake County,UT o 3.000 6,000 NAD 1983 StatePlane Utah Feet Central FIPS 4302 Feet Meters 0 980 1,960 40.7656°N 111.8721°W N A Base Map.EsriArcGIS online. 1:93,000 accessed November 2022 UpdatePmjectd:o.XXXX2 /�� Project No.XX)00C J Layout:TNL Properties Aprx:42930_SLC_VegMon2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure 1. Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands overview map. 1-2 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum 1 .1 UTAH WEED REGULATORY GUIDANCE By definition, a weed is any plant that is not desired in a particular location and may be introduced, invasive,or noxious(Figure 2). The current state-listed noxious weeds, Salt Lake County—listed noxious and invasive weeds,and TNL non-listed control species were considered as part of this addendum. As defined by Title 4, Chapter 17, of the Utah Noxious Weed Act(Utah Code 4-17), a noxious weed is"any plant the commissioner determines to be especially injurious to public health, crops, livestock,land, or other property"(Utah Code 4-17-2). Federal and state agencies maintain lists of specific noxious weed species that must be controlled, as required by federal and state laws and regulations. Generally, federal weed laws and regulations are geared toward preventing unwanted plants from entering the United States, whereas state laws and regulations are aimed more at the control and removal of noxious weeds(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 2006). z. 11 Invasive plant species: An introduced plant species that adversely affects native species, i .. -. .. habitats,or ecosystems. .- health of humans or livestock. Figure 2.Weedy plant species terminology and definitions. The State of Utah and Salt Lake County identify 57 weed species as either noxious or invasive (Table 1) (Rule R68-9 as in effect on June 22,2022). Table 1. State of Utah and Salt Lake County Invasive and Noxious Weed List Common Name Scientific Name Salt Lake County State of Utah Designationt Designation* Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Camelthorn Alhagi maurorum Noxious Noxious;Class 1 B Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata Noxious Noxious;Class 1 B Small bugloss Anchusa arvensis Noxious Noxious;Class 1A Giant reed Arundo donax Noxious Noxious;Class 1 B 1-3 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum Common Name Scientific Name Salt Lake County State of Utah Designations Designation* Elongated mustard Brassica elongata Noxious Noxious;Class 1 B African mustard Brassica tournefortii Noxious Noxious;Class 1 B Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Invasive None Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides Noxious Noxious;Class 1A Musk thistle Carduus nutans Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Purple star-thistle Centaurea calcitrapa Noxious Noxious;Class 1 B Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Noxious Noxious;Class 2 Malta star-thistle Centaurea melitensis Noxious Noxious;Class 1 B Yellow star-thistle Centaurea solstitialis Noxious Noxious;Class 2 Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe Noxious Noxious;Class 2 Squarrose knapweed Centaurea virgata Noxious Noxious;Class 2 Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea Noxious Noxious;Class 2 Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Poison hemlock Conium maculatum Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Common crupina Crupina vulgaris Noxious Noxious;Class 1A Bermudagrass� Cynodon dactylon Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius Noxious Noxious;Class 4 Viper bugloss Echium vulgare Noxious Noxious;Class 1 B Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Noxious Noxious;Class 4 Quackgrass Elymus repens Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Noxious Noxious;Class 2 Myrtle spurge Euphorbia myrsinites Noxious Noxious;Class 4 Goats rue Galega officinalis Noxious Noxious;Class 1 B Dames rocket Hesperis matronalis Noxious Noxious;Class 4 Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger Noxious Noxious;Class 2 St.Johnswort Hypericum perforatum Noxious Noxious;Class 1 B Cogongrass Imperata cylindrica Noxious Noxious;Class 4 Dyer's woad Isatis tinctona Noxious Noxious;Class 2 Hoary cress(lens-podded) Lepidium appelianum Noxious Noxious;Class 3 (Cardaria pubescens) Hoary cress(heart-podded) Lepidium chalepense Noxious Noxious; Class 3 (Cardaria chalepensis) Hoary cress(globe-podded) Lepidium draba(Cardaria Noxious Noxious;Class 3 draba) Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum Noxious Noxious;Class 1 B leucanthemum Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica Noxious Noxious;Class 2 Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris Noxious Noxious;Class 2 1-4 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum Common Name Scientific Name Salt Lake County State of Utah Designations Designation* Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Spring millet Milium vernale Noxious Noxious;Class 1A Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium Noxious Noxious;Class 3 African rue Peganum harmala Noxious Noxious;Class 1 B Common reed Phragmites australis Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum Noxious Noxious;Class 1 B Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta Invasive None Mediterranean sage Salvia aethiopis Noxious Noxious;Class 1A Cereal rye Secale cereale Invasive None Cutleaf vipergrass Scorzonera laciniata Noxious Noxious;Class 1 B Columbus grass Sorghum almum Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Medusahead Taeniatherum caput- Noxious Noxious;Class 2 medusae Tamarisk(saltcedar) Tamarix ramosissima Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Puncturevine(goathead) Tribulus terrestris Noxious Noxious;Class 3 Ventenata(North African Ventenata dubia Noxious Noxious;Class 1 B grass) Syrian beancaper Zygophyllum fabago Noxious Noxious;Class 1A Note:Class 1A=Early Detection Rapid Response Watch List;Class 1 B:Early Detection Rapid Response;Class 2:Control;Class 3:Containment; Class 4:Prohibited. *Salt Lake County data from Salt Lake County(2022). t State of Utah data from Utah Administrative Code R68-9. t Bermudagrass(Cynodon dactylon)shall not be a noxious weed in Washington County and shall not be subject to Title 4,Chapter 17 of the Utah Noxious Weed Act within the boundaries of that county.It shall be a noxious weed throughout any other areas of the state and shall be subject to the laws of the state. TNL also manages a list of non-state-or county-listed weed species that are of management concern to TNL properties(Table 2).Many of these species are ornamental,non-native,or weedy species that do not support TNL's goal of creating native landscapes. Table 2. Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Non-listed Control Species Common Name Scientific Name Norway maple Acer platanoides Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima Madwort Alyssum spp. Burdock Arctium spp. Burningbush(kochia) Bassia scoparia Smooth brome Bromus inermis Chicory Cichorium intybus Cotoneaster Cotoneaster spp. Single seed hawthorn Crataegus monogyna Orchard grass Dactylis glomerata 1-5 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum Common Name Scientific Name Horseweed Erigeron canadensis Silver lace vine Fallopia baldschuanica Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica English ivy Hedera helix Iris Iris spp. Walnut Juglans spp. Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Amur honeysuckle Lonicera maackii Tatarian honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica Alfalfa Medicago sativa Yellow sweet clover Melilotus officinalis English ivy Hedera helix Star of Bethlehem Cmithogalum umbellatum White poplar Populus alba Black poplar Populus nigra Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia Plum tree Prunus domestica Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia Chinese lantern Quincula lobata Dog rose Rosa canina Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus Crack willow Salix fragilis Russian thistle Salsola tragus Cereal rye Secale cereale Tumble mustard Sisymbnum altissimum Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara Salsify Tragopogon dubius Siberian elm Ulmus pumila Periwinkle Vinca major 1 .2 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY TNL properties provide access to multiuse recreational trails and spaces to the public,which can also contribute to new and expanding weed infestations throughout Salt Lake County. Bicycle tires,clothing, and dog fur can act as vectors to transport seed and other plant material to new locations. Therefore, an adaptive management strategy is crucial for maintaining balance between multiple interest groups and the native biological community.Adaptive management is the process of identifying resources,re-evaluating management plans,and refining the success criteria of a management plan based on evolving goals, objectives,and available data. The process of creating and implementing an adaptive management strategy is provided in Figure 3 (U.S. Department of the Interior 2007) and includes the following steps: • Identify the project area,goals,and objectives(objectives). 1-6 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum • Conduct a weed inventory and mapping of the project areas (current state). • Identify weed species of concern and project areas for weed management(alternative actions). • Select integrated weed management(IWM) strategies (available science and models). • Develop a monitoring and evaluation plan(plan and implement). • Evaluate the effectiveness of weed management actions(evaluate). Adaptive Management Objective Decide Alternative Actions -► Current State Available Learn Monitor Science (models) Figure 3. Adaptive management strategy. As new properties are acquired, the land objectives should be established, and the current state should be identified. If possible,baseline vegetation data should be collected to help identify alternative actions that can be incorporated into the property management plan. If weed inventory and monitoring cannot be reasonably conducted on an annual basis,properties can be surveyed on a rotational basis with priority areas being surveyed or monitored more frequently. Ideally,monitoring should be conducted yearly for 3 to 5 years in recent restoration areas. Each management plan should identify the monitoring methods and establish quantifiable criteria to measure success. Restoration success criteria may vary by site location. Examples of success criteria are provided in Section 6.2.1. An extensive weed inventory and mapping effort was conducted on TNL properties in 2016. The data were used to identify the current state of infestation on TNL-managed land and identify species and management areas of concern. The comprehensive methods and results of the effort are provided in the Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan for Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands (SWCA 2016). Several weed suppression and restoration efforts began in 2016, and several are still currently under way. Previous and continued weed suppression and restoration efforts have taken place in Cornell Wetlands, Fred and Ila Rose Fife Wetland Preserve,Mary's Spring,Parleys Historic Nature Park,the Regional Athletic Complex,Fairmont Park, and Wasatch Hollow Nature Preserve. In 2019,TNL implemented a pilot vegetation monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of their management plan strategies. The monitoring program protocol was refined in 2022 to include a more extensive monitoring effort. Details pertaining to implementation of the monitoring program are provided in Section 7.2. The results of the monitoring efforts were used to inform this addendum. 1-7 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum 1 .3 INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT An important component of adaptive management is an IWM plan that uses multiple weed management techniques. IWM is a process that combines biological,chemical,mechanical, and cultural management techniques to synergistically control target weed species with minimal adverse impacts to nontarget organisms(Colorado State University [CSU] 2000). Most traditional weed management concentrates only on suppression,typically by using herbicides;however,this approach does not address the ultimate causes of weed invasion. IWM uses ecological principles of plant community establishment and persistence and integrates strategies that are practical, economical, and protective of public and environmental health(CSU 2000). By implementing multiple weed control methods,the likelihood that one of the methods will control or eliminate the target weed species is increased. For a comprehensive list of control methods by species,please see Appendix C. SWCA recommends using an adaptive weed management process that uses the principles of IWM by meeting the following objectives: • Work to establish and maintain functioning native plant communities. Disturbance—both anthropogenic and natural—is the primary factor in the degradation of native plant communities and spread of noxious weeds. • Implement appropriate prevention methods.Preventing weeds from invading a site in the first place is the most effective and least costly method for controlling weeds. • Choose appropriate control actions. Control strategies are a function of the biology and ecology of the target species. The appropriate strategy should also be o applied at the most effective time, o the least damaging to nontarget organisms, o the least hazardous to human health, o the least damaging to the general environment, o the most likely to reduce the need for weed control over the long term, o the most easily implemented, and o the most cost effective in the short term and long term. 1 .4 COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREAS Cooperative weed management areas(CWMAs)can be an effective resource in the prevention, detection, and suppression of noxious and invasive weeds. Coordinated mechanical,chemical, and biological control(biocontrol)over large areas by multiple landowners has proven successful for a variety of weed species. CWMAs replace jurisdictional boundaries in favor of natural boundaries that facilitate cooperation,coordination,and implementation of effective IWM programs for listed noxious weeds. For example, CWMAs in Utah have focused on education-based projects with an early detection and rapid response component in which participants see visible improvement as the result of the treatment prescription. CWMA's receive substantial government funding for projects that include weed management effort across federal, state,county,municipal, and private properties. From a plant community perspective, weeds are dispersed by vectors that very often traverse political and landownership boundaries. Collaboration at the landscape level offers incentives for individuals who might not act due to lack of resources or due to an understanding that treating weeds on a small scale is ineffectual. To prevent, detect, and suppress noxious and invasive weeds and to rehabilitate infested areas is a coordinated vision that includes SLC TNL, Salt Lake County, SLC Public Utilities,USFS, and adjoining municipalities and property owners. This vision is an important first step for effective and long-term weed management. 1-8 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum 1 .5 THE ECOLOGY OF PLANT COMMUNITY COMPOSITION Invasive plant species, including most noxious weeds, are early successional species that possess numerous adaptations for rapid colonization and spread in disturbed habitats. These adaptations include high reproductive rates,rapid germination and growth, and annual life histories in which the plant grows, flowers, sets seed, and dies in a single season.Noxious plant species may also have superior abilities to use soil and water resources,possess allelopathic mechanisms(the use of biochemicals to influence the growth, survival, and reproduction of other organisms)to suppress competing species, and have been released from their native predators and pathogens in their new environment(Coombs et al. 2004;Mack et al. 2000; Sperry et al. 2006). These factors can result in a shift in the plant community toward dominance of exotic, invasive plant species(Mack et al. 2000). 1 .6 MANAGING PLANT COMMUNITY COMPOSITION One approach to adaptive or ecologically based invasive plant management is to create weed resistant plant communities using desirable,preferably native,plant species (Sheley and Mangold 2005). This is achieved by targeted removal of weedy species followed by the implementation of site-specific control mechanisms that will eliminate or reduce the noxious weed population and provide suitable colonization sites for native plant species. Finally,it is important to select native revegetation species that will successfully compete with weedy species. Continued maintenance and monitoring for several years following weed treatments is necessary to identify problems such as new weed infestations, lack of vigor in seeded or planted native species, and additional site amendment requirements such as fertilizer/topsoil or irrigation. 1-9 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum CHAPTER 2. SALT LAKE CITY TRAILS AND NATURAL LANDS PLANT COMMUNITIES Five plant community types occur in SLC TNL properties: 1) sagebrush grasslands and sagebrush shrublands, 2)bigtooth maple and Gambel oak woodlands, 3)riparian woodlands and shrublands,4) emergent marsh wetlands, and 5)managed lawns and landscaping. These five plant communities are described below. Each plant community description lists the grass, forb, shrub, and tree species that typify the community. The noxious and invasive plant species that commonly invade these community types and the ecological implications of weed invasion are also presented. 2.1 SAGEBRUSH GRASSLANDS AND SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLANDS The native vegetation of the Salt Lake Valley historically consisted of bunchgrasses and desert shrub communities comprising Indian ricegrass(Achnatherum hymenoides [Roem. & Schult.] Barkworth), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata [Pursh] A. Love),mule-ears (Wyethia amplexicaulis [Nutt.] Nutt.), arrowleaf balsamroot(Balsamorhiza allas pp [Pursh]Nutt.),wild geranium(Geranium L. spp.),big sagebrush(Artemisia tridentata Nutt.),rubber rabbitbrush(Ericameria nauseosa [Pall. Ex Pursh] G.L.Nesom&Baird), and yellow rabbitbrush(Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus [Hook.]Nutt. Ssp. Viscid florus).Noxious weed species documented in this community type are predominantly hoary cress, Dalmatian toadflax,myrtle spurge, dyer's woad,jointed goatgrass, and yellow star-thistle. Invasive weed species commonly encountered in this community include cheatgrass, cereal rye,and mullein(Verbascum thapsus)A full list of the weedy species encountered in SLC TNL properties can be found in Appendix D. 2.2 BIGTOOTH MAPLE AND GAMBEL OAK WOODLANDS This plant community type has low, dense canopy and vigorous native forb assemblages. Most weed infestations are found along roads,trails,and riparian corridors in this community type.Native vegetation creates a closed canopy of trees, shrubs, and forbs comprising Gambel oak(Quercus gambehi Nutt.), bigtooth maple(Acer grandidentatum Nutt.), Oregon grape(Mahonia repens [Lindl.] G.Don),wild geranium(Geranium viscosissimum Fisch. &C.A.Mey. Ex C.A.Mey.), and mule-ears.Noxious weed species occurring in this plant community are predominantly hoary cress, garlic mustard,yellow star- thistle,myrtle spurge, dyer's woad,houndstongue, and Dalmatian toadflax. Invasive plant species include cheatgrass and burdock(Arctium minus Bernh.).A full list of the weedy species encountered in SLC TNL properties can be found in Appendix D. 2.3 RIPARIAN WOODLANDS AND SHRUBLANDS This plant community type occurs along large and small waterways throughout SLC TNL properties. The Jordan River Parkway is predominantly riparian habitat with managed lawns and landscaping in the surrounding uplands. This community is dominated by cottonwoods(Populus angustifolia [James] and P. fremontii [S. Watson]),boxelder(Acer negundo L.), and willow(Salix L. spp.). Additional species include black hawthorn(Crataegus douglasii Lindl.),Woods rose(Rosa 2-1 allas Lindl.),golden currant (Ribes aureum Pursh), and buffaloberry(Shepherdia argentea [Pursh]Nutt.).Noxious weed species that commonly occur in this community type are hoary cress, Scotch thistle,poison hemlock,tamarisk, Russian olive, common reed, and puncturevine. Other invasive weed species include common teasel (Dipsacus fullonum L.),tree of heaven(Ailanthus altissima),burdock(Arctium spp.),and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila L.). A full list of the weedy species encountered in SLC TNL properties can be found in Appendix D. 2-1 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum 2.4 EMERGENT MARSH WETLANDS Emergent marsh wetlands in SLC TNL properties generally occur in small depressions or along waterways. This community type is characterized by inundation with water for most of the growing season and a predominance of hydrophytic, or water-loving,vegetation. Dominant species include bulrushes(Schoenoplectus [Rchb.] 2-2allas pp.), spikerush(Eleocharis R. Br. Spp.), cattails(Typha L. spp.), and forbs such as milkweed(Asclepias speciosa [Torr.] and A. incarnata[L.]).Noxious weed species commonly encountered in this plant community are Canada thistle, common reed, and poison hemlock. Invasive plant species such as reed canarygrass(Phalaris arundinacea L.), and common teasel regularly dominate this community type.A hybrid form of cattail(T.X. glauca Godr.)has recently invaded marshes in Great Salt Lake and may pose a problem in emergent marsh wetlands. A full list of the weedy species encountered in SLC TNL properties can be found in Appendix D. 2.5 MANAGED LAWNS AND LANDSCAPING A portion of the SLC TNL properties consist of parks with managed lawns,managed landscaping, and flower beds. These areas are dominated by horticultural grasses (Poa L. spp.).Noxious and invasive plant species are common in these areas because of the open environment created by regular mowing and vegetation removal. Hoary cress, field bindweed,knapweeds, salsify,cutleaf vipergrass, and Scotch thistle are widespread in this plant community,whereas houndstongue and puncturevine are encountered in more isolated infestations along developed parkways and paved trails. Invasive species encountered in this plant community are mullein and burdock. Dandelions are not considered a noxious or invasive species but are managed for aesthetic value. Because of concerns about community and environmental health, along with surface and groundwater contamination from synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, SLC is transitioning to sustainable lawn care practices on SLC TNL properties. General guidelines for the mechanical control of weeds in managed turf areas are included in Appendix A. 2-2 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum CHAPTER 3. WEED MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The strategy for reducing the impacts of noxious and invasive weeds on natural landscapes has three main foci. These are as follows: 1)identification and elimination of vectors for transport of weed seeds and propagules,2)containment of infestations along edges of established populations, and 3)early detection and rapid response for new and small infestations. Preventive weed management programs should include keeping the site free of weed species that are not yet present but are known to be near the property. Project weed treatment areas should be identified to control or eliminate weeds that are established on the property, according to their actual and potential impacts on native species and communities,their visual impacts, and fire danger.For more information on weed considerations pertaining to fire danger, see Section 6.1.5 below. Preventing new infestations and prioritizing treatment of existing infestations are top priorities of this plan. The difficulty of control will also be considered, and infestations more receptive to available technology and resources will be given higher treatment priority. Weed control is only part of the site management plan. The program should also focus on re-establishing desirable plant species. The overall goal of this plan is to restore property to a mosaic of healthy,native ecosystems by reducing the negative influence of weeds on native plants and wildlife and increasing the biodiversity and abundance of desirable plant species. This goal will be accomplished by meeting the following objectives: • Complying with existing weed control and pesticide application laws. • Minimizing establishment of new weed species. • Accomplishing weed control without significant adverse environmental effects. • Evaluating sites for weed treatment and potential natural recruitment. • Revegetating weed infestations with desirable native plant species. • Reducing impacts of weed infestations on adjacent lands. 3-1 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum CHAPTER 4. WEED MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES 4.1 PREVENTION The most important weed management action is weed prevention. There are two fundamental characteristics of weed species that help explain why they become established so easily. First,weeds specialize in colonizing highly disturbed ground(Chambers 2000). They possess physiological traits that allow them to inhabit disturbed sites sooner and grow faster than other plants. With these advantages,they are able to outcompete native species. To counter this characteristic of weed species, avoid large-scale disturbance or destruction of existing vegetation whenever possible. Disturbances that result in bare soil without native vegetation create ideal opportunities for weed colonization. If disturbance cannot be avoided,reseed or replant disturbed areas immediately after the disturbance has ceased. Second,weeds tend to invade existing plant communities that have been degraded by multiple land-use activities, such as grazing or off-road recreation. One of the best ways to avoid damaging native plant communities is to limit off-trail or off-road use. Encouraging vehicle operators,bikers,runners, dogs, and other recreational enthusiasts to remain on designated roads or paths with signage,training, and education will reduce the destruction to vegetation and soil. This, in turn,will lessen disturbance and leave fewer openings for noxious weeds to invade. Engaging the public in noxious weed control and eradication efforts is also very important in creating low-maintenance natural landscapes. Educating the public about what is being done and why helps to develop buy-in and support for weed control programs.Additionally,notifying the public about herbicide use,tree removal, and biocontrol releases can help gain a broad level of support for these programs. Public and employee training programs should focus on prevention BMPs such as the following: • Learn to identify high-priority invasive species in the field and distinguish them from native non- invasive species. • For a cost-effective way to conduct mapping and monitoring,use field personnel to document and report new infestations of weeds. • Inspect roadsides to detect new weed establishment on disturbed rights-of-way. • Inspect ditches and streambanks for seeds that may be spreading by means of running water. • Inspect gravel or fill material;weed seeds in this material can start new infestations, and bare soil provides an ideal environment for weed establishment. Cover these materials with plastic to avoid germination. • Do not pick or transport flowering plants you cannot identify. • Inspect all vehicles for seeds and clean them before leaving a weed-infested area. • Always use certified,weed-free straw,hay,or mulch. • If you find a weed,remove it using the proper personal protective equipment. Bag flowers or seeds. • Stay on designated roads. Driving in established native vegetation can disturb soil and provide an opportunity for weed establishment. 4-1 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum SLC vehicles should also avoid driving in noxious weed—infested areas when possible. SLC vehicles that travel into noxious weed areas should be inspected and cleaned of weed debris before leaving the weedy area or traveling to a separate location to avoid weed dispersal. In weedy areas where routine vehicle use is necessary, "wash out"locations may be created to aid in removing weed debris.Another option for less-used weedy areas is to have employees carry portable pump sprayers of water to wash down tires, running boards, etc.before moving locations. The following sections present potential prescriptions for treating established weed populations. General BMPs for weed control techniques are provided in Appendix A.Appendix B provides further guidance on urban forestry management strategies. 4.2 BIOLOGICAL CONTROLS Biocontrols are some of the most efficient and cost-effective methods for combating weeds. The definition of biological control is the use of live,natural enemies to reduce pest population levels (Coombs et al. 2004). It is important to recognize certain requirements for and limitations of all biocontrol agents, including public safety, attack of nontarget plants, legal access, and measure of success. Many biocontrol agents have undergone extensive research and development that support the decision to import or release a natural enemy into a new ecosystem. This section will examine how natural enemies are used. Species-specific natural control agents are further examined in Appendices C,D,and E. The availability and effectiveness of biocontrol agents is currently being evaluated for several state-listed noxious weed species(Table 3). Table 3. State-Listed Noxious Weed Species and Current Biological Control Status Weed Species Biocontrol Effectiveness and Availability Common St.Johnswort(Hypericum perforatum) Several biocontrol agents are available and can offer good to excellent control. Dalmatian toadflax(Linaria dalmatica) Biocontrol is available and offers fair control. Diffuse knapweed(Centaurea diffusa) Several biocontrol agents are available and provide fair to good control. Dyer's woad(Isatis tinctoria) Biocontrol rust fungus is naturally widespread and other agents are currently undergoing research. Leafy spurge(Euphorbia esula) Biocontrol is extensive and control is fair to excellent. Purple loosestrife(Lythrum salicaria) Biocontrol is limited in availability,but control can be good to excellent. Rush skeletonweed(Chondrilla juncea) Biocontrol agents may be available. Spotted knapweed(Centaurea stoebe) Several biocontrol agents are available and offer fair to good control. Squarrose knapweed(Centaurea virgata) Several biocontrol agents are available. Yellow star-thistle(Centaurea solstitialis) Several biocontrol agents have been tested,but availability is limited. Yellow toadflax(Linaria vulgaris) A few biocontrol agents are available and offer fair control. Canada thistle(Cirsium arvense) Several biocontrol agents are available and offer fair control. Field bindweed(Convolvulus arvensis) Biocontrol is available. Hoary cress(Cardaria draba) Biocontrol research is in the early stages. Musk thistle(Carduus nutans) Several biocontrol agents are available and offer good control. Perennial pepperweed(Lepidium latifolium) Biocontrol research is in early stages. Phragmites(Phragmites australis) Research on biocontrol agents is ongoing. Poison hemlock(Conium maculatum) Biocontrol is available and offers fair to good control. 4-2 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum Weed Species Biocontrol Effectiveness and Availability Puncturevine(Tribulus terrestris) Biocontrol may be available. Russian knapweed(Acroptilon repens) Biocontrol is available but limited. Saltcedar(Tamarix ramosissima) Biocontrol is available. Scotch thistle(Onopordum acanthium) Biocontrol research is currently being conducted. Scotch broom(Cytisus scoparius) Some insects are known to provide biocontrol. Source:Lowery et al.(2017). 4.2.1 Plant Pathogens and Insects The use of herbivores and pathogens found in a given weed's native range can be an effective way to control that noxious weed.Pathogens that cause disease in specific plants include bacteria, fungi, nematodes,protozoa, and viruses. Generally, fungi,bacteria, and viruses are the most commonly studied plant pathogens and are therefore the best understood. Some organisms are host specific,whereas others are capable of infecting several species. Bacteria require a wound or other opening(stomata)to get into the plant, and they are spread passively by rain,moving water,or vectors such as insects. Most fungi are capable of making their own way into susceptible plants, and their spores can be blown long distances or moved in rain or running water. Viruses need a living host and require insects,nematodes, or a wound in the plant for transfer(Coombs et al. 2004). For plant pathogens to be successful,three factors must be met: 1)the correct pathogen must be selected, 2)the target must be a susceptible host, and 3)favorable environmental conditions must be present. Infections or disease can severely damage a plant,but the pathogen will not be effective if, for example, rain washes it from the target weed's leaves.Many plant pathogens produce plant toxins or enzymes that cause cells to leak nutrients that can then be used by the invading organism, and viruses use the plant's DNA to make more of the pathogen. Some plant pathogens interact with other organisms,and the uses of known natural insect herbivores as vectors are being explored, including the flea beetle, as well as the soil-borne fungi Rhizoctonia and Fusarium(Coombs et al. 2004). A mixture of pathogens may often increase the damage incurred by the weed species. Insects have been successfully used as biocontrol agents throughout the United States. They can attack the plant in both the larval and adult stages,causing damage to leaves, stems, flowers,and root systems. Releasing new insects involves the use of either a field insectary or field nursery site. These sites are weed-infested locations with conditions that optimize survival,reproduction, and growth of the insects. New agents are released at insectary sites and left relatively undisturbed. As populations increase over 3 to 5 years, surplus agents are harvested for redistribution throughout weed-infested regions.Many factors influence the survival and success of released agents on noxious weeds, and one of the most important factors is how many agents are released and how often they are released. Larger releases are more successful because they reduce the risks of genetic effects and accommodate population shifts in highly variable environments. Therefore, it is important to create favorable release conditions,which may involve releasing 500 insects at one location,250 at two locations,or 100 at five locations. Caution must also be taken to ensure nontarget species are not infected. Federal regulatory parameters are set in place to ensure the natural enemy of the weed would not itself become a threat to the ecosystem. The international Technical Advisory Group for Biological Control Agents of Weeds (TAG)was established in 1987 with input from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)and U.S. Department of the Interior. TAG provides recommendations to the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS)Plant Protection and Quarantine. Currently TAG is composed of 15 government agencies representing the United States, Canada, and Mexico. 4-3 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum TAG reviews two types of documents: 1)noxious weed listing petitions, and 2)petitions to release a biological agent.Numerous pathogens and insects have been tested and approved by APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine for release against noxious weed species, and require permits for the importation,transit, domestic movement, and environmental release of the organisms that impact plants (APHIS 2020). Requirements for permits are often species specific and can change frequently. APHIS maintains a list of approved biocontrol agents(APHIS 2020). 4.3 CHEMICAL CONTROLS Many types and brands of herbicides may prove useful to the reduction and eradication of noxious weeds. Because portions of SLC TNL properties consist of wetlands and streams, it is necessary to assess the persistence of the chemicals in these environments and their potential effects on nontarget plants and animals. This information can typically be found in the EPA fact sheet for the herbicide. Conversely, chemicals may remain in upland and drier areas due to the lack of water,and subsequent hydrolysis (breakdown)of the herbicide may be inhibited. Herbicides can be categorized according to how they move through a plant: downwardly mobile,upwardly mobile,and contact. Choosing the correct herbicide for the target species is important to avoid damaging desirable species, ensure effective control of the weed species,and avoid impacts to wildlife and the environment. Appendix E summarizes commonly used herbicides and their effectiveness on target species. Ratings are presented when available and were obtained largely from CSU(2000),Dewey et al. (2006),EPA fact sheets (2006), and specific herbicide labels. Additional information on each herbicide and guidelines for use of herbicides in publicly accessible areas is also included in Appendix E. A variety of application methods can be employed for herbicide treatments, such as backpack sprayers and sprayers mounted on all-terrain vehicles (ATVs),trucks, and helicopters. Any herbicide applications should be done according to herbicide labels;Pesticide Applicator Certifications and additional qualifications may be required for spraying certain agents. Applicators should always read the label and apply chemicals according to the guidelines provided with each specific constituent. It may be helpful to mix dye in with the herbicide to ensure that all areas are covered properly.Additionally, it is often necessary to mix a surfactant(sticker)with herbicides to improve the effectiveness of treatments. Only aquatic approved surfactants should be used anywhere near water. The Utah Department of Environmental Quality now requires that all municipalities obtain a pesticide permit for any work planned near waterways or open-water resources. BMPs for herbicide application are provided in Appendix A. 4.4 MECHANICAL CONTROLS Mechanical plant control requires selecting the proper equipment that is adapted to the treatment site. Undesirable species that recover by root sprouting must be uprooted or chemically treated, and repeated treatment or a combination of treatments may be necessary.Annual weeds,particularly cheatgrass, recover quickly following treatment if the seeds remaining in the soil are allowed to germinate, warranting ongoing treatment for at least two to five seasons. Available equipment includes seeding and restoration equipment and mechanisms to turn the soil. Before turning soils,roots should be severed,or existing vegetation should be cut or mowed. Caution should be used when disturbing soil because certain invasive species can be more persistent following mechanical control methods. Solarizing weed cloths are also available,which kill existing seeds in the soil and limit the amount of ground disturbance. 4.4.1 Disking and Plowing Disks and plows are designed to turn over soil and surface debris,kill existing vegetation, and prepare a seedbed. They are often mounted with a three-point hitch on a tractor or dozer but should not be used on 4-4 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum uneven, steep, and rocky terrain. The use of heavy equipment can be effective but purchasing or renting equipment can be costly. Chains or harrows are generally pulled between two tractors to uproot trees and shrubs and can be more economical than disking or plowing. Chaining will uproot larger trees and lightly scarify soil surfaces; however, invasive trees such as tamarisk and Russian olive can re-sprout from their roots,rendering this method ineffective for weed management. Furthermore,chaining has little effect on forbs and grasses (Monsen et al. 2004). Weeds effectively controlled by disking or plowing include cheatgrass,bull thistle, and musk thistle.Disking can also be effective on hoary cress,but disking needs to be done approximately every 2 to 4 weeks throughout the growing season for 3 to 5 years. Herbicide treatment is usually required as a follow-up for areas treated with this method,but the disking typically reduces the amount of herbicide that is needed. The drawbacks to disking or plowing include the high cost of equipment and labor, inability to access remote locations or steep slopes,root re-sprouting of rhizomatous plant species, and creation of a bare soil environment that may be invaded by other invasive plant species. These mechanical controls are often not practical to use on SLC TNL properties because of the presence of steep or uneven terrain, and because weeds often grow alongside native and desirable grass, shrub, and tree species. 4.4.2 Mowing The ecological basis for mowing weeds is directed at the efficiency of invasive plants to take up and assimilate carbon dioxide and then alter that physiological function. Properly timed mowing can suppress invasive weeds and favor native and desirable plant species. The most effective time to mow is when the invasive weed is actively growing, and the desirable species is dormant. This can prevent weed seed production,as well as stressing the plant after it has invested large amounts of energy into flowering and photosynthetic tissue.Also,repeated mowing can deplete root reserves. Effective mowing is a long-term commitment; some weeds are stimulated by mowing,thereby increasing stand densities. However, over several years,the root reserves will become depleted and stand densities will decrease. Species that respond well to mowing are common reed, Canada thistle,Dalmatian toadflax, leafy spurge,Russian knapweed,and hoary cress(Sheley 2002). Mowing frequency is dependent on several factors. A spring mowing may be sufficient to reduce annual or biennial species,unless summer rains or soil moisture allows the weed species to regenerate,requiring a second or even a third mowing. Rhizomatous weeds often require several mowing efforts over a growing season to successfully control growth. Mowing is not likely to be effective alone,but it can increase effectiveness of other control efforts, such as herbicide application(Sheley 2002). Other limitations to mowing include inaccessibility to rocky or remote locations, spreading weed seeds, and high cost of equipment and labor. 4.4.3 Removal Removing plants by hand to uproot the plant works well for small or concentrated infestations of annual and biennial plants. Be sure the plant species do not re-sprout from residual roots. The drawbacks to hand pulling include labor costs and the necessity of obtaining workers or volunteers to perform the work. Because hand pulling is labor intensive,weed pulling should be conducted after a heavy soaking rain, when the soil is moist(CSU 2000),though care should be taken to minimize soil compaction. Pulling entire tamarisk or Russian olive trees has been effective in riparian areas and reduces the need for herbicide application.Follow-up treatments are often needed to ensure the stumps do not re-sprout,but herbicide use can be reduced to a very small amount in these sensitive areas. Pulling does not generally remove the entire root system,and it is ineffective for killing rhizomatous weed species such as Canada thistle, field bindweed,Russian knapweed,and leafy spurge;however, it 4-5 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum will prevent or reduce seed production. Species found on SLC TNL properties that are good candidates for hand pulling are Dalmatian toadflax,musk thistle,puncturevine, Scotch thistle,bull thistle, houndstongue, dyer's woad, and myrtle spurge. Pulling may result in soil disturbance that then stimulates germination of weed seeds present in the soil(CSU 2000);therefore, subsequent seeding with native grasses and follow-up monitoring is highly recommended. Some plants produce chemicals that cause allergic reaction or dermatitis in some people. Species-specific weed management guidelines should be followed for hand pulling to prevent injury from plant structural or chemical components, such as stiff spines and toxic sap. Personal protective equipment should always be worn(e.g., long sleeves,gloves),and areas where chemical treatments have occurred or in which other safety restrictions apply should be avoided. Grazing by goats, cows, or sheep is also a good method to remove plant materials and seed in areas where other methods have failed,or site conditions are difficult for mowing(Mosley and Roselle 2006). Grazing can remove existing dead plants,which can help increase the effectiveness of herbicide treatments. Special care should be taken not to spread weed seeds on hooves or fur of grazing animals. A clear plan of action for unexpected changes in plant succession is also needed. Grazing can take 2 to 5 years to implement correctly, and some minor herbicide use is typically required after most of the noxious weeds have been removed(Banks 2013). Successional seeding is also helpful to get desirable plant species established in areas where grazing is used. 4.4.4 Solarizing Solarization is a process in which moist soil is covered with light-minimizing or light-focusing material during periods of warm temperatures. This process can change the physical,chemical,and biological properties of the soil in potentially beneficial ways for land managers(Pokharel 2011). Although the decrease of weedy plant species is the focus of this section, solarizing is also an effective tool against a variety of fungal pathogens and causes a boosting effect on dissolved organic matter and plant-available nutrients(Birthisel 2019; Pokharel 2011). The benefits of this method include its low cost, ease, and avoidance of soil-disturbing and chemical activities. The drawbacks of this method include the initial drop in soil microorganism activity and nitrogen-fixing bacteria,as well as the ability of some undesirable species, such as field bindweed,to survive. The process of solarizing an area begins by evaluating the current conditions on the target site. If possible, remove large materials that will puncture the covering material or prevent it from laying snugly against the soil. This step may include cutting back large vegetation. The soil itself should be moist during solarization. Moisture increases the efficacy of solarization by allowing greater heat transfer into the soil and weakening the defenses of annual seeds(Pokharel 2011). For this reason, spring solarizing may be more effective on sunny sites than summer solarizing. Coverings are usually black or clear plastic tarping sheets,though other materials, such as roofing paper,weed cloth,and heavy-gauge silage tarps can also be used with varying effectiveness(Birthisel 2019). The durability of covering materials is especially important. Ultraviolet(UV)—stabilized materials 0.5 to 3 millimeters(mm)thick are recommended for most sites,though 1.5 mm or thicker is best for"wilderness area"sites(Pokharel 2011). At least two layers of covering material should be stretched across the target area smoothly,and the edges of the material must be secured to prevent wind damage or tearing. This is often achieved by burying the edges of the covering material 15 centimeters (cm)deep (Pokharel 2011). During summer months,when temperatures are hotter, solarization may be complete in as little as 4 to 6 weeks,whereas 6 to 8 weeks are required in spring and fall months when temperature are lower. The efficacy of solarization on different plant species is dependent on the duration of covering and the average soil temperatures achieved during covering(Birthisel 2019; Pokharel 2011). On average, soil 4-6 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum temperatures of 99 degrees Fahrenheit ff)that are sustained for 2 to 4 weeks almost completely prevent weedy annuals from emerging(Pokharel 2011). 4.4.5 Cut-Stump Treatment and Mastication The combination of low stump cutting and herbicide application on the stump has been very effective on controlling and eradicating invasive trees such as tamarisk and Russian olive(Espeland et al. 2017). To be effective with this method,herbicide treatment must occur within 30 minutes or less of the stump cut. The tree should be cut as low to the ground as possible,with the cutter being careful not to hit the ground with the chainsaw. Herbicide treatment can be done by painting a small amount of herbicide on the stump's cambium layer(bark)or by spraying it using a backpack or small pump sprayer.Vegetative material can be masticated with a grinder or chipper and piled in the restoration area.Follow-up monitoring should focus on making sure any mature seeds in the chip piles do not germinate. Monitoring for new infestations of additional species of noxious weeds in the cleared areas should be done in the first year following cut-stump treatment, and infestations should be controlled using other recommended actions. Alternately,ringing the cambium low on the tree with full-strength herbicide will also kill Russian olive and Siberian elm trees. This method has the advantage of leaving the tree standing for habitat structure. Care needs to be taken for public safety if dead trees are left standing. 4-7 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum CHAPTER 5. WEED MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 5.1 RIPARIAN CORRIDORS Riparian corridors occupy small but very important sites across SLC TNL properties. The presence of invasive species in riparian corridors is an environmental issue that affects native biodiversity and threatens the ecological integrity of riparian ecosystems(Jimenez-Ruiz and Santin-Montanya 2016). Riparian corridors are potential vectors for the spread of invasive weed seeds because of pedestrian traffic and water dispersal of seeds; therefore,they have been identified as a high priority for the control of noxious and invasive weed species. Controlling noxious and invasive weeds in riparian corridors can be extremely difficult because the seed source may be coming from upstream or carried into the area by hikers, dogs,wildlife, or floodwaters. The strategy for weed management in riparian corridors should consider factors such as the health of the riparian buffer,hydrology of the aquatic feature, and soil composition. The Code of Federal Regulations defines a riparian buffer as "a strip or area of vegetation adjacent to a river or stream of sufficient width as determined by the Deputy Administrator to remove nutrients, sediment,organic matter,pesticides,and other pollutants from surface runoff and subsurface flow by deposition,absorption,plant uptake, and other processes,thereby reducing pollution and protecting surface water and subsurface water quality,which are also intended to provide shade to reduce water temperature for improved habitat for aquatic organisms and supply large woody debris for aquatic organisms and habitat for wildlife"(Natural Resources Conservation Service 2020); however,policies for riparian habitat management are variable in different parts of the country. In particular,there is variation in what is considered the appropriate riparian buffer zone distance. Dimensions of buffer zone significantly affect the ability of riparian buffer zones to provide ecological services. The width of riparian buffer strip is important for its effectiveness. Generally,wider riparian buffer strips more effectively filter particulates than narrow ones (Cristea and Janisch 2007). Indicators such as riparian zone width, streambed width, longitudinal continuity,vegetation overhang, and bank stability have been used to assess the condition of riparian zones(Macfarlane et al. 2017). River flow fluctuations affect riparian vegetation at any stage of plant life, from the seed dispersal and germination stages to the seedling development and adult phase(Vesipa et al.2017). Flooding and water- level fluctuations result in landscape disturbances that pave the way for a variety of habitats for plants. Riparian vegetation is an important indicator for assessing the riparian condition(Macfarlane et al. 2017); therefore,assessment and monitoring of river flow is an important part of riparian zone management. Hydrology is a major driver that regulates structural and functional aspects of riparian zones(Vesipa et al. 2017). Riparian zones are affected by overbank flooding events and connect upland and aquatic ecosystems through surface and subsurface flow of water(Vesipa et al. 2017). Changes in hydrology due to urbanization cause riparian hydrologic drought by lowering water tables,which alters soil,vegetation, and microbial processes(Atkinson and Lake 2020). In urban areas, floodplains tend to be drier than their rural counterparts due to three factors: water table is lower due to reduced groundwater flows, floodplains are disconnected from their streams due to stream incision or construction of levees, and storm water runoff bypasses the buffer area by being piped directly to the stream(Cappiella et al. 2006). Hydrologic studies, groundwater well installation, or soil surveys may be necessary to understand the limiting factors of a restoration plan. Revegetation methods should take place after weed species have been treated or controlled. If using chemical methods for weed control, ensure that enough time has lapsed between chemical application and native revegetation.Native seedlings may be affected by non-selective pre-emergent applications. 5-1 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum In riparian areas where no vegetation remains,bioengineered soil lifts,waddles, straw blankets, and other forms of erosion control options are available,depending on the slope, flooding frequency, and bank stabilization required(BIO-WEST,Inc. 2010). Detailed information about riparian zone and bank stabilization methods are provided in Section 6.2.1, Site Preparation. Seed the weed-infested areas with a riparian seed mix 30 to 45 days after fall herbicide application,but before snow and hard frost are present. Seed mix should include native willows,rushes, sedges,bulrushes, spikerushes (which are dense, sod- forming species vital to streambank stability), and other native forbs and woody species. Harrow or rake in seed where possible. Most seeds must be covered with soil for at least one winter to germinate. On slopes,hydroseeding with a bonded fiber matrix would also provide slope stability and cover for the seeds to overwinter. In the following spring,plant native tree saplings,rushes, sedges,bulrushes,and spikerushes in small, discrete sections of the riparian corridor to retain existing plant cover,which will aid in natural recovery (Gashaw et al. 2015). Transplanted trees and forbs will help stabilize the streambanks and resist flooding. Native willow(Salix spp.)and cottonwood species(Populus spp.) are appropriate for riparian restoration and material can usually be harvested on-site.Another technique that can be used is the development of beaver dam analogs to increase riparian zones and assist in emergence of riparian vegetation. 5.1.1 Herbicide Application Considerations The majority of herbicides are not registered for use in strictly aquatic situations and their labels carry only a general instruction to avoid contamination of watercourses. When evaluating the risk of herbicide contamination in riparian corridors,it is best to consider the amount of herbicide applied,the method of herbicide application,the mobility of the herbicide(in soil and water),the persistence of the herbicide, and the toxicity of the herbicide to flora and fauna(Ainsworth and Bowcher 2005).Highly persistent herbicides are those that remain chemically unchanged for a long period of time after application. Highly persistent herbicides are generally a greater risk than ones with lower persistence,but they may be acceptable if high persistence is combined with low mobility and/or low toxicity. Toxicity ratings of herbicides approved by the State of Utah are provided in Appendix E. Care must be taken to select herbicides that are approved for use within the riparian zone;use EPA- approved aquatic herbicides where there is any chance of runoff into SLC waterways. Even though these herbicides are approved for aquatic use,all measures to reduce runoff of herbicides and drift should be followed. Many locations in riparian areas will require the use of targeted herbicide treatments. The most effective and least environmentally damaging methods should be used to minimize any impacts to surrounding native riparian vegetation. Herbicide application should follow the indications listed on the chemical label,and special care should be taken to provide proper signage in areas that are publicly accessible. The most effective and least damaging method that is typically used in riparian areas is spot spraying; broadcast applications should not be used unless absolutely necessary. It is not recommended to use pre-emergent herbicides of any kind near bodies of water due to the likelihood of leaching. Chemicals such as glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr ester are effective post-emergent herbicides for many noxious and invasive species;however,these chemicals are highly toxic to a wide range of aquatic plants and wildlife and,therefore, it is not recommended to use them in riparian corridors (Mullison 2017). Some herbicides strongly bind to soil particles and,therefore,are likely to remain close to the application site. In general, soils that are largely composed of rich,organic matter have less tendency for herbicides to be leached from them. Therefore, it is important to consider the soil composition and herbicide sorption coefficient to determine the likelihood of leaching. Although an herbicide may have a high sorption coefficient,the soil that it binds to may still be moved into a watercourse by erosion or runoff(Ainsworth and Bowcher 2005).Until more research has been completed, it is safest to assume that much of the herbicide deposited on hard surfaces will wash into the water with the first rain 5-2 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum (Ainsworth and Bowcher 2005). Appendix A includes general BMPs related to herbicide application. Specific recommendations for herbicide use in riparian areas are as follows: • If possible, suppress targeted aquatic weeds by restricting light and nutrients. • Assess the risk to nontarget organisms based on herbicide mobility,persistence,and toxicity. • Provide contractors with a map showing the location of waterways and associated soaks and drains. • Avoid treating dense beds of submerged weeds in a single application because this may cause deoxygenation when they rot. • Weeds overhanging a waterway or growing within the channel must be treated as an aquatic situation. Spray when heavy rain is not expected for some time(a minimum of several days). • Choose the application method that minimizes the amount of herbicide used and its dispersal. If spraying toward a waterway, clearly mark the edge beforehand. • Ensure that equipment is properly maintained, adjusted, and not leaking. • Carry herbicide only in secure containers around waterways. • Only add surfactants to herbicides registered for aquatic use if they are specified on the label. • Mix chemicals and rinse equipment well away from the waterway. • Direct herbicide spray away from the waterway if at all possible. • Apply the minimum amount of spray required to achieve the degree of wetting specified on the label. • Move upstream when spraying to maximize dilution. 5.2 UPLAND AREAS Much of the area surrounding the TNL riparian corridors is classified as upland shrubland and grassland. TNL properties are often adjacent to weedy residential and business developments; these developments can be sources of weedy populations across property boundaries. The quality of most urban soils is usually not ideal for native plant growth because most of the soil organic matter is removed along with the topsoil during construction. Therefore,weed species that can withstand poor soil conditions often propagate in disturbed areas(Cappiella et al. 2006). Trail corridors that meander through the upland areas can be vectors of seeds both into and out of SLC property. The goal of treatments and restoration in the upland areas is to create an aesthetically pleasing natural landscape free of weed species that borders the property lines and trails to stop noxious and invasive species from spreading to uninvaded areas. A secondary goal is to prevent new weed species from entering SLC properties. Complete eradication of invasive species may not be practical in areas where weed coverage is high, populations are well established, or where populations are difficult to access (Cappiella et al. 2006). It may also be cost prohibitive to control every species present at sites with prolific weed populations. A more realistic goal at these sites may be to manage the unwanted vegetation near trails or high-density traffic areas each year to keep its growth in check. At sites where restoration opportunities are possible,it may be most reasonable to identify which weeds will limit the success of new plantings and focus efforts on control of those species.Weed management planning is necessary prior to restoration because it can take up to 5 years to successfully eradicate invasive species from a site(Cappiella et al. 2006). 5-3 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum Although different weed species are commonly found in upland areas, the strategies and prescriptions used to manage weed populations are similar to those suggested for riparian areas. The following recommendations can be implemented as part of an adaptive management strategy for upland areas: • Identify the appropriate control method and application timing for target populations. Monitor and spot treat infestations for 3 to 5 years prior to restoration implementation. • Place weed-free barriers(use cloth barriers to allow water to infiltrate)and gravel on pad to prevent weeds from returning. • Institute an educational program to train all authorized individuals who conduct work along the trails to identify existing and new infestations of target species. • Supply vehicles with lists and color photographs of problem weed species. • Where possible,provide a water tank and hose with which to remove weed seed and plant parts from vehicles before leaving weed-infested locations. • Incorporate weed identification and BMP training into existing employee training. • Seed infested areas with appropriate seed mix 30 to 45 days after fall herbicide application. Seed mix can include 10 to 20% sterile triticale or fast-germinating native grasses that will germinate quickly, stabilize soil,and compete with weeds for soil resources. • Harrow or rake in seed where possible. Most seeds must be covered with soil for at least one winter to germinate. On slopes,hydroseeding with a bonded fiber matrix would also provide slope stability and protection for the seeds from predation. Seeding with perennial grasses will allow continued spot spraying with broad-leaf herbicides if necessary to maintain weed control. 5-4 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum CHAPTER 6. RESTORATION TECHNIQUES Ecosystem restoration requires containing or reducing weedy plant populations in an area while increasing the number and type of native plant species. Restoring native plant communities should include increasing native biological diversity; improving control of water flows,resulting in increased sediment and nutrient retention; and detoxifying polluted areas.Natural regeneration in urban areas may be limited due to loss of seed bank,poor seedbed conditions,high pedestrian traffic, soil compaction, and competition from invasive species(Cappiella et al. 2006). Given the high cost of weed control,the benefits of restoration provide a powerful incentive for restoring native plant communities. Research in weed management suggests that both diverse and late-successional plant communities may be relatively resistant to invasion. Diverse plant communities may use resources more completely,leaving fewer resources available for potential invaders(Tilman et al. 1997). This section outlines the considerations and actions necessary for successful ecosystem restoration. Table 4 provides BMP guidelines that can be applied to any restoration project. Table 4. Best Management Practices Guidelines Issue BMP Noxious weed establishment • Put up erosion control fencing to keep vehicles out. • Spray weeds that are growing in disturbed soil now. • Power wash all vehicles before they enter the restoration site. Riverbank erosion • Do not disturb willows growing in the bank at low water levels. • Pull soil back away from the river instead of pushing soil parallel to the bank. Soil compaction • Limit access to the restoration site after any native soils are disturbed. • Install fencing to keep vehicles out. Soil cross contamination • When excavating,put soil directly into a dump truck with a front-end loader instead of (weed seeds) stockpiling it and loading it from a central location. • Store all soil and other materials outside the restoration site. Final grading • Meet with all involved to answer questions about the design and to plan the final grading to minimize the spread of weeds and soil compaction. • Have at least one TNL representative present in the field to answer any questions that arise during the final grading. In general, sites that are good candidates for restoration have these characteristics: • Desirable tree seed sources nearby • Adequate seed dispersal methods • Bare mineral soils with good seed-to-soil contact • Low soil compaction • Controlled wild ungulate populations, canine access, or the ability to set up exclosure fencing as needed • Limited invasive species • Current vegetative cover that does not consist of thick, sod-forming grass, such as fescue Sites that do not meet these considerations or are not ideal candidates can be improved through several management techniques, including soil amendments,invasive species control, installing fencing or other 6-1 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum methods to control ungulates or dogs, disking to release the seed bank and allow trees to seed in sod- forming grasses, and installing perches to encourage seed spread by birds(Hairston-Strang 2005). Other important ecological factors to consider include soil type, fire and drought tolerance, and wildlife and pollinator habitat. 6.1 EVALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS 6.1.1 Plant Communities and Soils Prior to revegetation,the soils from the restoration site and native plant communities from the surrounding area should be evaluated. Dominant tree, shrub, forb,and grass species should be identified in areas surrounding the restoration site. In addition,the percent cover of the dominant species should be estimated to determine the appropriate amount of seed for each species in the seed mix. If there is no native plant community near the restoration site,a representative native vegetation site should be chosen on the basis of having soils,elevation, slope, and aspect that are similar to the restoration site.A soil sample from the restoration site should be collected and sent to a soils lab for chemical and physical analyses to determine whether soil amendments are necessary prior to revegetation. The biggest reason that restoration projects fail is because the soils were not evaluated properly. The most common mistakes occur when soils are too salty,acidic, or alkaline and/or where the soils are too porous or not porous enough for the plants selected. General soil categories can be investigated with local soil surveys or the Web Soil Survey,but detailed site investigation is often needed due to variability in natural environments and changes in site characteristics over time. 6.1.2 Wildlife Considerations Because vegetation characteristics are a primary determinant of wildlife habitat quality,an important consideration in revegetating weedy areas on property is choosing the species,planting location, and distribution of plants. For example, deer and elk should be encouraged to browse away from roads to reduce the number of vehicle-wildlife collisions. Areas within 20 feet of roads should be revegetated with low-growing native plant species that provide little forage or cover,which will discourage wildlife from using these areas. These areas should only be seeded with Seed Mix No. 1 (grassland). On portions of the slopes that are more than 20 feet away from roads, seeding should be done with both Seed Mix No. 1 and No. 2, and bare-root and container stock of the following species should be planted: bigtooth maple,curl- leaf mountain mahogany(Cercocarpus ledifolius), antelope bitterbrush(Purshia tridentata), Gambel oak (Quercus gambehi), and sagebrush(Artemisia spp.). In crucial wildlife habitat corridors,native shrubs should be planted where needed in the corridor. Planting antelope bitterbrush(Purshia tridentata), a highly palatable species, in the center of the wildlife corridor may encourage animals to stay within the corridor as they cross through the property. In so doing,wildlife road crossings will be more predictable and thus easier to manage.Fencing may be needed during the initial establishment of shrubs and trees to reduce loss from grazing or browsing animals. Existing animal use restoration areas should be determined to improve the chances of successful plant establishment. Some additional species for evaluation of herbivory concern include voles(Microtus spp.) and shrews(Sorex spp.), Canada geese(Branta canadensis), deer(Odocoileus spp.), elk(Cervus canadensis),and beaver(Castor canadensis). 6.1.3 Pollinator Considerations Almost 1,000 species of bees, five species of hummingbirds, and 250 species of butterflies live in Utah. Pollinator habitat is critical for these species to maintain an existence. Pollinators are important to our 6-2 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum ecosystem because they transfer genetic material between flowering plants, and 80% of the world's crops require pollination for production. They also provide other products, such as beeswax,and are a dietary source for other wildlife. When identifying restoration techniques,pollinator habitat should be incorporated into restoration design plans. 6.1.4 Drought Tolerance Considerations As the western United States experiences ongoing drought conditions,plant species for restoration should consider moisture requirements. Drought conditions can reduce overall ground cover and increase potential for invasive species spread. Species that are typically hardy can have reduced success when they experience additional stress. Certain species, such as mosses and ferns, can survive dehydration through a process called anhydrobiosis, and succulents can avoid drought through closing the stomata in their leaves during the night to reduce evapotranspiration. Other plants are considered drought tolerant because they can stay green throughout a large portion of the year,have waxy cuticles or small leaves to reduce water loss, or have hairy leaves that shade the stomata(Lukes 2018). As drought continues and water resources are minimal, drought-tolerant plants should be incorporated into seed mixes and pound per acre seed quantity should be increased to provide higher success rates. 6.1.5 Fire Considerations Shrubs should not be planted adjacent to roads or structures.Native Firewise grass(Kuhns and Daniels 2012)and forb restoration species are available for planting in these areas. Where possible, cheatgrass and cereal rye should be removed and areas should be restored to a more fire-resistant landscape due to the high fire potential of areas infested with cheatgrass. Special care should be taken in high-risk fire areas not to create a situation where shrubs can carry fire from the ground up into trees or where they act as"ladder"fuels. 6.2 REVEGETATION 6.2.1 Site Preparation On slopes,the first step in site preparation is the interception of upslope runoff from snowbank melt, rainfall, and irrigation by berms and dikes. This runoff needs to be channeled away from the reclamation slopes and into native drainages. Bark, straw, or wood fiber mulch is typically adequate to protect relatively gentle slopes of 3:1 or flatter(BIO-WEST, Inc. 2010). For slopes between 3:1 to 2:1 in steepness,use a biodegradable erosion-control blanket(matting or netting made of jute,wood fiber, straw, or coconut)to protect the revegetated area. On slopes dominated by weedy plant species, appropriate weed treatments will help reduce the population of undesirable plant species without significantly impacting slope stability. Use of additional preparation techniques, such as slope roughening or micro- terracing,can also improve revegetation success on slopes in this steepness range. On slopes steeper than 2:1,revegetation efforts should incorporate biotechnical slope stabilization measures to prevent slope erosion. Biotechnical slope stabilization methods incorporate structural elements that make it possible to achieve stability on steep slopes where plants alone would not provide adequate strength. Some relevant examples of biotechnical slope stabilization methods include vegetated soil lifts,vegetated rock revetment using live stakes,pole plantings,and/or brush layering,vegetated modular block retaining walls, vegetated crib retaining walls,vegetated gabion basket retaining walls,willow bundles,brush mattresses, live fascines,vegetated rock walls, and coir fiber rolls. Details of these slope stabilization methods can be found in the Salt Lake City Riparian Corridor Study Final Red Butte Creek Management Plan (BIO-WEST,Inc. 2010). 6-3 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum 6.2.2 Seeding Seeded slopes should be watered by truck or hand immediately following installation of a compost blanket, straw mat, or hydromulch to aid in successful establishment. On slopes with at least 2 inches of topsoil but no significant vegetation,the soil surface should be scarified or covered in biodegradable mesh netting to help the hydromulch adhere to the slope surface. The grass and forb seed mix should be applied as part of the hydromulch. The shrub seed mix should be broadcast separately over the surface of the hydromulch. These seed mixes provide a diverse selection of locally appropriate native and desirable revegetation species. Final seed mixes should be based on these lists but modified to account for weed treatments and priority species establishment. For example,the selected seed mix can be limited to graminoid species that serve as a cultural control while broadleaf weeds are being treated. Successful, extensive native grass and forb establishment is known to take 3 to 5 years following the initial seeding. To effectively control erosion during this time, QuickGuard sterile triticale grass or another fast-germinating grass can be included in the seed mix to provide a cover crop during the first year following seeding(personal communication,Daryl Bennett, Granite Seed, September 19,2006). Species such as alfalfa and yellow sweet clover(Melilotus spp.) should not be used as cover crops because they can be invasive, although many seed companies will suggest these species. To reduce the establishment of undesirable,weedy plant species, liquid fertilizer should not be added to seeded slopes (USDA 2004). Locally collected seed can provide the highest viability rate. Seeds can be aerial broadcast using fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters, or small areas can be hand seeded. Seeds should be covered afterward using a harrow or rake; failure to cover the seed will result in high seed predation and low germination rates. Drill seeding has the highest success rates; it involves placing seeds directly into the soil at a specified depth using specialized equipment,but it is less effective on rocky,uneven terrain. It is important that sites be correctly seeded with the appropriate seed mix; otherwise, annual grasses will quickly recover and occupy openings(Monsen et al.2004). Perennials must be planted on sites dominated by cheatgrass to obtain a diverse community of native plant species. One method is to use an interseeder,which is designed to seed desirable species into existing plant communities that have very little disturbance. The interseeding tractor consists of a scalper and a heavy-duty seeder(USDA 2004).An interseeder can be used on any terrain where a wheel tractor can safely travel. It is possible to use a steep slope scarifier and seeder;however, it must be mounted to the end of a crane to operate(USDA 2004). If perennial seedlings survive the first growing season,they will usually attain dominance. After the second or third growing season,the perennials should be fully established and should mature in 6 years if properly managed. On sites where desirable native grass and forb species are already successfully established, shrub seedlings should be planted as described below. 6.2.3 Shrub and Tree Planting When considering shrub selection and placement,the following factors should be considered: mature shrub size and form, soil conditions, available moisture,temperature, sun exposure,wind exposure, and overall intended use or purpose of the plants. root shrubs should be kept moist and cool throughout the planting process to avoid root desiccation.At the time of planting,organic amendment(topsoil and/or compost) should be added to the planting holes and around the base of each seedling. Depending on the slope and size of the area to be planted, shrub seedlings can be planted by hand or with a transplanter,which is a tractor-drawn device that scalps the soil,opens a furrow, and plants a bare-root 6-4 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum shrub. For large areas with soil at least 18 inches deep,this can be an economical planting method because transplanters consistently plant 1,000 to 1,500 plants per hour(USDA 2004). On slopes requiring seeding and shrub installation, shrubs should be planted prior to seeding. This will help maintain the structural integrity of the hydromulch or compost blanket. The seeds/mulch should be sprayed around the newly planted shrub seedlings. If slope is too steep and soil is depleted to where only rock or bedrock is present,terracing/benches, erosion control blankets, or soil addition may be required. Hydrology and stormwater should be assessed to ensure proper flow,infiltration,and erosion potential. Also consider species that will stabilize the soil and incorporate those with adequate root structure. During the fall and spring plantings, shrubs should be watered by truck immediately following planting to aid in successful establishment. For spring plantings, supplemental water will be necessary to ensure seedling success. One option is to water the shrubs weekly(if there is no rain) during the first growing season using a water truck. If this method is chosen,the water truck operator should make every effort to target the shrubs rather than broadcast water over the entire slope side. This will help reduce the establishment of weedy plant species and reduce the potential for erosion. A second option is the installation of Rainbird irrigation supplements at the base of each shrub at the time of planting. These would provide time-released,targeted water to each of the shrub plantings for 30 to 90 dry days. 6.2.4 Seedling Protection Follow these steps to successfully protect seedlings: • Use mulches around the base of each shrub to retain water and protect the shrub roots from drastic changes in air temperature. • Provide supplemental water to establish seedlings and maintain them during dry seasons. • Use erosion control structures on the soil surface to reduce soil and water erosion. This should include a compost blanket and/or sufficient number of straw waddles to prevent slope erosion. • Use planting stock with a good root-to-shoot ratio to avoid damage associated with extreme soil temperatures. Seedlings with excessive aboveground foliage should be pruned prior to installation to reduce stress on the root system. • Use plant species and associations adapted to site conditions. 6.2.5 Seasonal Timing of Seeding/Planting Efforts All seeding should take place in the late fall when air temperatures are lower and the chance of precipitation is high. Shrub seedlings should be installed in late fall and early spring when soil moisture content is high and the chances of precipitation are greatest(USDA 2004). 6-5 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum CHAPTER 7. MONITORING PROGRAM 7.1 MONITORING OBJECTIVES Establishing a strong monitoring program that can be easily followed and repeated will greatly assist in future efforts to make appropriate management decisions. The monitoring program should include careful documentation of existing weed infestations and control agent release sites;the documentation is designed to capture changes in plant performance and plant populations. The following can provide insight into the best management techniques to combat noxious and invasive weed population:using photography and GPS technology to enhance mapping efforts and capture abiotic factors, and monitoring off-season conditions to better understand seasonal changes that may affect the biocontrol agents. Monitoring follows mapping and can have a variety of objectives, such as the following: • Assessing the effect of management activities • Detecting weeds in new infested areas • Assessing the impact of weeds on the ecosystem • Assessing the effects of management activities on the ecosystem • Evaluating weed spread • Assessing increases or decreases in abundance of weeds Monitoring provides feedback on the efficacy of management activities.Management plans can and should be adjusted based on feedback from monitoring. Although monitoring is often restricted to small areas or plots,weed expansion or contraction across large geographic areas can be monitored by comparing maps from different years. 7.2 MONITORING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION In 2019, TNL established a pilot vegetation monitoring program to quantify the ecological conditions and trends of TNL-managed properties throughout SLC. The intent of the program is to monitor both weed and native vegetation growth and assess the success of revegetation efforts and invasive species removal projects. Monitoring sites were established at locations where restoration efforts have already been implemented and at locations where TNL has near-term plans to implement restoration efforts. In 2022, TNL and SWCA revised the preliminary protocol, digitized the data collection process,and established additional monitoring site locations. A high-level summary of the objectives of each monitoring location can be found in 2022 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Annual Vegetation Monitoring Methods (SWCA 2022b). The 2022 monitoring protocol outlines standardized methods of both quantitative and qualitative data collection. Line-point intercept transects and box plots were established to quantify ground cover,foliar cover,and species abundance. Modified transect lengths were used at locations with steep slopes or other natural space constraints. Woody vegetation height class data were also collected at select monitoring locations in order to analyze the structure of vertical vegetation and to determine habitat stability characteristics across woody vegetation communities. Qualitative data are necessary for documenting larger-scale ecological and management observations. Examples of qualitative data are included in Table 5. 7-1 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum Table 5. Details of Qualitative Monitoring Data Qualitative Data Category Details General information Monitoring site name Date of data collection Observer name(s) Vegetation Plant reproductive capacity Natural recruitment of native species Plant growth stages Patterns of established vegetation Relative abundance of vegetation Noxious/invasive weeds Weedy species present on-site Patterns of infestation Growth habits and phenology (See Appendix D for a weed list) Target species Presence or absence of site-specific target species Soil conditions Presence of accelerated erosion,including gullying, headcutting,slumping,and deep or excessive rilling Presence of progressive soil compaction and its effects on vegetation Site usage Presence of wildlife and/or wildlife sign Evidence of recreational and public use(including dogs on/off leash) Photographs Permanent photo points to be established with photographs facing north,east,south,west,and downward(ground) Additional photographs documenting pertinent qualitative and quantitative data 7.2.1 Evaluation of Successful Revegetation The success of revegetation efforts should be evaluated during each site visit. Survival can vary from 20 to 50% (Robinson et al. 2013;USDA 2004). Some studies indicate that container stock plantings have higher success rates than bare-root stock(Robinson et al. 2013). This is due, in part,to the palatability of shrub seedlings for foraging wildlife species. The other major factor is transplant shock,which is likely to impact a significant percentage of the shrub seedlings. Therefore,the shrub installation should be considered a success if more than 30%of shrub seedlings survived the first 3 years following installation. After seeding, each fall and spring, seeded sites should be examined for native vegetation. The seeding is considered successful if a significant increase in the number and type of native species were to occur each year,with substantial biomass and diversity after 3 years. 7.2.2 Contingency Measures Possible conditions that could contribute to failure include insufficient soil nutrients, lack of erosion control measures,improper shrub installation, lack of water, extreme precipitation events, and extreme air temperatures. Of these conditions,the first four are preventable,but the latter two are not. If revegetation is not successful on certain slopes,those slopes should be carefully evaluated to determine the cause of failure. Once the cause is determined,the situation should be remedied(if and where possible)and the slope revegetated. Given that approximately half of shrub plantings are expected to die,only slopes exhibiting 60%or greater shrub mortality should be replanted. 7-2 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum CHAPTER 8. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY SLC TNL manages approximately 2,100 acres of open space to provide recreational and overall health and lifestyle benefits to the SLC community,to provide an interface with the natural areas bordering SLC, and to protect and conserve the natural environment and ecosystem services that open space provides (SLC Planning Commission 1992). The purpose of this weed management plan is to provide an integrated and adaptive weed management approach for treating weeds on these ecologically and socially important TNL properties owned and managed by SLC Parks and Public Lands. SLC will continue to add information to this plan as part of an ongoing,adaptive weed management process. The next step in integrated pest management planning is to prioritize the weed species and project areas for management actions. Background information and guidance for such actions are provided in the appendices that accompany this plan. Regular monitoring of treated areas is also recommended as part of any adaptive management plan to ensure that treatment strategies are effective in controlling weed infestations. The objective of this noxious and invasive weed management plan is to identify weed infestations, prevent the establishment and spread of future weed infestations, and ultimately restore native and desirable non-native vegetation using IWM strategies. This plan reflects the land management goals of multiple city,county,and federal land management agencies to reduce and contain weedy plant infestations,prevent unnecessary environmental disturbance, and maintain and/or restore native ecosystem functions. 8-1 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum CHAPTER 9. LITERATURE CITED Ainsworth,N., and A. Bowcher. 2005.Herbicides:guidelines for use in and around water. Available at: https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/documents/plants-animals/plants/weeds/Herbicides_- _guidelines_for—use—in—and—around water.pdf. Accessed October 26,2022. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS). 2020. Biological Control Agent List(June 2020). Available at: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/import- information/permits/plant-pests/330-web-lists/biological-control-agent-list.Accessed September 14, 2022. Archer,A.J. 2001. Fire Effects Information System. Species review of Taeniatherum caput-medusae. U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,Fire Sciences Laboratory(Producer). Formerly available at:http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ plants/graminoid/taccap/all.html. Last accessed August 14,2012. Atkinson, S.F.,and M.C. Lake. 2020. Prioritizing riparian corridors for ecosystem restoration in urbanizing watersheds.Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32117600/.Accessed October 26,2022. Baldwin,B.G., S. Boyd, B.J. Ertter, R.W.Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken. 2002. The Jepson Desert Manual, Vascular Plants of Southeastern California. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Banks,W. 2013.A well designed goat grazing plan can reduce noxious weeds.Utah State University Cooperative Extension.Available at: https:Hissuu.com/usuextension/docs/weeds_and_goats. Accessed September 16,2022. Beck,K.G. 2009.Biology and Management of the Toadflaxes. Colorado State University Extension. Available at: https:Hextension.colostate.edu/docs/pubs/natres/03114.pdf.Accessed September 16,2022. Belliston,N.D., J.Merritt,R. Whitesides, and S.A. Dewey. 2004.Noxious Weed Field Guide for Utah. 2nd ed. Logan,Utah: Utah State University Extension. BIO-WEST,Inc. 2010.Salt Lake City Riparian Corridor Study:Final Red Butte Creek Management Plan. Logan,Utah: BIO-WEST,Inc. Birthisel, S.K., G.A. Smith, G.M. Mallory,J. Hao,and E.R. Gallandt. 2019. Effects of field and greenhouse solarization on soil microbiota and weed seeds in the northeast USA. Organic Farming, 1(5):66-78. Available at: http://www.librelloph.com/organicfarming/article/view/416. Accessed January 9, 2023. Cappiella,K., T. Schucler,J. Tomlinson,and T. Wright. 2006. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual Part 3. Urban Tree Planting Guide.Available at: https:Howl.cwp.org/mdocs-posts/urban-watershed- forestry-manual-part-3/. Accessed October 26,2022. Casey,P.A. 2012. Plant guide for cereal rye(Secale cereale).Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available at: https://plants.usda.gov/DocumentLibrary/plantguide/pdf/pg_sece.pdf.Accessed November 7,2022. 9-1 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum Cao, L., and L. Berent. 2022. Salix fragilis L.: U.S. Geological Survey Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, Florida, and NOAA Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System,Ann Arbor,Michigan.Available at: https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/GreatLakes/FactSheet.aspx?NoCache=l 1%2F9%2F2014+8%3A 13%3A38+AM&Species_ID=2684&State=&HUCNumber=DErie.Accessed September 9, 2022. Chambers,J.C. 2000. Seed movements and seedling fates in disturbed sagebrush steppe ecosystems: implications for restoration.Ecological Application 10(5):1400-1413. Chadha,A.,and F. Singarayer. 2021. Biology, ecology, distribution and control of the invasive weed, Lactuca serriola L. (wild lettuce): a global review.Plants 10(10):2157. Colorado State University(CSU). 2000. Colorado State University Division of Plant Industry. Creating an Integrated Weed Management Plan:A Handbook for Owners and Managers of Lands with Natural Values. Caring for the Land Series,Vol. IV. Colorado Department of Agriculture. 2006. P1antTalk Colorado: 2103—Colorado Noxious Weeds. Available at: https://planttalk.colostate.edu/topics/weeds-cultural-problems/2103-colorado-noxious- weeds/#:—:text=There%20are%20several%20noxious%20weeds%20in%20Colorado.%20Amon g,in%20Colorado%20have%20been%20divided%20into%20three%20categories%3A.Accessed November 7,2022. Coombs,E.M.,J.K. Clark, and G.L. Piper.2004.Biological Control oflnvasive Plants in the United States. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press. Cudney, D.W., C.L. Elmore, and C.E. Bell. 2007.Bermudagrass. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program(UC IPM). Available at: http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7453.html.Accessed November 7,2022. Cristea,N., and J. Janisch. 2007. Modeling the Effects of Riparian Buffer Width on Effective Shade and Stream Temperature. Washington State Department of Ecology. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0703028.html.Accessed November 4,2022. Dewey, S.A., S.F. Enloe,F.D. Menalled, S.D. Miller,R.E.Whitesides, and L. Johnson. 2006. Weed Management Handbook, 20062007, Montana, Utah, Wyoming. Cooperative Extension Services Montana State University,Utah State University and the University of Wyoming. DiTomaso,J.M., G.B. Kyser, S.R. Oneto,R.G. Wilson, S.B. Orloff,L. Anderson, S. Wright,J. Roncoroni,T.Miller, T. Prather, C. Ransom,K. Beck,C.A. Duncan,K. Wilson, and J. Mann. 2013. Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States.University of California Weed Research and Information Center. Duble,R.L. 2006.Bermudagrass: The Sports Turf of the South. Texas Cooperative Extension. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University. Espeland,E.K.,J.M. Muscha,J. Scianna, R. Kilian,N.M. West,and M.K. Petersen. 2017. Secondary invasion and reinvasion after Russian-olive removal and revegetation.Invasive Plant Science and Management 10(4):340-349. 9-2 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum Franklin County Noxious Weed Control Board. 2022.PUNCTUREVINE: Options for Control.Available at: https://www.nwcb.wa.gov/images/weeds/Puncturevine_Franklin.pdf.Accessed November 7, 2022. Gashaw,T.,H Terefe, T. Soromessa, S. Ahmed,and T. Megersa. 2015.Riparian areas rehabilitation and restoration: An overview.Point Journal of Agriculture and Biotechnology Research 2(1):037- 045.Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28094 1 6 1 1_Riparian_areas_ rehabilitation and restoration An overview. Accessed October 26,2022. Hairston-Strang,A. 2005.Riparian Forest Buffer Design and Maintenance. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277163121_Riparian_Forest_Buffer_Design and_Mai ntenance. Accessed October 26,2022. Herold,J.,M.R. Anderson,J.T. Bauer,V. Borowicz, and R.C.Anderson. 2011. Comparison of the effect of early and late removal of second-year garlic mustard(Alliaria petiolata) on first-year plants and deciduous forest spring and summer dominant herbaceous groundlayer species in central Illinois,USA.Ecological Restoration September 2011(29):225-233. Invasive Species Specialist Group. 2006. The Effect of Stump Treatment on Tamarix ramosissima. Formerly available at: http://www.issg.org/index.html. Last accessed November 20,2006. Jacobs,J.S.,and R.L. Sheley. 2005. The effect of season on Picloram and Chlorsulf iron application on Dalmatian toadflax on prescribed burns. Weed Technology 19(1):59-64. Jim6nez-Ruiz,J., and M.I. Santin-Montanya. 2016. An Approach to the Integrated Management of Exotic Invasive Weeds in Riparian Zones. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 289904957_An_Approach_to_the_Integrated_Management_of Exotic—Invasive—Weeds—in—Rip arian Zones.Accessed October 26,2022. King County Noxious Weed Control Program. 2010. Garlic Mustard Best Management Practices. Available at: http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-and-land/weeds/BMPs/Garlic- Mustard-Control.pdf.Accessed November 22,2011. Klopfenstein,J. 2018.Purge the spurge:How to recognize and remove one of salt Lake's most noxious weeds. Available at: https://www.ksl.com/article/46318276/purge-the-spurge-how-to-recognize- and-remove-one-of-salt-lakes-most-noxious-weeds. Accessed November 7,2022. Kuhns,M.,and B. Daniels. 2012.Firewise Landscaping for Utah.Available at: https://www.slc.gov/fire/wp-content/uploads/sites/47/2019/04/FirewiseLandscaping20l2.pdf. Accessed September 15,2022. Lamming,L. 2001. Successfully controlling noxious weeds with goats: the natural choice that manages weeds and builds soil health.Alternative Weed Strategies 21(4):19-23. Lowry,B.J., C.V. Ransom,R.E. Whitesides, and H. Olsen. 2017.Noxious Weed Field Guide for Utah. 4th edition. Logan,Utah: Utah State University Extension. Lukes,L. 2018.What makes plants drought tolerant? The Real Dirt Blog. Available at: https://ucanr.eduiblogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=28129. Accessed October 12,2022. 9-3 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum Mack,R.N.,D. Simberloff,W.M. Lonsdale,H. Evans,M. Clout, and F.A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes,epidemiology,global consequences,and control.Ecological Applications 10:689-710. Mangold, J., R. Sheley,and M. Brown. 2009. Oxeye Daisy:Identification, Biology, and Integrated Management.Available at: http://msuextension.org/publications/AgandNaturalResources/ MT200002AG.pdf. Accessed November 22,2011. Mangold, J. 2017. Western Salsify.Available at: http://www.msuinvasiveplants.org/documents/ publications/extension_publications/Western%20Salsify_revised%202017.pdf.Accessed September 15,2022. Macfarlane, W.W.,J.T. Gilbert, M.L. Jensen,J.D. Gilbert,N. Hough-Snee, P.A. McHugh,J.M. Wheaton, and S.N. Bennett. 2017. Riparian vegetation as an indicator of riparian condition: Detecting departures from historic condition across the North American West.Journal of Environmental Management,202,2:447-460.Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 50301479716308489?via%3Dihub. Accessed October 26, 2022. McNeish,R.E.,and R.W.McEwan. 2016. A review on the invasion ecology of Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii, Caprifoliaceae)a case study of ecological impacts at scales. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, 143(4):367-185. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2022.Norway maple(Acer platanoides).Available at: https://v ww.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/woody/norwaymaple.html#:—:text=Mech anical%20control%20can%20be%20done%20by%20pulling%20seedlings,the%201ower%2012- 18%20inches%20of%20the%20main%20stem.Accessed September 8,2022. Monsen, S.B.,R. Stevens, and N L. Shaw. 2004.Restoring Western Ranges and Wildlands,Vol. 3. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-136-vol.3. U.S. Department of Agriculture,Rocky Mountain Research Station. Montana State University. 2019.Monthly Weed Post, Cutleaf vipergrass (Scorzonera laciniata). Available at: http://www.sarc.montana.edu/documents/weedposts/May%202019%20Weed%20Post_ cutleaf%20vipergrass.pdf.Accessed November 7,2022. Mosley, J.C.,and L.Roselle. 2006. Targeted livestock grazing to suppress invasive annual grasses.Available at: https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/rx- grazing/Handbook/Chapter 8_Targeted_Grazing.pdf.Accessed October 2022. Mullison,W.R. 2017. Effects of Herbicides on Water and Its Inhabitants.Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/j oumals/weed-science/article/abs/effects-of-herbicides-on- water-and-its-inhabitants/765D3258B32F36D97BE1FA7757F98C47.Accessed October 26, 2022. Munger, Gregory T. 2005.Lonicera spp. Fire Effects Information System.U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station,Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/shrub/lonspp/all.html.Accessed September 6,2022. 9-4 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum Natural Resources Conservation Service(MRCS). 2007.Ecology and Management of Sulfur Cinquefoil (Potentilla recta L). Invasive Species Technical Note No. MT-17,December 2007. Formerly available at: http://www.plant-materials.nres.usda.gov/pubs/mtpmstn7732.pdf. Last accessed August 20,2012. 2012a. The PLANTS Database.Utah County distribution for Conium maculatum.National Plant Data Team, Greensboro,North Carolina 27401-4901 USA. Formerly available at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/county?state_name=Utah&statefips=49&symbol=COMA2. Last accessed August 20,2012. 2012b. The PLANTS Database. Utah County distribution for Cynoglossum officinale.National Plant Data Team, Greensboro,North Carolina 27401-4901 USA. Formerly available at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/county?state_name=Utah&statefips=49&symbol=CYOF. Last accessed August 20,2012. 2012c. The PLANTS Database.Utah County distribution for Tribulus terrestris.National Plant Data Team,Greensboro,North Carolina 27401-4901 USA. Formerly available at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/county?state_name=Utah&statefips=49&symbol=TRTE. Last accessed August 20,2012. 2012d. The PLANTS Database. Utah County distribution for Aegilops cylindrica.National Plant Data Team,Greensboro,North Carolina 27401-4901 USA. Formerly available at: http://plants.usda.gov/javaJcounty?state_name=Utah&statefips=49&symbol=AECY. Last accessed August 20,2012. 2012e. The PLANTS Database.Utah County distribution for Elaeagnus angustifolia.National Plant Data Team, Greensboro,North Carolina 27401-4901 USA. Formerly available at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/county?state_name=Utah&statefips=49&symbol=ELAN. Last accessed August 20,2012. 2020. Conservation Practice Standard: Riparian Forest Buffer(Ac.) (391). Available at: https://www.nres.usda.gov/resources/guides-and-instructions/riparian-forest-buffer-ac-391- conservation-practice-standard. Accessed October 26,2022. North Carolina Extension. 2022a.Hesperis matronalis.North Carolina Extension Gardener Plant Toolbox.Available at: https://plants.ces.ncsu.edu/plants/hesperis-matronalis/.Accessed November 7,2022. 2022b.Lonicera tatarica.North Carolina Extension Gardener Plant Toolbox. Available at: https://plants.ces.ncsu.edu/plants/lonicera-tatarica/. Accessed January 10,2023. Olivier, O. 2022. Invasive garden: how to control Virginia creeper.Available at: https:Hinvasivegarden.com/how-to-control-virginia-creeper/.Accessed September 9,2022. Panke,B.,and Renz,M.2012. Management of invasive plants in Wisconsin(A3924-03): Bush honeysuckles(Lonicera spp.). Available at: https:Hcdn.shopify.com/s/files/l/0145/8808/ 4272/files/A3924-03.pdf.Accessed January 10,2023. Pokharel,R. 2011. Soil Solarization, an alternative to soil fumigants. Fact Sheet No. 0.505. Colorado State University Extension.Available at: https:Hextension.colostate.edu/docs/pubs/ crops/00505.pdf. Accessed January 9,2023. 9-5 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum Pokorny,M.,J. Mangold, and R. Kittle. 2010. Black Henbane: Identification,Biology, and Integrated Management. Available at: https:Happs.msuextension.org/montguide/guide.html? sku=MT201005AG.November 7,2022. Robinson,E. D.,J. Bakker,J. Evans, H.Newsome, G. Davies, T. Wirth,D. Pyke,R. Easterly,D. Salstrom,and P. Dunwiddle. 2013. Outplanting Wyoming big sagebrush following wildfire: stock performance and economics.Rangeland Ecology and Management 66(6):657-666. Salt Lake City(SLC)Planning Commission. 1992. Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan. Salt Lake City,Utah. Salt Lake City(SLC)Public Lands Department. 2022. Trails and Natural Lands.Available at: https://www.slc.gov/parks/trails-natural-lands/. Accessed November 4, 2022. SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2016.Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan for Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands. Salt Lake City,Utah: SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2022a. 2022 Annual Vegetation Monitoring Report. Salt Lake City,Utah: SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2022b. 2022 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Annual Vegetation Monitoring Methods. Salt Lake City,Utah: SWCA Environmental Consultants. Salt Lake County. 2022. Health Department:Noxious Weeds.Available at: https:Hslco.org/health/ weeds/noxious-weeds/. Accessed November 4,2022. 2023. Health Department: Cereal Rye. Available at: https:Hslco.org/health/weeds/noxious- weeds/cereal-rye/. Accessed January 10,2023. Sheley,R. 2002.Mowing to Manage Noxious Weeds. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University Extension Service. Sheley,R., and J. Mangold.2005. Ecologically based invasive plant management. Presented at Sheep, Goats,Weeds, and Wildlife Workshop,March 28-31,2005,Missoula,Montana. Sperry,L.J.,J. Belnap, and R.D. Evans. 2006.Bromus tectorum invasion alters nitrogen dynamics in an undisturbed and grassland ecosystem.Ecology 87(3):603-615. The Nature Conservancy(TNC). 2006. The global invasive species initiative. The Nature Conservancy. Available at: http://www.invasive.org/gist/handbook.html. Accessed August 7,2012. Tilman,D., C.L. Lehman,and K.T. Thomson. 1997. Plant diversity and ecosystem productivity: theoretical considerations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94:1857-1861. Tracy,J.L,R.N. Coulson,and R.G. March. 2014.Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat suitability and connectivity under simulated conditions of tamarisk beetle herbivory and willow restoration. Formerly available at: http://www.tamariskcoalition.org/sites/default/files/files/Tracy%20- %20Beetle%20and%20SWFL.pdf. Last accessed August 4,2016. University of Nevada—Reno. 2022. A northern Nevada homeowner's guide to identifying and managing western salsify.Available at: https://extension.unr.edu/publication.aspx?PubID=3330.Accessed September 8,2022. 9-6 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum Utah State University. 2022. Integrated pest management ornamental pest guide.Available at: https://extension.usu.edu/pests/ipm/omamental-pest-guide/. Accessed September 8,2022. U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA). 2004.Restoring Western Ranges and Wildlands. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture,Rocky Mountain Research Station. 2006. Agriculture Research Service,Team Leafy Spurge. Formerly available at: http://www.team.ars.usda.gov. Last accessed August 7,2012. U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA)National Invasive Species Information Center. 2006. Houndstongue(Cynoglossum officinale). Formerly available at: http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/plants/houndstongue.shtml. Last accessed November 20. 2006. U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007.Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Washington,D.C.: Adaptive Management Working Group,U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). 2006. Exotic species. Formerly available at: http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/ecosspeciesexoticspecies.html. Last accessed August 7,2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Southwestern Willow flycatcher(Empidonax traillii extimus). Formerly available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=B094. Last accessed August 8,2016. U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. The United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center for Hypericum perforatum. Formerly available at: http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/research/projects/swepic/factsheets/hypesf info.pdf. Last accessed November 20,2006. Utah Weed Control Association. 2022. Cutleaf Vipergrass. Available at: https://utahweed.org/id%20page/cutleaf-vipergrass/.Accessed November 7,2022. Vesipa,R., C. Camporeale, and L. Ridolfi.2017. Effect of river flow fluctuations on riparian vegetation dynamics: processes and models. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 320205945_Effect—of_river_flow_fluctuations_on_riparian_vegetation_dynamics—Processes—an d models. Accessed October 26,2022. Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board.2022. English hawthorn. Available at: https://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weeds/english-hawthorn.Accessed September 9,2022. Washington State University. 2013. Common burdock.Available at: https://extension.wsu.edu/whitman/2013/11/common-burdock/. Accessed September 9,2022. Weber County. 2006. Biological Control Methods for Dyer's Woad. Formerly available at: http://www.co.weber.ut.us/weeds/bio_control_dyerswoad.php. Last accessed August 7,2012. Wellard, B. 2020.Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Monitoring Report 2019. Personal communication, email from Aaron Benzon, Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands to Katelyn Cary, SWCA Environmental Consultants,April 18,2022. 9-7 Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum Welsh, S.L.,N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L.C. Higgins. 2008.A Utah Flora. 4th ed. Provo,Utah: Brigham Young University. Whitson,T.D.,L.C. Burrill, S.A. Dewey,D.W. Cudney,B.E.Nelson,R.D. Lee, and R. Parker. 1999. Weeds of the West. 6th ed. Jackson,Wyoming: Pioneer of Jackson Hole. Williamson,J. 2021. English ivy control. Clemson Cooperative Extension Home and Garden Information Center. Available at: https:Hhgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/english-ivy-control/.Accessed September 8,2022. Wilson,L.M., S.E. Sing, G.L. Piper,R.W. Hansen,R. DeClerck-Floate,D.K. MacKinnon, and C.B. Randall. 2005. Biology and Biological Control of Dalmatian and Yellow Toadflax. Morgantown,Virginia: U.S. Forest Service,Forest Health Enterprise Technology Team, FHTET-2005-13. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2023. Tatarian honeysuckle(Lonicera tatarica).Available at: https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Invasives/fact/TatarianHoneysuckle.html. Accessed January 10,2023. Wurzbacher, S.,D.R. Jackson, and A. Gover. 2020. Tree-of-heaven. Pennsylvania State University, PennState Extension. Available at: https:Hextension.psu.edu/tree-of-heaven. Accessed September 9,2022. Young,Frank L.,Dale K.Whaley,Nevin C. Lawrence, and Ian C. Burke. 2016. Feral rye(Secale cereale)control in winter canola in the Pacific Northwest. Weed Technology, 1(30):163-70. Young,J.A.,D.E. Palmquist, and S.O.Wotring. 1997. The invasive nature of Lepidium latifolium: a review. In Plant Invasions: Studies from North America and Europe, edited by J.H. Brock,M. Wade,P. Pysek and D. Green,pp. 59-68. Leiden,the Netherlands: Backhuys Publishers. Zouhar, Kris. 2004. Cardaria spp. Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,Fire Sciences Laboratory(Producer). Formerly available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Last accessed August 14,2012. 9-8 APPENDIX A Best Management Practices INTRODUCTION In the research and development of this plan,noxious weeds on SLC public lands were identified as a priority for early detection and rapid response. The purpose of this section is to provide staff guidelines and training for the transition into an adaptive and integrated management program and a more strategic use of chemical controls on the SLC Public Lands Division program lands,including parks,natural lands, urban forests, and the City Cemetery. Due to community health and safety concerns, SLC is interested in reducing,and perhaps removing,pesticide use in their parks.As a result, SLC began the Organic Landcare Pilot Project in 2017. The results of this pilot program determined herbicides were still a necessary tool for turf management to meet budget constraints(SLC 2021). Best Management Practice 1 : Mechanical Controls Mechanical control methods physically disrupt weed growth.Mechanical weed control is the oldest and most common method worldwide. Tilling,mowing,hand pulling, disking, and solarizing are examples of mechanical control. • Tilling works by disturbing the root system. The objective is to dislodge or cut the root system so that the plant dies from drying out before it can reestablish its roots. Tillage easily controls small weeds and is most effective in hot, dry weather with dry soils. To effectively control noxious weeds,repeat tillage each time new shoots emerge(about every 2 weeks) for one or two growing seasons. Make sure you cut off every plant. Tillage can also kill weeds by burying them. Most annual weeds die when all growing points are buried.Burial is not effective on most established noxious weeds since their underground parts will re-sprout. • Mowing is a suppression measure that can prevent or decrease seed head production. Mowed weeds will regrow and set seed from a reduced height, so a combined control method is necessary to be effective. Mowing causes perennial plants to weaken when forced to send up carbohydrates from underground root reserves to nourish regrowth. Mowing a perennial weed such as Canada thistle a couple of times during the summer can significantly weaken the plants,and when combined with a fall herbicide application,mowing provides excellent control. • Hand pulling and digging are effective on some annual and biennial species. It is important to remove the upper 2 to 3 inches of taproot to prevent regrowth. • Disking,or shallow tillage with a disk or sweep,is effective for controlling annual species; however, it can actually be counterproductive for trying to control perennial weeds such as Canada thistle, field bindweed, leafy spurge,or Russian knapweed. Perennial root systems often have meristematic buds that can set roots and produce a new plant from root segments deposited on the soil surface. Shallow tillage of perennial weeds can result in a larger, denser, and more uniform infestation than the initial patch. • Solarizing increases the temperature of soils to the extent that many annual seeds die and can no longer reproduce. It is not effective against perennial species. It is a preferred method when low impact and chemical avoidance are desired. Summer is generally the best time to use solarization due to higher temperatures,though consistently dry sites would likely benefit from spring coverings when the soil moisture is higher. Summer coverings generally need to be in place for 4 to 6 weeks,whereas spring and fall coverings need to be in place for 6 to 8 weeks. Soil temperatures should reach 99°F consistently to be effective. A-1 Best Management Practice 2: Chemical Controls Numerous herbicides may prove useful to the reduction and eradication of noxious weeds and invasive weed species.Many natural areas contain ponds,wetlands, and streams,making it necessary to assess the use and persistence of the chemicals in these environments and their effects on human health,nontarget plants,and animals. It is important to choose the correct herbicide for the target species and employ BMPs when using herbicides to avoid damaging desirable species, ensure effective control of the weed species,and avoid impacts to human health,wildlife,and the environment. General Best Management Practices for Chemical Controls • Be familiar with existing state and federal regulations on pesticide application, certification, and weed control. Several federal and state laws control the handling, storage, application, disposal, and reporting of chemical spills. Examples include the Federal Insecticide,Fungicide and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA),the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act(SARA),the Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to-Know Act(EPCRA), and Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA)requirements,particularly the Hazard Communication Standard. The Utah Water Quality Control Act(25-8-601 and 25-8-606) also contains requirements for notification of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality of spills and accidental discharges and provides the department with the authority to order cleanups. It may also be necessary to file information with the local fire department based on these and other laws. • Accurately diagnose the pest, disease,or weed and host prior to intervening with chemicals. Disease and insect symptoms can mimic each other in many plants. A fungicide will not control an insect,and an insecticide will not control a disease.For assistance in identifying pests and noxious or invasive plants,contact the Salt Lake County Extension Office at http://extension.usu.edu/saltlake,or the Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic lab at http://utahpests.usu.edp uodl. For weeds,you might also visit www.slcgov.com/gardenwise. • Know your weeds. Hire a trained professional who can distinguish between invasive or noxious weed species and desirable plant species. Only trained professionals with herbicide applicator licenses should apply restricted-use herbicides. • Qualified personnel(biologists,botanists, or horticulturalists)should monitor effects on nontarget plants after application and/or monitor effectiveness of treatment. Consider pest occurrence and history when developing pest management strategies. • Recognize that no landscape should be or can be completely pest free or weed free. • Apply herbicides only when needed. Do not use herbicides on a regular or preventive basis. • Only apply herbicides that have low toxicity, degrade naturally,and are non-persistent. Weeds may develop resistance to a particular herbicide over time.Use in rotation with other mechanical control methods such as hand pulling or mowing. • Prior to use of any herbicide,read the product label. It is a violation of federal law to use any herbicide in a way that is inconsistent with the label. • Place signs in the area 24 hours before spraying and on the day of spraying. Upon completion of the project,remove signs and go to the next site. • Keep up-to-date,accurate records of which herbicides were used,where they were used,and when they were used. • Dispose of excess herbicides properly. A-2 Herbicide Selection • Consider non-chemical responses to weed,pest, and disease problems, such as manual or mechanical controls or biocontrols,where appropriate. Visit the Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Lab website for information regarding biocontrols and beneficial insects at http://utahpests.usu.edg uppol. • Select pesticides and herbicides best suited to the characteristics host plant,the site, and the particular pest or weed. Half-life, solubility, and absorption should be compared with site characteristics to determine the safest chemical. Choose the least toxic and less persistent sprays whenever possible,based on comparison of labels and associated material safety data sheets (MSDSs). • Be aware that some pesticide formulations are not compatible with other pesticides and that combining them may result in increased potency and phytotoxicity. • Do not apply aminopyralid-containing products at the same time as planting grass seed. • Certain herbicides may not be used on or around water.Use herbicides that are approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) for use in wetland and aquatic areas when treating weeds that grow in or near these areas. • Select herbicides that are best suited to the characteristics of the target site(soil texture, topography, and proximity to groundwater and surface water)and particular weed species. • Noxious and invasive plants may develop resistance to a particular herbicide over time. Use in rotation with mechanical control methods such as hand pulling or mowing. To avoid weed resistance, do not overuse herbicides with common modes of action or herbicides that are in the same family. Herbicide Application Requirements — Staff Field Tool Herbicide Pre-application Ensure that individuals applying commercial chemicals receive thorough training and proper certification prior to chemical use. Individuals and companies hired to apply pesticides must be licensed in the appropriate categories by the Utah Department of Agriculture(UDA). Limited commercial applicators and public applicators applying restricted pesticides must register with the UDA. Limited commercial applicators and public applicators not applying restricted pesticides who have submitted to the jurisdiction of the UDA must follow all record-keeping and other procedures as established by the UDA. Thoroughly complete all applicator forms,where applicable. It is important to understand concentration and application rates specific to the herbicide being used. Apply pesticides and herbicides according to the label and follow these additional steps: 1. Be certain that the irrigation system will be shut off for the appropriate duration of application and absorption. If the site was watered, do not apply products. 2. For public or commercial sites,check that no events are scheduled to takc place that will conflict with the application. 3. Because herbicides can travel outside the application area and affect nontarget plants,people, and animals,the following practices should be followed: A-3 a. Herbicide drift can be reduced by spraying under calm wind conditions(below 5 miles per hour)or by using a spot or wick applicator. Do not apply herbicide if wind is blowing in the direction of the waterway. b. The implementation of an untreated buffer zone along a river, stream, or other water ways can act as a safety zone for unanticipated herbicide spray. Streamside buffers can slow the movement of herbicide-laden runoff and allow suspended particles to settle before reaching surface waters. Buffers can be treated using a wick applicator or mechanical or other appropriate treatment(Berg 2004). Only aquatic-approved chemicals should be considered as an alternative to the preferred mechanical controls. c. Choose nozzles that minimize the percentage of fine-to moderate-sized droplets and maximize the percentage of larger droplets. d. Avoid application when wind direction is highly variable and can change suddenly. e. Avoid spraying in calm or no wind conditions toward evening or early morning when thermal inversions are more likely to occur.Watch for indicators of temperature inversion such as ground fog,hanging dust or smoke, and dew or frost. f. When using spot spraying and mowing as a combined method for turf management, spot spray at least 1 day prior to mowing(or as directed by the label)to avoid spreading the chemical by mowing. g. Keep fertilizer off of streets, sidewalks, and driveways to prevent water pollution. Fertilizer that inadvertently falls on impervious surfaces should be swept back onto the lawn or into the landscape. 4. Establish a site that is used exclusively for the storage and mixing of herbicides.Make sure this site is not accessible to children or animals and is not near any open water source. 5. Mix chemicals in a well-ventilated area and have a spill kit available. 6. Maintain application equipment in proper working condition and calibrate equipment frequently (see below). SPRAYER CALIBRATION The following step-by-step method of calibrating a backpack sprayer involves very little math or formulas. It is based on the following principal: 1 gallon= 128 fluid ounces, and your calibration area to be sprayed is 1/128 of an acre; thus, fluid ounces collected=gallons per acre. 1. Clean sprayer and nozzle thoroughly. Then, fill the spray tank with clean water.Using water only,check to see that the nozzle forms a uniform spray pattern. If the pattern is uneven,check to make sure the nozzle is clean and replace if needed.Adjustable nozzles should be set and marked to permit repeated use of the selected spray pattern. 2. Measure an area 18.5 feet by 18.5 feet,which is equal to 1/128 of an acre. If possible,this should be done in the field on which you will be spraying. 3. Time the number of seconds it takes to spray the measured area uniformly with water using a gentle, side-to side sweeping motion with the spray wand similar to spray painting a home or automobile. Record the number of seconds required to spray the area. During application,be sure to maintain a constant sprayer pressure. It will take about 4 to 6 passes through the area for complete coverage. YOU SHOULD REPEAT THIS STEP AT LEAST TWICE AND USE THE AVERAGE OF THE TWO TIMES. 4. Spray into a container for the average time calculated in step 3. Be sure to maintain constant sprayer pressure while you spray into the container. A-4 5. Measure the number of fluid ounces of water in the bucket. The number of fluid ounces collected from the bucket is equal to the number of gallons of water per acre the sprayer is delivering. Volume sprayed in fluid ounces=gallons of water per acre(GPA). 6. Use tables to determine how much liquid herbicide to add to each amount of water(1 gallon, 20 gallons, 100 gallons). Find your spray volume in gallons per acre(GPA, calculated above) and read across the chart to determine the amount of herbicide to add to each gallon of water based on the recommended herbicide application rate. Herbicide Application Herbicides must be applied in conformance with the label instructions. It is illegal to apply herbicides beyond the amounts specified on the label. Read and follow label safety directions and maintain appropriate MSDSs. 1. Wear the appropriate protective equipment specified on the herbicide label to minimize unnecessary exposure to herbicides. 2. Post signs notifying park users that an area has been treated with herbicide and have a spotter to inform the public of what you are doing and to stay clear of the area until dry. Signs should be posted where they are clearly visible and indicate when and where the herbicide application took place and when the area can be used again,or the re-entry interval(check herbicide label).Use the appropriate EPA Signal Word,as follows: a. Toxicity Class 1: Danger NOTE: The word"POISON"and the skull and crossbones symbol are required for products classified as toxicity category I for acute oral, acute dermal, or acute inhalation toxicity studies(40 CFR 156.64(a)(1)). It is also required if inert methanol is present at 4%or more in the subject product(EPA 2011). b. Toxicity Class 11: Warning c. Toxicity Class III: Caution d. Toxicity Class IV: No signal word required 3. Use application techniques that allow the lowest effective labeled application rate. 4. Materials used to contain spills must be readily accessible when using herbicides. 5. Apply herbicides to target locations(spot treatments)where weeds exist; do not broadcast spray. 6. Do not apply herbicides during high temperature,windy conditions,or immediately prior to heavy rainfall or irrigation. 7. Use colorants or dyes added to the herbicide mixture to determine placement. 8. Do NOT use Milestone under leguminous trees(black or honey locust,redbud,mimosa),pinyon pine,rose,junipers, or spruce. 9. Employ application techniques that increase efficiency and allow the lowest effective application rate to adequately control the pest. Carefully calibrate application equipment. Hand-apply all chemicals when near buffer zone boundaries, and do not allow overspray from mechanical applications into buffer zones. 10. Clean up and/or contain all pesticide spills immediately and comply with state and federal regulations concerning reporting spills of hazardous materials. A-5 Record-Keeping and Disposal 1. Maintain records of all pesticides applied(both restricted and non-restricted use), including entity for whom and address where application was made,target pest,brand name, formulation,EPA registration number, amount, date and time applied, site,crop, commodity or structure treated, exact location of application,measurement of area or number of plants treated,and name of applicator. Combine and file this information with irrigation water data, crop growth records,and notes on effectiveness of alternative pest control measures to help identify and track measures to both save money and reduce pesticide usage. 2. Properly handle and dispose of containers,rinse water,unused product,and waste. Store pesticides in secured and covered areas.Never pour lawn and garden chemicals down storm drains or sanitary drains and keep off impervious surfaces during application. Check labels and MSDSs for specific instructions on disposal of the product and the product container. 3. Complete the treatment tracking form and submit for mapping and record-keeping. 4. When done spraying,always triple-rinse sprayer in a sanitary sewer as well as the containers the product came in before disposing of them. A-6 LITERATURE CITED Berg,N. 2004.Assessment of Herbicide Best Management Practices: Status of our Knowledge of BMP Effectiveness. Albany, California: Pacific Southwest Research Station,USDA Forest Service. Salt Lake City(SLC). 2021. Organic Landcare Pilot Project. Available at: https://www.slc. gov/sustainability/pesticidefree/organic-lndcare-pilot- proj ect/#:—:text=Salt%20Lake%20City%20is%20interested%20in%20reducing%20and,manage ment%20methods%20at%20Madsen%20Park%20and%20La. Accessed November 7,2022. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). 2018.Label Review Manual Chapter 7:Precautionary Statements. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-04/documents/chap-07- mar-2018.pdf. Accessed November 2022. A-7 APPENDIX B Urban Forestry Guidance INTRODUCTION Well-managed urban and community forests can significantly contribute to the sustainable development and economic viability of cities; however,careful planning, decision, and management is required in urban forestry environments to achieve full economic, social, and ecological potential (Northrop et al. 2022). Historically, decision making around urban forestry has focused on a reactive approach and short- term solutions that are often implemented on a project-by-project basis to meet the immediate needs of citizens and their government leaders; however, in the long run, a focus on these short-term objectives often misses the opportunity to address the resilience of the urban forest system and its capacity to adapt to the pressures of urban densification,expansion, and climate change (Gaertner et al. 2017). Non-native trees provide a multitude of ecological services for urban environments. For example,they can reduce air pollution and noise,provide habitat for other species,reduce erosion,and attenuate the effects of urban heat islands;however,they also often outcompete native trees and vegetation, create homogeneous landscapes, and can change the ecology of a habitat(Castro-Diez et al. 2019; Schlaepfer et al. 2020).Non-native plants are valued in residential gardens and urban parks for various reasons, including aesthetic qualities,resiliency,and culinary and cultural attributes(Garland 2020). The pros and cons of removing non-native tree species should be considered with respect to their location on the landscape and biodiversity value within publicly accessible greenspaces.Although non-native plant species may diversify local biodiversity,when non-native species act invasively,they have the potential to reduce global biodiversity by outcompeting native plant species (Gaertner et al.2017). The most prevalent non-native trees for the SLC region are black locust(Robinia pseudoacacia),Russian olive(Elaeagnus angustifolia), Siberian elm(Ulmus pumila L.), and tree of heaven(Ailanthus altissima). The threat and impact these species cause in urban environments, as well as management strategies, are provided below. Siberian Elm Management Obstacles Siberian elm is a prolific seed producer and can quickly dominate new locations due to its adaptability, quick germination,and rapid growth. Siberian elm requires a significant amount of sunlight; therefore, it typically colonizes open landscapes rather than dense, established forests. In the Intermountain West,it is commonly found on disturbed grounds,moist streambanks,pastures and rangelands, and rights-of-way along roads and railroads(USFS 2017a); however,because the species tolerates a wide range of conditions,including long periods of drought,harsh winters,poor soil conditions,high winds,and low soil moisture, Siberian elm has easily adapted to the urban environment surrounding SLC. Reasons for Management In riparian areas and landscapes with adequate soil moisture, Siberian elm grows and germinates rapidly. It quickly outcompetes desirable native plants, especially shade-intolerant species,which decreases the overall species diversity and availability of quality habitat and forage for native pollinators and fauna (USFS 2017a). Management Guidance New Siberian elm populations are best controlled with preventative management strategies, including public education on the deleterious effects of the species to native biodiversity. Small infestations B-1 supporting new recruits should be given high priority for treatment. Once established, it is difficult to remove large infestations of Siberian elm. Mature populations will require long-term planning and management in order to create and maintain a healthy and diverse plant community. The control method(s)used will depend on a number of factors,including where the population is located,the age or maturity of the population,and current land use and site conditions, including site accessibility,terrain, microclimate, soil conditions, and other flora and fauna present. Other important considerations include treatment effectiveness, cost, and the number of years needed to achieve control. Often times, control methods may be required 5 to 10 years after initial management to provide effective control, and more than one control method may be needed for a particular site.Where feasible,the combination of mechanical and chemical methods is most effective for Siberian elm control. When working in riparian corridors or along waterways,treatment should be conducted by starting at the upper reaches of the drainage and then progressing downstream to prevent new seed from being introduced via waterways. Table 13-1 outlines the most appropriate control methods for Siberian elm based on the location of the population. Table B-1. Management Options for Siberian Elm Location Physical Control Cultural Control Biocontrol Chemical Control Roadsides, Seedlings(<0.38-inch Use seed,mulch,and Consider intensive, Light infestations:for irrigation ditches, diameter)and saplings fill materials certified to short-term grazing of trunks<3-foot diameter fence lines,or non- (0.38 to 2.5—inch be weed-free.Train seedlings and young and<8 feet tall,use crop areas diameter):dig or grub with road crews to identify trees with male goats. basal bark treatment; shovel, hoe or weed tool. and report infestations for trunks>3-foot Small trees(2 to 3—inch along roads; diameter,girdle or use diameter):remove implement cut stump with individual plants using the requirements for herbicide. cuttstump method. vehicle operations. Dense infestations: Use weed screens on use foliar application Larger trees(>3-inch irrigation canals. pp diameter):girdle trunks g with backpack sprayer and leave in place or use or truck/ATV-mounted cut-stump method.Where sprayer.Wash under access is not limiting, vehicle after remove trees with an application to prevent excavator or backhoe. spread. Control re-sprouts as needed. Rangelands, Light infestations:use an Reseed with certified Same as above. For light infestations pastures,or individual plant method to weed-free seed; with Siberian elm riparian corridors remove trees. fertilize and irrigate,if interspersed with Dense infestations: possible,to make desirable native plants, remove stems with heavy desirable plants more use a backpack machinery in the winter; competitive. sprayer to treat follow-up with chemical individual plants(basal treatment to control re- bark,cut stump,or sprouts in late summer. girdling with herbicide). For dense infestations in disturbed areas with few desirable plant species present,use broadcast spraying. Wilderness,other Same as above. Use certified weed-free Same as above. Same as above. natural areas, seed.After passing and/or small through infested areas, infestations inspect and remove seed from animals, clothing,and vehicles before entering treated or uninfested areas. Source:USFS 2017a. B-2 Tree of Heaven Management Obstacles Tree of heaven is highly adaptable and can grow under limiting or harsh conditions such as drought, extreme temperatures, compacted soils,nutrient-poor soils, and saline-rich soils(USFS 2017b). The species is fast growing and spreads by producing hundreds of thousands of seeds per tree as well as vegetative propagation.A cut or injured Ailanthus tree may send up dozens of root suckers and re-sprouts, creating large clonal colonies. Tree of heaven is often found growing in urban areas, fields,roadsides, fencerows, and woodland interfaces(Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 2022). Reasons for Management Tree of heaven produces allelopathic chemicals in its roots,bark, leaves, and seed that inhibit the growth and establishment of surrounding plant species(USFS 2017b). The rapid rate of growth and structural weakness of its limbs make the tree of heaven an acute hazard along roadsides and urban areas. The root system is extensive,and the species is known to penetrate pavement and damage sewer and irrigation lines as well as building structures. Management Guidance Management will likely require 1 to 5 years of continuous planning and treatment to control tree of heaven. Control efforts should focus first on preventing establishment in new areas. New sprouts or seedlings should be treated as soon as possible after detection to deter generation of root and seed reserves.Next, small infestations should be treated;mature female trees located on otherwise healthy sites should especially be targeted to help reduce the seed available for germination. Finally, large infestations should be removed or controlled. To control tree of heaven you must control the root system. The most effective way to do this is by applying a systemic herbicide at the optimum time of year. For example, a treatment regime can be started early in the summer when root reserves are at their lowest and repeated as necessary to keep root reserves low(USFS 2017b). Systemic herbicides must move through the tree's vascular system to the roots to be effective. A mixture containing glyphosate and triclopyr is best for foliar treatments of tree of heaven. Subsequent treatments should follow up with a basal bark or hack-and- squirt application on remaining larger stems(Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 2022). Because tree of heaven is relatively shade intolerant, establishment of desirable competing trees and shrubs should be encouraged following control efforts. Establishing a thick cover of non-invasive native vegetation can help discourage re-establishment but will not prevent it(USFS 2017b). Table B-2 outlines the most appropriate control methods for tree of heaven based on the location of the population. B-3 Table B-2. Management Options for Tree of Heaven Location Physical Control Cultural Control Biocontrol Chemical Control Roadsides,fence lines, Cut larger top growth Educate road crews to Consider using goats Methods include foliar rights-of-way,and non- to ground level in identify and report in combination with application,basal bark crop areas spring or early infestations along herbicide spraying. spray,cut stump, summer;use mowing roads.Coordinate Useful potential injection,application of as a follow-up control efforts with biocontrol agents are herbicide to cut areas. treatment at regular other land managers. currently being Use targeted intervals throughout researched. application with a the growing season. systemic herbicide. Tools for cutting may include loppers, machetes,brush cutters,and power saws.A cutting method is more effective as a treatment if followed up with chemical treatment. Pasture,rangeland,or Hand pull or dig out After removal of tree of Same as above. Methods include foliar riparian corridors very young seedlings. heaven,monitor for application,basal bark Older seedlings/ root sprouts and spray,cut stump, saplings need to be seedlings,then cut, injection,application of root grubbed or girdled pull,or spray them. herbicide to cut areas. at the base.Physical Bag and dispose of Use targeted methods alone are seed in a landfill or by application with a generally not burning. Place signs systemic herbicide. recommended as they near trailheads or road often result in corridors;educate significant basal and public to identify and root sprouting. If used, report infestations. follow up with a chemical treatment. Forest openings,fields, Physical methods Before timber harvest Same as above. Apply herbicide via and/or extensive, alone are generally not or construction,locate aerial or broadcast dense infestations recommended as they and eradicate all life foliar spray,basal bark often result in stages of tree of spray,cut stump,or significant basal and heaven that are injection method.Avoid root sprouting. If used, present. desirable tree species, follow up with a if present. chemical treatment. Wilderness,other Remove very young Place signs near Same as above. Individual plant natural areas,and/or seedlings by hand trailheads;educate treatment methods, small infestations (most effective in public to identify and including foliar loose,rain-moistened report infestations. application,basal bark soils). Be sure to spray,cut stump,or remove entire seedling stem injection. Leave root. Not practical for treated plants in place older seedlings or root so they can easily be sprouts unless monitored later for accompanied with regrowth. herbicide application. Source:USFS 2017b. Russian Olive Management Obstacles Several characteristics make Russian olive a difficult species to manage on urban lands. First,Russian olive releases nitrogen into the soil. In desert ecosystems like SLC's,nitrogen is often a limiting factor for B-4 plant growth,and many native species have evolved to grow in low nitrogen levels. Invasive species, however,readily uptake and thrive in higher nitrogen soils(Katz et al. 2020),creating an additional weed- management problem in the understory of Russian olive. This nitrogen-rich soil persists even after removal of Russian olive and has been documented to encourage invasive species growth for up to 3 years after removal(Katz et al. 2020). This makes secondary invasions after Russian olive removal a high probability and management concern. Removal of Russian olive can also be detrimental to bird populations due to its prevalence along riparian corridors. Russian olive often provides substantial shelter and food for birds despite the species not being "functionally equivalent"to native tree species(Katz 2016). Post-removal effects on bird populations are highly variable and depend on the greater ecological connections at removal sites(Katz 2016). Land managers should expect negative shifts in bird populations any time large-scale removal of woody species along riparian corridors occurs(Valente et al. 2019). Reasons for Management Despite the difficulty in managing Russian olive,many land managers still choose to control this species because it shades out native vegetation,uses more water than native tree species, encourages other invasive species to grow in the understory, and fundamentally changes the way ecosystems work when developing monotypic stands (Katz 2016; Katz et al. 2020). Management Guidance Controlling Russian olive is recommended when the species creates monotypic stands that choke out other native trees and native understory species; however,it is important for land managers to realize complete eradication of Russian olive is often unlikely,costly,and has negative effects to ecosystems. The goal should not be to remove Russian olive completely but to create a more complex and varied habitat instead of the monoculture that a stand of the species provides. 50 to 70%woody vegetation cover is ideal for bird populations,though other factors should be considered when managing a site(Katz 2016). Typical removal of Russian olive involves cut-stump removal followed by herbicide applications. Skid steers or other large mechanical equipment is often employed, and triclopyr is a popular herbicide used on stump cuts(Espeland et al. 2017)Keep in mind,this type of removal will create a significant amount of disturbance and is likely to increase exotic species in the understory,or"second invasions"in the short term. At sites where hand tools can effectively be used,they are the preferred choice. To mitigate impacts to bird populations, it is recommended that removal of Russian olive happen across a broad temporal and spatial scale(Valente et al. 2019). When first removing Russian olive from a monoculture site,a small subset of the original stand should be chosen for removal. In one study, every other tree was chosen for removal,though this can be extended or shortened based on time,money, etc., with the knowledge that greater space between removed trees will mitigate negative effects to bird populations(Valente et al. 2019). Once the first round of removal has been completed,revegetation of native understory and woody tree species should be planted to begin restoration of the site. Once these plantings are capable of providing habitat to wildlife and competing with Russian olive, additional Russian olive individuals may be cut down, and the process can be started again until the desired ratio of Russian olive to native species is achieved. Revegetation under Russian olive is its own battle. Controlling understory invasive seed dispersal in the first 2 years after removal is especially important for native seedling and planting success(Espeland et al. 2017). Though revegetation is the best current strategy for long term management of Russian olive, it must be acknowledged that current literature shows revegetation is not particularly effective at completely B-5 outcompeting Russian olive or secondary invasions after Russian olive removal(Espeland et al. 2017). This is likely due to the lingering effects of elevated nitrogen in the soil. Removal sites should be inspected every other year to remove Russian olive re-sprouts, and spot sprays to understory invaders should be employed at appropriate times according to species. Black Locust Management Obstacles Several characteristics make managing black locust difficult, including the high amounts of nitrogen that the species releases into the soil, its aggressive growth rate and growth forms, as well as its ability to grow in many different contexts(Sadlo et al. 2017). Black locust often acts as a generalist on the landscape,capitalizing on disturbed, sunny sites,regardless of soil toxicity, dryness, and nutrient availability(Sadlo et al. 2017). The species also reproduces aggressively both sexually and asexually through cloning, sometimes called"suckering."Little research has been done on the legacy effects of black locust,though some residual nitrogen is likely left in the soil after removal. As discussed with Russian olive above,this residual nitrogen may increase invasive species in the understory and make secondary invasions likely. Reasons For Management The main reason to manage black locust is the species' ability to quickly create monocultures in disturbed or open areas,which in turn creates a new microclimate through shading(Sadlo et al. 2017). Shading can alter microecosystems by changing the understory soil chemistry and culling light-demanding plants and invertebrates(Sadlo et al. 2017). Monocultures of black locust also change the types of wildlife that can survive in the site's ecosystem. Equal levels of black locust and native tree species appear to have no effect on bird populations,but increased invasion of black locust culls specialist birds and reduces habitat for cavity nesters(Sadlo et al. 2017). Management Guidance Control of black locust should be site specific and dependent on the surrounding landscape. Overall,black locust is a weak competitor outside of monotypic stands and is often naturally controlled by early successional or climax species that eventually"shade out"black locust. These include Ulmus,Acer, and Tilia species,as well as native, early successional,nitrogen-loving species such as Acer negundo(Vitkova et al. 2017;however,when sites are dominated by black locust,they do not naturally succeed to more native species(Sabo 2000). Furthermore,partial damage to roots or stems of black locust is not only ineffective,but also encourages the species to aggressively clone itself(Vitkova et al. 2017). Management based on types of invasions and contexts are provided below. MIXED FOREST SITES Mixed forest sites include a healthy balance of native woody species with occasional black locust occurrences. Black locust within mixed forest settings run little risk of becoming monocultures due to natural competition(Sadlo et al. 2017). Control of black locust in this setting is achieved through selective cutting that reduces light availability and favors native tree species(Sadlo et al. 2017). B-6 HUMAN HABITATS Examples of human habitats include parks, sporadic disturbance areas, and intentional plantings. These black locust populations also tend to be controlled by natural succession. If active management is needed, removal of black locust is recommended followed by revegetation of competitive species(Sadlo et al. 2017). See the"new invasions"heading below for removal techniques. NEW INVASIONS New, aggressive invasions of black locust must be dealt with quickly and effectively to prevent further nitrogen contamination or microclimate impacts. Eradication of black locust is recommended in this setting. Common eradication of black locust includes a stump cut and spray method in which stands are cleared then sprayed with an herbicide(usually glyphosate or triclopyr)(Sabo 2000; Sadlo et al. 2017). Monitoring and control of seedlings and suckers must be performed often for 3 to 5 years after removal (Sadlo et al. 2017). Post-removal control can be accomplished through spot sprays and mechanical removal,though long-term grazing by goats once or twice a year has also proven to be effective(Sadlo et al. 2017). B-7 LITERATURE CITED Castro-Diez,P.,A.S.Vaz,J.S. Silva,M.van Loo,A.Alonso, C. Aponte,A. Baybn, P.J. Bellingham, M.C. Chiuffo,N. DiManno,K. Julian, S. Kandert,N. La Porta, H. Marchante, H.G. Maule, M.M. Mayfield,D. Metcalfe,M.C.Monteverdi,M.A.Nunez, R. Ostertag, I.M. Parker,D.A. Peltzer,L.J. Potgieter,M.Raymundo,D. Rayome, O.Reisman-Berman, D.M. Richardson, R.E. Roos,A. Saldana,R.T. Shackleton,A. Torres,M. Trudgen, J. Urban,J.R.Vicente,M. Vila, T. Ylioja, R.D. Zenni,and O. Godoy. 2019. Global effects of non-native tree species on multiple ecosystem services.Biological Reviews 4(94):1477-1501. Espeland,E.K.,J.M. Muscha,J. Sciana,R. Kilian,N.M. West, and M.K. Petersen. 2017. Secondary invasion and reinvasion after Russian-olive removal and revegetation.Invasive Plant Science and Management 10:340-349. Gaertner,M.,J.R.U. Wilson,M.W. Cadotte,J.S.MacIvor,R.D. Zenni,D.M. Richardson. 2017.Non- native species in urban environments:patterns,processes, impacts and challenges. Available at: https:Hlink.springer.com/content/pdf/l0.1007/sI 0530-017-1598-7.pd£ Accessed November 28, 2022. Garland, L.,2020.Native Versus Non-native: Which Plants are Best for Biodiversity. Available at: https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2020/05/18/native-versus-non-native-which-plants-are-best- for-biodiversity/.Accessed November 28,2022. Katz,G.L. 2016.Russian Olive Biology, Invasion, and Ecological Impacts in Western North America. Available at: https:Happs.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1013227.pdf. Accessed November 7,2022. Katz,G.L., G.M. Tuttle,M.W. Denslow, and A.P.Norton. 2020. Legacy effects of Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.)in a riparian ecosystem three years post-removal. Wetlands, 6(40):1897-1907. Northrop,R.J.,M.G.Andreu,W. Zipperer.Urban Forest Management: A Primer to Strategic Planning for Municipal Governments.Available at: https:Hffgs.ifas.ufl.edu/wp- content/uploads/Urban%20Forest%20Management%20a%20Primer%20to%20Strategic%20P1a nning%20for%20Municipal%20Governments.pdf#:-:text=In%20an%20urban%20environment %2C%20healthy%20and%20thriving%20trees%2C,full%20economic%2C%20social%2C%20a nd%20ecological%20potential.%20Urban%20forest.Accessed November 28,2022. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2022.Invasive Plant Fact Sheets: Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima). Available at: https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Conservation/WildPlants/InvasivePlants/InvasivePlantFactSheets/Page s/default.aspx.Accessed November 28, 2022. Sabo,A.E. 2000.Robinia pseudoacacia Invasions and Control in North America and Europe.Restoration and Reclamation Review 6(3).University of Minnesota,Department of Horticultural Science. Available at: https:Hconservancy.umn.edu/handle/I 1299/59729.Accessed November 7, 2022. Sadlo,J.,M.Vitkiova, J. Pergl, and P. Pysek. 2017. Towards site-specific management of invasive alien trees based on the assessment of their impacts: the case of Robinia pseudoacacia.NeoBiota 35:1-34. B-8 Schlaepfer,M.A.,B.P. Guinaudeau,P. Martin,N. Wyler. 2020. Quantifying the contributions of native and non-native trees to a city's biodiversity and ecosystem services. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S I618866720306786?via%o3Dihub. Accessed November 28,2022. U.S. Forest Service(USFS). 2017a.Field Guide for Managing Siberian Elm in the Southwest. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/fseprd563046.pdf. Accessed November 28,2022. 2017b.Field Guide for Managing Tree-of-heaven in the Southwest.Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd563049.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2023. Valente,J.J.,K.B. McCune,E.S. Tamulonis,E.S.Neipert, and R.A. Fischer.2019. Removal pattern mitigates negative, short-term effects of stepwise Russian olive eradication on breeding birds. Ecosphere 5(10). Vitkova,M.,J.Mullerova,J. Sadlo,J. Pergl, and P. Pysek. 2017. Black locust(Robinia pseudoacacia) beloved and despised: a story of an invasive tree in Central Europe.Forest Ecology and Management 384:286-302. B-9 APPENDIX C Treatment Matrix Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Russian knapweed Annual, biennial, Chemical Spring—when plants Excellent:aminopyralid Minimum of 2 Aminopyralid should be applied in the fall; (Acroptilon repens) short-lived have recently bolted Good:glyphosate, years for aminopyralid can persist in the soil for perennial Summer—search for imazapic,2,4-D herbicide several years. Spreads missed plants that Fair:dicamba, applications to Control existing infestations using a metsulfuron, primarily by have just flowered deplete seed combination of methods. bank adventitious Fall—when plants are chlorsulfuron Reseed with desirable grasses that are shoots from in full bloom unaffected by broadleaf herbicides. widely spreading Poor:glyphosate horizontal roots Glyphosate,picloram,and dicamba have shown mixed results and should be applied Seed remains carefully and according to label instructions viable in soil for regarding application requirements and 2 to 8 years restrictions. Biological Spring—after bolting to Grazing Graze several Goats prefer flowering heads but will graze remove flower heads Competition with times annually for green tissue. perennial grasses several years to Once plants bolt,there are no more buds deplete seed capable of reproduction until fall;grazing Nematode: bank Subanguina picridis eliminates seed production but will not kill Nematode plant. effectiveness not Removing aboveground biomass forces consistent from them to use root reserves and stresses year to year plant;re-emerged plants are smaller and lower in vigor. Can be outcompeted in moist locations by perennial grasses;reseed with desirable grasses. Nematode needs to be propagated and redistributed on large scale and is not cost effective with present techniques. C-1 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Mechanical Spring—after bolting to Mow Several times Once plants bolt,there are no more buds remove flower heads Hand-pulling annually for capable of reproduction until fall. several years Eliminates seed production but will not kill Mowing will plant. prevent flowering Removing aboveground biomass forces and seed set them to use root reserves and stresses from depleting plant;re-emerged plants are smaller and soil seed bank lower in vigor. Mow in the fall,followed immediately by picloram application to ensure herbicide reaches soil surface. Russian knapweed may contain a carcinogenic compound;use protective equipment when hand-pulling. Jointed goatgrass Winter annual Chemical Spring—apply to Excellent:glyphosate Several years Many herbicides are broadleaf specific;read (Aegilops actively growing Good:glyphosate label to be sure correct formulation is used cylindrica) vegetation for grasses. Poor:2,4-D,dicamba, picloram Grass-selective herbicides may kill desirable Unrated:sulfometuron grasses. methyl Glyphosate has shown mixed results and should be applied carefully and according to label instructions regarding application requirements and restrictions. Biological Early spring Grazing Several years Cattle and goats may graze when plants are green. Mechanical Spring—after flowering Mowing Several years Mowing may be required several times and before seed set during the season. Camelthorn Perennial Chemical Full bud stage Good:2,4-D,dicamba, Several years Herbicides should be rotated to prevent (Alhagi maurorum) glyphosate,fosamine resistance. Biological Not recommended Not recommended Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling, Several years ploughing C-2 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Garlic mustard Biennial Chemical Dormancy Good:glyphosate, Several years Herbicides that require higher temperatures (Alliaria petiolata) triclopyr,mecoprop to be effective(glyphosate)will have a small window of application time between dormancy and target temperatures. Biological Not available Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling Several years Works best on small populations. Mowing Several years Easiest to pull in bolt stage of second growing season. Plants must be cut at ground level to be effective. Small bugloss Annual Chemical Early spring during the Good:glyphosate Several years Spray directly on stems immediately after (Anchusa arvensis) rosette stage cutting or 3 weeks to 3 months after cutting when new vegetation is emerging. Biological Not available Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling 3-5 years Giant reed Perennial Chemical Late spring to early Good:glyphosate 1-5 years (Arundo donax) autumn Biological Not available Mechanical Not specified Digging,cutting 1-5 years Best for small infestations. All rhizome material must be taken,which can greatly impact soils. Revegetation will be required where giant reed developed a monoculture. Elongated mustard Annual,biennial, Chemical Spring and fall Excellent:metsulfuron, Several years (Brassica elongata) and/or perennial chlorsulfuron,2,4-D Biological Not available Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling 10 years Best for small populations. African mustard Annual Chemical Spring and fall Excellent:indaziflam Several years May need to be combined with indaziflam (Brassica Good:2,4-D,imazapic after first year's treatments to reduce tournefortii) density. Biological Not available Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling Several years Only for small populations. C-3 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Cheatgrass Winter annual Chemical Fall—after germination Excellent:imazapic, Several years Check label for potential harm to desirable (Bromus tectorum) Spring—before glyphosate grasses. flowering Good:glyphosate, Glyphosate has shown mixed results and fluazifop should be applied carefully and according to Poor:2,4-D,dicamba, label instructions regarding application picloram requirements and restrictions. Biological Spring Grazing Several years Grazing can help control cheatgrass if two grazing periods occur each spring for at least 2 consecutive years.First,graze just before inflorescences emerge,and then graze again before panicles emerge. Mechanical Not recommended Not recommended Not Cutting not recommended;cut plants will recommended produce new stems and seeds at cut height. Hoary cress Perennial Chemical Apply herbicide during Excellent:metsulfuron, Multiyear Control existing infestations using a (Cardaria draba) Germinates in bud or flowering stage chlorsulfuron commitment combination of methods. the fall (May—June) Good:dicamba, Metsulfuron and chlorsulfuron must be Spreads Reapply herbicide in imazapic,2,4-D, applied to actively growing green tissue primarily from the fall if new growth metsulfuron+dicamba before flowering. adventitious occurs +2,4-D,imazapic+ Flowers will immediately set seed following buds from lateral glyphosate herbicide application;therefore,spray at rhizomes Fair:2,4-D,glyphosate, bud stage prior to flowering or foliage in the Seed remain MCPA fall. viable in soil for May require tilling to synchronize flowering 3 years to ensure uniform herbicide application. Imazapic and 2,4-D have shown mixed results and should be applied carefully and according to label instructions regarding application requirements and restrictions. Biological Not available Grazing Not Can cause iodine deficiency in goats. recommended Seeds contain cyanide. Toxic to cattle and horses. Mechanical Ongoing throughout Tilling and removal Tilling effects not Till repeatedly to exhaust root system. growing season every 2 months for 3 evident for 2-3 Uprooted plants will re-sprout,increasing years years density;therefore,tilling must be combined with removing plants and roots. C-4 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Plumeless Thistle Biennial Chemical Fall Good:2,4-D ester Several years Spot spray. (Carduus Good:clopyralid or acanthoides) metsulfuron-methyl Biological Not available Mechanical Budding stage(spring Mowing/cutting Several years Mow close to the surface or cut plants 1-2 and fall) inches below soil surface. Musk thistle Musk thistle: Chemical Spring—Actively Excellent: Multiyear Musk and Scotch thistles can be treated (Carduus nutans) Biennial, growing rosettes to aminopyralid, commitment together. Scotch thistle summer or early bolting metsulfuron Reseed with desirable grasses that are (Onopordum winter annual Fall—Actively growing Good:dicamba, unaffected by broadleaf herbicides. acanthium) Musk thistle rosettes imazapic, 2,4-D and dicamba have shown mixed seed remains chlorsulfuron, results and should be applied carefully and viable in soil for clopyralid,glyphosate, according to label instructions regarding 10 to 15 years, dicamba+2,4-D, application requirements and restrictions. and flowers Fair:2,4-D,dicamba, produce up to MCPA 1,000 seeds per head Biological Spring—bud to flower Grazing Multiyear Older male goats prefer musk thistle, Scotch thistle: Musk thistle weevil commitment compared with younger goats. Biennial (Rhinocyllus conicus) Repeat grazing 4 to 7 weeks to remove new Scotch thistle flowers. seeds often Weevil adults will feed on leaves,mate,and remain dormant deposit eggs on bracts. in the soil up to 5 years Mechanical Early bud stage prior to Mowing Multiyear Mow repeatedly to remove flowers. flowering Removal commitment Bag and burn cut plants because seeds can still mature after cutting. Repeat after 4-7 weeks because musk thistle continues flowering all summer. Purple star-thistle Annual,biennial, Chemical Spring—rosette to mid- Good:2,4-D or Several years (Centaurea or perennial bolt stage dicamba,picloram calcitrapa) Biological Prior to seed set Mowing/hand-pulling Several years Best for small populations. Mechanical Not available Yellow star-thistle Annual Chemical Spring—rosette to bolt Excellent:aminopyralid Several years to Reseed with desirable grasses that will not (Centaurea Germinating in Fall—rosette Good:dicamba,2,4-D, eliminate seed be affected by broadleaf herbicides solstitialis) the fall clopyralid bank C-5 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Reproduces Biological Rosette to bud Grazing Multiple grazing Cattle,sheep,and goats will graze yellow entirely by seeds Seedhead weevil periods per year star-thistle before it has spines. that may remain over multiple viable for several (Ceratapion basicorne) p Causes chewing disease in horses. years to eliminate years seed bank Mechanical Summer, before seed Cutting Several years to Does not eliminate infestation but will set eliminate seed reduce seed production. bank Diffuse knapweed Diffuse Chemical Late spring—active Excellent:aminopyralid Minimum of 2 Seed area with desirable perennial native (Centaurea diffusa) knapweed: growth from rosette to Good:dicamba, years grasses;grasses will outcompete Spotted knapweed annual to short- mid-bolting stage clopyralid knapweed. (Centaurea lived perennial Knapweed will reinvade if competitive maculosa) Spotted Fair:dicamba,2,4-D grasses do not establish. knapweed: Poor:metsulfuron biennial to short- Herbicides are most effective when applied perennial to the rosette stage. lived per Both reproduce 2,4-D and dicamba have shown mixed p results and should be applied carefully and by seed;spotted according to label instructions regarding can reproduce application requirements and restrictions. vegetatively Spotted Glyphosate may not be as effective against Sp Sp seeds diffuse knapweed,compared with spotted knapweedknapweed. remain viable for 8 years Biological Bud to bloom Goats Several years for Goats will not eat dry seed heads. Fungi goats to eliminate Livestock grazing twice in the spring can Weevil soil seed bank reduce seed set by 50%. Seedhead flies Unknown for Grazed plants may live and re-bolt. insects and Root beetle pathogens Biocontrol agents are available, but several Moth agents may be required to control diffuse and spotted knapweed. Mechanical Before seed set Mowing Several years, Cut plants may live and re-bolt. combine with herbicide treatment C-6 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Malta star-thistle Annual Chemical December to April Excellent:clopyralid or Several years Winter sprayings encourage desirable plant (Centaurea picloram growth. melitensis) Biological Early spring—before Grazing by sheep, Several years spines develop goats,and cattle Mechanical Prior to seed set Mowing Several years Squarrose Long-lived Chemical Spring—rosette to bolt Excellent:picloram Minimum of 2 Seed area with desirable perennial native knapweed perennial stage Good:aminopyralid, years grasses;grasses will outcompete (Centaurea Reproduce by clopyralid knapweed. squarrosa) seed dispersing Fair:dicamba,2,4-D Knapweed will reinvade if competitive with the head as grasses do not establish. a unit Poor:metsulfuron Herbicides are most effective when applied Unrated:glyphosate to the rosette stage. Biological Spring Grazing Several years Goats will graze the flower heads and buds preferentially,followed by the green photosynthetic tissue. Mechanical Spring—bolt to flower Mowing Several years Not recommended for mature plants because it will facilitate seed set. Rush Biennial or Chemical Spring and fall—new Good: picloram and/or Several years Deep roots make herbicide elimination Skeletonweed perennial vegetation 2,4-D;clopyralid, difficult. (Chondrilla juncea) aminopyralid,or dicamba Biological Not available Mechanical Spring and fall—when Hand-pulling Several years Best for small populations. soil is wet C-7 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Oxeye daisy Perennial Chemical Excellent:glyphosate Several years Revegetation needed to prevent resurgence (Chrysanthemum Good:2,4-D, of species. leucanthemum) mecoprop, MCPA, Not recommended for natural areas due to metsulfuron,picloram, the high doses required to be effective; dicamba,tribenuron, revegetation required after if used. bentazon,clopyralid, thifensulfuron Biological Not available Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling Several years Not recommended as solitary treatment; Mowing reduces seed bank but may encourage stronger growth. Canada thistle Canada thistle Chemical Spring—rosette to Excellent: 2-year minimum Monitor annually just before or during bloom (Cirsium arvense) spreads rapidly early bloom aminopyralid,2,4-D, period(14-18 hours of daylight). Bull thistle through creeping Fall—apply herbicide glyphosate Spreads primarily by vegetative (Cirsium vulgare) horizontal roots to new growth(cuticle Good:chlorsulfuron, reproduction. Seeds are viable is too thick on older glyphosate Combine methods of control suggested. in the soil for leaves) Fair:dicamba Aminopyralid should be applied in the fall or several years early spring when plants are in the rosette Bull thistle is a stage. biennial forb 2,4-D and glyphosate have shown mixed results and should be applied carefully and according to label instructions regarding application requirements and restrictions. 2,4-D is more effective against bull thistle than against Canada thistle. Biological Full bud before flower Grazing Not Grazing not recommended. recommended Mechanical After flowering before Mowing Repeat in 1- Plants spend energy reproducing seed set Shading month intervals photosynthetic tissue, reducing root throughout reserves,and will die after two or three growing season mowings. If bull thistle roots are cut too early, plants will re-sprout. Bull thistle cannot tolerate shade. C-8 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Poison hemlock Biennial Chemical Spring and summer Excellent: Several years Poison hemlock is often found in riparian (Conium when plants are aminopyralid, habitats,and aquatic formulations of the maculatum) actively growing glyphosate herbicides are recommended. Good:2,4-D,imazapyr, Glyphosate has shown mixed results and glyphosate should be applied carefully and according to label instructions regarding application requirements and restrictions. Biological Summer Palearctic moth Several years The palearctic moth feeds exclusively on (Agonopterix poison hemlock. alstroemeria) Mechanical Before seed set Digging Several years Offers good control;depletes seed bank. Pulling Burning Field bindweed Perennial Chemical Fall,when plants are Excellent 2,4-D, 2-3 years Herbicide can be applied any time as long (Convolvulus Spreads by vigorous and before dicamba as tillers are 1 foot(30 cm)tall. arvensis) rhizome and seed set Good:2,4-D,dicamba, 2,4-D,dicamba,and glyphosate have seed picloram,glyphosate shown mixed results and should be applied Seeds can be Fair:2,4-D,dicamba, carefully and according to label instructions viable for up to glyphosate, regarding application requirements and 50 years metsulfuron,2,4-D+ restrictions. dicamba The best results are achieved when 2,4-D is Poor:2,4-D+ mixed with other herbicides:dicamba, clopyralid glyphosate,or picloram. Drought reduces effectiveness of herbicide; dicamba is better than 2,4-D under drought conditions. Some biotypes are resistant to glyphosate. Biological Summer Grazing Ongoing Can be toxic to cattle and hogs. Gall mite Goats and sheep will graze field bindweed. Plant competition Mites may infest native species. Mites are susceptible to herbicides. Competition with perennial grasses reduces cover. Mechanical Before seed set Pulling Multiple years Tilling is not recommended without Digging herbicide treatment;may increase number of seedlings from severed roots. Mowing encourages ground-hugging growth. C-9 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Common crupina Winter annual Chemical Fall Excellent: picloram Multiple years Residual activity persists for 2 years. (Crupina vulgaris) Early spring—rosette Good:clopyralid, Not used near water. through bolt stage dicamba,or 2,4-D May adversely affect other vegetation. Biological Not available Mechanical Spring—every 3-A Hand-pulling Minimum 3 years If revegetating,consider choosing taller weeks varieties that will shade out C. vulgaris. Houndstongue Biennial Chemical Apply in early spring Excellent:aminopyralid Multiple years Apply according to label requirements and (Cynoglossum Reproduces before blooms occur Good:dicamba restrictions. officinale) entirely from Herbicide application at Fair:2,4-D seed the rosette stage has been successful Unrated:glyphosate, imazapic Biological Not available Grazing Not Not recommended;it is toxic to cattle and recommended horses. Mechanical Summer—before seed Tilling Several years Flowering plants should be bagged or set burned to prevent seeds from maturing. Bermudagrass Mat-forming Chemical Early spring—seedling Good:glyphosate, Several years Most herbicides control broad leaf plants; (Cynodon dactylon) rhizomatous stage fluazifop selection of grass-selective herbicide is grass that moves Poor:2,4-D,dicamba, necessary. along the ground picloram Most grass herbicides will also kill desirable and forms native grasses;use backpack sprayer to adventitious target plants. roots wherever a node touches Biological Early spring Grazing Several years Goats prefer forbs but will consume young the ground shoots if nothing else is available. Reproduces Mechanical Early spring—following Removal Several Years The entire plant and all runners must be through seeds germination removed. as well as rhizomes Scotch broom Perennial shrub Chemical Active growing period Good:picloram, Several years Chemical control should not be used alone, (Cytisus scoparius) after blooming but prior triclopyr,glyphosate, species rebounds quickly. to seed set fluroxypyr,or Foliar spraying or stump cutting and painting metsulfuron-methyl are effective. Biological Not available in Utah Mechanical Prior to seed set Digging/stump cutting Several years Suitable for small stands but not recommended for large areas. C-10 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Common teasel Biennial or short- Chemical Spring to summer— Good: metsulfuron, Several years Follow label instructions;rosettes require (Dipsacus lived perennial when plants are bolting dicamba less concentrated herbicide than flowering fullonum) Reproduces by plants. seed;each plant Biological Not available produces over 2,000 seeds Mechanical Summer before seed Mowing or cutting Several years Effective for small infestations. Seeds viable in set Exhaust seed bank after several years. soil for 2-3 years Viper bugloss Chemical Spring is most effective Good:2,4-D Several years, Often combined with other herbicides and (Echium vulgare) but can be used year- will require repeat non-ionic surfactants. round applications Late spring— May require midsummer Excellent:glyphosate repeat applications Fall Good:chlorsulfuron Several years, Use with non-ionic surfactant for best will require repeat results. applications Biological Not available Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling Several years Best for small populations. Russian olive Perennial tree Chemical Foliar application when Good:2,4-D,imazapyr, One to two Apply 2,4-D when leaves are fully (Elaeagnus Reproduce from leaves have fully triclopyr seasons developed;two to three treatments may be angustifolia) seed and flushed necessary. (See Appendix B, vegetatively Cut-stump application Apply imazapyr or triclopyr for spot foliar Urban Forestry can occur year-round treatments, basal bark,or cut-stump Guidance) methods;stump applications should be made as soon after cutting as possible. Biological Spring,summer Goats Limited to sprouts Goats graze flowers,fruits,and leaves. and low foliage Mechanical Spring Hand-pull seedlings Several years Cutting or burning not recommended and sprouts because they stimulate more growth. Quackgrass Propagates Chemical Early flowering stage or Good:glyphosate, Several years Do not apply fluazifop to stressed (Elymus repens) mainly by new growth in the fall fluazifop quackgrass;treatment effectiveness will be rhizomes but Poor:2,4-D,dicamba, reduced. also reproduces picloram by seed;flowers from June Unrated:sethoxydim, atrazine C-11 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) through August; Biological Early spring Grazing Several years Goats prefer forbs but will graze young seeds remain shoots if nothing else is available. viable for up to 10 years Mechanical Before flowering Mowing Ongoing Will not eliminate infestation but will reduce seed set. Leafy spurge Primary Chemical Early spring from bud Good: picloram, Requires repeat Rapid re-establishment of treated stands (Euphorbia esula) reproduction is to early flowering glyphosate,imazapic applications in often occurs after an apparently successful vegetative Apply imazapic in the Fair:2,4-D,dicamba, one season management effort because of the large through lateral late fall before it loses glyphosate,imazapic+ nutrient reserve stored in the roots of leafy root system its milky sap and after glyphosate,dicamba+ spurge plants. Seeds can a killing frost 2,4-D Extend herbicide 15 feet past infestation to remain viable in Poor:2,4-D,2,4-D+ kill lateral roots. the soil for 5-8 clopyralid,metsulfuron 2,4-D and glyphosate have shown mixed years,although results and should be applied carefully and 99%of the according to label instructions regarding viable seeds will application requirements and restrictions. germinate in the first 2 years Biological Spring and summer— Grazing Ongoing Removal of goats will result in when plants are reestablishment of leafy spurge. succulent Goats will seek out leafy spurge. Mechanical Ongoing Mowing Several years Mowing will reduce seed set but not control infestation. Tilling not recommended because cut roots will regenerate. Myrtle spurge Perennial Chemical Spring—seedling stage Good:2,4-D,dicamba, Several years Combine herbicide and mechanical control (Euphorbia Reproduces glyphosate for best results. myrsinites) from seed,but Fair:picloram Deplete soil seed bank. regrowth from cut roots has Biological Not available Toxic to animals. been observed Used in landscaping as a deer deterrent. Mechanical Before seed set Removal Several years Effective for small infestations. Goat's rue Perennial Chemical Bud stage—full flower Excellent: Several years Most effective when combined with (Galega officinalis) Reproduces (early—midsummer) aminopyralid,triclopyr, mechanical methods. from seed chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron Good:dicamba, Minimum 2 years imazapyr Biological Not available Grazing not possible due to toxicity. C-12 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling Several years Best for small populations or combined with chemical controls. Dame's rocket Biennial and Chemical Early spring—apply Good:2,4-D, Several years to Many herbicides are broadleaf specific;read (Hesperis perennial when weeds are glyphosate,imazapic, deplete seed label to be sure correct formulation is used matronalis) Reproduces actively growing triclopyr supply in soil for grasses. from seed Late fall reapplication Grass selective herbicides may kill desirable grasses. Seed area with competitive annual and perennial grasses. Minimize soil disturbance. Biological Not available Mechanical Before seed set Removal Several years Tilling and mowing not recommended,as cut roots and stems can re-sprout. Bag removed plants. St.Johnswort Perennial Chemical Pre-bloom Good:2,4-D, Several years (Hypericum Reproduces aminopyralid,picloram, perforatum) from seed and metsulfuron rhizomes Good:glyphosate Bud—flowering stage Biological Unknown Excellent: Unknown Success depends on level of invasion, Klamathweed beetles population dynamics. (Chrysolina hyperici and Chrysolina quadrigemina),St. Johnswort root borer (AgnIus hyperici) Good:St.Johnswort inchworm(Aplocera plagiata),St.Johnswort gall midge (Zeuxidiplosis giardia) Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling Several years Only for small infestations,provides poor control. Black henbane Annual or Chemical Pre-bud stage Good:2,4-D,dicamba, Several years (Hyoscyamus biennial fluroxypyr,picloram, niger) Reproduce by glyphosate, seed chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron C-13 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Biological Not available Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling,mowing Until control Should be repeated annually to exhaust achieved(up to 4 seed reserves,gloves should be worn if years) hand-pulling,taproots must be removed 2 inches below soil. Cogongrass Perennial Chemical Spring,during active Effective:glyphosate Several years Revegetation is recommended. (Imperata Reproduces by growth cylindrica) rhizome and seed Biological Not available Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling,digging Complete control unlikely Dyer's woad Biennial Chemical April—June,at or during Excellent:dicamba, Several years to Prevent seedling growth. (Isatis tinctoria) first bloom when plants metsulfuron deplete seed Reproduces Prevent spread of weeds. from seed are vigorous and Good:2,4-D, supply in soil glyphosate,imazapic, before seed set Yearly summer monitoring. chlorsulfuron Do not apply during periods of intense rainfall or to soils saturated with water. Fair:dicamba Best to apply when ground is moist. Dicamba has shown mixed results and should be applied carefully and according to label instructions regarding application requirements and restrictions. Biological April—June,at or during Rust fungus(Puccinia Several years to Reduce or prevent seed production. first bloom when plants thlaspeos) deplete seed Prevent seedling growth or survival. are vigorous and Grazing supply in soil before seed set Yearly summer monitoring. Plants regenerate from roots after leaves are removed;grazing must be repeated. Mechanical April—June,at or during Removal Several years to Removal is the simplest and most effective first bloom when plants Mowing deplete seed method of control. are vigorous and supply in soil "Bag O'Woad"program organized through before seed set local Cooperative Weed Management Areas Mowing:ongoing to remove plants. Plants regenerate from roots after leaves are removed;mowing must be repeated throughout growing season. C-14 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Perennial Perennial Chemical Spring—between Excellent: 1 year with up to Combine disking,mowing,and herbicide pepperweed Stems originate flowerbud and early chlorsulfuron, several years of application. (Lepidium from large flowering or to re- metsulfuron monitoring and Disk in the fall to fragment roots. latifolium) perennial sprouted leaves after Good:dicamba, spot spraying if p mowing disking,mowing, Mow between flowerbud and flowering. belowground g glyphosate, g, g, roots in early Fall,reapply after chlorsulfuron, and spraying Apply herbicide to re-sprouted leaves 2-3 spring or late fall dormant roots sprout metsulfuron,imazapic, weeks after mowing. Seeds lack a and bud imazapyr Use chlorsulfuron or metsulfuron on dry land hard coat and do Fair:2,4-D, picloram, and glyphosate or imazapyr over water. not seem to be triclopyr Seed exposed soil with desirable perennial capable of plants. surviving long Monitor for recurrence in early spring and periods in the late summer for several years following soil;thus,seed treatment. viability may be short Biological Spring—rosette stage Grazing Ongoing;grazing Permanent grazing will suppress plants; suppresses seed plants re-sprout quickly when grazing is production but removed. does not kill Foliate may be poisonous to cattle. plants Dense stands may be difficult to graze. Mechanical Fall—disk to fragment Disking Flooding;ongoing Combine disking,mowing,and herbicide roots Mowing 1 year with up to application. Spring—mow between Flooding several years of Disk in the fall to fragment roots;disking flowerbud and monitoring and alone increases infestation by re-sprouting flowering Burning spot spraying if from fragmented roots. Continuous,flooding disking,mowing, Mow in the spring between flowerbud and and spraying flowering;mowing alone stimulates growth. Apply herbicide to re-sprouted leaves 2-3 weeks after mowing,depending on soil moisture. Seed exposed soil with desirable perennial plants. Monitor for recurrence in early spring and late summer for several years following treatment. Burning not effective,as it does not harm roots and allows re-sprout,but it may be used to remove excessive litter buildup. Flooding for two consecutive seasons is effective by increasing competition from flood-adapted plants. C-15 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Dalmatian toadflax Perennial Chemical Summer—full bloom Good:dicamba, Several years Seed area with competitive annual and (Linaria dalmatica) Reproduces picloram,glyphosate, perennial grasses. from seed imazapic, Minimize soil disturbance. chlorsulfuron, Aggressive cultivation could control an area Fair:metsulfuron,2,4- after several seasons,but monitoring must D continue for 10-15 years. Poor:2,4-D,dicamba Dicamba and 2,4-D have shown mixed results and should be applied carefully and according to label instructions regarding application requirements and restrictions. Biological Spring and summer Grazing Several years Grazing can be effective if continued to Toadflax flower-feeding prevent re-bolt and seed set. beetle(Brachypterolus Sheep and goats prefer Dalmatian toadflax pulicarius) to other rangeland grasses. Toadflax moth Many insects attack both Dalmatian toadflax (Calophasia lunula) and yellow toadflax. Toadflax root-boring moth(Eteobalea intermediella) Toadflax seed capsule weevil(Gymnetron antirrhini) Toadflax root-galling weevil(Gymnetron linariae) Toadflax stem weevil (Mecinus janthinus) Mechanical Spring and before seed Fire followed by Several years Pulling not advised as plants develop set herbicide application extensive root systems(up to 2 meters deep)that have dormant buds that can reproduce vegetatively. C-16 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Yellow toadflax Perennial Chemical Bud—bloom stage Good:2,4-D, Several years (Linaria vulgaris) Reproduces by aminocyclopyrachlor+ seed and chlorsulfuron,picloram, creeping roots picloram+2,4-D, picloram+ chlorsulfuron, glyphosate, imazapic, imazapyr Biological Not available Mechanical Early spring Hand-pulling Several years Only use for small seedling populations. Through growing Tilling Several years Must be repeated every 7-10 days through season the growing season. Purple loosestrife Perennial Chemical Spring—apply when Good:2,4-D, Several years Purple loosestrife often grows near riparian (Lythrum salicaria) Reproduces weeds are actively metsulfuron, areas,and aquatic formulations of the primarily by growing glyphosate recommended herbicides are available. seed,as well as Biological Early spring—adults Black-margined 2 years The beetles can feed on two native plants creeping feed on buds loosestrife beetle (Decodon verticillatus and Lythrum alatum) rootstocks and (Galerucella and two introduced plants(L.hyssopifolia cut stems calmariensis) and Lagerstroemia indica)but do not Golden loosestrife reproduce on these hosts. beetle(Galerucella pusilla) Loosestrife root weevil (Hylobius transversovittatus) Loosestrife seed weevil (Nanophyes marmoratus) Mechanical Before seed set Removal Several years Tilling and mowing not recommended,as cut roots and stems can re-sprout. Bag or burn removed plants. Spring millet Winter annual Chemical Not available (Milium vernale) Reproduces by seed Biological Not available Mechanical Spring Tilling Unknown Little information known about this method. C-17 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Scotch thistle Biennial Chemical Rosette—bud stage Good:2,4-D, Several years Picloram and aminocyclopyrachlor+ (Onopordum Reproduces by aminocyclopyrachlor+ chlorsulfuron can be use post or pre- acanthium) seed chlorsulfuron, emergence. aminopyralid, Seeds dispersed via wind,water, clopyralid,clopyralid+ animal 2,4-D,dicamba, picloram,glyphosate, chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron Biological Spring,pre-bud Grazing by sheep Unknown Most effective on early infestations. Mechanical Prior to seed set Digging Several years Cut root below soil surface,best for small populations. African rue Perennial Chemical Actively growing plants Good:glyphosate, Several years (Peganum Reproduces by (spring) metsulfuron,imazapyr harmala) seed and creeping roots Excellent:hexazinone Several years Biological Not available Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling,digging Several years Roots must be removed,best for small infestations. Common reed Perennial Chemical Mid to late summer or Good:glyphosate, Several years Use the aquatic formulation to avoid harm to (Phragmites Reproduces fall—after tasseling imazapyr wildlife. australis) primarily from Poor:2,4-D,dicamba, rhizomes picloram Seeds are often Biological Spring and summer Grazing Several years Cattle will graze common reed but do not not viable like standing water. Goats will graze common reed,but water level must be below 4 inches. Mechanical Early summer before Burning Several years Dead common reed stands prohibit new tasseling or fall growth of desirable plants and must be removed. Burning without herbicide treatment could result in more vigorous stands. C-18 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Japanese Perennial Chemical After cutbacks in Good:dicamba Several years knotweed Reproduces by autumn (Polygonum rhizomes,freely cuspidatum) branching stems, and seed Spring Good:glyphosate Several years Midsummer Good:triclopyr ester, Several years imazapyr Biological Not available Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling,digging Several years Best for small populations,all roots must be removed. Prior to seed set Mowing,cutting Many years Smothering Up to 5 years Cover plants with thick landscape fabric after cutting plants to ground level. Sulfur cinquefoil Perennial Chemical Pre-bud stage Good:2,4-D, Several years (Potentilla recta) Reproduces by aminocyclopyrachlor+ seed chlorsulfuron,picloram, glyphosate, Rosette stage Good:chlorsulfuron, Several years metsulfuron,triclopyr Autumn preemergence Good:hexazinone Several years Biological Not available Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling,digging Several years Best for small populations. Mediterranean Biennial or Chemical Rosette—bolting stage Good:2,4-D, Several years Picloram and aminocyclopyrachlor+ sage perennial aminocyclopyrachlor+ chlorsulfuron can be applied pre or post (Saliva aethiopis) Reproduces by chlorsulfuron, emergence. seed aminopyralid, clopyralid,clopyralid+ 2,4-D,picloram, glyphosate, chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron Biological Not available Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling,digging, Several years Best for small populations. tilling C-19 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Cutleaf vipergrass Biennial or Chemical Unknown Good:2,4-D,dicamba Several years Little is known about the control of this (Scorzonera perennial species. laciniata) Reproduces by seed Biological Not available Mechanical Prior to seed set Hand-pulling,mowing Several years Best for small infestations. Johnsongrass Perennial Chemical Spring—apply to Excellent:glyphosate Several years These methods are effective for other (Sorghum Colonization can actively growing Good:glyphosate, Sorghum spp. halepense) occur from both vegetation fluazifop Many herbicides are broadleaf specific;read rhizomes and Poor:2,4-D,dicamba, label to be sure correct formulation is used seed,and seeds picloram for grasses. can remain Grass-selective herbicides may kill desirable viable for over 2 Unrated:sulfometuron years in the soil methyl grasses. Glyphosate has shown mixed results and should be applied carefully and according to label instructions regarding application requirements and restrictions. Biological Early spring—before Grazing Several years These methods are effective for other flowering Sorghum spp. Be careful to remove grazers,as Johnsongrass becomes toxic under moisture stress. Mechanical Early spring—when Hand-pulling Several years for These methods are effective for other soil is moist for hand- Mowing mowing to Sorghum spp. pulling remove root Be careful not to spread Johnsongrass Several times over the reserves when removing or mowing as root pieces growing season can re-sprout. C-20 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Tamarisk Perennial tree Chemical Use cut-stump method Excellent:triclopyr 1 year with Be prepared to apply herbicide immediately (Tamarix in the fall Unrated:glyphosate follow-up annual after cutting(works best if one person ramosissima) Apply herbicide to monitoring and operates chain saw and a second person entire circumference of retreatment applies herbicide). cambium within 1 Wait at least 4 months before treating re- minute of cutting sprouted foliation. Uprooting or chaining Monitor annually for success of treatment not recommended as it and for new areas to control. may only encourage Focus on younger stands and sprouts first. vigorous re-sprouting Spray re-sprouted foliage 4-12 months after initial treatment Biological Best results if adults Leaf beetle(Diorhabda Two to three Large populations(10,000 individuals) are gathered in July elongata) seasons introduced at one time reduce bird and ant and allowed to lay eggs predation effects. in the new location before winter Mechanical Spring and summer Pulling 1-2 years Hand-pull seedlings,including tap root. Medusahead Annual Chemical Spring,apply to Good:glyphosate, Several years Many herbicides are broadleaf specific;read (Taeniatherum Reproduces actively growing fluazifop label to be sure correct formulation is used caput-medusae) entirely from vegetation Poor:2,4-D,dicamba, for grasses. seed; up picloram Grass-selective herbicides may kill desirable to 6,000 seeds Unrated:sulfometuron grasses. per square foot methyl Biological Early spring Grazing Several years Cattle and goats will graze when plants are green. Seeds cause damage to eyes and mouth. Mechanical After plant senesces Burning Several years to Slow burn will destroy seeds,but other and before seed is deplete soil seed weeds may colonize after fire. disseminated bank C-21 Common Name Reproduction Control Application Timing Application Method Duration of Treatment Remarks Characteristics Methods Treatment (Scientific Name) Puncturevine Annual Chemical Summer—before Good:2,4-D,imazapic, Several years Continue control to exhaust soil seed bank. (Tribulus terrestris) Reproduces bloom chlorsulfuron, from seed aminopyralid Fair:picloram Biological Spring and summer Seed weevil Several years The puncturevine seed weevil and stem (Microlarinus lareynii) weevil can be used seasonally during the Stem weevil spring and summer as they will not survive (Microlarinus cold winter temperatures. lypriformis) Grazing spiny fruits can cause injury to the mouths and digestive tracts of livestock. Mechanical Spring—before seed Removal Several years Remove entire plant for small infestations. set North Africa grass Winter annual Chemical Autumn Good:glyphosate, Several years Pre-or post-emergent treatments include (Ventenata dubia) Reproduces by rimsulfuron, sulfometuron,sulfosulfuron,and seed sulfometuron, rimsulfuron. sulfosulfuron Sulfometuron can be applied pre-or post- Spring Good:hexazinone, Several years emergence. sulfometuron Biological Not available Mechanical Prior to seed set when Hand-pulling Several years Best for small populations. soil is moist Syrian bean caper Perennial Chemical Unknown Good:dicamba, Several years (Zygophyllum Reproduces by glyphosate fabago) seed, rhizomes, and root fragments Biological Not available Mechanical Prior to seed set when Hand-pulling,digging Several years Best for small populations,entire root must soil is moist be removed. Sources:Belliston et al.(2004);CSU(2000);The Nature Conservancy(2006).Full citations available in Chapter 9,Literature Cited,in main report. C-22 APPENDIX D Listed and Non-listed Weed Species Accounts Thirty-five state-listed and Salt Lake County—listed noxious weeds(Table D-1),three Salt Lake County— listed invasive species(Table D-2), and 19 TNL non-listed control species have been identified on TNL- managed lands(Table D-3). These species accounts were identified through multiple monitoring efforts conducted from 2010 through 2022.A brief description of each species and information regarding effective biological and/or chemical controls is included below. Species descriptions were largely obtained from the Noxious Weed Field Guide for Utah (Belliston et al. 2004).Full references for the literature cited in these species accounts can be found in the Salt Lake City Trails and Natural Lands Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan Addendum literature cited section. STATE AND COUNTY-LISTED NOXIOUS WEED ACCOUNTS Table D-1. State and County-Listed Noxious Weed Accounts Common Name Scientific Name Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata Musk thistle Carduus nutans Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Yellow star-thistle Centaurea solstitialis Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe Squarrose knapweed Centaurea squarrosa Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Poison hemlock Conium maculatum Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Quackgrass Elymus repens Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Myrtle spurge Euphorbia myrsinites Dame's rocket Hesperis matronalis Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger St.Johnswort Hypericum perforatum Dyer's woad Isatis tinctona Hoary cress(globe-podded) Lepidium draba(Cardaria draba) Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium D-1 Common Name Scientific Name Common reed Phragmites australis Cutleaf vipergrass Scorzonera laciniata Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense Medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusae Tamarisk(saltcedar) Tamarix chinensis Puncturevine(goathead) Tribulus terrestris Syrian bean caper Zygophyllum fabago Russian Knapweed (Acroptilon repens) Background: Russian knapweed is native to Eurasia. It was likely introduced to North America as a contaminant in crop seed. It infests rangelands, field edges,pasturelands,roadsides,and other disturbed soils. It can release chemical substances into the soil that inhibit the growth of competing vegetation and can cause chewing disease in horses. It is not restricted to any particular soil,but it does especially well in clay soil. It may be outcompeted in moister locations due to competition with perennial grasses(Belliston et al. 2004). Description: Russian knapweed can be distinguished from other knapweeds by the pointed papery tips of the floral bracts. The flower heads of Russian knapweed are urn-shaped, solitary, and composed of disk flowers only with pink or purple petals. It spreads primarily by creeping horizontal roots and does not appear to reproduce extensively from seed. Shoots emerge in early spring shortly after soil temperatures remain above freezing. All shoot development originates from root-borne stem buds. These buds arise adventitiously at irregular intervals along the horizontal roots. Plants form rosettes and bolt in late May to mid-June; once plants bolt,there are no buds capable of reproduction until fall. Russian knapweed flowers from June to October(Belliston et al. 2004; CSU 2000). Control: The only biocontrol that has been successful at reducing infestations of Russian knapweed is the gall-inducing nematode Subanguina picridis,which has been introduced and established in North America.Although the nematode is effective in reducing plant biomass and flowering, infections are not consistent from year to year because of varying moisture conditions. The nematode does not move readily;thus,it needs to be propagated and redistributed on a large scale,which is not cost effective with present techniques.For these reasons, other organisms are being considered for biocontrol. The seed head weevil(Eustenopus villosus), a biocontrol agent of yellow star-thistle(Centaurea solstitialis), occasionally feeds on Russian knapweed seed heads and causes them to abort. Three fungi have been found on Russian knapweed.-Alternaria sp. and Puccinia acroptili,which attack the leaves,and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, which infects the roots (Coombs et al. 2004). Cutting or grazing the aboveground portion of the plant reduces the current year's growth; it may eliminate seed production,but it will not kill Russian knapweed. Goats prefer the flowering heads but will occasionally graze green tissue(Lamming 2001). Removing aboveground biomass several times before the plants bolt stresses Russian knapweed plants and forces them to use nutrient reserves stored in the root system. The plants that re-emerge are usually smaller in size and lower in vigor. Once plants have bolted, there are no more buds capable of reproduction(until buds begin to form again in mid-August to September). A combination of cutting and herbicides can be used to control Russian knapweed. In the fall, apply aminopyralid to any plants that have re-emerged. This process may have to be repeated annually for D-2 several years to exhaust the soil seed bank. Picloram is widely used on Russian knapweed and is considered to be the most effective herbicide regardless of time of application,but this is a highly toxic chemical and should be used with caution. Milestone(aminopyralid)is effective when sprayed on dormant plants in the fall,if followed by reseeding the following year. Seeding with desirable grass species that will compete for resources but not be affected by the broadleaf herbicides is critical. Jointed Goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrican Background: Jointed goatgrass is native to Europe and has become a serious invader of winter wheat crops spread by farm machinery in the United States. It also thrives along roadsides,in pasturelands, on rangelands, and in waste areas(Belliston et al. 2004). Jointed goatgrass is listed as a noxious weed by Tooele County and is found throughout Salt Lake County from the valley floor to mid-montane habitats in dry, disturbed sites(Belliston et al. 2004;Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2012d). Description: This winter annual grows 15 to 30 inches (0.4 to 0.8 meter[m])tall and may have one or more upright stems or tillers. Leaf blades are 0.13 to 0.25 inch(3.3 to 6.3 mm)wide, alternate,hairy, and simple and have auricles at the base. The spike is cylindrical and contains two to 12 0.5-inch(1.2-cm) spikelets that fit into the contour of the rachis. Glumes are ribbed with a keel on one side extending into a single awn.As the seeds mature,the plant turns from green to a reddish or tan color. Flower and seed production take place from late spring to mid-summer(Whitson et al. 1999). Control: Biocontrol is not available. Chemicals are usually effective; glyphosate at 1.5 pounds of active ingredient per acre when the plants are 12 to 18 inches(30 to 45 cm)tall or fluazifop-P-butyl at 43 to 48 ounces per acre when seedlings are actively growing and between 2 and 8 inches(5 and 20 cm)tall. Sulfometuron methyl can be applied early post-emergence with a reapplication when regrowth begins, and it works best when applied to moist soils to help translocate the herbicide to the root system(CSU 2000). Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) Background: Garlic mustard is a tap-rooted, cool-season biennial introduced to North America from Europe in the 1800s. Garlic mustard can be found in disturbed areas, and along trails and roadsides. Garlic mustard reproduces only be seed,producing as many as 1,000 seeds per plant. Most seeds germinate within the first or second year, and seeds can remain viable in the soil for more than 5 years. Description: Plants usually flower from April to May and range from 12 to 48 inches(30 to 120 cm) in height. The leaves and stems emit an onion-like odor when crushes. First-year plants consist of a cluster of three to four round, scallop-edged leaves rising 2 to 4 inches(5 to 10 cm)in a rosette. Second-year plants typically produce one to two flowering stems with numerous white flowers that have four petals. Fruits are slender capsules or siliques that produce a single row of black, oblong seeds with ridged seed coats. Stem leaves are toothed, alternate, and triangular(King County Noxious Weed Control Program 2010). Control: Mowing is not an effective means of control unless it is repeated throughout the growing season. Plants are able to re-sprout and flower again. Remove all mowed plant material from the site. Hand-pulling can be an effective means of control. Pull the plants from April to June, after they begin to bolt until they are through flowering and while the seed pods are still green. Plants in flower or even in bud are able to form viable seeds even after they are pulled; therefore,plant pieces must be carefully bagged and disposed of. In areas where mature plants are pulled,there are usually many small rosettes D-3 and seeds left in the soil. Carefully search the area for rosettes and dig them up carefully with a digging tool.Roots break off easily and re-sprout(King County Noxious Weed Control Program 2010). A variety of herbicides has been used to manage garlic mustard;these include glyphosate,triclopyr,2,4- D,metsulfuron, and oryzalin(King County Noxious Weed Control Program 2010). However,there was a significant detrimental effect on native forbs where fall herbicide treatments have been used(Herold et al. 2011). Currently,there are no biocontrols available in the United States for garlic mustard; however, in Europe, Ceutorhynchus scrobicollis, a root-miner,has been shown to be effective and is currently undergoing further testing in the United States(King County Noxious Weed Control Program 2010). Musk Thistle (Carduus nutans) Background: Musk thistle is an invasive biennial, summer, or winter annual forb. Musk thistle populations in North America exhibit almost continuous variation in characteristics such as hairiness,leaf size, spine length, flower stalk diameter,width and shape of bracts, and corolla length. Correct identification of musk thistle is important if control strategies are planned because it can be easily confused with native thistles, some of which may be threatened or endangered, and most of which fill specific ecological niches and have traits useful to humans (USDA 2006). Description: As a biennial,musk thistle initially forms a prostrate rosette. Rosette leaves can grow up to 10 inches(25 cm) long and 4 inches(10 cm)wide,and rosettes can be 2 feet(0.6 m)or more in diameter. Musk thistle rosettes have numerous small roots in the fall and develop a large, fleshy taproot in the spring that is hollow near the soil surface. The root crown and upper root tissues contain buds,normally suppressed by apical dominance,which may sprout following damage to plants (USDA 2006). Musk thistle may have one to seven branched stems that grow 2 to 6 feet(0.6 to 1.8 m)tall. Stem leaves are 3 to 6 inches(7.6 to 15.2 cm)long, dark green with a light greed midrib,with toothed, spiny lobes; upper leaves are much reduced. Stems have spiny wings for their full lengths except for a few inches below flower heads. Flower heads are large,often nodding, 1.5 to 3.0 inches(3.8 to 7.6 cm)in diameter, solitary,terminal, and are entirely composed of purple disc flowers.Numerous large,lance-shaped, spine- tipped bracts that resemble a pinecone subtend flowers and are a very distinctive identification feature. The fruit is an achene bearing 0.13-to 0.19-inch(0.3-to 0.5-cm) seeds with a hair-like pappus(Belliston et al. 2004;USDA 2006). Seed production is quite variable; it is determined by habitat conditions, size of plant at flowering, and duration of flowering. The life cycle exhibited by a particular musk thistle plant also influences seed production,with biennials producing more than winter annuals, and winter annuals producing more than summer annuals. The first flower heads to emerge(terminal and topmost branch)are usually solitary; they are the largest and produce the most seeds. The number of seeds per inflorescence decreases over time along with inflorescence size. Musk thistle can continue to produce flowers and seeds throughout the growing season if soil moisture levels are adequate. The amount of seed produced is therefore markedly affected by spring and summer rainfall patterns. Terminal flowers average about 1,000 seeds per head, whereas the last ones to bloom produce about 125 seeds or fewer per head(USDA 2006). Germination of musk thistle seeds in the field occurs over several months in the fall and spring. A dormancy period could prevent seeds from germinating all at once in response to transient summer rainfall and could allow time for some seed to become buried(USDA 2006). Wind,water,wildlife,livestock, and human activities disperse musk thistle seed.Many musk thistle seeds fail to separate from the receptacle;therefore, fruiting heads with seeds often fall to the ground. Thus, D-4 most seeds are deposited in a dense pattern near the parent plant. This may help to explain musk thistle's slow rate of spread into favorable habitats close to existing populations. Musk thistle seeds may remain viable in the soil for 10 to 15 years or more,with seeds buried in the top 0.8 inch(2 cm) of soil surviving 3 years, and seed buried at greater depths maintaining viability for longer periods(USDA 2006). Control: The most widely released insect for the control of musk thistle is a weevil(Rhinocyllus conicus). In the spring,adult weevils will feed on the leaves,mate, and deposit eggs on the bracts.When the eggs hatch,the larvae begin to bore into the flower head,reducing the ability of the plants to produce viable seed. In some cases,the weevil has reduced musk thistle populations to less than 10%pre-release levels. Seed heads that are attacked by this weevil often become tightly fixed, and although they may still germinate, competition among germinating seeds will cause high rates of intraspecific mortality. This weevil will also attack native thistles, including rare species(CSU 2000). Repeated mowing,hand-pulling,or grazing can be used to stop the spread of musk thistle. Mowing or grazing after flowering but before seed set prevents seed development and dispersal. Musk thistle appears to be a favorite of older male goats(Lamming 2001). When pulling musk thistle,it is important to completely remove the crown so that the plant does not simply re-bolt and produce seeds. Repeated, weekly visits over the 4-to 7-week flowering period are necessary when removing aboveground biomass because not all plants flower at the same time. Cut plants should be deeply buried or burned because seeds can mature and become viable after cutting. Musk thistle is most often controlled with herbicides and can be combined with Scotch thistle treatments. The most effective chemical control occurs when musk thistle is still in the rosette stage and quickly decreases once the plant has bolted.Aminopyralid and metsulfuron offer excellent control when applied at 3 to 5 ounces per acre and 0.5 to 1.0 ounces per acre, respectively.Apply both herbicides to rosettes; fall is optimal,although spring applications are also effective. Clopyralid at 0.66 part per acre, chlorsulfuron at 0.5 to 1.0 ounces for musk thistle and 1 to 3 ounces per acre for Scotch thistle, and a combination of clopyralid and 2,4-D(Curtail)at 1 to 2 quart per acre provide good control when applied from the late rosette stage to early bolting. Seeding with desirable grass species that will compete for resources but not be affected by the broadleaf herbicides is critical. Diffuse Knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) Background: This short-lived perennial forb was introduced from Eurasia,where it grows in the eastern Mediterranean area and in western Asia to western Germany. It is a pioneer species that can quickly invade disturbed and undisturbed grasslands, shrublands, and riparian communities. Like most knapweeds,diffuse knapweed exudes chemical substances into the soil that inhibit the growth of competing vegetation. Diffuse knapweed is found on plains,rangelands, and forested benchlands. It is generally found on light, dry,porous soils. Diffuse knapweed has been observed at elevations up to 8,500 feet(2,591 m)and grows in open habitats as well as shaded areas (CSU 2000). Description: Diffuse knapweed is an annual or a short-lived perennial from 1 to 2 feet(0.3 to 0.6 m)tall. The flower heads are broadly urn-shaped, are less than I inch(2.5 cm)tall and can be either solitary or in clusters of two to three at the ends of branches. The heads contain two types of flowers: ray flowers around the edges surrounding tubular disk flowers that bloom throughout the summer. Flowers are white, rose-purple, or lavender. Diffuse knapweed differs from other knapweeds in that the toothed flower bracts are straight and end as sharp,rigid spines rather than arched outward. Basal leaves are stalked and divided into narrow,hairy segments. Stem leaves are smaller, alternate,less divided, stalkless, and become bract- like near the flower clusters. Seedlings have finely divided leaves that are covered with short hairs (Belliston et al. 2004). D-5 Reproduction is primarily by seed; it first forms low rosettes that may remain in this form for one to several years, depending on environmental conditions. When the rosette reaches a critical size, it bolts, flowers, and usually dies. Flower buds are formed in early June, and flowering occurs in July and August. Mature seeds are formed by mid-August. Seed dispersal is primarily by wind but can be lodged under vehicles or in animal hooves,thereby expanding their long-distance dispersal(Belliston et al. 2004). Control: Currently,biocontrol agents are available,but the extent to which they effectively control diffuse knapweed populations is unclear. A combination of several insects may be required to control diffuse knapweed. Several pathogens can be quite destructive to diffuse knapweed, including two fungi: 1)Puccinia jaceae var. diffusaei,which attacks the leaves,and 2)Sclerotinia sclerotiorum,which attacks the crowns of both diffuse and spotted knapweed. The seed head weevil(Larinus minutus)has caused remarkable reductions in diffuse knapweed density in some areas of Oregon and Washington with emerging success also reported in Colorado(Coombs et al. 2004). The seed head flies(Urophora affinis and U. quadrifasciata)have been released in many Colorado Front Range counties. These insects cause plants to produce fewer viable seeds and abort terminal or lateral flowers(CSU 2006). Root-feeding insects may have a more detrimental effect on knapweed populations than seed-feeding ones. Larvae of the diffuse knapweed root beetle(Sphenoptera jugoslavica)feed in the roots of diffuse knapweed. Larvae of the yellow-winged knapweed moth(Agapeta zoegana) and the knapweed root weevil(Cyphocleonus achates) feed on the roots of both diffuse and spotted knapweed species(Coombs et al. 2004). Cutting,mowing, or grazing aboveground portions of the plant before seed set may be an effective way to reduce seed production,but it will not eliminate the infestation. When a diffuse knapweed plant has been cut,the rosette may live and re-bolt.Additionally, diffuse knapweed seeds can remain dormant for several years,requiring any cutting program to be repeated several times annually(spring, summer, and fall)to be effective. Goats will not cat dry seed heads. Reduction of surface biomass, followed by a fall herbicide treatment,would be more effective than grazing or mowing alone. Several herbicides are relatively effective at controlling both diffuse and spotted knapweed. Aminopyralid at 5 to 7 fluid ounces per acre or clopyralid at 0.33 to 1.33 parts per acre are the most widely recommended. Selective herbicides such as clopyralid(Stinger)and aminopyralid(Milestone)are the most effective herbicides for diffuse knapweed control,having soil residual activity that provides extended control of germination,but must only be used in permanent pastures,rangeland or non-crop areas. Other selective herbicides recommended for diffuse knapweed control are: clopyralid+2,4-D (Curtail)and clopyralid+triclopyr(Redeem R&P) (CSU 2000; Dewey et al. 2006;King County Noxious Weed Control Program 2010). Apply herbicides during active growth with the optimum time from rosette to early bolting stage or fall re-growth. Seeding with desirable grass species that will compete for resources but not be affected by broadleaf herbicides is critical to avoid the treated areas from returning to noxious weed communities. Yellow Star-Thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) Background: This species was introduced from the Mediterranean region and is well established in the Pacific coast states. It appears to favor dryland conditions and will invade rangelands,pasturelands, roadsides, croplands, and wastelands. It is intolerant of shade and requires light on the soil surface for winter rosette and taproot development.Yellow star-thistle can establish on deep,well-drained soils as well as on shallow,rocky soils that receive from 10 to 40 inches(25 to 100 cm)of annual precipitation (Whitson et al. 1999). Yellow star-thistle is a state-listed noxious weed but has only recently been identified in the Salt Lake Valley. Description: Yellow star-thistle is a winter annual forb with yellow flower heads located singly at the ends of branches. Flower heads are distinguished by sharp, straw-colored thorns,which are up to 0.75 D-6 inches (2 cm)long. Basal leaves are deeply lobed,whereas the upper leaves are entire and sharply pointed.Mature plants are 2 to 3 feet(0.6 to 0.9 m)tall and have rigid,branching,winged stems that are covered with cottony hairs. Seedlings usually emerge in the fall,form rosettes, and begin growing a taproot. Root growth continues throughout the winter. Yellow star-thistle bolts in late spring and flowers June through August. It reproduces entirely by seeds that may remain viable for several years. Plumed seeds are dispersed by wind shortly after maturity. Plumeless seeds remain in the seed head until it disintegrates in the fall or winter. Control: There are several biocontrol agents that can dramatically reduce seed production. The most commonly used biocontrol agent is the seed head weevil(Bangasternus orientalis). Larvae feed on the seeds and can destroy up to 60% of the seeds in a head.Reseeding with competitive grass species is a key part of integrated yellow star-thistle control. Cattle and sheep will graze yellow star-thistle before it has spines, and multiple grazing periods are necessary to control it. However,yellow star-thistle causes a neurological disorder called chewing disease in horses that eat it. Herbicides are effective when applied from the seedling to bolt stages in the spring,but they are most effective if rosettes are sprayed in the fall. Aminopyralid is the most commonly used herbicide(3 to 5 fluid ounces per acre). Seeding with desirable grass species that will compete for resources but not be affected by broadleaf herbicides is critical to avoid the treated areas from returning to noxious weed communities. Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebe L. spp. micranthos) Background: Spotted knapweed is indigenous to south-central and south-eastern Europe and northwestern Asia. It arrived in the United States as a contaminant in alfalfa seed. This knapweed species infests rangelands,pasturelands,roadsides, or any disturbed soils,and it is estimated to have infested 7 million acres(3 million hectares)in the western United States. Its early spring growth makes it competitive for soil moisture and nutrients. Like most knapweeds, spotted knapweed releases chemical substances into the soil that inhibit the growth of competing vegetation. Spotted knapweed can cause skin irritation in some people, and anyone working with spotted knapweed should wear protective gloves and avoid getting knapweed sap into cuts or abrasions(CSU 2000). Description: Spotted knapweed is a biennial or short-lived perennial forb with solitary pinkish purple flowering heads at the ends of branches. The deeply lobed rosette leaves are up to 6 inches(15 cm)long, and the principal stem leaves are alternate,pinnately divided with smooth margins. Mature plants are 1 to 3 feet(0.3 to 0.9 m)tall,with one or more stems, and closely resembles diffuse knapweed. The flowering bracts of spotted knapweed have dark spots tipped with fringe,unlike the other knapweeds. This highly competitive weed invades disturbed as well as undisturbed areas,degrading desirable plant communities. It forms near monocultures, and it is adapted to well-drained, light-to coarse-textured soils that receive summer rainfall. It tends to inhabit somewhat moister sites than diffuse knapweed, and it is not tolerant of shade(Belliston et al. 2004). Spotted knapweed germinates in spring or fall and develops into rosettes for at least one growing season while root growth occurs. It usually bolts for the first time in May of the second growing season and flowers August through September. Individual flowers remain in bloom for 2 to 6 days, and they can either self or cross-pollinate. Spotted knapweed reproduces entirely by seed, and seeds may remain viable in the soil for over 8 years(Belliston et al. 2004). D-7 Control: Currently,there is no single biocontrol agent that effectively controls knapweed populations. Several insects are either under investigation or have been released,but researchers believe that it will take a combination of methods to reduce knapweed infestations. The fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum attacks the crowns of both diffuse and spotted knapweed. However,this fungus is being studied and is not cleared for use for biocontrol of these knapweeds or for transportation across state lines. The root insects sulfur knapweed moth(Agapeta zoegana)and knapweed root weevil(Cyphocleonus achates) are having a significant impact on spotted knapweed. The sulfur knapweed moth larva attacks the cortex of the root. Eggs are laid on the surface of stems and leaves of knapweed and other vegetation. Eggs hatch in 7 to 10 days, and the larvae migrate to the crown area,where they mine the root. The knapweed root weevil larvae mine and gall the central vascular tissue of the root, and the adults feed on the leaves. Spotted knapweed is the preferred host for knapweed root weevil,but it can also be used to attack diffuse knapweed(Coombs et al. 2004). Goats grazing spotted knapweed at the bud to bloom stage have the greatest potential as a control tool. Grazing at the rosette to bolt stage will reduce seed count,plant count, and canopy cover,but not at the levels of bud to bloom. Grazing twice is the best method for reducing seed heads;however,this results in increased plant count,likely because grazing disturbs the seed bank,which causes quicker germination,or because the goats do not cat the dry seed heads and knock them to the ground instead(Lamming 2001). Several herbicides are relatively effective at controlling both diffuse and spotted knapweed. Aminopyralid at 5 to 7 fluid ounces per acre is the most widely recommended. Other less effective herbicides include imazapic,2,4-D, and dicamba;metsulfuron is not effective against knapweeds(CSU 2000;Dewey et al. 2006). Apply herbicides during active growth with the optimum time from rosette to early bolting stage or during fall regrowth. Squarrose Knapweed (Centaurea virgata) Background: Squarrose knapweed is a highly competitive weed that can displace native rangeland plants. It grows aggressively in dry, disturbed areas,particularly in sand or cinders such as roadsides or cinder pits. Like other knapweed species, squarrose knapweed releases allelopathic chemicals that inhibit the growth of other plants. Squarrose knapweed grows mainly in big sagebrush-bunchgrass rangeland,but it is also found in salt desert communities. It prefers open habitats to shaded areas, and it is not common on cultivated land or irrigated pastureland because it cannot tolerate excessive moisture(CSU 2000). Description: Squarrose knapweed is a perennial forb with small,numerous,pink flowers,usually developing no more than three to four seeds per head. This species is often confused with diffuse knapweed,but it differs in that it is a true perennial; seed heads are highly deciduous, falling off the stems soon after seeds mature. The bracts are recurved,with the terminal spine longer than lateral spines on each bract. The lower leaves are deeply dissected,and the upper leaves are bract-like. Mature plants are typically between 1 and 2 feet(0.3 and 0.6 m)tall with highly branched stems. The root system is a deep taproot(Belliston et al. 2004). Control: Some biocontrol insects that attack spotted knapweed also attack squarrose knapweed, including the gall-forming flies Urophora affinis and U. quadrifasciata, although they have not been quantified for effectiveness. Cutting,mowing,or removing the aboveground portion of the plant before seed set may be an effective way to reduce seed production,but it will not eliminate the infestation; the rosette may live and re-bolt after cutting. Because re-sprouting from the crown can occur,the entire plant must be removed. Timing of mowing is critical. Rosettes are robust to mowing and generally too low to be successfully cut. A single mowing in the bud to early flower stage may be effective,but mowing more mature plants will facilitate D-8 seed dispersal and is not recommended. Goats will graze the flower heads and buds preferentially, followed by the green photosynthetic tissue(Lamming 2001). Squarrose knapweed seeds can remain dormant for several years,requiring any cutting program to be repeated annually to be effective. Several herbicides are relatively effective at controlling knapweeds. Effective herbicides include picloram at 0.25 pound per acre, dicamba at 1 pound per acre, and clopyralid at 0.25 pound per acre.All three are most effective when applied in the spring,when plants are beginning to bolt. Picloram is the most effective treatment,followed by clopyralid and dicamba. Both clopyralid and dicamba will provide some residual control,particularly clopyralid, and retreatments may be necessary in the second,third, or fourth years. Dicamba will injure or kill most other broad leaves it contacts, including desirable species. Clopyralid is more selective but will injure legumes such as clovers. 2,4-D is the least expensive treatment but is less effective, and retreatment is required every year(CSU 2000). Seeding with desirable grass species that will compete for resources but not be affected by broadleaf herbicides is critical to avoid the treated areas from returning to noxious weed communities. Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) Background: This species can be confused with several other exotics. Bull thistle(Cirsium vulgare)has flower bracts that are somewhat tapered and covered with spines, scotch thistle(Onopordum acanthium) has stems that appear to have wings and floral bracts that are covered with spines,musk thistle(Carduus nutans)has floral bracts that are broad with spiny tips, and Russian knapweed has pointed papery tips on floral bracts. Canada thistle is an aggressive, creeping,perennial weed that infests crops,pasturelands, rangelands,roadsides, and riparian areas. Although Canada thistle mainly invades disturbed area, it does invade native plant communities,open meadows, and wetlands. Canada thistle can tolerate saline soils but does not tolerate waterlogged or poorly aerated soils. Description: This 1-to 4-foot(0.3-to 1.2-m)perennial forb has white to purple flower heads borne in clusters of one to five per branch.Unlike other Cirsium species, Canada thistle is dioecious, and female flowers can be readily distinguished from male flowers by the absence of pollen and the presence of a distinct vanilla-like fragrance. It is possible for a community of male plants to maintain itself by asexual reproduction while producing no fruits. Flowering occurs from June to August, and seeds mature in October. The one-seeded fruits are straw or light brown in color and can be straight or slightly curved. The leaves are spiny,alternate,oblong or lance-shaped,with the base leaves stalkless and clasping,and rosettes have wavy leaves with spiny tips. There are two types of roots: 1)horizontal roots produce numerous shoots, and 2)vertical roots store water and nutrients in their many small branches. The overwintering root develops new underground roots and shoots in January that elongate in February. Shoots emerge between March and May forming rosettes. The plants remain near the soil surface until long days(over 14 hours of light)trigger stem elongation. It spreads rapidly through horizontal roots, which give rise to shoots, and can grow as much as 18 feet(5.5 m) in one season.Although Canada thistle reproduces primarily vegetatively through creeping horizontal roots, seeds are viable in the soil for several years(CSU 2000). Control: Currently,there are no biocontrol agents that effectively control Canada thistle. However, Canada thistle is attacked by several accidentally introduced insects, including the green tortoise beetle (Cassida rubiginosa),the native painted lady butterfly(Vanessa cardui),and the crown root weevil (Baris subsimilis).A rust fungus(Puccinia carduorum)can be found in some stands and will kill some plants. The seed head fly(Terellia ruficauda)may become abundant in some areas but causes little damage. The seed head weevil(Larinus planus)was accidentally introduced into the United States at an unknown time. This weevil is not recorded as a pest of any economically important plant and is found to feed mainly on the foliage of Cirsium and Carduus species. It shows a preference for Canada thistle, D-9 although others,including the genera Archum, Onopordum, and Silybum, are acceptable if Canada thistle is not available(Coombs et al. 2004). Goats will eat Canada thistle,reducing biomass and stressing the plant. The most effective time to graze is when the plant is in full bud before it flowers. At this time,the plant has put all of its energy into seed reproductive structures,reducing root reserves. This can be an effective control if it is repeated in 1- month intervals throughout the growing season. Over time,the Canada thistle will spend more energy reproducing photosynthetic tissue,and after two or three grazings,root reserves will be eliminated and the plant will die(Lamming 2001). Fall herbicide treatments are more effective because absorption is enhanced in the late summer and fall, when shoot to root translocation is the greatest. However,translocation of the herbicide is dependent on moist soil conditions and must be timed accordingly.Aminopyralid(5 to 7 ounces per acre),2,4-D amine and glyphosate (1 quart per acre) are effective when applied in the late spring or fall. Herbicides should be applied to actively growing parts of the plant. The performance of herbicides can be improved when proceeded by two or three mowings,cuttings,or grazings under conditions when the root systems are stressed. Spring application should be timed to the rosette to bud growth stages. Chlorsulfuron and glyphosate offer good control, and dicamba is not recommended against Canada thistle(CSU 2000; Dewey et al. 2006). Seeding with desirable grass species that will compete for resources but not be affected by broadleaf herbicides is critical to avoid the treated areas from returning to noxious weed communities. Poison Hemlock (Conium maculatum) Background: Poison hemlock is native to Europe, and it is generally found on dry to moist soils, can tolerate poorly drained soils, and tends to be scattered in riparian areas. It is usually found along streams, roadsides, and irrigation ditches. It is often mistaken for parsley and wild carrot.All parts of the plant are toxic(CSU 2000). This species is listed by Davis, Cache, and Rich Counties as a noxious weed species, but it is found in Salt Lake County throughout riparian areas (MRCS 2012a). Description: Poison hemlock grows 6 to 10 feet(1.8 to 3.0 m)tall. This biennial forb has white flowers that are borne in umbrella-like clusters that are supported by a stalk. Seeds are generally light brown, ribbed, and concave. The shiny green and finely divided leaves are alternate but may be opposite above. Leaflets are segmented on short stalks, and seedling leaves have a fernlike appearance(Belliston et al. 2004). Control: The European palearctic moth(Agonopteris alstoemeriana) feeds exclusively on poison hemlock and offers fair to good control. Poison hemlock can be controlled by digging,repeated mowing, or pulling or by spring and winter burns. Herbicides can offer excellent control when applied to actively growing plants between rosette and bolt stages. Tebithuron provides pre-emergent control,and chlorsulfuron and chlorsulfuron with metsulfuron provide both pre-emergent and foliar control. Aminopyralid, dicamba, and 2,4-D at 1 pound of active ingredient per acre,or glyphosate at 1.5 active ingredient per acre can also be used(CSU 2000). Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Background: Field bindweed is also called small-flowered morning glory,wild morning glory,creeping Jenny,and European bindweed. This European native apparently contaminated crop seed and was identified in Virginia as early as 1739. It is similar in appearance to other species in the Convolvulaceae family(Belliston et al. 2004). D-10 Description: Field bindweed is a persistent,perennial vine that spreads by rhizome and seed. Flowers last for only 1 day and are produced late in June until conditions are no longer favorable. The extensive underground root/stem system allows some to persist through the winter,and the lateral roots can persist independently if severed from the primary root. Young plants extend a taproot deep into the soil and then form lateral roots. Initially,these lateral roots function as feeding roots for aboveground growth but later aid in vegetative reproduction. Buds may arise anywhere on the lateral roots. Eventually,the lateral roots begin growing downward,and new shoots on the root may produce aboveground growth or additional lateral roots. Lateral root growth was found to be 15 feet(4.6 m)per year but depends on the soil permeability and water table depth(The Nature Conservancy[TNC] 2006). Seedlings emerge from the soil erect and ascending, and they are often found in irrigated agricultural fields or moist locations such as riparian corridors and irrigated areas. The deep roots store carbohydrates and proteins and help field bindweed spread vegetatively by re-sprouting repeatedly following removal of aboveground growth. Seeds are extremely persistent and can lie dormant in the soil for many years. The seed coat must be exposed to adequate water,moist air,or fluctuating soil temperatures in the surface soil layers in order for a seed to germinate.New introductions of field bindweed are most likely by seed. Seeds fall near the parent plant but can be transported by water or birds. Seeds pass through the stomachs of migrating birds with little or no damage(CSU 2000). Control: Control has been most successful when aboveground biomass is consistently removed, causing underground stores of energy to be tapped. The bindweed gall mite(Aceria malherbae)forms galls on the leaves,petioles, and stem tips. The folding or twisting upward along the midrib where the mites feed is visual identification that the bindweed gall mite has attacked the plant. When the stem buds are attacked, they fail to elongate and thus form compact clusters of stunted leaves. These mites stunt the plant and reduce flowering. The mite may be difficult to establish in a field under cultivation or herbicide treatment; thus,a site less aggressively managed may be a better location for release. Population of the mite are generally slow to develop and may take up to 3 years. Once established,the mite may disperse via the wind and spread rapidly. The mite could also potentially infest native species;therefore,release is not recommended for locations in which nontarget impacts may be a concern(Coombs et al. 2004). Herbicide application is most effective when the herbicide will be translocated to the roots before the seed can be set. Control of field bindweed entails chemical applications and removal on a yearly basis. Picloram at 0.5 to 1.0 part per acre is generally the most effective and can be applied at any time of the year when field bindweed runners are 8 to 12 inches(20 to 30 cm)long. Glyphosate, dicamba, and 2,4-D can provide some control. Early spring requires the plant to draw from its roots, and most translocation will be from below to above ground. Once aboveground growth is vigorous,translocation is primarily from the shoot to the roots,and herbicide application should be done at this stage in the fall to ensure that it is moved with the photosynthates to the roots and root buds. If the aboveground portion is continually destroyed,the root eventually starves and dies. If the aboveground portion is allowed to regenerate and feed the root system,the plant will continue to flourish. The key to implementing a successful control program is to continue treatment even after it appears that the infestations have been significantly reduced. Three to five years may be required to effectively reduce the seed source, deplete food reserves in the root system, and prevent seedling re-growth. Burning in itself is not an effective control method but may be useful in combination with other methods. Similarly,tilling breaks up the roots and may actually increase the number of seedling or sprouts from the severed roots without herbicide application. Grazing can reduce aboveground biomass,but field bindweed can be poisonous to cattle. Hogs, sheep, and goats will graze field bindweed,but it must be in conjunction with herbicide application or the area fully recovers following grazing cessation(Lamming 2001). D-11 Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) Background: Bermudagrass is a major turf species for sports fields, lawns,parks,golf courses, and general utility turfs in Australia,Africa, India, South America, and the southern region of the United States. It is found in over 100 countries throughout the tropical and subtropical areas of the world. It naturalized throughout the warmer regions of the United States after it was introduced during the colonial period from Africa or India. The earliest introductions are not recorded; however,bermudagrass is listed as one of the principal grasses in the southern states as early as 1807(Duble 2006). This is a state-listed noxious weed,but it has not yet become a problem in natural areas in northern Utah. Description: Bermuda grass is a mat-forming rhizomatous grass that moves along the ground and forms adventitious roots wherever a node touches the ground. It has a deep root system that can grow 47 to 59 inches (120 to 150 cm) deep in drought situations. Its blades are a gray-green color and are usually 1 to 4 inches (2.5 to 10.0 cm) long with rough edges. The erect stems can grow 0.3 to 1.3 feet(0.1 to 0.4 m)tall. The stems are slightly flattened, and the inflorescence is purple(Belliston et al. 2004). Bermuda grass reproduces through seeds as well as rhizomes. The seed heads are on 1-to 3-inch(2.5-to 7.6-cm) spikes and are approximately 2 inches(5 cm) long. Bermuda grass will put out seeds about 3 months after germinating. The seeds germinate at temperatures above 68'F (20°C) and begin to grow within 2 weeks. One plant can cover an area of 3 square yards (2.7 m2)in just 150 days after germinating. Bermuda grass can grow in poor soil,but it prefers moist and warm climates with over 16 inches(40.5 cm)of rainfall per year. Control: Bermudagrass is a drought-tolerant grass often used as turf and ornamental groundcover. It is considered a very invasive and competitive weed. Grass-selective herbicides can be used and include the active ingredient sethoxydim(Grass Getter),fluazifop(Fusilade, Ornamec,and Grass-B-Gon), or clethodim(Envoy).Make the first application in spring when new bermudagrass growth is less than 6 inches (15 cm) in length,then re-apply the herbicide before the regrowth reaches 6 inches (15 cm)again. Additional applications on regrowth may be needed through the spring and summer.Nonselective herbicides such as glyphosate can also be used but must be applied to bermudagrass that is vigorously growing,not drought stressed, and has plenty of leaf surface(do not mow the weed for 2 to 3 weeks before treating)(Cudney et al. 2007). Goats prefer broadleaved plants over grasses but will graze young shoots if nothing else is available(Lamming 2001). Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) Background: Houndstongue was introduced from Europe in the late 1800s and was accidentally included as a contaminant in seed. It can be found in disturbed habitats,primarily in pasturelands,rangelands, and along roadsides(USDA National Invasive Species Information Center 2006). Houndstongue is listed as a noxious weed in Tooele,Wasatch, and Sanpete Counties and is known to exist throughout Salt Lake County(MRCS 2012b). Description: Houndstongue is a biennial growing 1 to 4 feet(0.3 to 1.3 m)tall. It forms a rosette the first year and sends up a flowering stalk the second year. Leaves are alternate and range from 1 to 12 inches (2.5 to 30.0 cm) long, are rough and hairy(resembling a hounds tongue), and lack teeth or lobes. Flowers are reddish purple and bloom in early summer. The fruit is composed of four prickly nutlets. The nutlets break apart at maturity and cling to clothing or animals; reproduction is solely by seed(Belliston et al. 2004). Control: Grazing houndstongue is not possible. It is toxic, containing pyrrolizidine alkaloids that cause liver cells to stop reproducing.Animals may survive for 6 months or longer after they have consumed a D-12 lethal amount. Horses may be especially affected when confined in a small area infested with houndstongue and lacking desirable forage(Whitson et al. 1999). Sheep are more resistant to houndstongue poisoning than cattle or horses. Goats do not seem to be affected by ingesting this toxic plant.No other biocontrol options are available at this time; however, five biocontrol agents are being screened for their potential use on houndstongue. These include a root weevil(Mogulones cruciger), seed weevil(M.. borreginis), stem weevil(M.. trisignatus),root beetle(Longitarsus quadriguttatus),and root fly(Cheilosia pasquorum). Herbicides can offer good to excellent control when applied between the rosette and bloom stages. Because this is a biennial, once it has set seed it is no longer susceptible to herbicide. The most effective chemical control is when picloram or 2,4-D is applied to the first-year rosette stage,killing nearly all plants; approximately three-fourths of the plants will die when sprayed the second year after bolting and flowering. Chlorsulfuron or metsulfuron applied when bolting plants are less than 10 inches(25 cm) prevents seed production completely and are a better alternative for large stands with mixed phenological stages(USDA National Invasive Species Information Center 2006). Tilling or digging up the roots before seed development can offer good control. Flowering plants should be removed and bagged to prevent seed dispersal. Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) Background: Russian olive is originally from Europe and was used as an ornamental in the United States. The fruits can be a valuable food source,and the tree often provides habitat for birds and wildlife. It grows well in meadows and pasturelands and along waterways. Reproduction is from seed and rootstock,and thick stands can develop if left unchecked(Belliston et al. 2004). Russian olive has been identified as a noxious weed in Duchesne,Uintah, Carbon, Sevier, and Wayne Counties but is a common weedy tree throughout Salt Lake County(MRCS 2012e). Description: Russian olive is a small,usually thorny shrub or small tree that can grow to 25 feet(7.6 m) high. Its stems,buds, and leaves have a dense covering of silvery to rusty scales. Leaves are egg-or lance-shaped, smooth margined,and alternate along the stem. Highly aromatic,the initial creamy yellow flowers are later replaced by clusters of abundant silvery fruits. The twigs are flexible and coated with a gray, scaly pubescence;they often have a short thorn at the end. The bark is thin with shallow fissures and exfoliates into long strips. It has a deep taproot and well-developed lateral root system(Invasive Species Specialist Group 2006). Control: Adult male goats will graze the flowers, fruits, and leaves of Russian olive but are limited in their accessibility to larger and taller vegetation. The most effective combination of control efforts has been cutting trees, followed by either spraying or burning the stumps. Russian olive is sensitive to 2,4-D ester,triclopyr,2,4-D+triclopyr, imazapyr,and glyphosate. However, effective control with these compounds almost always requires follow-up treatments for 1 to 2 years. The herbicide 2,4-D ester is applied to the foliage. It requires good coverage for acceptable results. The herbicide combination 2,4-D +triclopyr is applied either as a foliar spray or a directed spray to the basal bark of the tree. Triclopyr is applied as a directed spray to the basal bark of the tree. Basal applications require good saturation of the bark,and diesel fuel is frequently used as the carrier. Imazapyr is applied undiluted to frill cuts made in the stem. Glyphosate is also applied to frill cuts. Glyphosate has provided very good control when applied during the winter months(Invasive Species Specialist Group 2006). D-13 Quackgrass (Elymus repens) Background: Originally found in the Mediterranean area, quackgrass infests crops,rangelands, pasturelands, and lawns. It adapts well to moist soils in cool temperature climates(Belliston et al. 2004). Description: This tall(1-to 3-foot [0.3-to 0.9-m])perennial grass has spikelets arranged in two long rows that are borne flatwise to the stem. Quackgrass leaves are often constricted near the tips, are flat, are pointed, are between 0.25 and 0.50 inches(0.6 and 1.2 cm)wide and have small ear-like appendages at the junction of the blade and the sheath. Both leaf sheath and blade are hairless or sparsely hairy. Plant vigor is reduced when shading exceeds 50%(Belliston et al. 2004). Quackgrass propagates mainly by rhizomes,but it also reproduces by seed. Primary rhizome growth begins in early spring and then again in September and October with the onset of fall rains and cooler temperatures. Quackgrass flowers from June through August. Cross-pollination is necessary for seed production. Seeds germinate in fall or spring;plants are capable of producing seeds more than once per season, and the seeds can remain viable for up to 10 years. Control:No biocontrol methods are available at this time. Because of the ability of broken rhizome segments to grow and produce more plants,quackgrass is extremely difficult to control mechanically by tilling or ripping the soil subsurface. Mowing and raking can reduce quackgrass biomass and prevent flowering the following season. It can be effectively controlled with glyphosate,nicosulfuron, fluazifop- P-butyl, imazapyr, and princep(USDA 2006). Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) Background: This is an aggressive, long-lived perennial weed that tends to displace all other vegetation in rangeland,pastureland, and native habitats. Leafy spurge decreases rangeland diversity,threatens native plants,and degrades wildlife habitat. It is most aggressive in semiarid areas,but can be found in xeric to subhumid and subtropic to subarctic habitats. Leafy spurge occurs most commonly on untilled, non-crop areas such as rangelands,pasturelands,woodlands,prairies,roadsides, stream and ditches, and waste sites.It grows on all kinds of soils but is most abundant in coarse-textured soils and least abundant on clay soils(CSU 2000). People should handle the plant with caution because the latex can cause irritation,blotching,blisters, and swelling in sensitive individuals. Eye irritation can be severe. The dried latex is often very difficult to wash off, and latex gloves should be used when handling this plant(Coombs et al.2004). Description: Leafy spurge is a perennial forb with yellowish green flowers arranged in numerous small clusters subtended by paired heart-shaped yellow-green bracts. The leaves are alternate, and 1 to 4 inches (2.5 to 10.0 cm)long. Mature plants are up to 3 feet(0.9 m)tall, and the entire plant contains white,milky latex. Leafy spurge is one of the earliest plants to emerge in the spring,usually in mid-April to late May. The development of terminal flower clusters begins 1 to 2 weeks after stem emergence. Flower clusters have eight to 16 branches. Flowering generally ends in late June to mid-July, and growth is reduced during the hotter portion of the summer. However, if conditions are favorable, leafy spurge may produce a few lateral flowers in the summer and fall(Belliston et al. 2004; CSU 2000). Leafy spurge produces a large number of seeds and underground shoot buds. These two reproductive techniques allow it to rapidly displace native species and form a monoculture. Rapid re-establishment of treated stands often occurs after an apparently successful management effort because of the large nutrient reserve stored in the roots of leafy spurge plants. Primary reproduction is vegetative through its extensive lateral root system. Long roots can produce shoots and can reach nearly 15 feet(5 m)laterally and D-14 approximately 30 feet(10 m)deep. Seeds can remain viable in the soil for 5 to 8 years, although 99%of the viable seeds will germinate in the first 2 years(Belliston et al. 2004; CSU 2000). Control: Biocontrol is still being investigated, and successful control may require a combination of insects and long-term management. The USDA Agriculture Research Service has released 15 species of insects in an effort to control leafy spurge. The most effective biocontrol agents are six species of root- and foliate-feeding beetles in the genus Aphthona, and a stem-and root-boring beetle, Obera erythrocephala. Grazing sheep or goats has been successful,but spurge quickly returns if grazing is removed. Grazing is likely to be most effective in the spring and summer when the spurge plants are succulent. Sheep generally can be taught to feed on spurge,whereas goats will seek it out. Herbicides can provide some control of leafy spurge;however,due to its extensive root system and general hardiness, follow-up applications are necessary. Leafy spurge has the ability to purge undesirable chemicals from its root system in approximately the top 18 inches(45 cm)of the soil,allowing the remaining portion of the root system to regenerate as soon as the effect of the chemical in the soil has dissipated(Coombs et al. 2004). Picloram is recommended for eradication of small infestations,with herbicide application extending for 10 to 15 feet(3.0 to 4.5 m)beyond the leafy spurge patches. A combination of picloram and 2,4-D can provide good results when applied in the spring when flowers emerge(CSU 2000). Myrtle Spurge (Euphorbia myrsinites) Background: Myrtle spurge, also known as donkey tail or creeping spurge,was introduced as a common garden plant in xeric landscapes that escaped cultivation. Its milky sap can cause significant skin and eye irritation. It does not tolerate cultivation and therefore is found in rangelands,pasturelands, and wastelands and along roadsides. It prefers well-drained,part to full sun and has been listed as a noxious weed in several states(USDA 2006). Description: Myrtle spurge is a low-growing perennial that reaches 4 to 6 inches(10 to 15 cm)tall,with new stems originating from the taproot each spring. The stem leaves are fleshy,blue-green, and alternate, appearing spirally arranged. Inflorescences are umbels with small inconspicuous flowers subtended by yellow bracts that appear from March to May. Myrtle spurge reproduces entirely from seed. Control: This species has spread, and there are more sites with myrtle spurge than Salt Lake County Weed Control can track or control(Klopfenstein 2018). It is crowding out native species in the foothills and canyons around Salt Lake Valley. The most effective way to control the plant is to dig it out. It is important to remove the taproot,and all flowers should be bagged or burned because the seeds can continue to mature after the plant has been cut. Moreover,long sleeves and gloves must be worn during manual removal due to the irritating nature of myrtle spurge's sap. Care needs to be taken not to make contact with the eyes while hand-pulling myrtle spurge because minor blindness can occur.No known biocontrols are available at this time, and there is some evidence of toxicity to cattle, although most grazers tend to avoid it. Herbicides 2,4-D,dicamba,and glyphosate can be effective against myrtle spurge,but a surfactant must be used to ensure the herbicide adheres to the waxy cuticle. Picloram is another possible control. The seedling stage is generally the best time to apply herbicides(CSU 2000). D-15 Dame's Rocket (Hesperis matronalis) Background: Dame's rocket, also known as mother-of-the-evening and dame's violet, is native to Europe where it was cultivated as an ornamental. Dame's rocket was introduced to the United States around the time of European settlement. This species is now widely established in cultivated lands,particularly along irrigation canals and in open woodlands, ditches,roadsides,and other disturbed areas(Welsh et al. 2008). Description: Dame's rocket it a biennial or short-lived perennial of the mustard family(Brassicaceae) that produces seeds prolifically. Seeds germinate and develop into a basal rosette the first year,and flowering stems are produced the second and subsequent years. The plant grows 2 to 4 feet(0.6 to 1.2 m) tall and produces one to several stems that may be simple or branched. Dame's rocket has a taproot and branching secondary roots. Flowering-stem leaves are lance-shaped or elliptical and are typically 0.78 to 6 inches(2 to 15 cm)long and 0.3 to 1.5 inches(0.8 to 3.8 cm)wide. Both stems and leaves are covered with fine hairs. Each flower has four petals that are pink to lavender or white. Flowers are 0.75 to 1 inch (2 to 3 cm)wide and form branching clusters. Dame's rocket blooms from mid-May through June. Tiny, dark brown seeds are released from siliques in late summer and early fall. Seeds can remain viable in the soil for many years(North Carolina Extension 2022a;Welsh et al. 2008). Control: Hand-pulling or digging small infestations or isolated plants prior to seed production can be effective as long as the entire tap root is removed. Pulling when the soil is moist increases the likelihood of removing the entire root. Several herbicides are listed as providing control of dame's rocket,including 2,4-D(0.95 to 1.9 pounds per acre for broadcast application), glyphosate(0.75 to 1.5 pounds per acre for broadcast application),and imazapic(6 to 10 ounce per acre),when applied in late fall when the rosettes are still green. Black Henbane (Hyoscyamus niger) Background: Black henbane is an invasive weed found in meadows, sagebrush and oak-serviceberry communities,pasturelands,and along roadsides throughout the United States. Black henbane is native to northern Africa and Europe,where it was cultivated for its medicinal qualities. It was likely introduced to the United States in the seventeenth century as a medicinal and ornamental plant. This species will grow in a variety of environmental conditions and is primarily found in sandy or well-drained loam soils with moderate fertility; it does not tolerate water-logged soils(Pokorny et al. 2010; Welsh et al. 2008). Description: Black henbane is an annual or biennial of the nightshade family(Solanaceae)that reproduces solely through seed production. Seeds germinate and develop into a rosette in late May. Black henbane has a large,whitish,branched, fleshy taproot. The plant grows 1 to 6 feet(0.3 to 1.8 m)tall. The stems of a mature plant are erect, leafy, stout,coarse,hairy,and widely branched. Leaves are large—up to 6 inches(15 cm)wide and 8 or more inches(20 cm)long. Leaves are alternate with coarsely toothed to shallowly lobed margins and are grayish green in color. Leaves are covered with fine, sticky hairs. Black henbane flowers from June to September,with peak flowering typically occurring in July. The five-lobed, funnel-shaped flowers are brownish yellow and have dark purple veins.Flowers are arranged in a long spike-like inflorescence in the upper leaves with the youngest flower at the tip. Two rows of pineapple- shaped fruits appear after flowering. Each fruit capsule contains black,pitted seeds. Black henbane produces 10,000 to 500,000 seeds per plant. Seed can remain viable in the soil for up to 5 years. This species has an unpleasant odor at all growth stages. It is poisonous to humans and livestock(Pokorny et al. 2010; Welsh et al. 2008). Control: Management objectives for black henbane control should involve preventing seed production and periodically monitoring populations. Because seeds can remain viable in the soil for several years,it D-16 is important to control newly emerging plants for several consecutive growing seasons. Because black henbane is poisonous,grazing is not an option for control. There are no biocontrols available for black henbane(Pokorny et al. 2010). Hand-pulling or digging small infestations or isolated plants prior to seed production can be effective as long as the entire tap root is removed.Pulling when the soil is moist increases the likelihood of removing the entire root. To avoid skin irritation, gloves and protective clothing are recommended when pulling plants(Pokorny et al. 2010). Several herbicides are listed as providing control of black henbane, including Dicamba(8 to 32 ounces per acre),picloram(1 to 2 pints per acre), and metsulfuron(0.5 to 1 ounce per acre). Herbicide should be applied post-emergence before flowering to prevent seed production and dispersal and is best applied to young plants(DiTomaso et al. 2013). Herbicide recommendations vary by region and site.Herbicides should be applied with a nonionic surfactant at the rosette stage and prior to flowering to prevent seed production(Pokorny et al.2010). St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) Background: St. Johnswort is a perennial forb. It is native to Eurasia and was likely introduced to the United States in the 1700s as an ornamental. St. Johnswort can tolerate a variety of soils and environmental conditions and is commonly found in grasslands,rangelands, along roadsides, and in sagebrush,pinyon pine,white-fir,and aspen communities(Welsh et al. 2008). Description: St. Johnswort is an erect,herbaceous perennial that grows to 2 to 5 feet(0.6 to 1.5 m)tall and has a taproot,with stolons or sometimes rhizomes. The numerous stems are woody and smooth with a rust color. Leaves are 0.6 to 0.8 inch(1.5 to 2.0 cm)long and oblong in shape. Flowers are yellow,have five petals, and have transparent black dots around the edge of each petal(Welsh et al. 2008). Control: Hand-pulling of young, isolated plants can often be an effective means of control. Be sure to remove and destroy pulled plants to prevent possible vegetative regrowth and/or seed dissemination. For larger infestations,mowing can diminish the spread of the plant if it is performed prior to seed formation. Two or more cuttings may be necessary during the growing season. Several herbicides are listed as providing control of St. Johnswort, including metsulfuron(1 ounce per acre),2,4-D, and picloram(1 to 2 quarts per acre)(U.S. Geological Survey 2006). These should be applied post-emergence to new seedlings that are rapidly growing but before blooming(DiTomaso et al. 2013). Dyer's Woad (Isatis tinctoria) Background: Dyer's woad's origins for human use date back over 2,000 years. In Europe,this plant was cultivated as a source of blue dye and medicinal properties. This aggressive weed infests disturbed and undisturbed sites and can spread outward into crops and rangelands. It appears to be well adapted to the physical and environmental conditions of the intermountain states and is especially well suited to dry, rocky soils common to many steep hillsides.Dyer's woad is commonly found on disturbed sites, along roadsides, in waste areas, and in rights-of-way(Belliston et al. 2004). Description: Dyer's woad is a winter annual,biennial, or short-lived perennial forb ranging from 1 to 4 feet(0.3 to 1.3 m)tall. The flowers are bright yellow, and seedpods are black or purplish brown with a single seed. The basal rosette leaves are 3 to 4 inches(7.5 to 10 cm)long and are lance-shaped and connected to the stem with a petiole. The upper stem leaves are simple, alternate, and bluish green with a whitish nerve on the upper surface. These leaves clasp the stem with an ear-like projection and decrease D-17 in size toward the top of the stem. Mature plants have a thick taproot that may exceed 5 feet(1.5 m) long (CSU 2000). Established dyer's woad plants begin growth early in the year. The plant has a deep taproot as well as roots near the soil surface. Early growth plus the two-tiered root system probably account for its competitive ability. It germinates in the fall or early spring and develops rosettes that produce large taproots during the first year. The following spring,new leaves grow from the crown bud in the rosette, and bolting begins. Flowering occurs in late spring, although timing is dependent on elevation. Dyer's woad reproduces mainly by seed,but seeds do not remain viable in the soil for long periods of time (Belliston et al. 2004). Control: Removal is probably the simplest and most effective method of control,if removed after plants have bolted and begun to flower. There are several CWMAs that use local volunteers to pull Dyer's woad in Utah in the Bag O' Woad program. For small distinct populations,this is a valuable opportunity to eliminate the infestation,engage the community, and support education regarding this and other noxious weeds. Dyer's woad is commonly controlled with herbicides.Metsulfuron offers excellent control at 0.33 to 2.00 ounces per acre; apply post-emergence when the ground is not frozen in March or April. 2,4-D, imazapic, and chlorsulfuron offer good control at 1.75 quart per acre, 10 ounces per acre, and I ounce per acre, respectively. Use any of these herbicides to avoid injury to grass species(CSU 2000). A relative of the rust fungus Puccinia thlaspeos is the most common biocontrol agent used, and it is able to prevent or reduce seed production and slow growth. The rust can enter the plant through inoculation on the leaf surface and systemically damages the plant to the roots. It can prevent or reduce seed production and may also affect the survival of seedlings,rosettes, and overwintering plants. The rust is able to complete its life cycle on Dyer's woad alone and does not seem to require a secondary host like many rusts do. Rust-infected plants will have yellowish puckered leaves with dark spots on the underside (Weber County 2006). Hoary Cress (Lepidium drabs) Background: Hoary cress(whitetop)is a state-listed noxious weed introduced into North America from Eurasia in the late nineteenth century. It is now widespread throughout diverse habitats and is classified as a noxious weed in at least 24 states(Coombs et al. 2004). Description: Hoary cress germinates in the fall, overwinters as rosettes,and blooms in May.After flowering,the plant continues to grow until the first frost. It can reach a height of 2 feet(0.6 m). Leaves are blue-green and lance shaped,with the lower leaves stalked and the upper leaves having two lobes clasping the stem. Flowers are white with four petals,giving the plant a flat-topped appearance. Heart- shaped seed capsules contain two reddish brown seeds separated by a narrow partition. This species reproduces from seed and from rhizomes. Adventitious buds can develop from the lateral rhizomes with an average of 50 new buds for a total of 2 to 3 feet(0.6 to 0.9 m)of growth per year per plant. Hoary cress can overtake native plants, developing monocultures that degrade wildlife habitat and decrease biodiversity. It prefers wet,alkaline,open soils and is often found with invasive bromes and knapweeds (Belliston et al. 2004). Two other Cardaria species, lens-podded whitetop(C. chalepensis) and hairy whitetop(C.pubescens), are common in the western United States,with differences in seed capsules and fruit characteristics(Baldwin et al. 2002; Whitson 1999). Control: Control of hoary cress is very difficult, and eradication requires continual work and monitoring. Small,controlled patches or the perimeter of large patches are the best option, followed by attacking any D-18 plants that expand beyond the containment area. Because of the extensive root system,removing new shoots is extremely important. Sheep and goats will consume hoary cress more readily than cattle. Cattle will consume hoary cress,but hoary cress contains glucosinolates,which may be toxic at high levels. Moreover,hoary cress may inhibit iodine absorption in goats,but this can be countered with iodine supplements. Insufficient information is currently available on the effectiveness of prescribed grazing of hoary cress. Surveys and literature disagree on the potential of controlling hoary cress with grazing because of palatability and toxicity issues. However,repeated grazing may reduce plant vigor and flower production(Zouhar 2004). Mowing or grazing alone will not provide effective long-term control of hoary cress. Hoary cress plants can survive repeated removal of top-growth for at least one season without noticeable loss in vigor. Two consecutive years of mowing or grazing may have a more noticeable effect;however,hoary cress plants often preserve some of their vitality even after 3 years. The date of mowing or grazing influences subsequent reproductive efforts;plants mowed or grazed during flowering produced fewer viable seeds than plants mowed during bolting. Although defoliation alone is not expected to be an effective long-term control of hoary cress,properly timed aboveground biomass removal followed by herbicide application may increase mortality(Zouhar 2004). Where physical conditions permit,hoeing or tilling at intervals of 3 to 4 weeks(depending on rate of regrowth)may be as effective as cultivation for eradication of hoary cress. Soils must remain moist between hoeing so that plants can regenerate and deplete their root reserves. Plants must be completely removed within 10 days after emergence throughout the growing season for 2 to 4 years,thereby making this method impossible for all but the smallest patches(Zouhar 2004). Hoary cress and related Cardaria species are most commonly controlled with herbicides. However, multiple applications are usually needed to provide lasting control. The best time to apply herbicides is in May or June,between bud and before flowering.Metsulfuron and chlorsulfuron are the most effective herbicides as long as the plants still have green tissue. It is important to use a nonionic surfactant with the herbicide. The herbicides imazapic,2,4-D, and glyphosate provide good to fair control when applied during the early pre-bud stage(late May through early June)(Dewey et al. 2006). Large hoary cress stands may flower at different times due to changes in microtopography; south-facing slopes and depressions will flower days to weeks before north-facing slopes. Once herbicide is sprayed,the flowering plants will immediately set viable seed. Therefore,it is imperative to apply herbicide at the bud stage,prior to flowering. To synchronize the plants,mowing or grazing may be an option in localized areas to create a phenotypic homogeneous community that can be more effectively sprayed with herbicides. It will usually take several seasons to eliminate a hoary cress patch due to both root regrowth from surviving plants and the time it takes to deplete the soil seed bank. Seeding with desirable grass species that will compete for resources but not be affected by the broadleaf herbicides is critical in the combat against hoary cress. Perennial Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) Background: Perennial pepperweed(or tall whitetop)is a highly invasive herbaceous perennial. It can invade a variety of habitats, including riparian areas,wetlands,marshes,and floodplains. Once established,this plant creates large monospecific stands that displace native plants and animals and can be very difficult to remove. Significant amounts of litter can build up in dense infestations. Old stems take several years to degrade and form a layer impenetrable to light. This deep litter layer prevents the emergence of annual plants and may reduce competition from other species. Even if perennial pepperweed is controlled, it may be necessary to remove the litter to stimulate germination and growth of desirable plant species(CSU 2000). D-19 Description: This plant reaches 4 feet(1.2 m)in height,has lanceolate gray-green leaves,and has white dense clusters of flowers on its racemes. Deep-seated rootstocks make this weed difficult to control. Roots consist of annual,perennial, and semi-woody root crowns that creep horizontally below the soil surface,never forming dense clusters. This low root density allows soil erosion to occur more frequently along infested riverbanks. The stems originate from large perennial belowground roots and emerge in early spring/late fall. Shoots will remain in the rosette form for several weeks before stems elongate or bolt. Rosette leaves are approximately 12 inches(30 cm)long and 3 inches(8 cm)wide with serrate margins on long petioles. Stem leaves are highly reduced and tapered at the base with entire to weakly serrate margins. Shoots flower and fruit during late spring and continue throughout much of the summer; plants senesce by mid-to late summer while fruits remain on the stem. Seedlings are rarely found in the field. Seeds lack a hard coat and do not seem to be capable of surviving long periods in the soil; thus, seed viability may be short. This suggests that reinfestations from the seed bank may not be a problem once control is achieved(CSU 2000). Control: Burning is not an effective control measure against perennial pepperweed. Although it can be efficient in removing existing and past stems, it does not appear to harm the perennial roots. Biomass of re-sprouting stems may even increase in subsequent years due to the removal of the litter layer and the addition of nutrients from the fire(CSU 2000;USDA 2006). Cattle, sheep,and goats will graze perennial pepperweed; however,when stands are dense,it becomes very difficult for these animals(except goats)to use it as forage. Cattle will graze the rosette leaves early in the spring but have difficulty if previous year's stems are not removed. Some reports suggest the leaves may be poisonous(Young et al. 1997). The only nonchemical control method effective against large populations of perennial pepperweed is long-term flooding;however,it is not known whether plants will re-establish if the flooding regime is removed from these areas. The most consistent control was found with the use of herbicides applied at the flower bud to early flowering stage using chlorsulf iron with silicone-based nonionic surfactant, although this herbicide cannot be applied near or over water. Imazapyr is also effective. Mowing in the early season followed by herbicide application may lead to the translocation and accumulation of more herbicide to belowground perennial organs,thereby enhancing control. Mowing followed by the application of glyphosate in riparian or wetland areas has proven effective. The most effective time to apply herbicides is the flower bud to early flowering stage(CSU 2000). Oxeye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) Background: Oxeye daisy is an invasive perennial commonly found in meadows,in pasturelands, and along roadsides throughout the United States. Conscientious management of this species is often neglected due to its showiness and beauty. Oxeye daisy,native to Europe,was introduced to North America intentionally as an ornamental and also incidentally as a contaminant of imported grain seeds and hay. This species grows in a wide range of soil textures and tends to be abundant in poor soils. Oxeye daisy can form dense stands that replace other vegetation(Mangold et al. 2009). Description: Oxeye daisy is a perennial rhizomatous or sub-rhizomatous herb and a member of the Asteraceae family. Flower heads are borne individually on the tops of long, slender stems. Flowers are 1.5 to 2 inches(3.8 to 5 cm)across with yellow centers from which 20 to 30 white linear petals radiate. The petals are slightly notched or lobed at the tip. Stems grow 1 to 3 feet(0.6 to 0.9 m)tall and may be branched at the top. Leaves are dark green, smooth,and often glossy and progressively decrease in size toward the top of the stem.Basal leaves are long and linear with serrate or"toothed"margins. The upper leaves are narrow,may clasp the stem, and are alternately arranged. The plant has strong, adventitious roots and shallow,branched rhizomes. This species reproduces primarily from seed but also by rhizomes. D-20 Oxeye daisy is a prolific seed producer; each flower produces 100 to 250 seeds. Germination occurs throughout the growing season; however,most new seedlings emerge in the spring. Mature plants flower June through August. Seeds that do not germinate may remain viable for more than 6 years(Mangold et al. 2009; Welsh et al. 2008). Control: Currently,no biocontrol agents have been developed to control oxeye daisy. Tilling is not recommended because it is possible to spread seeds and root fragments. Mowing may reduce oxeye daisy seed production if plants are mowed as soon as flower buds appear. Mowing may have to be repeated during a long growing season because mowing may stimulate shoot production and subsequent flowering. Mowing can be combined with nutrient treatment if used in areas infested with oxeye daisy. Mowing may improve herbicide contact with rosettes(Mangold et al. 2009). Hand-pulling may be practical for controlling small populations of oxeye daisy.Root systems are shallow,and the plant can be dug up and removed. Hand removal will have to be continued for several years because remaining roots may sprout and seedlings will continue to emerge from the soil seed bank (Mangold et al. 2009). Spring and early summer herbicide treatments of several herbicides, including aminopyralid(4 to 6 ounces per acre), aminopyralid+2,4-D(2 to 2.5 pints per acre),metsulfuron(0.5 to 1 ounce per acre),or picloram(1.5 pints per acre)provide effective oxeye daisy control. Oxeye daisy is moderately resistant to some 2,4-D-based herbicides except at high rates(5 pounds active ingredient per acre). Oxeye daisy is not highly competitive,and reinvasion following herbicide treatment may be slowed or prevented by establishing and maintaining a healthy desirable plant community. Glyphosate(1 to 2 quarts per acre)will control oxeye daisy where revegetation is planned(Mangold et al. 2009). Dalmatian Toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) Background: Dalmatian toadflax was brought to the United States from Europe,probably for ornamental purposes. It prefers rangeland and roadside habitat with sandy soils. It is very aggressive and hard to control due to its deep roots and thick waxy leaf cuticle(CSU 2000). Description: Dalmatian toadflax can be easily identified by its bright yellow snapdragon-shaped flowers and can be distinguished from yellow toadflax by its larger flowers and more ovate leaves. The flowers of this plant are borne in loose,elongate racemes. Fruits are egg-shaped to nearly round capsules,and seeds are sharply angular and slightly winged. Leaves are broad, ovate, and alternate. Mature plants are up to 3 feet(0.9 m)tall(CSU 2000). Control: Sheep and goats are very effective against Dalmatian toadflax because they prefer it to other rangeland grasses. This will not kill the plant but will keep it from flowering if the grazing regime is continued over the summer. Eight species of exotic insects have been intentionally or accidentally introduced for biocontrol of toadflax in North America. They belong to two groups: beetles(Order: Coleoptera) and moths(Order: Lepidoptera).A few of these biocontrol agents are available in Utah and offer fair control of Dalmatian toadflax and yellow toadflax. Tilling can be effective if done repeatedly. The cut roots can re-sprout,resulting in a larger problem if not tilled again immediately when new sprouts are coming through the soil. This may need to be repeated three to four times per season for several years to deplete the root reserves as well as the soil seed bank (Whitson et al. 1999). D-21 Two rangeland herbicides,picloram and chlorsulfuron, applied after a burn,have been shown to successfully reduce Dalmatian toadflax. Chlorsulfuron applied in the fall or spring or picloram applied in the spring effectively controlled Dalmatian toadflax for approximately 3 years, leaving nutrients released by fire to desirable species(Jacobs and Sheley 2005). Studies of herbicide application for perennial weed control indicate the best time for application is when carbohydrate reserves in the underground portions are lowest. Reserve carbohydrates of Dalmatian toadflax are at their highest levels in the fall at the end of the growing season and at their lowest point at the beginning of flowering in May(Invasive Species Specialist Group 2006). Yellow Toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) Background: Yellow toadflax(butter and eggs)is an invasive perennial introduced from Eurasia in the mid-1700s as an ornamental and for folk remedies. This species is commonly found in rangelands, in fields,and along roadsides.Yellow toadflax has an extensive root system,making this weed difficult to control. Yellow toadflax is able to reproduce by both seeds and roots. Yellow toadflax prefers well- drained, coarse soils in open, disturbed areas. Description: Yellow toadflax is an erect,herbaceous perennial with long,linear,pointed leaves that are pale green and alternate in arrangement. Plants range from 1 to 3 feet(0.3 to 0.9 m)tall and are generally unbranched or sparsely branched. One plant may produce several woody stems with a reddish color at the base,becoming greener toward the top of the plant. Flowers are pale yellow snapdragon-like blossoms that are 0.8 to 1.6 inches(2-4 cm)long. The flowers form clusters at the top of the plant in groups of six to 30. The seeds are small,winged discs.A single plant can produce as many as 20,000 seeds(Wilson et al. 2005). Control: Yellow toadflax is difficult to control,and management plans should integrate multiple strategies to increase potential for success. Herbicides can be an effective means of control for yellow toadflax but typically require repeated treatments at high rates.Fall application of chlorsulfuron(1.5 to 2.0 ounces per acre)has shown to be moderately effective in controlling yellow toadflax(Beck 2009). Eight species of exotic insects have been intentionally or accidentally introduced for biocontrol of toadflax in North America. They belong to two groups:beetles(Order: Coleoptera) and moths(Order: Lepidoptera).A few of these biocontrol agents are available in Utah and offer fair control of Dalmatian toadflax and yellow toadflax. Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Background: Purple loosestrife is a European plant probably introduced to the United States as an ornamental. It reproduces by both seed and creeping rootstocks. Infestations can impede water flow and replace beneficial plants and thus displace wildlife. It can be found in shallow marsh wetland areas and ditches. Description: The purple loosestrife stems are erect, 1.5 to 8.0 or more feet(0.5 to 2.4 m)tall, four to six angled, and can be smooth or pubescent with few branches. Leaves are simple, 0.75 to 4.00 inches(2 to 10 cm) long, 0.2 to 0.5 inches (0.5 to 1.3 cm)wide, and entire and can be opposite or whorled. The most identifiable characteristic of purple loosestrife is its striking rose-to purple-colored flowers. The flowers are arranged on a spike,which can be a few inches(5 cm)to 3 feet(0.9 m) long. Each flower has five to seven petals arising from a cylindrical green tube. The plant usually flowers from early July to mid- September. The seed capsule is two celled and contains many very small seeds(1 min long or less). The roots become thick and woody in mature plants. The aerial shoots die in the fall,and new shoots arise the D-22 following spring from buds at the top of the root crown.Although the root crown expands and produces more shoots each year,the maximum growth of the root crown diameter is limited to approximately 20 inches (50 cm). Spread of purple loosestrife is primarily by seed,but the plant can also spread vegetatively from stem cuttings(Belliston et al. 2004;USDA 2006). Control: The purple loosestrife biocontrol project is one of the most widely implemented projects in the United States. The black-margined loosestrife beetle (Galerucella calmariensis)and golden loosestrife beetle(Galerucella pusilla)attack buds and leaves. Adult and larval feeding on the buds results in stunted plants and reduced seed production. After emerging from soil litter or from off-site in the early spring, adults feed on exposed shoots that are approximately 2 to 4 inches (5 to 10 cm)long. With heavy defoliation,the host plant becomes skeletonized and turns brown. Heavily defoliated plants may die or produce fewer shoots the following year. However,these beetles can feed on two native plants(Decodon verticillatus and Lythrum alatum)and two introduced plants (L. hyssopifolia and Lagerstroemia indica) but do not reproduce on these hosts(Coombs et al. 2004). The loosestrife root weevil(Hylobius transversovittatus)larvae live in the roots while the adults feed on the foliage. The larval effects are dependent on root size, attack intensity, and duration. Small roots can be destroyed within 2 years if infested by several larvae. Larger roots may die after several consecutive years of infestation. This species increases and spreads more slowly than the leaf beetles. However,because during the growing season it feeds continuously on the root storage reserves of the plants, it is an important agent in the control of purple loosestrife. In stands of large,healthy plants,the leaf beetles may produce temporary severe defoliation,but the plants may recover after the beetles enter diapause in mid- summer. By reducing root storage reserves,the weevil limits the plant's ability to recuperate after defoliation. The combined impact of both biocontrol agents is enough to cause plants to die(Coombs et al. 2004). The loosestrife seed weevil(Nanophyes marmoratus)adult and larvae attack unopened flower buds. Flower buds that are fed on by either adults or larvae usually abort and fail to produce seeds. The loosestrife seed weevil tolerates a variety of environmental conditions and possesses an excellent host- finding ability. It has successfully overwintered on exposed islands in an estuary with high tidal exchange where multiple releases of the leaf beetles have failed. The weevils can also persist where plants are scattered at low densities. Their impact is currently being overshadowed by the dramatic defoliation and plant death caused by the leaf beetles and root weevil.However,they may play an important role after loosestrife abundance declines and the other agents become less effective(Coombs et al. 2004). Herbicide control includes the use of 2,4-D,metsulfuron, and glyphosate; dicamba offers fair control. Purple loosestrife is often found along streambanks and in riparian areas, and the aquatic formulation for these herbicides should be used(Dewey et al. 2006). Scotch Thistle (Onopordum acanthium) Background: Scotch thistle is a native of Europe that quickly invades sunny areas that have been disturbed;however, it is suppressed when it invades a healthy system. Once established, it becomes highly competitive, often crowding out other noxious weeds, and can form stands so dense they are impenetrable to livestock. Its rapid growth and large size reduce available light for smaller plants and draw away other needed resources. Long spines intimidate animals into eating easier targets. When a Scotch thistle dies,it leaves abundant litter that can smother surrounding plants. It is best adapted to high soil moisture and is often associated with waterways in the western United States in disturbed areas where competition has been reduced.Although high soil moisture is preferred, it will occupy dry sites as well. Scotch thistle is often associated with plant communities dominated by annual weedy grasses(cheatgrass) D-23 and has been known to invade crested wheatgrass sites. It grows along roadsides,fence lines, ditch banks, open dry areas, and in pasturelands but is rarely found in gardens and areas cultivated yearly(CSU 2000). Description: This biennial plant commonly grows 3 to 8 feet(0.9 to 2.4 m)tall,but it may grow as high as 12 feet(3.7 m). Rosettes may be 4 feet(1.2 m)wide. Large spiny leaves up to 2 feet(0.6 m)long and 1 foot(0.3 m)wide are covered with dense hair,giving a grayish blue-green coloration. The flowers are violet to reddish with spine-tipped bracts. The Scotch thistle plant blooms in mid-summer, and averages 70 to 310 flowers per plant,with 110 to 140 seeds per flowering head. Eighty to ninety percent of the seed can be dormant for approximately 5 years and are dispersed by water,wind,animals,and human activities (Belliston et al. 2004). Control: Control of this plant must include preventing new seed dispersal for up to 6 years. Grazing young plants with sheep or goats will remove aboveground biomass and eliminate the spread of seed (CSU 2000).No other biocontrols are available at this time. Scotch thistle is most often controlled with herbicides; its control can be combined with musk thistle treatments. The most effective chemical control occurs when musk thistle is still in the rosette stage and quickly decreases once the plant has bolted. Aminopyralid and metsulfuron offer excellent control when applied at 3 to 5 ounces per acre and 0.5 to 1.0 ounces per acre,respectively. Apply both herbicides to rosettes; fall is optimal,although spring applications are also effective. Clopyralid at 0.66 part per acre, chlorsulfuron at 0.5 to 1.0 ounces for musk thistle and 1 to 3 ounces per acre for Scotch thistle, and a combination of clopyralid and 2,4-D(Curtail)at 1 to 2 quarts per acre provide good control when applied from the late rosette stage to early bolting. Seeding with desirable grass species that will compete for resources but not be affected by the broadleaf herbicides is critical. Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Background: Common reed is a large perennial rhizomatous grass, or reed,forming monotypic stands in wetland areas. It is common in alkaline and brackish environments and can also thrive in highly acidic wetlands. Growth is greater in fresh water but it may be outcompeted in these areas by other species. It can survive in stagnant waters where the sediments are poorly aerated by providing the underground parts of the plant with a relatively fresh supply of air from the air spaces in the aboveground stems and rhizomes. The buildup of litter from the aerial shoots within stands prevents or discourages other species from germinating and becoming established. The rhizomes and adventitious roots themselves form dense mats that discourage annual and perennial native establishment. Killing frosts may knock the plants back temporarily but can ultimately increase stand densities by stimulating bud development(CSU 2000). Description: The plants generally flower and set seed between July and September and may produce great quantities of seed. However, some or most of the seed produced is not viable,and most reproduction results from rhizomes (TNC 2006). Individual rhizomes live for 3 to 6 years,and buds develop at the base of the vertical tip late in the summer each year. These buds mature and typically grow about 3 feet(1 m) before terminating in an upward apex and going dormant until spring. The apex then grows upward into a vertical rhizome that in turn produces buds that will form more vertical rhizomes.Vertical rhizomes also produce horizontal rhizome buds, completing the vegetative cycle. These rhizomes provide the plant with a large,absorbent surface that brings the plant nutrients from the aquatic medium. The aerial shoots arise from the rhizomes. They are most vigorous at the periphery of a stand where they arise from horizontal rhizomes, as opposed to old vertical rhizomes. Germination is not affected by salinities below 1%but declines at higher salinities. Following seed set,nutrients are translocated down into the rhizomes, and the aboveground portions of the plant die back for the season(Belliston et al. 2004). D-24 Control: The only biocontrol at this time is grazing by cattle or goats.Naturally occurring parasites have not proven to be successful control agents. Coots,nutria, and muskrats may feed on common reed but appear to have limited impacts on its populations. Burning is only successful if root burn occurs but rarely happens because a layer of soil or mud usually covers the rhizomes. Flooding can be used to control common reed when 3 feet(0.9 m)of water covers the rhizome for an extended period during the growing season, ideally for up to 4 months. However,flooding could also destroy communities of desirable plants. Rodeo with a surfactant that allows it to stick to and subsequently be absorbed by the plant is commonly used for common reed control. This herbicide is not,however, selective and will kill grasses and broadleaved plants alike, although it is virtually nontoxic to all aquatic animals tested(TNC 2006). Application should take place anytime between mid-August and mid-September,after the tasseling stage when the plant is supplying nutrients to the rhizome.At this time,when Rodeo is sprayed onto the foliage of common reed, it translocates into the roots and interferes with essential plant growth processes, causing gradual wilting,yellowing,browning, and deterioration of the plants. The dead reeds are resistant to decomposition and require physical manipulation to allow native plant species to re-establish following spraying(CSU 2000). Cutleaf Vipergrass (Scorzonera laciniate) Background: Cutleaf vipergrass was introduced from Eurasia and Africa. It acts as a food source for clover cutworms(Anarta trifohi),which damage a wide variety of food crops(Utah Weed Control Association 2022). Description: Cutleaf vipergrass is a biennial plant that reproduces via seed. It grows 6 to 8 inches(15-20 cm)tall and has hollow stems and bright yellow flowers. This plant is often confused with western salsify (Tragopogon dubius)due to the similar flower shape. The leaves are deeply cut to form long,linear segments that may look like grass. Cutleaf vipergrass also has a milky sap and slender taproot(Montana State University 2019). Control:Not much is known about the control methods for cutleaf vipergrass,but it is reasonable to assume that control methods for western salsify will translate well to this species. Seed control is the primary goal with cutleaf vipergrass. Hand-pulling prior to seed set is very effective and somewhat easy due to the plant's small taproot. Mowing cutleaf vipergrass before it sets seed could be part of an integrated management plan,though mowing may also encourage flowering. Chemical controls with the ingredients 2,4-D and/or dicamba may also prove effective(Montana State University 2019). Cereal Rye (Secale cereale) Background: Cereal rye is often an intentionally grown cover crop in the United States. Its primary uses include erosion control, compaction reduction, soil building, food production, and nitrogen collection (Casey 2012). Description: Cereal rye is an upright cool season grass that reproduces annually via seed. It is most recognized by its"crown"of awns at the top of the seed head. Cereal rye grows 3.0 to 6.5 feet(1 to 2 m) tall and has flat leaf blades(Casey 2012). Control: Cereal rye is not often treated at as a weed in the United States,thus little information is available regarding its control. However,when used as a cover crop, it is often removed by plowing, disking,mowing,roller crimping, or by applying herbicides(Casey 2012). One study suggests glyphosate and quizalofop are both effective chemical controls of cereal rye(Young et al. 2016), and glyphosate is D-25 the most commonly used chemical method of control. Two annual sprayings are recommended, one in fall and one in spring,to effectively control cereal rye(Salt Lake County 2023). Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) Background: Johnsongrass was introduced from the Mediterranean to the United States as a forage grass. However,when under frost or moisture stress,it forms hydrocyanic acid that is toxic to livestock. It aggressively crowds out native species, especially along riverbanks and ditches(Belliston et al. 2004). Description: Johnsongrass is a hardy,warm-season perennial grass with erect stems 2 to 8 feet(0.6 to 2.4 m)tall that may be rusty red near the base. The mature flowers are large open panicles that bear many awn-tipped, shiny,reddish to purplish spikelets,with reddish brown,awned seeds. Leaf blades are flat with conspicuous midveins and are often as much as 1 inch(2.5 cm)wide. Both leaf sheath and blade are hairless, and ligules are prominent,jagged, and membranous(CSU 2000). Johnsongrass has thick, creeping rhizomes that are usually present at an early stage. Colonization can occur from both rhizomes and seed, and seeds can remain viable for over 2 years in the soil(Belliston et al. 2004). Control: Small infestations can be controlled by hand-pulling the plants when the soil is moist. Mowing after seed head development but before flowering can be used. However, acceptable results will usually require multiple mowings per year over several growing seasons to deplete the nutrient reserves in the root system. Care should be taken not to spread rootstock pieces as they can re-establish(CSU 2000). Due to the toxicity of Johnsongrass, grazing should be carefully monitored. Chemicals are usually effective in control of Johnsongrass; glyphosate at 1.5 pound active ingredient per acre when the plants are 12 to 18 inches(30 to 45 cm)tall or Fluazifop-P-butyl at 43 to 48 ounces per acre when seedlings are actively growing and between 2 and 8 inches(5 and 20 cm)tall. Sulfometuron methyl can be applied early post-emergence with a reapplication when regrowth begins; it works best when applied when soils are moist to help translocate the herbicide to the root system(CSU 2000). Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) Background: Medusahead was brought to the United States from Eurasia in the late 1880s. Medusahead is a major concern to the range livestock industry because it can suppress desirable vegetation and is unpalatable to livestock. As the plant matures,it develops long,barbed awns that can cause injury to the eyes,nose,and mouth of grazing animals. Medusahead has little to no feed value to livestock at any stage of growth,although livestock will use it when other feed is limited(Archer 2001). Medusahead and cheatgrass overlap in distribution and habitat requirements. Each can replace other herbaceous vegetation and share dominance with the other. Cheatgrass occupies a larger geographical area than medusahead,which extends to drier areas of the semiarid western United States. Medusahead maintains its dominance on sites where native vegetation has been eliminated or severely reduced by overgrazing,cultivation,or frequent fires. It has invaded seral communities in eastern Oregon and Idaho and replaced cheatgrass as the dominant alien grass(USDA 2006). Description: This winter annual grass ranges from 6 inches(15 cm)to 2 feet(0.6 m). The leaf blades are narrow,approximately 0.12 inch(3 mm)wide in size. The 4-inch(I 0-cm)seed awns become twisted as the seed matures. It is sometimes confused with foxtail barley or squirreltail,but is different in that the seed head does not break apart completely as the seeds mature(Belliston et al. 2004). D-26 Medusahead is entirely dependent on seed production for regeneration. It is an extremely capable seeder because of its large annual production of viable seed and because its seed maintains viability in litter and soil for at least 1 year.Plants produce up to 6,000 seeds per square foot of soil,propagating dense stands in succeeding years. Medusahead is principally self-fertilizing;most of the pollen grains are dispersed within the floret, and only a moderate number of pollen grains are produced in each of the short anthers. Control: Two smut diseases that eliminate seed production were identified by USDA Agriculture Research Service in 2002-2003 and are currently being researched(USDA 2006).Burning medusahead can destroy large amounts of seeds if the seed head has not disseminated,reducing the stand by 60%to 95%in the next growing season.A slow burn in dense medusahead stands that occur on well-developed soil profiles may reduce seed production. On less developed soil profiles where prescribed fire is not feasible, grazing livestock when plants are actively growing,herbicide treatment,reseeding,or a combination of these methods may be tried. Imazapic has been shown to be effective on medusahead. Chemicals are usually an effective control method: glyphosate at 1.5 pounds active ingredient per acre when the plants are 12 to 18 inches(30 to 45 cm)tall or Fluzifop-P-butyl at 43 to 48 ounces per acre when seedlings are actively growing and between 2 and 8 inches(5 and 20 cm)tall. Sulfometuron methyl can be applied early post-emergence with a reapplication when regrowth begins;this works best when applied when soils are moist to help translocate the herbicide to the root system(CSU 2000). Tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) Background: Tamarisk is an aggressive,woody invasive plant that has become established over as much as 1 million acres of the western United States. Tamarisk crowds out native stands of riparian and wetland vegetation. It increases the salinity of surface soil,rendering the soil inhospitable to native plant species. Tamarisk provides generally lower wildlife habitat value than native vegetation and uses more water than comparable native plant communities. These plants can widen floodplains by clogging stream channels and can increase sediment deposition due to the abundance of tamarisk stems in dense stands(CSU 2000). This species is only listed as a noxious weed in Uintah County, although it is present in water corridors and waste areas throughout Utah. Description: This deciduous, loosely branched shrub has whitish or pinkish flowers borne on slender racemes. The leaves are minute, appressed, and scaly.The primary root can grow as deep as 100 feet(30 m)or more, and horizontal roots can spread after reaching the water table(CSU 2000). Control: This tamarisk leaf beetle(Diorhabda elongata)has had tremendous success in the Great Basin controlling tamarisk by defoliating the plant. The third instar larvae and sometimes adult may kill more foliage than they eat by scraping the bark on small twigs. Defoliated plants suffer severe stem dieback, but plants re-sprout from the base. Heavy defoliation after 2 years can kill acres of plants.When food becomes scarce, adults will fly to feed and lay eggs on nearby uninfested plants(Coombs et al. 2004). Currently,the tamarisk leaf beetle is available in Utah primarily in Delta and Moab. Best results are achieved if adult beetles are gathered in July and allowed to lay eggs in the new location before winter. Because of the massive bird and ant predation on the beetles, it is recommended that large populations (10,000 individuals)are introduced at one time(personal communication, Steve Burningham,USDA, 2006). The use of the tamarisk leaf beetle to control tamarisk has had negative effects on the federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher(Empidoncxx trailhi extimus)by reducing the flycatcher's available suitable habitat(dense riparian habitats comprising cottonwood/willow and tamarisk vegetation [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016]) and by reducing nest success(Tracy et al.2014). Because of these negative impacts,use of the tamarisk beetle may not be a viable option to control tamarisk in Utah. D-27 A variety of herbicides has been used to manage tamarisk;these include triclopyr,imazapyr,glyphosate, and 2,4-D. These are generally applied as cut-stump treatments, although foliar, stem-sprout,root-sprout, injection, frill, and broadcast applications are used as well.When cut-stump treatments are used,the herbicide should be in a non-evaporative base so that the stump does not dry out before the chemical has entered(Invasive Species Specialist Group 2006). Puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris) Background: Puncturevine was first reported in California in 1903 and probably contaminated the wool of sheep imported from the Mediterranean region. This plant is widespread throughout the West and is most often found in croplands,pasturelands,corrals,and along transportation rights-of-way. The spiny burs can cause injury to the mouths and digestive tracts of livestock(Coombs et al. 2004). Puncturevine has been identified as a noxious weed in Cache,Weber, and Morgan Counties and is known throughout Salt Lake County(MRCS 2012c). Description: Puncturevine is a prostrate,herbaceous annual. The root system of puncturevine consists of a simple taproot branching into a network of fine roots. The prostrate stems radiate out from the root crown to form a mat. The hairy stems often grow to 6 feet(1.8 m)long and are green to reddish in color. The small yellow flowers appear between June and September and are produced in the leaf axils. The spiny fruits are made up of five burs with two spines each that break apart at maturity, and each bur contains two to four seeds(Belliston et al. 2004). Control: This plant has been controlled with biocontrol agents in areas without cold winters. The puncturevine seed weevil(Microlarinus lareynii)may produce multiple generations in warm climates. The larvae develop inside the fruits where they feed on the seeds, and the adults emerge and begin to feed on the stems, leaves, flowers,buds,and fruits. Similarly,the puncturevine stem weevil(Microlarinus lypriformis)may produce multiple generations in warm climates. The larvae mine the stems and root crowns of the plants,whereas the adults feed on leaves and the undersurface of the stems. Both weevils are readily available and can be collected from the soil litter beneath plants. The best control is provided when both the puncturevine seed weevil and stem weevil are used together. Damage to nontarget plants is not a problem for either species(Coombs et al.2004). After the plants have emerged from the soil,post-emergent products containing 2,4-D,glyphosate, and dicamba are effective. The smaller or younger the plant,the better the post-emergent herbicides work (Franklin County Noxious Weed Control Board 2022). COUNTY-LISTED INVASIVE WEED ACCOUNTS Table D-2. County-Listed Invasive Weed Accounts Common Name Scientific Name Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta Cereal rye Secale cereale D-28 Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) Background: Cheatgrass can greatly alter the species composition of dry native rangeland vegetation by competitive exclusion or reproduction of native plant species and the facilitation of wildfires.Although the invasion of cheatgrass is greatest in drier environments, it is common in all lowland areas in the and and semiarid West. Disturbance, such as heavy grazing, allows cheatgrass and other annuals to invade and proliferate. The dry stands of cheatgrass increase fire frequency,creating an environment dominated by cheatgrass(CSU 2000). Description: Cheatgrass is a winter annual grass. The flower has loose,irregularly compound flowering parts with flowers borne on individual stalks. The panicles change color from green to purple to brown as the plant matures and eventually dries out. Branches are slender,drooping, and hairy with up to eight awned spikelets. Leaves are light green and hairy. Sheaths are fused except near the node at the bottom of each sheath. The lower sheaths are conspicuously hairy,whereas the upper sheaths are sometimes smooth. Mature plants are generally 4 to 30 inches(10 to 75 cm)tall(Belliston et al. 2004). Control: Grazing can help control cheatgrass, and two grazing periods each spring are required for at least 2 consecutive years. Plants should first be grazed at the stage just before the inflorescences emerge and then grazed again before panicles emerge. Grazing intensity needs to be light enough to leave at least a 3-inch(7.6-cm)residual height to protect desirable grasses. Winter grazing of cheatgrass can reduce mulch,thereby hindering cheatgrass establishment and favoring perennial grass establishment in the spring(CSU 2000). Cutting is not recommended because cut plants will produce new stems and seeds at the cut height. Burning is usually effective after the plant has dried but before the seeds have dropped; however, some seeds will survive(CSU 2000). There are several types of herbicides that can be used alone or in combination to provide effective control. In most cases,herbicides should be applied in early spring when nontarget species are dormant. The best control is when the plants are 4 inches (10 cm)or less and growing vigorously. Spring-applied herbicides include quizalofop, fluazifop-p-butyl, sethoxydim, glyphosate, and imazapic. Fall herbicide applications should be conducted after cheatgrass seeds have germinated and are beginning to grow;these include sulfometuron methyl and metribuzin(CSU 2000). Sulfur Cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) Background: Sulfur cinquefoil is native to Eurasia and was likely introduced to the United States before 1900. It is established across much of the United States. This aggressive perennial can be found in disturbed areas,meadows,pasturelands and rangelands, and shrublands and along roadsides. Description: Sulfur cinquefoil is an erect herb that grows 1 to 2 feet(0.3 to 0.6 m)tall and has a dark tap root and branched, spreading lateral roots. The stem is woody and stout. Stem and basal leaves are palmately compound with five to seven coarsely toothed leaflets. Each stem branch terminates with a pale to yellow flower with five petals,with 20 to 40 flowers per plant. Seeds are small and ovate with narrow- winged margins. Stems and leaves have relatively sparse,long, coarse hairs(NRCS 2007). Control: Hand-pulling and hoeing may be a practical method of control on small populations of sulfur cinquefoil. Pulling must remove the caudex to be effective. Mowing will reduce flowering and seed production if applied before flowers bloom. D-29 Several herbicides are listed as providing temporary suppression of sulfur cinquefoil, including aminopyralid(5 to 7 ounces per acre),glyphosate(1 to 2 quarts per acre),metsulfuron(0.5 to 1.5 ounces per acre), and 2,4-D(1 to 2 quarts per acre)(MRCS 2007). TRAILS AND NATURAL LANDS NON-LISTED CONTROL SPECIES ACCOUNTS Non-listed control species are species that have been identified by TNL as undesirable in the SLC natural spaces. Many of these species are ornamental,non-native,or weedy species that do not support TNL's goal of creating native landscapes. The species in Table D-3 are examples of plants that TNL is currently attempting to monitor;this list may shrink or expand according to TNL's management goals. A subset of these species'backgrounds,descriptions,and control methods are available below Table D-3. Table D-3. Non-listed Species Weed Accounts Common Name Scientific Name Norway maple Acer platanoides Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima Madwort Alyssum spp. Common burdock Arctium minus Burningbush(kochia) Bassia scoparia Smooth brome Bromus inermis Chicory Cichorium intybus Single seed hawthorn Crataegus monogyna Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica English ivy Hedera helix Walnut species Juglans spp. Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Amur honeysuckle Lonicera maackii Tatarian honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica Alfalfa Medicago sativa Yellow sweet clover Melilotus officinalis Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia White poplar Populus alba Black poplar Populus nigra Chinese lantern Quincula lobata Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia Dog rose Rosa canina Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus Crack willow Salix fragilis Russian thistle Salsola tragus Tumble mustard Sisymbrium altissimum D-30 Common Name Scientific Name Salsify Tragopogon dubius Siberian elm Ulmus pumila Periwinkle spp. Vinca minor/major Sources:BIO-WEST,Inc.(2010);SWCA(2022). Norway Maple (Acer platanoides) Background: Norway maple is originally native to Europe,but the species has become a popular tree in urban areas of the United States. The species can tolerate a wide range of soil and climate conditions, making it well-suited for landscaping and planting along urban streets. Its shallow root system competes for nutrients with grasses and other ground cover species and can cause damage to paved areas. The dense canopy also limits light filtration to lower canopy species; thereby limiting species diversity. Description:Norway maple is a large, deciduous tree that can reach heights of 40 to 60 feet(12-18 m) and provide dense canopy cover. The two-winged seeds are most commonly dispersed by wind and form dense colonies of young plants.Norway maple can be distinguished from other species of Maples by the milky,white fluid that is produced when a stem is broken. Control: Mechanical removal is best achieved by hand-pulling seedlings when the soil is moist. Herbicide control can also be used by cutting the stem or trunk and applying glyphosate or triclopyr (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2022). Oil-based triclopyr ester products,which are systemic herbicides, can also be sprayed along the base and sides of the lower 12 to 18 inches(30-45 cm) of the cut stump. Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Background: Tree of heaven is originally native to central China and Taiwan and was first introduced to the eastern United States in the late 1700s. The species can tolerate a wide range of conditions, including poor soil and air quality,making it well-suited for disturbed and urban environments. By the early 1900s, the tree became recognized as a nuisance due to its rapid growth,prolific seeding and root sprouting, and the foul odor that is released by crushed foliage or broken stems. The species is now considered invasive in many urban areas. Description: Tree of heaven is a large, deciduous tree that has been known to reach heights of up to 80 feet(24 m) and diameters of 6 feet(2 m). The trees have extensive root systems and typically grow in dense,dioecious colonies,meaning all individuals of the colony are a single sex and clones of one another.Female trees can produce up to 300,000 seeds annually and saplings as young as 2 years can begin producing seed. Established trees produce allelopathic chemicals that inhibit establishment of other plant species (Wurzbacher et al. 2020). Control: Hand-pulling can be an effective treatment when the seedlings are young and the soil is moist; however,the entire root system must be removed to prevent re-sprouting. Other mechanical methods such as cutting, or mowing are ineffective because the tree will respond by producing large numbers of root suckers. It is most effective to treat the roots with systemic herbicides in mid-to late summer. Herbicides applied outside of this seasonal window will control re-growth above ground but will not transfer to the root system.Foliar application,basal bark application, and hack-and-squirt herbicide applications are also D-31 effective with repeated monitoring and treatment. Dense stands should be treated initially with foliar application,and then followed up with basal or hack-and-squirt application. Herbicides,including dicamba, glyphosate,imazapyr,metsulfuron methyl, and triclopyr are effective at treating tree of heaven. A combination of glyphosate and triclopyr provides a broad-spectrum treatment against woody species and pose little risk to nontarget organisms through root uptake or the soil. Burdock (Arctium minus) Background: Burdock is common throughout the world but most likely originated in Europe and Asia. Its Velcro-like spines allow it to be transported on fur and clothing. It has been used for centuries for its medicinal and edible qualities,and human-introduced populations may have contributed to its wide range (Washington State University 2013). Description: Burdock is a biennial plant,having first-year basal leaves that are large(over 12 inches [30 cm] across) and second year stems that can reach 5 to 10 feet(1.5 to 3.0 m). Seed heads have long, hooked bracts that attach to fur and clothing. Control: First-year rosettes are easily controlled using herbicides with 2,4-D. Mature plants can be controlled by manual removal before flowers and burs are formed. Efforts will most likely have to be repeated during the growing season because the plants tend to regenerate from an extensive taproot. Burningbush (Kochia) (Bassia scoparia) Background: Burningbush is originally native to eastern Europe and western Asia and was introduced to North America in the mid to late 1800s. The species has become prolific throughout North America, particularly in and and semi-arid regions. Burningbush is commonly found in disturbed areas such as agricultural pastures,rangelands, and urban environments. Description: Burningbush is an annual forb species that blooms mid-summer and continues seed production until the first seasonal frost. Burningbush is a drought tolerant species and is well adapted to alkaline soil conditions. The root system contains a central taproot with branched fibrous roots allowing the plant to deeply penetrate the soil in drought conditions. The stem of the mature, dry plant breaks free from the root to become tumbleweed in the fall. Mature burningbush emits a toxin into the surrounding soil which prevents other plant species from establishing. It is also considered toxic to livestock and other grazing animals(Utah State University 2022). Control: Plowing or deep tilling in the early spring is an effective method to controlling seed emergence by inverting the soil and burying the seed to a depth where it is no longer able to germinate. Mowing before or during flowering may reduce seed production; however repeated efforts will be needed each year to limit regrowth. Burningbush has evolved resistance to several herbicides, especially glyphosate. Dicamba or fluroxypyr are commonly used to combat glyphosate-resistant strains.Diversifying weed management strategies are necessary to preserve and extend the longevity of chemical control methods. Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis) Background: Smooth brome is originally native to Europe and was introduced as forage for domestic livestock. Because it is an aggressive colonizer, it is considered a weedy species and often outcompetes desirable,native grass species. D-32 Description: Smooth brome is a perennial species with a rhizomatous root structure that produces dense sod mats,making it a suitable species for rangeland rehabilitation and erosion control. The grass reproduces both from seed and rhizomes. It is best adapted to loamy soils; however,the grass is also moderately salt tolerant and found at a range of elevations from 3,000 to 12,000 feet. Control: Smooth brome may become unproductive when mowed or grazed close to the base of the sod mat. Mowing should be conducted after the inflorescence has swelled in its sheath,but prior to emergence. Post-emergence, smooth brome is best treated by foliar spray application. Single Seed (English) Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) Background: Single seed hawthorn is originally native to Asia,Europe,and Northern Africa and was introduced to North America in the 1800s. The species colonizes disturbed soils and grows in dense, thorny thickets,which suppresses native vegetation. It has also been known to hybridize with native hawthorn to create a more competitive and weedier hybrid species,thereby reducing native plant variety (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board 2022). Description: Single seed hawthorn is a deciduous shrub in the Rosaceae(rose) family that grows in lowland areas and in a variety of soil types. The stems of the leaves are often tipped with thorns and the tree reproduces by seeded fruit that is sometimes dispersed by birds or other animals. Control: Manual removal can be accomplished by hand-pulling small seedlings or cutting back established trees in the early summer before the trees begin to fruit. When hand-pulling,it is important to remove as much of the root system as possible to prevent re-sprouting and cut plants should be removed from site to prevent regeneration from cutting. Herbicide application is necessary following manual control. There is currently limited data on the effectiveness of cut stem applications; however,glyphosate, triclopyr,or imazapyr are generally recommended.Foliar sprays have not shown to be a reliable control method and may cause damage to non-target species. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) Background: Green ash is a fast growing, ornamental tree that is native to eastern North America. It is well adapted to a wide range of soil and moisture conditions and is drought tolerant once established. Green ash is commonly used for landscaping. Description: Green ash is a deciduous tree that is part of the Oleacea or Olive family. The tree is dioecious,meaning stands of trees are either all male or all females. Female trees are prolific seeders. Control: Green ash is rarely considered weedy in North America, and control methods of this species are not well documented as a result. However,control methods for other tree species should work similarly for green ash. Girdling may be a viable option for the control of mature green ash. Girdled trees die over the course of 1 to 2 years and have been reported not to re-sprout if the girdling is implemented correctly. This practice should be implemented in late spring to mid-summer. When girdling, avoid cutting into the woody part of the tree and only strip a band through the bark. Often,when woody portions of trunks are impacted,re-sprouting from the roots can occur. Seedlings and small trees can be removed by pulling or using a weed wrench or grubbing hoe. Glyphosate may be used as cut-stem application for large trees and re-sprouts.Herbicide applications should be applied during fall or winter to prevent spring re-sprouts (BIO-WEST,Inc. 2010). D-33 English Ivy (Hedera helix) Background: English ivy is originally native to Europe,Asia, and Northern Africa and was introduced to the United States in the 1700s as an ornamental plan. It grows in thick mats that block sunlight and crowds out other plant species. English ivy may be present as ground cover in forested or riparian areas and can climb adjacent vertical elements, such as trees,fences,and buildings. Because it has a shallow root system and low stem density, English ivy performs poorly in terms of serving the riparian functions of bank stabilization and nutrient filtration(Williamson 2021). Description: English ivy is an evergreen perennial climbing vine that reproduces from seed and sprouting from root like stems. The leaves have a dark green, smooth,waxy surface,which makes herbicide applications ineffective. The ivy grows best in moist and shaded soils,making riparian areas prone to infestation. Control: Manual control has been cited as one of the best options for effective control of English ivy. Mowing,raking,pulling, and digging accessible plants are viable options. Revegetation with native understory plants should always accompany English ivy removal efforts to prevent new weedy species from colonizing disturbed soils. Walnut Species (Juglans spp.) Background: The walnut tree is originally native to the Balkan Peninsula and China. It is a commercially recognized species,known for its hardy wood and edible fruit. It is also planted in urban environments as an ornamental species. All species of the walnut family(Juglandaceae)produce an allelopathic compound called juglone that is found in fruit, leaves and branches. It can also be excreted from the root system into the soil. Some native herbaceous species and wildlife are sensitive to the compound. Description: Walnut species are large,deciduous trees that grow well in temperate environments. The male and female reproductive organs are borne in different petal-less flower clusters,known as catkins, on the same tree. Seedlings grow quickly and are drought tolerant once established. Control: Young seedlings can be hand-pulled when the soil is moist. Larger or more established trees will need to be removed by cut stump and herbicide application. Prickly Lettuce (Lactuca serriola) Background: Prickly lettuce is originally native to Europe and Asia and was introduced to North America in 1860. It is a quick-colonizing species and is often found along areas of disturbance such as roads,railroads, sidewalks,vacant lots,pastures, and cultivated fields. Because the weed is commonly found in agricultural areas, it can have detrimental effects on harvesting efficiency and crop value. Description: Prickly lettuce is a winter annual species that is part of the sunflower family(Asteraceae). It has a deep tap root which exudes a milky,white sap when broken.Although the species is a prolific seeder,the seed only remains viable in the soil for up to 3 years(Utah State University 2022). Control: Seedlings and rosettes are easily controlled by hand-pulling or cultivation. Viable biocontrol methods include grazing by herds of sheep or goats. Pre-emergence herbicide applications containing atrazine,metribuzin, chlorsulfuron, isoxaben,oxyfluorfen, oxadiazon or terbacil are most effective for controlling germination. Post-emergence applications of 2,4-D, MCPA, dicamba,chlorsulfuron+ metsulfuron,pyrasulfotole,bromoxynil,clopyralid,metribuzin,tribenuron or thifensulfuron- D-34 methyl/tribenuron-methyl,can be applied to the rosette stage in the fall or spring. Prickly lettuce has become resistant to Group II herbicides(including glyphosate)in the northwestern United States(Chadha and Singarayer 2021). Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackit) Background: Amur honeysuckle is originally native to Eastern Asia and was introduced to the United States in the late 1800s as an ornamental species. It establishes quickly in disturbed areas and a variety of soils. The leaves,roots and fruits of Amur honeysuckle produce allelopathic chemicals that inhibit the germination and growth of a variety of native species(McNeish and McEwan 2016). Description: Amur honeysuckle is a large,perennial shrub that is differentiated from other bush honeysuckle species by its relatively large size,tapered tips of the leaves, and short stems connecting the flowers and fruits. It produces leaves early in the spring and sheds leaves later in the fall than most native species,providing a longer growing season. Control: Amur honeysuckle has a relatively shallow root system,making manual removal possible for both small and large plants. Intensive mowing can also be an effective control method. The initial mowing should be done late in the growing season,preferably cutting plants 2 inches(5 cm)from the soil surface. Regrowth and new seedlings should be mowed or cut once every 2 weeks during the subsequent growing seasons until regrowth is diminished significantly.Amur honeysuckle regrows vigorously from cut stems and stumps after injury, so methods that top-kill plants, such as prescribed fire,grazing, and stem cutting,are unlikely to provide effective long-term control(Munger 2005).Foliar application of herbicides is effective and should be applied in the fall to minimize impacts to surrounding vegetation. Tatarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) Background: Tatarian honeysuckle is originally from Asia but escaped cultivation during its history. It is a highly adaptable species that can take advantage of many different environments and is often found in woodlands,meadows, and along fence lines. Tatarian honeysuckle can grow into dense mats or understory thickets that choke out native species and create monocultures on the landscape. It disperses quickly via birds and other animals who eat the seeds (North Carolina Extension 2022b). Description: Tatarian honeysuckle is a perennial vining shrub with untoothed oblong to oval—shaped leaves, and bright red-orange berries that occur in pairs on leaf axils. Leaf bases may be rounded or heart- shaped, leaves are widest below the middle of the leaf, and are usually hairless (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2023). Tatarian honeysuckle can be differentiated from other honeysuckles by its flower color and leaf shape as well as its phenology. This species sets leaves earlier and drops leaves later than native species (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2023). Control: Small plants can be dug out by hand,ensuring the entire root crown is removed. Mowing or cutting back vegetation may be effective if followed up with chemical controls. Larger shrubs can be eliminated through cut-stump treatments using glyphosate or triclopyr ester,basal bark treatments of triclopyr ester,or foliage sprays of glyphosate in the early spring(prior to native species foliation) (Parke and Renz 2012). Yellow Sweet Clover (Melilotus officinalis) Background: Sweet clover is originally native to Europe and Asia and was imported to North America as a cover crop and feed for livestock. It also provides forage for wildlife and is attractive to pollinators. Sweet clover is a prolific seed producer and seed can remain viable in the soil for 30 to 40 years. It is D-35 drought tolerant and can withstand extremely cold temperatures. Sweet clover contains a substance called coumarin,which is converted to dicoumarol by fungus under wet conditions. Dicoumarol is toxic to wildlife and livestock. Description: Yellow sweet clover is a biennial forb in the legume family. It has a deep taproot system that penetrates the subsoil and fixes high levels of nitrogen in clay dominate soils. It can be distinguished from Alfalfa by its trifoliate leaves and toothed edges. Control: Because sweet clover readily reproduces by seed production, it is best to target removal before the seeds are formed. Small populations are easily controlled by hand-pulling. Other mechanical removal methods such as mowing, discing, and prescribed burns are effective for larger populations. Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) Background: Virginia creeper is originally native to North America. It is considered a weedy species because it is drought tolerant and spreads rapidly by attaching its branching tendrils to vertical and horizontal surfaces. It is often used as an ornamental species or soil stabilizer. Description: Virginia creeper is a deciduous,woody vine species with elliptical-shaped leaves and saw- toothed edges.It can be distinguished from other ivy species by its leaflets that grow in groups of five. Though the leaves are non-toxic,the berries contain high concentrations of oxalic acid,which is moderately toxic to humans and dogs. Control: Repeated,manual removal is necessary for controlling the spread of Virginia creeper; however, the only way to kill the vine is glyphosate herbicide application(Oliver 2022). Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) See Appendix B for detailed information regarding black locust control. Crack Willow (Salix fragilis) Background: Crack willow is originally native to Europe,Asia, and northern Africa and was introduced to north America as an ornamental species.As the tree matures,the bark becomes stiff and develops deep fissures, causing the branches to snap easily and create a loud cracking sound. Crack willows grow quickly and hybridize with other native willow species. Description: Crack willow is a large, deciduous tree that is often associated with riparian systems. The tree reproduces by seed,root suckers, and from fragmented twigs that are often carried downstream and re-sprout. The leaves are long and slender. They can be differentiated from white willow leaves because they are shorter and lack fine hairs on the underside of the leaves. The crack willow is dioicous and female trees are prolific seeders. Control: Crack willow is best controlled with a multi-approach method. First,manually cut the tree just above ground level and secondly, apply watershed safe glyphosate products. It is best to apply the herbicide directly to the cut stump immediately after removal.All fragments of stems,branches, and leaves should be removed from site and burned to prevent re-sprouting(Cao and Berent 2022). D-36 Salsify (Tragopogon dubius) Background: Salsify is originally native to Eurasia and Northern Africa and was introduced to North America as a food plant and ornamental species. It quickly colonizes disturbed landscapes and is now readily established over most of North America. Description: Salsify is a biennial forb that produces grass-like rosette the first year and stalks and flower heads the second year of growth. They produce long, slender leaves and are easily identifiable by their yellow flowers and enlarged, green stems directly below the flower heads. Seeds are dispersed by wind (University of Nevada—Reno 2022). Control: Hand-pulling or mowing is effective for young plants or before salsify goes to seed. If manually removing mature plants, care must be taken to ensure the taproot is removed. The seeds are shallow germinators and can be controlled by overturning the soil or applying a deep mulch layer on top of the soil. Larger and mature populations are best controlled with post-emergent herbicide applications. Herbicides currently labeled for western salsify control include ChaparralO (metsulfuron methyl+ aminopyralid) at 3.0 to 3.3 ounces per acre,CimarronO Plus or X-tra(chlorsulfuron+metsulfuron methyl) at 1.25 to 2 ounces per acre, and EscortO(metsulfuron methyl)at 1 to 2 ounces per acre (Mangold 2017). Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila) Background: Siberian elm is originally native to Northern China and eastern Siberia and was introduced to the United States in the mid-1800s. It was primarily used as a windbreak during the Dust Bowl era and became popular due to its ability to withstand poor soils and drought conditions. They are frequently found in riparian areas and out compete native species for sunlight and water resources. Description: Siberian elm is a large, deciduous tree with alternating, elliptical-shaped leaves. The leaves can be differentiated from other elm species by their single toothed edges. They are prolific seeders, and the seeds are primarily dispersed by wind. Control: Girdling the trunks has been cited as a viable option for the control of mature Siberian elm. Girdled trees die over the course of 1 to 2 years and have been reported not to re-sprout if the girdling is implemented correctly. This practice should be implemented in late spring to mid-summer. When girdling, avoid cutting into the woody part of the tree and only strip a band through the bark. Often,when woody portions of trunks are impacted,re-sprouting from the roots can occur. Seedlings and small trees can be removed by pulling or using a weed wrench or grubbing hoe. The use of glyphosate is recommended for use as cut-stem application for large trees and re-sprouts. Herbicide applications are recommended during fall or winter to prevent spring re-sprouts. There are no known available biocontrols for Siberian elm(BIO-WEST,Inc. 2010). Periwinkle Vine (Vinca major/Vinca minor) Background: Periwinkle is originally native to Europe and was introduced to North America in the 1700s as an ornamental species. Periwinkle can form dense and extensive carpets on the forest floor that cover large areas of ground in a monotypic evergreen color, smothering native wildflowers and other herbaceous or woody species. It grows vigorously and can thrive in complete shade and even poor soil. Description: Periwinkle vine is a perennial,herbaceous species that is low growing and has a trailing or climbing habit. The foliage is a deep green with a glossy or smooth leaf surface and purple blooms. D-37 Because it has a shallow root system and low stem density,periwinkle vine performs poorly in terms of serving the riparian functions of bank stabilization and nutrient filtration. Control: Periwinkle vine can be removed by digging,raising the runners with a rake,and mowing the plants.All of the plant must be removed. It can also be controlled by cutting the plants in the spring followed by applying a glyphosate herbicide to the regrowth. The uptake of applied herbicide may be limited due to the waxy leaves characteristic of periwinkle species. It is recommended that a combination of mechanical and chemical controls be implemented for increased success in control efforts. The herbicide Rodeo®has been approved to use near water. It is suggested that by specifically treating young/new growth, applied herbicide can be more effective.No biocontrols have been identified for periwinkle vine. Revegetation with native understory plants should always accompany English ivy removal efforts. Revegetation areas should be monitored for successful regrowth of desirable species. D-38 APPENDIX E Herbicide and Pesticide Information Herbicides that can be used in natural areas include the chemicals in Table E-1. Table E-2 provides the listed noxious and target TNL species most effectively controlled by herbicides, and Table E-3 provides information on watershed-safe herbicides for riparian areas or other water-related habitats. E-1 Table E-1. Herbicide Toxicity Rating and Advisories Active Ingredient Trade Names EPA Toxicity Category Rating" PAN Bad Signal Restricted Groundwater Selectivity Actor Wordt Entry Contaminant Acute Acute Acute Primary Primary Chemical* Interval Rating Oral Dermal Inhalation Eye Skin (REI)$ Irritation Irritation Chlorsulfuron Corsair§ II II II III IV Yes WARNING Once dry Potential Yes Landmark XP¶ Telar XP" Glyphosate Roundup III III III III IV Not listed CAUTION 24 hours Potential No Prodiamine Barricade III IV IV N/A IV Not listed CAUTION Once dry N/A Yes Aminopyralid Milestone IV IV IV IV IV Not listed CAUTION 12 hours Potential Yes Metsulfuron methyl Escort IV III IV III II Not listed CAUTION 4 hours Potential Yes Pendimethalin Prowl III IV IV III IV Not listed CAUTION 24 hours Potential Yes 2,4-D Amine(salt form) 2,4-D Amine, II II III 1 IV Yes DANGER Once dry Potential Yes numerous others Note:N/A=not applicable. Sources:DuPont(2011);EPA(2018,2019);Kegley et al.(2016);Nufarm Americas(2018);Syngenta(2022);Toolway Industries Ltd.(2022). *PAN Bad Actor Chemicals are chemicals that are one or more of the following:highly acutely toxic,cholinesterase inhibitor,known/probable carcinogen,known groundwater pollutant,or known reproductive or developmental toxicant. 'EPA toxicity category rating levels are as follows:I=high toxicity,II=moderate toxicity,III=low toxicity,IV=very low toxicity. t Signal word determination based on EPA Label Review Manual. t REI for uses of herbicides that are NOT within the scope of the Worker Protection Standard for agricultural pesticides. §Corsair is the only formulation of chlorsulfuron approved for lawns. ¶Landmark XP contains sulfometuron methyl(50%),which is not listed as an approved chemical by SLC. #Telar XP is approved for use in unimproved turf only.Not approved for lawns. E-2 Table E-2. Target Weed Species Effectively Controlled by Herbicide Aminopyralid(Milestone) Common Name Scientific Name Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens Burdock Arctium minus Musk thistle Carduus nutans Yellow star-thistle Centaurea solstitialis Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe spp.micranthos Squarrose knapweed Centaurea virgata Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium Metsulfuron Methyl(Escort) Common Name Scientific Name Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata Hoary cress Cardana draba Poison hemlock Conium maculatum Fixweed Descurainia sophia Dyer's woad Isatis tinctona Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium Curly dock Rumex crispus Tumble mustard Sisymbrium altissimum Smooth brome Bromus inermis Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Amur honeysuckle Lonicera maackii Yellow sweet clover Melilotus officinalis Black locust Robina pseudoacacia Crack willow Salix fragilis Salsify Tragopogon dubius Siberian elm Ulmus pumila Single seed hawthorn Crataegus monogyna E-3 2,4-D Amine Common Name Scientific Name Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Hoary cress Cardana draba Amur honeysuckle Lonicera maackii Burningbush(Kochia) Bassia scoparia Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium Russian thistle Salsola tragus Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica St.Johnswort Hypericum perforatum Salsify Tragopogon porrifolius Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica Glyphosate Common Name Scientific Name Burningbush(Kochia) Bassia scoparia Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Smooth brome Bromus inermis Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense Knapweed Centaurea spp. Phragmites Phragmites australis Poison hemlock Conium maculatum Quackgrass Elymus repens Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Yellow star-thistle Centaurea solstitialis Canada thistle Cirsium arvense E-4 Chlorsulfuron Common Name Scientific Name Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Dyer's woad Isatis tinctoria Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris Poison hemlock Conium maculatum Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens Musk thistle Carduus nutans Hoary cress Cardana draba Yellow star-thistle Centaurea solstitialis Pendimethalin Common Name Scientific Name Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Spurge Conium spp. Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris Burningbush(Kochia) Bassia scoparia Prodiamine Common Name Scientific Name Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense Burningbush(Kochia) Bassia scoparia Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Spurge Conium spp. Aminopyralid Noxious and invasive broadleaf species that are controlled by Milestone consist of species found in the sunflower family,including thistles,knapweeds, and oxeye daisy. There is little or no injury to desirable cool- and warm-season grasses. Labeled weeds can be controlled at rates from 4 to 7 fluid ounces per acre.Milestone does not tend to vaporize into the atmosphere from a treated surface and will be absorbed into the leaf within 2 hours following application(Corteva 2022). Milestone translocates into foliage and moves quickly throughout the entire plant,accumulating in meristematic tissues, disrupting plant growth and therefore killing the entire plant.Fall foliar applications are highly effective,with the residual herbicide remaining in the soil and controlling germination and emergence of seedlings the following spring. This product is not recommended for use on turf because the residual herbicide that remains in the clippings may pose a threat to untargeted plants if used as mulch or E-5 compost.Milestone has been registered under the Reduced Risk Pesticide Initiative of the EPA. This formula is safe to apply up to the water's edge(Dow 2011). Metsulfuron Methyl Escort is registered for post-emergent control of annual and perennial weeds primarily in the mustard family, including hoary cress,perennial pepperweed, and dyer's woad. Best results are achieved when flowers are budding but not yet opened. Treatment on flowering plants is less effective, and plants will still set seed. Typical application rates range from 0.5 to 2 ounces per acre(DuPont 2011). Escort stops cell division in the shoots and roots of the plants. The EPA has classified metsulfuron methyl as Toxicity Class III: caution(low toxicity: caution). The residue is very irritating but not corrosive to the eyes,is moderately irritating to the skin,but has low to very low toxicity if ingested or inhaled. This product breaks down quickly, eliminates from the body, and does not bioaccumulate in fish. The half-life is typically 30 days,with faster breakdown in moist,warm soils. It is highly mobile and has the potential to contaminate adjacent waterways;therefore, it is advised to maintain an untreated 50-foot buffer adjacent to rivers, streams, and ponds (DuPont 2011). 2,4-D Amine (Salt Form) 2,4-D is an herbicide and plant growth regulator. Target organisms include terrestrial and aquatic broadleaf weeds. It has little effect on grasses. It causes uncontrolled cell division in vascular tissue. The salt form is absorbed by the roots of plants(Gervais et al. 2008). 2,4-D has high toxic characteristics when exposed to eyes, can cause skin irritation, and low toxicity for dermal exposure. Always follow the label and wear appropriate personal protective equipment when handling herbicides.Unlike the esters,the amine salt form of 2,4-D is identified as"practically non-toxic to freshwater or marine fish"(EPA 2005). Glyphosate Glyphosate is the most common broad-spectrum herbicide that controls broadleaf weeds and grasses. It targets the key enzyme of the shikimate pathway that synthesizes three essential amino acids in plants. The shikimate pathway is also found in prokaryotes and fungi, and glyphosate may have negative impacts on diversity and composition of microbial communities(Lein et al. 2021). In particular, it has been used for purple loosestrife, field bindweed,yellow star-thistle,thistles, and toadflax. Some plants develop resistance to Glyphosate and it should be used in combination with other methods(i.e.,pulling, seeding, etc.). According to the EPA, glyphosate has potential risk to terrestrial and aquatic plants,mammals, and birds, and low toxicity to honeybees; however,risk to bees is uncertain at application rates above 5.7 pounds acid equivalent per acre(EPA 2022). Azafenidin Azafenidin has a specific target organ toxicity of repeated exposure Category 2, Category Acute 1 and Chronic 1 to aquatic environment, and reproductive toxicity Category I (Guidechem 2017).Azafenidin is a phototoxic herbicide that acts by inhibiting protoporphyrinogen oxidase in the heme and chlorophyll biosynthetic pathway. It is often used to control weeds in fruit crops(Giammarrusti et al. 1998). E-6 Chlorsulfuron Chlorsulfuron is used as a pre-and post-emergent herbicide to control a variety of weeds, including perennial broad-leaf plants and grasses. Chlorsulfuron inhibits the synthesis of branched chain amino acids,which stops cell growth. Studies have shown adverse effects to small mammals in long-term dietary exposure and little to no acute toxicity to mammals via oral or dermal exposure(ENSR International 2005). Chlorsulfuron is"practically non-toxic"to freshwater fish,birds, and mammals on acute exposure. It ranged from practically non-toxic to very highly toxic on aquatic plant communities (EPA 2015). Chlorsulfuron can be effective on bull, scotch, and Canada thistle,dyer's woad,pepperweed, puncturevine,poison hemlock,houndstongue,Russian knapweed,musk thistle,yellow star-thistle, foxtail,and hoary cress. It is less effective on weeds that are hardened off by cold weather or under stress from lack of water. It should not be used as an application in aquatic environments(EPA 2015). Pendimethalin Pendimethalin is a selective herbicide used to control broadleaf weeds and grasses. It exhibits low acute toxicity in lab animals, slight toxicity by oral or eye route and Toxicity Category III for these effects. It is "practically non-toxic"by the dermal and inhalation routes,Toxicity Category IV(EPA 1997). Pendimethalin is a meristematic inhibitor that interferes with the plant's cellular division or mitosis. Species targeted include cheatgrass, spurge,puncturevine, and burningbush(kochia). The product should not be used in aquatic environments as it is toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms(EPA 2008). Prodiamine Prodiamine is often pre-emergent herbicide that is often bundled with a fertilizer to control annual grasses and broadleaf weeds. It is often applied to bermudagrass,Johnsongrass,burningbush(kochia),green ash, and spurge. According to the label amendment, species that are tolerant to the herbicide include maple, hawthorn,English ivy,walnut,and honeysuckle. This herbicide is commonly used on grasses;therefore, a sight should be assessed prior to application to ensure minimal impacts to desired grass species (EPA 2014). Toxicity includes inhalation-category 4, skin sensitizer-category 1B,organ toxicity category 2 and 3, carcinogen category IA. At the limit of solubility,it is not toxic to fish,but at concentrations substantially above the level of water solubility it may be toxic to fish(EPA 2014). Table E-3. Salt Lake City Watershed-Safe Herbicide List 2022 Name Brand Name Active Ingredients Use Related Documents Herbicides 2,4-D Amine(Salt Weed-B-Gon MAX Dimethylamine salt of 2,4-D- Terrestrial MSDS,2,4-D technical form) Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid information,2,4-D Toxicity Study 1,2,4-D Toxicity Study 2 Metsulfuron Escort/Ally Methyl 2-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5- Terrestrial Specimen Label& trazine-2- MSDS ylcarbamoylsulfamoyl)benzoate E-7 Name Brand Name Active Ingredients Use Related Documents Glyphosate Roundup N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine Terrestrial Specimen Label& MSDS Aminopyralid Milestone/Forefront 2-pyridine carboxylic acid,4-amino-3- Terrestrial Specimen Label& 6-dichloro MSDS Azafenidin Milestone 2-[2,4-dichloro-5-(2- Aquatic Specimen Label& (Azafenidin) propynyloxy)phenyl]-5,6,7,8- MSDS tetrahydro-1,2,4-triazolo[4,3- a]pyridin-3(2H)-one Chlorsulfuron Landmark XP/Telar 2-Chloro-N[(4-methoxy-6-methyl- Terrestrial Specimen Label& XP 1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)aminocarbonyl]- MSDS benzenesulfonamide Pendimethalin Prowl N-(1-ethyl propyl)-2,6-dinitro-3,4- Terrestrial Specimen Label& MSDS Prodiamine Barricade N3,N3-Di-n-propyl-2,4-dinitro-6- Terrestrial Specimen Label& (trifluoromethyl)-m-phenylenediamine MSDS E-8 LITERATURE CITED Corteva. 2022. Milestone fact sheet. Available at: http://www.dowagro.com/range/resource/milestone_faq.htm. Accessed November 2022. DuPont. 2011. Dupont Escort XP Herbicide Label. Formerly available at: http://www2.dupont.com/Production_Agriculture/en_US/label_msds_info/labels/H65699.pdf. Last accessed April 8,2011. ENSR International. 2005. Chlorsulfuron, Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. Gervais,J.,B. Luukinen,K. Buhl, and D. Stone. 2008. 2,4-D Technical Fact Sheet.National Pesticide Information Center, Oregon State University Extension Services. Available at: http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/2,4-DTech.html.Accessed October 14,2022. Giammarrusti, L. D. Cunsolo, G. Fabian, and C. Gamberini. 1998. Azafenidin.A new herbicide for weed control in grapes -citrus and olive orchards.Atti delle Giaonate Fitopatologiche 339-344. Guidechem. 2017. Azafenidin Safety Data Sheet. According to Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals(GHS): Sixth revised edition. Available at: https://www.guidechem.com/msds/68049-83-2.html.Accessed October 17, 2022. Kegley, S.E.,B.R. Hill, S. Orme,and A.H. Choi. 2016. PAN Pesticide Database.Pesticide Action Network,North America. Available at: http://www.pesticideinfo.org.Accessed August 20, 2016. Leino L., T. Tall,M. Helander, I. Saloniemi,K. Saikkonen, S. Ruuskanen, and P. Puigbo. 2021. Classification of the glyphosate target enzyme(5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) for assessing sensitivity of organisms to the herbicide.JHazard Mater 408:124556. Nufarm Americas. 2018. Products.Available at: http://www.nufann.com/USTO/Products.Accessed August 20,2018. Toolway Industries Ltd. 2022. Roundup. Available at: https://www.toolway.com/scotts-roundup- 1/roundup-advanced-grass-and-weed-control-rtu-11-88001015.Accessed November 2022. Syngenta Corporation. 2022. Turf and Landscape Product Portfolio.Available at: https://www.syngenta.co.uk/products/search/crop-protection.Accessed November 2022. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). 1991. Memorandum: Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1997.Pendimethalin RED Facts. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem search/ reg_actions/reregistration/fs_PC-108501_1-Jun-97.pdf. Accessed October 17,2022. 2005. 2,4-D RED Facts.Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem search/ reg_actions/reregistration/fs_PC-030001_30-Jun-05.pdf. Accessed October 14, 2022. 2008.Label Amendment Add Sites &PRN 2007-4, Pendimethalin 3.3 EC.Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/034704-00868-20081120.pdf.Accessed October 18,2022. E-9 2018.Label Review Manual Chapter 7:Precautionary Statements. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-04/documents/chap-07-mar-2018.pdf. Accessed November 2022. 2019.National Pesticide Information Center.Available at: http://npic.orst.edu/index.html. Accessed August 20,2019. 2014.Label Amendment:Removal of drainage ditch uses, Prodiamine 65WG Herbicide. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/066222-00089-2014073l.pdf. Accessed October 18, 2022. 2015.Label Notification per PRN 2007-4 Adding Storage and Disposal Language for Non refillable Plastic Bags, Product Name:Alligare Chlorsulfuron 75. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/081927-00043-20150505.pdf.Accessed October 2022. 2022. Glyphosate.Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide- products/glyphosate. Accessed October 17,2022. E-10 �� - � :i r !"�al(a��:�. - � �S••�7� •mob. '. ._��-_ �' " sar �► � Cy��9� .. r- Green Loop r U date p i% `= -So " t 1 A ^ _ �. e• � �— INTRODUCTION The idea for a Green Loop has been around for a while, Salt Lake City has a bold vision for sustainable growth that starting with a concept in the Chamber of Commerce's 2007 retains the unique balance of urban nature that has long Downtown Rising Vision Plan and more fully described in the defined Utah's capital city. The Green Loop will be Salt Lake 2016 Downtown Master Plan adopted by the City Council. City's signature thoroughfare —easing traffic, lowering heat, and offering countless opportunities to connect, relax, and The SLC Green Loop is an opportunity to incorporate: play. An urban forest Safe and comfortable Stormwater filtration walking and biking routes and retention The Green Loop will add green and park spaces in the Central Community, which is the area in the City with the greatest need highest frequency of visits. Waterwise Cool and comfortable landscapes and places for people Brings • to •/ acres of green space of 94O O O urban habitat Includes up to 50 trees per block, cooling our acres needed by 2040 to keep up with growth. 6 4R streets down and creating an •" forest. An assessment of the entire route along with the concept design for the 200 East portion of the project is currently Transformsmiles • underway and intends to better understand the components of bikeways,create • additional r• • • what a Green Loop could be and to confirm opportunities, all barriers, and implementation costs. Feeding into this work is •_ inviting . . • .• "• • • • seniors.. • - • feedback from engagement efforts, which included a pop-up park on 200 East between 300 and 400 South in the Summer Connects • •" neighborhood of 2023. byways, and transit network to encourage lighter car use downtown and throughout the city This document highlights where we have been, what is in Creates spaces that are designed to be inclusive progress, and next steps to implement the Green Loop. and welcoming for all to use . enjoy. 1 VISION 200 East Green Loop pop-up in 2023. They are in priority order, based on what has been heard from constituents. The Green Loop is a revolutionary approach to the city's public realm, converting portions of right-of-way to a transformative • Develop a robust downtown urban forest green space and a valuable community asset. Adding • Serve as an active transportation corridor for greenery alongside gathering spaces and multimodal walking and biking pathways will help cool downtown, provide more travel . Improve water quality through stormwater options, better manage stormwater, and improve water quality. management • Create inviting social spaces that provide a variety of amenities and attractions # Create public front yards and gardens within the Downtown that support the needs of all users. 31 Rai we.� x fe.. 17. ,Oyy,K• Yc y While innovative within Salt Lake City, other cities around the £ country have recently constructed similar projects, transforming their downtowns, strengthening their economies, and providing transformative transportation options for their s, residents. Examples include Boston's Rose Kennedy , Greenway, the Indianapolis Cultural Trail, Atlanta's Beltline, Lexington's Town Branch Commons, and Ogden Utah's Grant GREEN SPACES Avenue Promenade. The Green Loop would integrate up to 60 acres of green GUIDING PRINCIPLES space/infrastructure in our downtown neighborhood, a neighborhood experiencing rapid population growth with very These guiding principles for the Green Loop have been little existing green space. Significantly reducing the distilled from public input on the project, compiled during the hardscape along the green loop corridor to make way for 2 trees, shade, plants, people, play and recreation will create a on foot, by bike, or from public transportation, the shade and more livable and family-friendly downtown. cooler environment of the green loop will support a more The Green Loop will increase the density, diversity, biomass, hospitable travel experience even in the hotter days of and cooling capacity of the downtown urban forest by adding summer. thousands of trees. More space for larger varieties of trees to grow to maturity means more shade and cooler temperatures. Transportation connections created through this project are vast, thanks to the bike and path networks throughout the City Integrating permeable pavements and gardens to accept that will be linked together through this project. One could surface stormwater reduces flash flooding from large storm begin their journey near or on the Jordan River Trail, connect events and supports a diversity of native and naturalized to the Green Loop on the 9-Line or Folsom Trail, and stop in plants that bring birds and pollinators to our doorstep. Plants treat water where it falls to improve water quality. Shaded downtown or continue to a destination in Sugarhouse via the green spaces can be as much as 10-15 degrees cooler than McClelland Trail or continue traveling east on the Parley's nearby sunbaked paved areas, extending the time we can Trail. The Green Loop fills the missing middle in the heart of enjoy being outdoors. Plants help filter air, remove pollutants downtown to a network that already connects people to and produce oxygen. destinations across the City. Green spaces make life better for people. The Green Loop improves connectivity for active transportation in and around RESILIENCY downtown, it can be a place to exercise, relax, play, and enjoy Stormwater quality areas are integrated along the Green Loop nature. The mature trees and diverse plantings make commercial areas more vibrant and neighborhoods appear to infiltrate surface stormwater and improve water quality. nicer. It connects us to nature, the plants provide homes to These infiltration areas also mitigate the impact of frequency of birds, insects and other animals. The green loop brings nature surface stormwater flooding during large summer storms. to downtown to make better living spaces through resiliency, Infiltration areas support a diversity of plant species and add beauty and connections. nature to the urban core. MULTIMODAL CONNECTIVITY Incorporating a private utility vault in the redesigned corridor will improve management of the private utilities and offer better The project will provide vital transportation connections, access for the utilities to manage their infrastructure. especially for people of all ages and abilities traveling by foot Collaboration with Public Utilities has defined access and bicycle. The Green Loop itself, and via connections to requirements to manage underground utilities and design other trails and byways, will connect neighborhoods strategies to reduce below ground conflicts. throughout the city to downtown. For those commuting to work 3 HISTORY OF THE GREEN LOOP keep pace with increased downtown residential growth. This plan from Public Lands recommends the Green Loop as a The concept of the Green Loop was first proposed nearly 20 transformative project to meet level of service goals for park years ago, in the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce's 2007 Downtown Rising Vision Plan. More recently, the concept has Figure 31:Activating downtown SLC diagram. Create fulu re been further refined in two adopted city plans: the Downtown connections FLEXIBLE STREETS INCREASE TREE between Green Loop and Create shaded and Master Plan (2016) and Reimagine Nature Public Lands CANOPY Downtown nodes adaptable street space Master Plan (2022). Createa for city events experiencence along the r Green Loop FESTIVAL STREET The 2016 Downtown Master Plan, created with public input and adopted by the City Council, identifies an interconnected park network as one of five key projects for a vibrant and �°°Q PIONEER PARK thriving downtown. Salt Lake City's biannual residents' poll J'Af, R ANDE consistently ranks open space within the top three most valued urban amenities. The Downtown Plan recommends the Green FLEET °off Loop as one of five "key moves" that would make important � E green space improvements for people and vehicles in the downtown, with the next step being investigating wide streets BIKE FRIENDLY A -�. DOWNTOWN with low traffic volume for feasibility: "The Green Loop Create bikeable and pedestrian friendly network RECLAIMED introduces new urban landscapes through the downtown for all ages and abilities ENHANCE PUBLIC SPACES along the Green Loop EXISTING linking important open spaces" and in some locations, "it Will GREENSPACE Find oath rtunitiesto inndl with greenspace to in Create shaded park downtown Salt Lake City serve as an important social and recreational amenity where activities space es h that seat se for rve Downtown residents 9 Line segment none currently exists. It will serve ecological and public health and daytime workers. construction to RIO GRANDE begin 2022. purposes, too, providing shade, stormwater infiltration, and FESTIVAL STREET Use the city's large right filtering pollutants." The Green Loop has the potential to add sof wayspacer host flexible public space to host events. up to 60 acres of green space with space for thousands of new trees downtown. acreage per resident in the downtown area. An action step in this plan included the need to provide leadership in the Reimagine Nature, adopted in 2022, identified the alignment of planning, public engagement, design and implementation of the Green Loop shown in the next image and calls it out as a major greenway projects such as the Folsom Trail and Green key near-term investment to grow the park system and an Loop. The Administration relies on the approval of plans like addition to our green spaces that are specifically needed to Reimagine Nature to prioritize workload and projects. 4 In FY22, Public Lands received funding through the CIP NEEDS & CONDITIONS process to study the Green Loop concept further through conceptual design which includes survey, community and stakeholder engagement, and 30% design for 200 East, one of NEEDS ASSESSMENT the high priority sections of the Green Loop. This work will be The 2019 Public Lands Comprehensive Needs Assessment substantially complete in late summer 2024. identified key deficiencies in the public lands system, as well as trends in population growth and access to green space. The consultant team has also begun a technical study of the The assessment recommended adding 94 acres of open Green Loop's northern (N/S Temple) section and western space to the city by 2040 to meet projected population growth section (500 West) to determine preferred alignments and and maintain park level-of-service that residents are location of proposed green space in the right-of-way. This accustomed to. Additionally, "High Needs Areas" of the city work, supported by FY22 CIP funds approved for urban trail were identified by evaluating population density, household development, is the first step in conceptual design. income, percentage youth ages 0-17, percentage of seniors, and areas of potential growth. Areas of high need indicate the Full conceptual design on these legs is awaiting additional need for new parks, where there is a higher lack of access to funding for the community and stakeholder engagement,design drawings, and review process to complete a 30% existingp arks, and where capital investment in existingsites design and cost estimate equivalent to the work currently should be prioritized. underway on 200 East. The technical study will develop The Central Community showed the greatest concentration of framework alternatives for northern and western legs of the High Needs Areas, while also having less than half the level- green loop to be ready to evaluate the pros and cons of each of-service (LOS) than the citywide average of green space. with public and stakeholder input. The LOS tells us how many acres of green space are in an area per 1,000 people. The low LOS in the Central Community indicates that this area has fewer green space per 1,000 people than other areas with higher LOS ratings. The Central Community has these low service levels of parks and green spaces, but it also has the parks that are most frequently visited. Downtown population growth continues to outpace projections with nearly 4,000 housing units permitted since 2019. Recent 5 zoning changes now allow for unlimited building height in the No new significant green space has been added to meet the Central Business District. Downtown residents rarely have needs of these new residents, and the lack of green spaces in private green space and depend on public green space for the City's most dense area is a particularly crucial downfall for leisure, recreation and connection to nature. attracting families into downtowns. Other components that are — City Parks Leve currently being addressed through redevelopment of City of Service plus other owned properties include prioritizing family-sized homes, 5.5 plus Natural green spaces adding local daycares, and designing streets for families and Lands(113.0) kids. Parks(7.6)and ' plus Natural URBAN HEAT ISLAND Natural Lands(3.3) Lands(27.0) Salt Lake City's summer temperatures this year were often 10 3.2 plus degrees higher than average with many days over 100 Natural degrees. In July of 2023, a heat mapping campaign measured CENTRAL k v temperatures across the city to identify urban heat islands. In COMMUNITY`` EAST places where tree coverage is low, temperatures can be as BENCH much as 15 or 20 degrees higher than areas of the city with 4.4 plus Natural large mature trees and green space. Heat concentrates in Lands(3.0) _ - - areas of the city with wide asphalt streets that have little to no OU SUGAR canopy cover and the impacts of extreme heat are likely to HOUSE continue increasing. Green spaces provide cooling throughout the day and extend the time when people can be outdoors. Park Area as Total Park Percent of The followingma visualizes field measured temperature data Land Area Ages p p Land Area collected in July 2023 as part of a heat mapping study, that Portland 85,393 13,480 15.8% Sustainability partnered on. The map is a detailed analysis of Sacramento 62,666 5,811 9.3% the distribution of heat in the morning, afternoon and evening Denver 97,920 5,900 6.0% with highly urbanized areas suffering most. The section of the Portland Central City 3,000 126 4.2% 500 West leg of the Green Loop is in the center of an area in DowntownSLC 1,474 28 1.9% the city that is at the highest temperatures. Salt Lake City 69,703 1,221 1.8% 6 Average Area-Wide Model such as 600 North and 900 West have all made transformative f� The average modelisproducedby averaging together the H ..... changes to the look, feel, and function of our streets. The morning,afternoon and evening models with equal weight. 0 Engineering Division makes recommendations for streets to be N reconstructed based on their estimated Overall Condition j A Index (OCI), which applies a degradation factor to information r gathered in the 2021 citywide street condition survey. i The blocks that most need capital maintenance overlap with : : •" �, sections that would be most desirable to lead the construction r - of the Green Loop for a variety of reasons: • 200 East from 100 South to 400 South needs to be reconstructed and would also greatly benefit from the addition of downtown green space in an area that has 77 1 F Public Lands is also moving forward on several projects that had intense redevelopment and addition of new will invest in creating green spaces, that offer relief in other dwelling units. Reconstruction is ultimately needed for areas that see urban heat island impacts, through the General the entirety of 200 East from South Temple to 600 Obligation Bond. This bond allocated more than half of the South. $85M funds to west side projects including major investments • The south part of 500 West from 600 South to 900 in Glendale Park for $27M; Jordan River Corridor investments South needs to be reconstructed. It's located in the for$91VI; Folsom Trail from 500 West to 10000 West for$51VI; Granary District, where property owners have been and an additional $31VI for the two council districts for a total of very enthusiastic about the Green Loop as a part of the $44M in Westside projects. area's economic development strategy. This also makes a strategic connection to the 9-line Trail. • The 9-Line Trail and 900 South reconstruction, in final ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION stages of completion, form the south leg of the loop. When Salt Lake City reconstructs roadways, city ordinances This segment was already prioritized back in 2018 for and state laws both direct the reconstruction project to include the Streets Bond based on the confluence of pavement the implementation of the City's Complete Streets ordinance condition with the then-recently completed 9-Line Trail and appropriate City general plans. Recent reconstructions, Extension Study, and also knowing that the 9-Line such as 200 South Downtown, Highland Drive in Sugar House, would become part of the Green Loop. and 300 West just east of I-15; and upcoming reconstructions • The north part of 500 West already hosts the "Park Blocks" constructed in the early 2000s. These public- 7 way green spaces have recently been revitalized by 89 (UDOT new apartment buildings on their west side. Enhancing � " 1 1"t R 11,��' Ave treet active transportation connections through the park ed by blocks, especially to reach the Folsom Trail and the North Temple / Guadalupe Frontrunner Station, will City Center complete the loop in this area. _ a � � °i station E 200 East from South Temple to 500 South has already been �� 3 Planetarium o included in the Engineering Division's notice of Street station M x Construction for 2024-2026. The upcoming notice extending to ,N;�° W 200 S E 200 S 2027 is likely to include 500 West as a possible candidate street for reconstruction in 2026 or 2027. SALT LAKE ET LAKE CIV CITY 'A W Broadway E Broadway W O ' O W 400 S 186 L,J Static 89 Reconstruction is projected further Y IN— out than 10 years Reconstruction needed now 9-1-ine area,only needs greening ®R�et. _Concrete road.which means a full reconstruction would not necessarily be triggered when the OCI is high Note:The pie chart only includes areas with confirmed alignments,which are shown with solid lines in the map 8 CASE STUDIES Infrastructure investments like the Green Loop vision have been successful all over the world. A few projects with similarities to the Green Loop are highlighted below: Lexington's Town Branch Commons The Lexington Town Branch Commons project is an urban revitalization project for a historic waterway that reconnects the city to its historic roots. The project includes a surfaced waterway, green space, _ Y scenic view and trails for walking and biking and supports urban livability, new businesses and economic development. The new green space hosts a variety of community events such as festivals, farmers' markets, and outdoor concerts. It is a draw for tourists interested in outdoor recreation and urban exploration that benefits local hotels, restaurants and shops, evidenced by the opening of new r businesses along the greenway. The Project had both public investment and private contributions totaling $100 million. The project attracts thousands of visitors a year and led to increased property values, higher tax revenues and enhanced business opportunities. Atlanta Beltline The Atlanta Beltline is a significant urban redevelopment project in Atlanta, Georgia and managed by a non-profit. It transforms 22 miles of historic railroad corridors into a greenway with multi-use trails, transit and parks and green space. The project is being implemented in phases. The Beltline mission is to revitalize neighborhoods, promote sustainability, enhance connectivity and foster community. As of 2024, the Beltline has sections that have been completed with design and construction with full completion anticipated in the mid-2030's. The k Atlanta Beltline Inc. is responsible for maintenance and operations costs through a combination of public funding, private contributions, and revenue from the Beltline's assets. The Beltline promotes local small businesses through initiatives like the Beltline Partnership Program, which offers support and resources to local entrepreneurs and businesses. The Beltline has spurred over$10 billion in private investment that includes residential, commercial and mixed-use developments. 9 Indianapolis Cultural Trail The Cultural Trail is an 8-mile-long urban trail that connects neighborhoods, cultural districts, and landmarks in downtown Indianapolis with trails for walking and biking. It is renowned for its public art installations and hosts various events and festivals throughout the year. It has contributed $1 billion in economic impact to the city with increases in property values, new business investments and increased tourism. It has brought over $500 million in new construction and renovation projects along its route, bringing restaurants, retail and new businesses along its route. The trail attracts more than 1.5 million visitors annually. Developers have invested in properties adjacent to the trail due to the increased foot traffic and the attractiveness of the area. For every dollar invested in the Cultural Trail, there has been a return of about $8 in economic benefits. The project was constructed in City right of way and was supported by both city funds and significant private contributions from corporations, foundations and individual donors. Operations of the Cultural Trail are handled by a non- profit. Boston Rose Kennedy Greenway The 1.5-mile-long greenway was created as part of the Central Artery Project (colloquially known as f "The Big Dig"), a project that involved routing a major interstate into a tunnel beneath the city. Named after prominent Bostonian Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy, it is a celebrated example of urban renewal and offers a blend of nature, art and community activities in downtown Boston. The s greenway opened to the public in 2008. Greenspace, gardens, public art, events markets and historic markers highlight the rich history and development of the greenway. The public park is managed by a non-profit established by the state legislature and an annual budget comes from a Business Improvement District and other private funding sources. 10 Salt Lake City's S-Line and Sugar House Greenway The S-line urban redevelopment transforming a former railroad corridor providing space for the S-Line streetcar and adjacent Sugar House Greenway. The 1.4-mile long greenway along much of the 2-mile streetcar line has public art, multiuse trails and diverse vegetation. Salt Lake City's 5.5 blocks of greenway, set into the foundation created with the completed transit corridor, cost$7.6 million in 2014. Iq A recent study by the University of Utah showed the streetcar and greenway project has spurred more than $2 billion dollars of economic development over the last 10 years. This includes over 2,000 new high-rise apartments along the corridor, new retail and office spaces on land within '/2 mile of the corridor, and boosted property values in the area. Growth along the S-line has been in the form of higher density, mixed use neighborhoods. The project cost $55 million with nearly half of that coming from federal transportation grants. Use of the Sugar House Greenway corridor is all about motion — people and dogs walking, bicycling, and strolling — in addition to the streetcar itself. A summer evening sitting along the path has revealed senior citizens with rollators (wheeled walkers), teenaged mountain bikers, middle-aged sport/fitness bicyclists, bicycling families heading out to dinner at one of the Sugar House restaurants, parents pushing strollers, and people of all ages walking dogs. This is a true all ages and abilities facility. 11 CONCEPT The Green Loop will add access, green space, and connectivity. This greenway will counteract the urban heat by creating a downtown oasis of trees and water wise native plants, create recreation opportunities for the 10,000+ residents anticipated in downtown core by 2025, and develop gathering places for business lunches, evening dinners, and entrepreneurial networking. By connecting to many of Salt Lake City's major trails such as the 9-Line, Folsom Trail, and Jordan River Trail, the greenway will link east- and westside neighborhoods and provide access to popular downtown destinations such as the Main Library, Memory Grove, City Creek Center, the Gateway, the Delta Center, Temple Square, and Frontrunner commuter rail. Nq, �9• Gr w J .O� 12 As the project has moved from vision towards concept, the retention while also creating spaces to gather or sit outside for ways it has become more clear how the Green Loop could lunch. It has the potential to turn right-of-way into a place for transform Salt Lake City's roads. residents and visitors to travel more safely on protected multi- OUTDOOR PLAY& LEISURE modal paths, but it can also transform our downtown into a backyard in places where higher-density leaves many without their own outdoor spaces. - Compare conditions on the road today (examples from 200 E and 500 W are shown below), to the conceptual renderings (from the work completed on 200 E) on the left. Moving from what exists on today to the Green Loop will be a major change P in how the roads look, feel, and operate. FLEXIBLE PLAZA & COMMERCIAL PATIO S The Green Loop could redesign our straight and wide streets into spaces that help improve water quality and stormwater These spaces currently serve many functions for the City and community, and they will serve more functions in the future as 13 the Green Loop. Naturally, there will be conflicts and Transportation request to undertake a quick-build or pop-up challenges in making sure roads serve all functions well. This project as part of the community engagement for the full build. will need to be explored in detail as each section moves forward through conceptual design and further design. A few of these include: • Greening while continuing to provide access to underground utilities, ow • Adding green spaces and plazas while maintaining fire access for tall buildings, r • Configuring the many roadway elements in ways that meet the project vision while also working within ■ . , ' , ,r 1r complex technical realities, and • Adding more functions in our right-of-way with consideration for future maintenance realities. The concept design for 200 East has been a study in overcoming these conflicting priorities to show how the Green Loop vision can be implemented. Throughout the concept `s development the project team engaged the community, stakeholders, and City to work through the details and resolve ' conflict. 200 E CONCEPTUAL DESIGN Based on pavement condition and the need for a future street reconstruction on 200 East, the Public Lands Department and -" - the Transportation Division requested funds in FY22 Capital Improvement Program to take the first step in Green Loop Conceptual Design (otherwise known as 30% design drawings design, which has included developing a vision with for this work) for 200 East from South Temple to 900 South will community and stakeholder input, through a phase called soon be complete. The conceptual design goes beyond the Conceptual Design. The Salt Lake City Council funded the high-level concepts and explores the following items in detail Public Lands design-focused 200 East project along with a by: 14 • Reimagining 200 E from South Temple to 900 S with that provided more features to reduce air and/or noise technical, public, and stakeholder input, pollution, and would increase pedestrian only space, street • Exploring options for feasibly increasing the tree trees, and green space downtown. canopy and creating a robust urban forest amongst engineering and public utility constraints, More than 150 people attended the public open house, • Identifying roadway configurations that work amongst walking and bike tours in November 2023. Participants shared these constraints while also creating safe spaces for ideas about specific amenities, improvements, and programs bicyclists and pedestrians, they'd like to see along 200 East and generally around the • Outlining opportunities for creating a vibrant and Green Loop. They also asked questions and shared concerns inviting downtown public realm where you can meet about traffic congestion, security, and maintenance. your neighbors and experience the city, and • Seeking solutions for increasing biodiversity and resiliency. The concept has been informed by both feedback from the community and stakeholders as well as by technical constraints from experts in this type of work and within the City. Engagement began in Spring 2023 through a pop-up 4 park on 200 East that showed visitors what opportunities could ` n The project team hosted a series of walking tours and on-site engagement in November 2023. A second project survey exist in a space traditionally thought of as only for cars. Of the opened to the public at the same time and closed at the end of 1000+ people who responded to a survey about the pop-up, January 2024. Of the 1000+ survey participants, 76% like or more than 60% of respondents said they supported a concept 15 strongly like the concept with 63% saying they'd use it daily or Technical considerations, several of which were previously weekly. 90% of those survey respondents live or work identified, are being explored more deeply through conceptual downtown. design. Along 200 East specifically, those that are rising to the top include Public Utilities, Fire, and long-term maintenance of The project team has also met with some adjacent the Green Loop. stakeholders including the Heber Wells and Olene Walker State office buildings, Metro Condos and Salt Lake Arts Coordination with all departments will continue, but higher Academy to engage those communities in more detailed levels of coordination have been occurring with those who are conversations about their frontages on 200 East. impacted by these complex technical considerations. The image at the bottom of the page highlights some ideas being Future engagement will continue as current and future project considered that could make the Green Loop more compatible phases move forward, and the input received thus far is being with future development and needs related to upsizing utilities. combined with information from engagement with departments across the City and the project team's understanding of technical needs to further conceptual design. ' I+ i a',T 9 - �f • +i t i- 16 Diving deeply into the most complex issues through to reach the Frontrunner Transit Station and the Folsom conceptual design has been key to understanding the full Trail; costs, constraints, and required collaboration needed. • Northwest corner options including 200 West(N Temple to 100 S), 400 West (N Temple to 100 S), 500 West (50 The goal throughout this project thus far has been to bring all South to 100 S), 100 South (200 West to 500 West), that has been learned from other recent roadway and/or 50 South (400 W to 500 W); and reconstructions and green space projects to the table, identify • Eight additional blocks of 500 West (100 S to 900 S) challenges early, and seek collaborative solutions. (with collaboration with RDA consultants 200 S —400 S to provide consistent approach but prevent duplicate work). NORTH/SOUTH TEMPLE & 500 W SECTION UPDATE PHASING & FUNDING The consultant team has begun to study the Green Loop's Draft recommendations for phasing of the Green Loop have northern (N/S Temple) section and western section (500 West) been grounded in knowledge of pavement condition and to determine preferred alignments and location of proposed reconstruction needs, current tree coverage and open space, green space in the right-of-way. The study will develop technical feasibility, and funding opportunities. Reconstruction framework alternatives for northern and western legs of the of City streets opens the door for major transformations like green loop to evaluate the pros and cons of each. Alternatives what has been seen on 300 W and 200 S and therefore the of each street will be developed in plan and section, and will blocks most in need of reconstruction easily rise highest in include the proposed location, type, and size of trails and priority for seeking funding. This includes most northern blocks sidewalks; street and lane configuration; on-street parking; of 200 East (100 S to 600 S) and southern blocks of 500 West connections and adjacencies; and the open space program (600 S to 900 S) and of 2024, these blocks are currently in areas, trees, and landscape types. The alternatives will also need of reconstruction, based on the Engineering Division's evaluate existing and proposed utilities, potential conflicts, and estimated Overall Condition Index (OCI). make recommendations for upgrades or replacement, if needed. In this process the consultant will work closely with Anticipating the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act the City and project stakeholders. (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), in 2021, staff initiated a technical and conceptual design of the The project scope area is defined as: Green Loop, in order to take the project from the broad vision • The six full blocks of North Temple and South Temple in described in master plans to a more refined conceptual design between State Street and 500 W, with the addition of and cost estimates that are appropriate for seeking state and connections or extensions for those walking or bicycling 17 federal funding for final design and/or construction. Each construction projects) continually need to be coordinated to segment of the Green Loop will need to go through conceptual maintain access and optimize design opportunities to create a design, including public engagement, before it is ready to seek seamless urban fabric. As much as is possible, the phasing construction funding. This is quite simply because conceptual plan will seek to remain flexible to these opportunities while design is needed to develop an accurate budget, to know how skirting around any challenges. much funding is needed to construct the loop. J4_Jl_J F� I, rrv ` 1 ❑a , uI 1F--I L=1 O i f-i'�❑❑—Ultimately, each phase of the loop to be constructed will needr , �,:_, � ,� Salt Lake�ttys Green Loop Potential Phsing"" [�❑L�CJ❑I a conceptual design, a cost estimate, and then a funding * working dra I as of June 2024 ��❑��❑L` package likely assembled from multiple sources—state, �,�,�� D❑❑PF" federal, private, philanthropic and city. The respective sections _ ,I_ Nbrth;Temple-2031 _�[ti❑� may have unique elements that qualify for different funding �� zo3i I ! o Legend �U� h Temple(alternate north Vg) `� 2028 - r types or allow specific sections to leverage external funds in - z Geeftioop(whole)pet Greeted Plans ways that couldn't be leveraged elsewhere. o Green Loop Alternates ry '� under consideration 100 South(alternate) ai Green Loop`draft* oH Potential Phases South Additions Applications for federal funding for one or more segments of - N tg H draft*9oo the Green Loop is likely. As the new federal grant programs n ow Main 54eetP om made available by IIJA has been rolling out, it has become N GrandBouleoad clearer that these highly competitive sources are likely to fund N portions of the loop with amounts in the $15-30 million range. N 500SGrand Boulevard _N The federal transportation bill is 5-year authorizing legislation and expires in September 2026; continuation of IIJA programs 600scandBoulevard will be determined by the new authorization. Larger o N contributions of state and private funds may be more likely. N }i 11 W E g A working draft of potential phasing over 10 years is shown Greening 900 South-2027 5 below. This draft is likely to change over time. First, cost stormWaterGreen Median-zo33 estimates are still under development. Second, the way funding packages come together will influence the phasing. And finally, over 10 years, many changes are anticipated in Salt Lake City and the United States. Large construction projects in a thriving downtown (which already has many large 18 To date, the Green Loop has received funding or applied for OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE funding from: • Capital Improvement Program — design only The Administration is prioritizing operations and maintenance • UDOT included a connection between downtown costs at the front end of this concept to ensure the City has a TRAX and Memory Grove/Avenues in a federal long-term and sustainable strategy for taking care of this Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability asset. To that end, a preliminary study was completed to begin and Equity (RAISE) grant. This includes a block of identifying options for how to approach operations and State Street (North Temple to South Temple) that is maintenance of the future Green Loop. vital to the Green Loop. $2.8 million awarded for design and construction. CLASSIFICATION • Utah Transit Transportation Investment Fund (TTIF First Last Mile) The classification options for the Green Loop are key in 0 200 East (100 South to 500 South) —top ranked understanding the potential benefits and impacts for long-term project in the state, $9.8 million award still operations and maintenance. Maintaining the Green Loop pending. could be supported by departments within the City, and if o North Temple (State to 500 West)—this project several are engaged in the operations and maintenance, a was awarded $3.3 million based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would be needed to nomination in 2020. At the time, TTIF was a formally outline responsibilities and funding allocations for new funding source; it turns out that due to each team involved. There is also a potential for external Temple Square work and the 200th Anniversary partners to lead or support operations and maintenance long- of the LDS Church, this North Temple project term, depending on the selected classification. Each of the will be withdrawn and will be resubmitted after a options are outlined below. conceptual design is completed. This will line this project up in the right year for eventual Separately from classifications and management structures construction in the early 2030s. related to the operations and maintenance of the Green Loop, land use classification is not explored in depth here, but will also be an important consideration for future operations and nearby commercial development opportunities and limitations. The Green Loop as a ROW If the Green Loop remains as public ROW, it will be available and accessible 24/7. There will be little limitation on the types 19 of businesses that can be established near the Green Loop. accommodate equipment, tools, offices, and general Maintenance responsibilities in the ROW are shared between operations. many departments and although they share good working — PUBLIC LANDS ---. PUBLIC UTILITIES relationships, there are no formalized work agreements. — PUBLIC SERVICES Oftentimes, as a community member, it is not clear who to contact when there is a problem. Annual expenses to manage [.4 • the ROW are typically allocated to owner/managers of the a . asset, but not necessarily towards the departments that maintain it. Departments that have current roles in maintaining ------- the ROW include Public Services (Streets and Facilities), + Public Lands (Urban Forestry and Parks), and Public Utilities; the way the ROW would be split up is shown below. PUBLIC LANDS - - PUBLIC UTILITIES --— — PUBLIC SERVICES CBD J PUBLIC SERVICES The Green Loop as a Special Assessment Area (SAA) A third classification for the Green Loop, and one that is already in use in SLC, is the Special Assessment Area (SAA). - - - ---- =- ; ------ --- -- ------ - - The funding for this type of area would come from an -�-- - - - _ assessment collected from properties that are within the - boundary. The SAA would keep the assessment for 1 maintenance and capital projects, unlike the other two classifications, in which any collected revenues will be --- returned to the General Fund. The SAA must be approved by at least 61% of property owners and is typically administered The Green Loop as a Greenway or Parkland by the City or a single, private entity. The SAA would be Classifying the Green Loop as a greenway or parkland responsible for funding capital projects and maintenance as simplifies the responsibilities. Public Lands would have most of well as costs for activations, events, site security and other the responsibilities, and their operating budget will need to operational needs. The SAA would require a manager, increase significantly to take on that responsibility. Additional whether it is through the City or by a single, private entity. maintenance facilities will be needed downtown to Similar to an SAA is a sports, entertainment, cultural, and convention district (SECCD) where there are allowable 20 changes to the buildings and setbacks within the district to equation. Still, new approaches are needed to adequately fund accommodate their uses. maintenance and operations for the downtown realm. A quality downtown public realm also has the potential to generate high The Green Loop managed by one entity returns in economic development. When we think of the The Green Loop could also be managed by one single entity, identity of a city is, it is the images of our downtown public whether it is led by one of the existing departments within the spaces that come to mind. City, or a new agency/ organization. A single entity will ensure an advocate is in place dedicated to the mission and care of Hours/ Hours/ Total Total Unit QTY Unit Unit Hours Hours Note the Green Loop, in contrast to other departments, which have ,lower, (Upper) (tower) (Upper) other responsibilities throughout the City and cannot MUlli•Ux path Acre 0.3 200 300 56 84 ,like path Acre 0.2 ISO 250 29 48 guarantee the Green Loop will be their first priority. The single paved Area Acre 0.3 300 650 105 227 plaza space or gathering space Roadway Acre 0.6 300 450 171 2S7 entity could be an existing department, an SAA or a BID or parkingAcre 0.1300 450 33 6 Trees Fxh 52 3 S 156 260 less managed by a (newly formed) non-profit organization. maintenance, nch asgrxplaygarens with Mooting Area Acre Q6 I50 550 89 326 maintenance,but display gardens with seasonal interests will require more maintenance Maintenance of site furnishing can vary ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS Site furnishing/Assets Allowance 200 Soo significantlymaterial. An on the amount,type, and material. An analysis of maintenance requirements was done for a soft paving Acre 1 125 225 Such as Decomposed Granite Water Quality Area Acre 1 200 300 typical block along 200 East. The list of amenity types is Nature play SF 2,500 25 60 An unit is 2,500 SF Dog Run Acre 1 250 450 Hard paved areas or INS will require less indicative of skill sets that will also be required. The estimated maintenance vs turf Water play SF 2,500 100 250 Such as a splash pad,an unit is 2,%0 SF annual hours required to maintain a block of 200 East is Figure 4:Preliminary high level estimated annual maintenance needs for a typical Green Loop block. between 827 (lower) to 1,734 (higher) hours includes many trades and disciplines. Looking at just the hours, it is roughly equivalent to .5 to 1.0 full time staff person will be required per Funding for ongoing maintenance will be greatly impacted by block of the Green Loop. the model chosen, which has yet to be determined. Future work will include learning more about the maintenance models Downtown public spaces in dense neighborhoods are more that can be used, and a consultant could be engaged to heavily used and often require higher levels of care to achieve support us in learning more about the feasibility of a preferred the same outcome as neighborhood parks in other areas of option. the city. Allocating disproportionate resources to certain areas of the city can be challenging for departments who have a citywide focus. Looking at the allocation of resources per population rather than just acreage could help balance the 21 NEXT STEPS • Identify routes for the north leg and the northwest corner of the loop and adjust the cost estimate. This is needed to finalize costs estimates for the project. • Complete concept design (30%) for 200 East. • Continue the technical analysis of three corridors: 500 West and North and South Temple sections. • Continue work on the State Street corridor with UDOT, who has received a RAISE grant for this section. • Further explore management and operations solutions by learning from other Cities and consider contracting out a feasibility study for the preferred option. 22 This page has intentionally been left blank PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRYAND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY Formal Meeting Thursday,September 5,2024 5:00 p.m.-7:15 p.m. Join Via Zoom:https:.Z/us02web.zoom.us/j/84607536504?pwd=Zgg6bZD47ONoCAaBmOBUZMYpfBchu0.1 Or Join at the Public Lands Administrative Building:1965 W.500 S.Salt Lake City,UT 84104 Upstairs Parks Training Room Join by phone Phone:1-253-205-0468 Webinar ID:846 0753 6504 Access code:962617 Agenda 1. Convening the Meeting 5:00 PM A. Call to order B. Chair Comments 5 mins 2. Approval of Minutes&Action Items 5:05 PM - Approve August 1, 2024 meeting minutes 5 mins - Approve non-PNUT members for the Urban Trails Committee 5 mins - Approve Stakeholder Presentation Process 5 mins 3. Public Comment 5:20 PM - Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total.Written 15 mins comments are welcome. 4. Director's Report 5:35 PM - Summary of current high-priority department items. - Kristin Riker 5 mins 5. Staff Presentations, Updates& Discussions 5:40 PM A. Green Loop Update - Nancy Monteith 20 mins B. Capital Improvement Projects Presentation -Tom Millar 60 mins 6. Board Discussion 7:00 PM A. Committee Reporting 10 mins B. Board comments and question period 10 mins C. Next meeting: October 3, 2024 D. Request for future agenda items 7. Adjourn 7:15 PM ic a s ubl L nd irli j T Parks I Trails & Natural Lands I Urban Forestry I Golf Staff Responses to Public Comments Janet Hemming I originally intended to speak during the public comment period of your Thursday(August 1) board meeting but had an emergency. I hope you will consider these comments and requests. • Please ensure that a thorough and transparent investigation into the poisoning of 200 healthy trees along North Temple is conducted; one that results in full disclosure of internal policies and practices that led to the error and new, corrective actions. Will your board review and comment on any internal examination, if it's conducted? • The death of so many trees along North Temple is symptomatic of a larger "herbicide/chemical poison friendly'culture inside Public Lands. I don't say this lightly. o PL introduced a non-native"tree kill" policy in 2014 to the Miller Bird Refuge and Nature Park.This, despite the fact, that 75% of the trees were non-native andthe park is an official Riparian Corridor. In 2014, one-third of the trees were destroyed. Sadly, new replacements never prospered. Most died leaving gaps and bare spots. o Between 2014-2022 about 300 trees/saplings were removed year/yfor a staggering death rate in the thousands, and their trunks/stems/growth areas poisoned. o Tordon, with chemical properties (picloram)used during the Vietnam War, and Rodeo,with Glyphosate (53.8%)-were the herbicides/chemicals PL regularly used in Miller. o These poisons have not only impacted trees, but had noticeable effects on reducing the bee, owl, butterfly and bird populations. In many ways, Miller is a bird refuge in name only. • Alarmed by this carnage, the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council requested and was granted a chemical moratorium.As of this writing, it's unclear if it has resumed. The side effects and environmental dangers from herbicides and poisonous chemicals are well documented -despite what manufacturers say. Milestone - used along North Temple - is known to stay in the soil for up to 533 days, according to a report by the State of Washington. Ironically, in 2017, Salt Lake City promoted a"pesticide free"city to encourage residents to stop using harsh chemicals including herbicides, citing the harm they cause to the environment and humans.The city's goal then was to promote "proven natural alternatives."What happened to that idea? Some of the organizations PL has relied on for herbicide and weed management advice are actually part of the problem - not part of the solution.These groups put too much trust in product labels written by manufacturers.The city must avoid "one size fits all"thinking when it comes to the application of chemicals and employ a more customized approach that takes into account the delicate nuances and environmental challenges presented by a riparian corridor, a riverway, an urban streetscape, an enhanced green space, a neighborhood pocket park or a larger destination like Liberty Park.Just because a chemical is in SLC's inventory doesn't mean it should be universally used.A concern we regularly observed in Miller Park was PL's heavy reliance on part-time, seasonal workers.Are they properly trained in weed control and habitat management? Has old-fashioned weed pulling gone out of style? Cities in 28 states have adopted pesticide free policies for their parks and open spaces https://www.nontoxiccommunities.com/cities.html. I urge the PNUT board to actively pursue a similar policy for Salt Lake City and work towards the gradual removal of harsh pesticides and herbicides in favor of non-toxic options. Staff Response: The State Department ofAgriculture conducted an investigation into the incident and issued a warning letter to the park employee that violated the restricted use of the chemical herbicide. Public Lands'investigation is focused on internal HR matters. As such, the details of Public Lands'disciplinary actions will not be shared publicly or with the board. SLC Parks currently does not use any organic pesticides or herbicides. Instead, we manually weed many areas,particularly around playgrounds, dog parks, flower beds, riparian zones, and other high-traffic or sensitive locations. This hand-weeding process is quite time-consuming and can sometimes leave behind root systems. We have experimented with vinegar-based and other organic sprays, as well as hot-water pressure washing. However, our experience has shown that there is no effective organic herbicide that completely eradicates weed roots. The Department does continue to explore alternatives as recommended in our Relmagine Nature Master Plan Strategies and work with industry best practices to identify these alternative options. • Action 1.3 B Update Public Lands'20I2/20I6 T&NL Invasive Pest Management Plan(IPMP)to include current best practices for invasive species control in natural areas, as well as current functional practices for low-pesticide/no pesticide parks,golf courses,gardens, farms& orchards. • The Trails and Natural Lands Division has completed this update specifically for SLC natural areas, see attached. This report includes best practices for in vasive species management including biological, chemical, and mechanical control methods. The Trails and Natural Lands team does rely heavily on seasonal labor to maintain natural areas throughout the City. When chemical herbicide is used in natural areas it is only done so if a certified noxious weed applicator is present on site. Within Miller Park specifically, The Trails and Natural Lands Division has not used any chemical herbicide in this natural area for over three years. Prior to this pause, crews primarily used an organic vinegar-based herbicide to treat herbaceous weeds in Miller Park from 20 I7--2020 and chemical herbicide only on stump treatments for in vasive woody vegetation. Trails and Natural Lands does conduct training regarding herbicide handling with all seasonal employees and have a seasonal handbook that is used for training seasonals who will be working with a State certified applicator. The updated IPMP outlines invasive species control methods for biological, chemical, and mechanical control methods. The Trails and Natural Lands program uses all three types of invasive species control as outlined in the updated IPMP. Manual weed removal is still very common for our Division,particularly with support from volunteer efforts. Diane Walker I just learned about a large Living Room "renovation" project that sought NO public input before accessing taxpayer money to pay a private company without a bidding process. I understand that neither the Mayor's office nor the City Council knew about this massive project beforehand, despite a pledge by Public Lands in February 2024 to provide transparency and inclusivity in the planning and implementation of trail improvement projects. Instead, Public Lands has engaged with Trails Utah on this project covertly and in secret since autumn 2023, wholly undermining their so-called commitment to transparency and inclusivity.They stated they would follow the SE Group recommendations to work with community stakeholders and obtain scientific and user data BEFORE implementing any Foothills trails projects. Public Lands has not. I also understand that the changes Trails Utah plans to make,which includes blasting bedrock, are substantial enough to be considered construction and not merely"renovation." Further,trails in George's Hollow are slated for construction under this project name. No one asked for these changes. Why are public funds being offered up without public knowledge and input? Knowing these facts, how can anyone have faith in Public Lands and their leadership? We should oppose this project both on the merits and on principle. Public Lands must follow their stated commitments of transparency and inclusivity when planning projects involving taxpayer money on our public lands. Public Lands officials involved in this Living Room "renovation" project need to explain themselves. Why are they lying to the public and engaging in shady deals that will significantly alter our most beloved Foothill trails? Please help us to immediately halt this massive and unwarranted construction project. Jeffrey Campbell Listen to Save Our Foothills!!! Mona Marler Please call or email the Council and request they NOT release the full sum of remaining funds to Public Lands.Ask that they release funds only for specific non-trail building projects that are necessary to fulfill the SE Group recommendations.This will ensure that all projects are thoughtfully planned, implemented and completed, and ensure that public funds are spent responsibly. Please ask the City Council to ensure that Public Lands has made progress with the following projects that have either not been started or have not been completed before releasing additional funds: • Scientific and user data studies • Foothills land use management plan • Trail maintenance plan and protocols • Trail signs,wayfinding maps, information signs • Formation of stakeholder engagement committee • Environmental impact statements • Completion of trailheads Staff Response: In 2020, the Salt Lake City Council requested an evaluation of the Foothills Plan after public concerns regarding trail-building impacts were raised. The City's administration determined that a holistic evaluation of the Plan would ensure that future implementation phases would meet the Plan's vision andgoals. In February2024, Salt Lake City Public Lands completed its evaluation and shared its findings with the public. On August27,Z0Z4,Salt Lake City Public Lands presents the evaluation's recommendations to the Salt Lake City Council and requests funding be released to continue implementing the Foothills Plan, which will now be informed and guided by the evaluation outcomes and recommended planning processes. What is the Evaluation? The evaluation is a document created by third-party consultants who specialize in natural area recreation and trail management that provided Salt Lake City with a thorough analysis of the Foothills Plan and the City's initial implementation of the Plan. It has also provided essential recommendations that Public Lands will incorporate into future Foothills Plan implementation efforts. These recommendations will help Salt Lake Cityprovide a more balanced and environmentally sensitive planning process, and they include: • Adopting a zone-by-zone planning and implementation process • Adopting a segment-by-segment trail planning and implementation process • Developing consistent communication strategies • Prioritizing the maintenance of existing trails • De veloping a unified wayfinding system • Increasing trail data collection to inform decision making • Developing management plans alongside each zone Why is a trail restoration project happening in the Georges Hollow/Living Room Trail area? The lands encompassing the Georges Hollow and Living Room Trail area is not owned by Salt Lake City and it is not a City project. Because the University of Utah and the US Forest Service are the landowners of this project, it does not require City Council, Mayor or staff approval and does not use city funds or resources. At this time, a joint land management agreement between all Foothills public landowners(Salt Lake City Public Utilities, the US Forest Service, the University of Utah, Utah State Parks)does not exist. However, the Public Lands Department has already initiated the participation of these agencies in the creation ofa joint agreement that would inform future management. Until then,Salt Lake City Public Lands has no jurisdiction over projects and land management practices on non-C/ty- owned land. Landowners mayproceed with theirprojects and trail maintenance without SLC Public Lands approval or input. The George'5 Hollow/Living Room Trail area is some of the most visited locations in the Foothills due to its proximity to the Natural History Museum and University of Utah, and popularity on trail apps. In this case, the City provided a letter of support for the George's Hollow Project because it addresses significant safety concerns related to environmental degradation, old construction, and lack of maintenance orsignage in the area. Has Salt Lake City approved projects and maintenance in the Foothills before receiving approval from the City Council? Salt Lake City has conducted routine maintenance and existing trail restoration on City-owned land throughout the Foothills over the past three years, as allowed by the City Council in 202I. Salt Lake City has not initiated or approved any new trail construction in the Foothills. Salt Lake City Council andAdministration onlyhave jurisdiction on city-owned land. What happens next? The Salt Lake City Council reviews the evaluation on Tuesday,August27, and determine whether Salt Lake City Public Lands may continue implementing the Plan. lfapproved, Salt Lake City will begin implementing the Foothills Plan and evaluation guidance and processes.Additionally, in accordance with the evaluation, Salt Lake City will work with other Foothills landowners to explore the development ofa joint land management agreement. Where can l learn more about the Foothills Plan and the evaluation? Visit s/c/bothills.com to learn about the Plan, review the evaluation process and consultinggroups, and read the evaluation. Staff Written Updates Taufer Park and Richmond Park Project Update: Taufer Park and Richmond Park GO bond projects started in Spring/Summer 2023. Since then, Public Lands hired a Consultant to do engagement and design services for both parks with the City. Both projects will showcase two concept plans per park for public evaluation and feedback in September 2024. Liberty Rotary Play Park Project Update: Liberty Rotary Play Park Project started in Spring/Summer 2023. Since then, Public Lands hired a Consultant to do engagement, design, and construction administration services with the City.The three concept plans for public evaluation and feedback were released May 2024.We obtained 1,319 survey responses and tabled at the playground two times. PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY Formal Meeting Thursday,August 1,2024 5:00 p.m.-7:15 p.m. Join Via Zoom:https:.Z/us02web.zoom.us/�/84421902017?pwd=DkGbMvOM10srCSxTgNa-jIWXKY8Gi7Z.1 Or Join at the Public Lands Administrative Building:1965 W.500 S.Salt Lake City,UT 84104 Upstairs Parks Training Room Join by phone Phone:+1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 844 2190 2017 Access code:580007 UNAPPROVED MINUTES 1. Convening the Meeting 5:00 PM A. Call to order - Samantha Finch - Talula Pontuti - Clayton Scrivner - Michael Dodd - Jenny Hewson - Aaron Wiley - Steve Bloch - Kerri Nakamura B. Chair Comments 5 mins Mr. Scrivner introduced himself as the Chair of the PNUT Board to the new Board members. He commented on the weather and smoke. He's glad to see everyone here. The Board will hold off on the minutes and public comment while waiting for more Board members. 2. Approval of Minutes&Action Items 5:05 PM - Approve June 6, 2024 meeting minutes 5 mins Ms. Nakamura motioned to approve the June meeting minutes. Ms. Pontuti seconded the motion.The Board unanimously voted to approve the June meeting minutes. 3. Public Comment 5:10 PM - Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total. Written comments are welcome. No public comments. 4. Introductions 5:25 PM A. Introduce New Board Members: Michael Dodd &Steve Bloch - Kristin Riker 5 mins Ms. Riker welcomed Mr. Michael Dodd to the Board. We are excited to recommend Michael Dodd for the D6 position on the PNUT Board. Mr. Dodd is a passionate, highly active member of his community. His communication skills and technical expertise could greatly assist in conveying board issues and concerns to the Mayor's Office, the City Council, and the public.As former Chair of the Wasatch Community Council for six years, he prioritized inclusivity and collaboration with various city departments and officials, including the Mayor's Office and City Council members. His achievements include organizing community meetings, securing funding for infrastructure projects, and enhancing amenities within the neighborhood. Mr. Dodd's experience and PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY community connections make him a valuable asset for promoting community engagement and advancing the Department's goals. Mr. Dodd shared that he's lived in Wasatch Hollow for about 15 years and was in Central City before that. He's a San Francisco native who came to Utah to ski and has been here ever since. He enjoys an array of outdoor activities. He's worked with many people at the meeting on various projects. He always strives for inclusivity and interacts with and involves people with points he doesn't agree with. Mr. Dodd continued to introduce himself. Ms. Riker introduced Mr. Steve Bloch. We are pleased to recommend Stephen Bloch for the At- Large position on the PNUT Board. Mr. Bloch is an attorney with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA),where he has demonstrated unwavering dedication to protecting Salt Lake City's parks, natural lands, urban forests, and trails. His professional background equips him with a robust understanding of environmental protection and conservation efforts, making him an outstanding candidate for this position. His frequent use of the City's parks and open spaces reflects his deep appreciation for the recreational and communal opportunities these areas provide to residents and visitors alike. Mr. Bloch's passion for preserving natural spaces, legal expertise, and hands-on community involvement will be invaluable in guiding Public Land's staff. His insights and leadership will help enhance the quality and accessibility of our public lands and recreational spaces, ensuring they continue serving as vital community resources. Mr. Bloch said he's grateful to be on the Board. He's lived in Salt Lake for about 30 years and has been to most of Salt Lake's parks, fields, and urban and foothill trails. He's excited to be here and doing this work.The Board members went around the room and introduced themselves and representation. 5. Director's Report 5:30 PM - Summary of current high-priority department items. - Kristin Riker 10 mins Ms. Riker highlighted a few events in July, such as the July 5th Independence Day drone show at Jordan Park and the drone show on July 24t"for Pioneer Day at Liberty Park. Both were a huge success.This year,the department scheduled staff to work around the clock for 48 hours cleaning up the park during the event. They also increased the number of police officers present and CDI to help participants comply with park rules. Ms. Riker shared there was a fire around Ensign Peak. They were able to utilize the Park Rangers to communicate with the public so that they could safely recreate.Additionally, they helped the firefighters know different paths to get to the fires. Ms. Nakamura asked if they learned the cause of that fire. Mr. Murdock said they currently don't. Ms. Riker said Urban Forestry will remove some high-profile trees in Washington Square.There are three dead trees they'll be taking out, and they'll need a crane to remove these trees. Ms. Finch asked if it was because of natural causes. Ms. Riker said yes, as there's a lot of strain on the trees in that park due to all the events there. The staff has to turn off the water for two weeks, all the compaction of people during events, and a beetle infestation. Due to these strains, the trees became more susceptible. Ms. Nakamura asked if staff could contact Ms. Benally regarding her request to inform her community of tree removal and Indigenous groups possibly using that wood. The Board and staff continued to discuss tree removals and wood reutilization. PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY Ms. Riker shared some upcoming events—the last two Outdoor Film Series on Fridays,Yappy Hour on August 8th, and Kensington Street Festival. She also shared that their Associate Golf Director, Kelsey Chugg, became the Utah Women's State Amateur's six-time winner in July. Ms. Riker shared the staff talking points regarding the trees on North Temple.Additionally, she shared these talking points so that if the Board was getting questions from the public, Board members would know exactly what Public Lands was saying. In October, the trees were sprayed with an herbicide called Milestone, and this was done to try to control weeds in the park strips along North Temple and 300 West near Warm Springs. It's used for trails and natural lands like riparian zones to control things like brush and thistle. Unfortunately, one of the staff's trained, licensed spray applications chose it on North Temple.This employee overlooked the fact that it was not supposed to be used near decorative trees.Additionally, Public Land's protocols for herbicide were not followed in this instance. Something similar happened in 2015. It wasn't this disastrous, but it was an herbicide sprayed on the grass at the Cemetery, killing a lot of the grass there.At that same time, strict protocols were implemented for all staff's licensed herbicide applicators. One person went outside protocols, and approximately 200 trees were discovered in late June. Public Lands reported this to the Utah State Department of Agriculture,who licensed staff and took some soil samples.The applicator that sprayed kept good records of the spray so staff could determine what date it was sprayed, how much was sprayed, and where it was sprayed. Not all the trees were affected -some London Plane and Elms are doing fine. The average of the impacted trees was nine to twelve years old. Dying trees are recommended for removal, and the concept of large planters with adolescent trees placed above ground until the soil is devoid of the herbicide is being explored as an option. Ms. Riker said they would present some ideas to the community and try to come up with a solution, but it is unknown at this time how long staff might not be able to plant trees in that area until they get the soil samples. Ms. Riker continued to discuss the North Temple trees. Ms. Riker said discipline for the employee who made the mistake is pending. Parks protocols have been bolstered to include a double-safe system that involves supervisor and warehouse oversight at every step of the spraying process.All groups that handle spraying of any type have been introduced to this new system, and spring retraining will become an annual event. This incident will be a front-and-center case study for lessons learned. She said that Mr. Hazelbaker is the staff spokesperson at this time. Staff is also working with the Mayor's office to develop a plan to share information for the council newsletters through social media, blogs, and other means. Ms. Finch said she was very sad when she heard the news. She asked for clarification on staff annual training. Ms. Riker said no; these folks are trained and licensed. Staff does have to go through retraining when their license expires. No one else uses the herbicide, so this would be on top of the State-mandated training and testing. Ms. Finch said she heard a comment from the Friends of Allen Park,who were concerned about protecting their legacy and native plants. She said Friends of Allen Park discussed wanting to put down flags, notices, or signs to protect plants in Allen Park. She shared that the group is wondering what interaction they can have with staff to assist and be trained.The Board and staff continued to the impacted trees. Ms. Riker said they will be attending community councils, especially in the affected area, and this information will also be shared with the liaisons who attend. Ms. Nakamura said she felt very sorry and sad for the Urban Forestry team. Ms. Riker clarified that it was the park staff, not the Urban Forestry staff, who sprayed the herbicide. Ms. Riker emphasized how sad and frustrated the Department is that this happened. Mr. Scrivner said he was very sad to hear the story and how he feels for people who go out and do theirjob every day and never get credit for doing it right. He's glad to hear how the staff has reviewed and updated their protocols.As the Chair of PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY PNUT, he hopes they go back and look at how this is rolled out and for community information because he had some people approach him before this hit the news, and he didn't know anything about it. He'd like to be able to get ahead of instances like this so PNUT Board members have the tools to respond. Ms. Riker thanked Mr. Scrivner for the feedback; the staff will try to do that. The Board and staff continued to discuss the North Temple trees. 6. Staff Presentations, Updates& Discussions 5:40 PM A. Allen Park Update - Katherine Andra 15 mins Ms.Andra introduced herself as a Public Lands Planner and focused on plans for parks and managing new capital improvements for the parks. Ms. Andra shared her screen to display the Allen Park Adaptive Reuse and Management Plan. Public Lands received Allen Park in its inventory back in 2020.The park has many structures on it, is maintained by the Trails and Natural Lands team, and Emigration Creek runs through it- it's a unique property.Tonight, Ms. Andra will be sharing the final draft. Public Lands completed a cultural landscape report in November 2022, an inventory of all the historical elements on site. It is not officially a historic property, but staff is working on this. Staff completed robust community and stakeholder engagement throughout 2023. She highlighted the goals and project benefits. She continued by sharing that a vast majority of the plan's creation was built around public engagement. Staff had three different phases. The goals of all three phases were to build awareness of the plan and park itself and to understand the community priorities and desires for Allen Park.The phases were: - Learning: information gathering and interviews, stakeholder development - Visioning: surveys and conceptual design alternatives (three concepts) - Planning: final plan and concept drafting and reviewing with stakeholders and the public - Coming soon: informing the public of the final plan This will be a regional park, even though it's nestled in a community space. From the key takeaways, the preferred concept highlights: - Retains 10 of the 14 structures on site for rehabilitation and adaptive reuse and artist- and-scientist-in-residence programming - Replaces removed structures with public community gathering spaces - Rehabilitates and restores Emigration Creek, riparian zone, and floodplain function - Restores and introduces wildlife habitat - Increases ADA and public access to a majority of the park(including ADA parking) - Creates citywide trail connections - Celebrates the original history of the site, including ornamental plantings and artwork throughout the park Ms.Andra displayed the visual rendering of the preferred concept. Ms. Andra continued to discuss the Allen Park update.Additional elements within the plan include: - Public engagement and plan creation process - Context and history of the site - Best practices study on Cultural Landscapes and existing plan review - Site use recommendations and interpretive plan - Phasing and funding recommendations for plan implementation - Operations and Maintenance Plan - Management Plan - Programming plan with budget and staffing recommendations and recommended partnerships - National/Local Historic Landmark Status recommendation - Environmental and Riparian recommendations PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY - Certified translation into Spanish She encourages Board members to review their packet with the plan and to visit the website.The full build-out of the plan is costly, and staff has $4.5 million from the GO Bond to accomplish phase one.The next steps are: - Week of August 5th:Transmitting draft to City Council - Week of August 191h: Send to TAC(Technical Advisory Committee)and CAC(Community Advisory Committee) members - August 215Y: Presentation to Friends of Allen Park - Week of August 261h: Engagement push to share with the public - Fall 2024: RFQ Selection process for Phase One Design - 2025: Phase One Design - 2026: Begin implementation of Phase One Ms.Andra shared that Public Utilities is fronting a little bit of money to do work along Emigration Creek. Part of Phase One will be some riparian work, including riparian restoration of the culvert and adding a bridge to improve creek flow, potential removal of a couple of the buildings and restoration into those community gathering spaces, and work to restore native plantings for wildlife habitat.The Board and staff continued to discuss Phase One of the plan and other project work. Ms. Hewson asked Ms.Andra about the demographics of the CAC. Ms. Andra said there's a list with all the CAC members in the plan. It shows who was on it and what their affiliation was. She shared that they did an initial survey when Public Lands first acquired Allen Park and got a lot of information about folks intimately involved in that process. Many of the CAC members were interested neighbors, folks staff heard from during the first round of engagement, key stakeholders,technical experts, and people from Preservation Utah, Seven Canyon's Trust, Tracey Aviary, PNUT Board representative, and Friends of Allen Park Representative. The Board and staff continued to discuss the plan. B. Native Plantings,TNL, D6 Updates -Tyler Murdock &Team 30 mins Mr. Murdock shared his screen to display the presentation of the SLC Trails and Natural Lands Division. Mr. Murdock gave a shout to Ms.Andra and her excellent work. He shared how the planning team is growing; each planner works on six to eight projects simultaneously. He said a lot is happening behind the scenes for Allen Park. He said they will focus on the native plant and habitat restoration program of Trails and Natural Lands today. He introduced Blake Wellard as the team's restoration ecologist. He shared a lot of information that the Board will hear today regarding the native plant program,which stems from Mr.Wellard's research and ideas. Mr. Murdock introduced Melissa Lewis as the Natural Lands Supervisor. She oversees the operations team. Mr. Fonarow,the Trails Manager, was also present but won't be presenting today. Mr. Murdock shared there are 2,400 acres of natural land in Salt Lake City, which makes up about 46 total natural land properties. This land is further separated into three core program areas, which are the Foothills Natural Area (around 2,100 acres of SLC-managed property and 6,000 acres of co-managed land with Public Utilities, Public Lands, University of Utah, United States Forest Service, and This Is the Place State Park), Urban Natural Areas, and Native Habitat Restoration Program. He shared that the staff is working on a co-management system for the Foothills Natural area. He invited the Board to sign up for the Foothills newsletter. Mr. Murdock said Ms. Lewis manages the Urban Natural Areas,which focus on riparian corridors such as Wasatch Hollow, Miller Park,Allen Park, Hidden Hollow, etc.Today, they are primarily focusing on the Native Habitat Restoration Program.This is a new program with one full-time PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY staff. He shared the current staff structure of the Trails and Natural Lands (TNL)team. He added Public Lands was awarded a position by the Council this year to hire a Trails and Natural Lands Division Director. Mr. Murdock continued to discuss the TNL team. He displayed a chart highlighting the performance metrics TNL uses. He highlighted the team's growth by sharing how,from 2022, staff went from 633 acres per full-time staff to 2024 with 211 acres per full-time staff. He shared that Park metrics are to have about 10 acres per full-time staff.The Board and staff continued to discuss TNL metrics. Ms. Lewis said many people do not know what Trails and Natural Lands are, so the team is working towards more brand awareness about the TNL programs throughout the City.They've been working with the Communications team to find more educational messaging for the public. The three areas the team is focusing on are: 1. What are Salt Lake City's TNL? 2. What does TNL do, and why do we do it? 3. How does TNL want to promote public interactions with natural spaces? What are Salt Lake City's TNL? - Our trails and natural lands are crucial ecological habitats primarily maintained in their natural state and provide unique recreational opportunities within SLC. What does TNL do, and why do we do it? - SLC's TNL Division actively restores, enhances, and protects our natural spaces to ensure a long-term balance of environmental conservation and user recreation. How does TNL want to promote public interactions with natural spaces? - SLC's TNL encourages connections with nature and empowers individual and community conservation and stewardship. - Staff's Be W.I.L.D. campaign came as part of this. Ms. Lewis shared some notable improvements of consistent maintenance on some properties for the first time, responsiveness to community requests is faster, smaller restoration projects being taken on by NRTs, increased collaboration with other partners, a broader range of skills on the team, maintenance on some trails in the Foothills for the first time, updated property web pages, and increased capacity of design signage and educational materials. Mr. Wellard shared he's very excited to be part of the Native Habitat Restoration Program. He will share some background,why the program is needed, and where the program is going. He shared some issues facing Salt Lake regarding biodiversity, such as land use and alterations, invasive species, and climate change. With 175 years of economic development in settlements, much of SLC's landscape is void of biodiversity. Since settlement in Salt Lake City, some local impacts have been a 30% loss of wetlands, invasive species, monocultures, early drying fuels, reduction or loss of ecological services, ecosystem shifts, phenological disruptions, location extinction, and range contractions. Mr.Wellard continued to discuss the background of the program. The Native Habitat Restoration Program started in 2019 out of Liberty Park Greenhouse, with Fairmont Park being the first project.The program aims to restore ecosystem services with biodiversity, focusing on insect-focused restoration, conserving locally imperiled species, and benefiting wildlife and people. Mr. Wellard is focused on creating a base-level food web. He shared he's excited about how the program aligns with the Reimagine Nature Master Plan and Emerald Ribbon Master Plan. He shared an overview of the program methodology, including seed collection, solarization/occultation, seed farming, wetland in-box/greenhouse production, and weed barrier. Mr.Wellard continued to discuss the Native Plant Program. He highlighted some successful projects from the Native Plant Program, such as the Cornell Wetlands and Mary PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY Springs. He shared some species they've identified in these spaces. Due to how quickly Salt Lake City is losing diversity, Mr. Wellard shared he builds projects around certain species. He highlighted some of his favorite projects centered around Wheeler's Angelica, Fringed Loosestrife, and approximately 1,000 cacti planting at Parley's Pointe. Mr. Wellard shared that the Utah DNR recently awarded the staff a grant. Some of TNL's partners are Sage Land Collaborative, Raising Butterflies, Utah Friends of Monarchs, Natural History Museum of Utah, University of Utah, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, Utah DNR, Utah State, and Utah Department of Corrections.The Utah Department of Corrections is helping bridge some capacity shortfalls by having greenhouse space for staff to work out of. He shared what's needed to help grow the program. - Documentation - Master Plan Development - Additional FTEs (greenhouse manager,farm manager, restoration practitioners) - Infrastructure needs (permanent greenhouse, wetland nursery, outdoor holding area, and additional seed farms) Some future work needed to help this program would be to expand public education opportunities, increase wetlands, have more community collaborative projects (citizens, non- profits), and utilize golf courses for conservation projects. He shared that he can make a good wetland habit in a year. Ms. Nakamura shared she is working on a project in her area to reimagine an underpass. She asked if the staff would want to talk to the community about partnering to see what could be done regarding native grasses. Mr. Murdock said that while they have staff that can grow and plant plants, he thinks a critical component of the long-term success of this program is the growth of their partnerships and community programs. He said they're still figuring that out, but Friends of Fairmont is an excellent example of how it can work. He added a key message for the PNUT Board, which is sharing with the public that there are opportunities to partner with public land, and having some stewardship and ownership of those spaces from a community standpoint is critical to long-term success. The Board and staff continued to discuss the Native Habitat Program. Mr. Murdock shared they didn't talk about all their priority areas. Still, almost all of them are focused primarily on ephemeral streams and wetlands so that staff doesn't have to increase the need for additional water. Mr. Wellard mentioned many buried wetlands, and Mr. Murdock mentioned the Cornell Wetlands with the stormwater system. Mr. Wellard shared that Public Utilities has expressed verbal interest in giving Public Lands acres of land as part of their water treatment plants.The Board and staff continued to discuss the Native Plant Program. Ms. Finch asked if the staff has had any engagement with Community Councils. Mr. Wellard said he hasn't, but he'd be happy to. Mr. Murdock said they've done a little bit with Community Councils. Mr. Murdock said the staff is still implementing this program on a tiny budget and with a small team, and with that comes lots of limitations. The Board and staff continued to discuss the Native Plant Program. Mr. Wiley asked if other people were doing this throughout the state. Mr. Wellard said he thinks they're the only municipality doing this. There are practitioners at the academic, state, and federal levels, but it's similar to the TNL team. In terms of comprehensive restoration,there's not a lot of additional work happening. Restoration is challenging, and leaving the space alone is easier than restoring it. Multiple universities are devoting resources to seeking answers to these PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY questions about restoration. He shared he hopes they can be a regional or state example of how a program like this can work.The Board and staff continued to discuss the Native Plant Program. Ms. Finch asked how TNL works regarding species biodiversity with Parks and Urban Forestry. Mr. Murdock said yes, and Fairmont Park is an excellent example. One of the key outcomes of the Reimagine Nature Master Plan is diversity, reducing water usage in parks, and adding more biodiversity.There are a lot of opportunities within golf courses, too. Lindsay Gardens has a fantastic stream that's currently buried. Ms. Lewis said they already have a lot of property to manage, so if we add data spaces into golf courses and parks, they can't necessarily maintain those. Mr. Murdock doesn't want to make that sound easy, but that is a significant shift in operational maintenance and management of parks. Parks crews aren't familiar with this type of work so that it would require another level of training. The Board and staff continued to discuss the Native Plant Program. C. Consolidated Fee Schedule - Kristin Riker 10 mins Ms. Larsen shared her screen to display the Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). Ms. Riker referenced the CFS,which is also in the packet. She said she wouldn't go through all the changes, but all changed fees are marked in red. So many rates have gone up because the CFS is reviewed annually, and most of those increases are subject to the annual Consumer Price Index increase, which was 3.9%this year.This gets done automatically by Finance. Most of the mare is based on the yearly increases for the CPI. She encouraged the Board to review the document in their packet. Ms. Nakamura said she likes seeing the resident versus non-resident rate and wonders why it's not on other things. Ms. Riker noted it is difficult to prove residents, especially teens. Ms. Nakamura asked if leagues from outside the City were coming in using fields. Ms. Riker said our fields are some of the least well-maintained, so she doesn't think so.The Board and staff continued to discuss field reservations and CFS. Ms. Riker said they manage fees for the Cemetery, Public Lands, Special Events, Regional Athletic Complex,Tennis Center, Urban Forestry, and Golf. Changing an existing fee or adding a new one requires a cost analysis done by the finance department.They're responsible for working with the departments to complete the analysis and calculate the cost for all the associated fees before it can be modified on the CFS. The City Council adopts the updated CFS during the annual budget process.The Board and staff continued to discuss CFS. D. General Staff Updates -Ashlyn Larsen 5 mins Ms. Larsen shared she will not be at the meeting in September.There will be another member of staff covering for her that month. Ms. Larsen will make sure everything is prepared and ready ahead of time. She asked Board members to please confirm their attendance so she can confirm catering by August 29th and also to let the staff member covering her know which Board members she can expect to be in attendance. She said the packet will not be updated after August 291h. She needs everything to be included in the packet, such as the Indigenous Commission Letter, Stakeholder Presentation, or any work your committee is working on, by Wednesday,August 281h She shared the feedback the attorneys gave regarding cameras in the Bylaws. Ms. Larsen said staff shared the Board's reasoning for why Board members attending virtually would not want their cameras on, and the attorneys were okay with it. She shared that she also made minor updates to the Onboarding Presentation, including additional links to the resource page. Ms. Larsen also made minor updates to the Staff Requests at Committee meetings. She added that multiple dates were provided as options to meet with staff. PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY 7. Board Discussion 6:40 PM A. Review non-PNUT member form - Bylaws Committee 10 mins Ms. Larsen shared her screen to display the Non-PNUT Member Form. Ms. Finch explained briefly the Bylaws to the new Board members. She explained they created this additional form when a Committee would like a non-PNUT Board member to become a Committee member. She said this is an informational form for PNUT Committee members to share with non-PNUT Committee members as theyjoin. It sets a foundation and standard for expectations about their roles and duties on the Committee. Ms. Larsen said the Onboarding Presentation in their Google Drive contains a list of all active Committees and members. Ms. Larsen shared her screen to display the Committees'folder. Ms. Finch walked new Board members through the Committee folders.The Board continued to discuss Bylaws and PNUT Committees. B. Review draft Indigenous Commission Letter 10 mins The Board decided to table this item at the October meeting. C. Review and update Stakeholder Presentation Process 5 mins Ms. Larsen shared her screen to display the Stakeholder Presentation Process. Ms. Pontuti explained the purpose of the Stakeholder Presentation Process to new Board members,which is to let groups give longer presentations outside of the Public Comment Period to the Board. She shared that Ms. Binnebose and herself created social media drafts that can be used to advertise this option and a form the Board can manage and review. Ms. Riker said she would review this. D. Committee Reporting 15 mins Bylaws Committee Ms. Finch said the Bylaws Committee met to review and prepare to present the form they shared tonight. She invited Board members to review and make comments. Jordan River Trail Committee Ms. Hewson said the Jordan River Trail Committee has not met. Still, there was an expressed interest in working potentially with a university or academic institution majoring in GIC information to support the project and committee. She shared that Ms. Pehrson and she have met with some contacts, but there needs to be another conversation to get more clarity, such as the project's long-term sustainability. Ms. Hewson continued to share updates regarding the Jordan River Trail Committee. Ms. Pontuti said she has connections in the Geography Department at the U, so she's happy to help build connections. Communications Committee Mr. Scrivner said when the Communications Committee met,they prepared the Stakeholder Presentation Process, which was discussed tonight, and prepared the Indigenous Commission Letter. Ms. Pontuti said Ms. Binnebose is working on a form for Committee SMART Goals. E. Board comments and question period 10 mins Mr. Wiley said some bathrooms haven't been accessible to the community because of issues with their treatment. He asked Ms. Riker if there were any updates on that at Riverside. He's wondering if there's an easy way for people to access the bathrooms with wireless logs or Wi-Fi so they can access the bathrooms, something that will open the bathroom at certain times during the day. Ms. Riker said keypads and things like that get destroyed. She said she will look into why they are closed. Ms. Riker asked Ms. Larsen to remind her of this. PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY Ms. Nakamura thanked staff for the landscaping work on the 9-Line. Ms. Riker said Mr. Ramos, Parks Operations Manager, has been working on that. She shared that the project was delivered to Public Lands, RDA funded it, Engineering managed the contract, and there were some miscommunications regarding maintenance after the project was completed. Mr. Ramos has regularly met with the community to figure out a new plan.The Board and staff continued to discuss the 9-Line project. Mr. Scrivner commented on seeing kids free-play soccer at Madsen Park, which was so cool to see that park being used. Ms. Riker said staff put soccer goals out last about a year and new nets this year. She said some of the community wants the whole thing to be a dog park.There's about $7S0,000 from the GO Bond dedicated to that park. Staff closed the park last year and put fencing home to disrupt the behavior of the homeless folks, which helped. Ms. Hewson shared she saw Public Lands staff engaging at the farmer's market. Ms. Riker said the Mayor's office approached her and will probably close a portion of the Jordan River Trail by Fair Park. She said they supported them due to how scary that section of the Jordan River Trail is. More information will be coming out. It's not Public Lands closing it but the homeless group and police department. Ms. Pontuti shared that she's involved with a group doing a kid's Goat Club and invited the Board to attend on August 17th.There will be farm animals, music, and food trucks. Ms. Finch shared that Friends of Fairmont is hosting an event with Mr.Wellard on August 18th to discuss native species at the park. Mr. Bloch said he would love a map of the city parks and natural spaces to understand better all the spaces that Public Lands manages. Ms. Riker said the Public Lands webpage has a map, and staff is working on revamping it. F. Next meeting: September S, 2024 G. Request for future agenda items Ms. Larsen shared some staff requests for agenda items: - CIP - Green Loop - Emerald Ribbon Final Plan Ms. Nakamura suggested having an action item of non-PNUT members who would like to join the Urban Trails Committee, one from the Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Transportation Advisory Committee, at minimum. The Board discussed that they've already adopted the Urban Trails Committee, so they only need to approve the non-PNUT members. Mr. Scrivner invited the Board to let himself or Ms. Larsen know if there's another topic they'd like to add to the agenda. Ms. Larsen reminded everyone the agenda needs to be finalized by August 29th Ms. Nakamura motioned to adjourn the meeting, and Ms. Finch seconded it. The Board unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting. 8. Adjourn 7:30 PM 5/3/22, 10:43 AM BCA-00125 I Salesforce BC Boards and Commissions Application BCA-00125 New Contact New Case Edit Related Details BC Boards and Commissions Application Name Case BCA-00125 00036930(/lightning/r/5005G000OOuNwRrQAK/view) .............................. Board Applied For Owner Transportation Advisory Board Vlightning/r/a7Q5G000000GxzdUAC/view) SLCCRM(/lightning/r/005f4000004wRrBAAU/view) .............................................................................................. .......................... Applicant Stage Johnnae Nardone Contact Is Test Applicant Phone Previous Contact No Applicant Address Previous Contact Details Applicant City Council District How Heard Current Board or Commission member Profession Questionaire Reason of Interest Membership In the past few years,I've become more interested in how street design and I have stepped back from community council to make way for new transportation in city's affect so many factors.I've always been transit opportunities such as this,but still closely engaged albeit not on the board. enthusiast and bike commuter.I chose Liberty Wells to call home because of how easy it is to bike and use transit.In addition to the subject matter, I've been active in helping to shape my community for many years and I'd feel like this good opportunity to serve the city I love in meaningful way. Community Service other Information I have served on my the Liberty Wells Community Council since 2018 and Full disclosure I am a UTA employee but I am not involved in any policy, the city's Housing Advisory and Appeals Board since 2019(?).I worked in financial contract,or service planning decision making.We have clear mission-oriented/nonprofit sector for the most of my career.Every city I conflicts of interest policies that I adhere to.I would like to serve on the have lived in a found some way to give back and volunteer. board as a community representative and multi-modal enthusiast.I choose Salt Lake City to call home,and Liberty Wells in particular.so that I could live a less car-dependent lifestyle.I'm well versed in the nature and concerns of IDS and I'd love the opportunity to serve my neighborhood and city in this capacity. References Reference 1 Name Reference 3 Name Sara Myron Reference 1 Last Name Reference 3 Last Name Adelman Wilson Reference 1 Phone Reference 3 Phone 646 821 2708 8015412922 Reference 2 Name Tim Reference 2 Last Name Cosgrove Reference 2 Phone 801-598-8047 hftps://slcgov.lightning.force.com/lightning/r/BC_Boards_and_Commissions_Application_c/a7S5G000001 QojTUAS/view 1/2 5/3/22, 10:43 AM BCA-00125 I Salesforce Demographics Ethnic Group Gender Identity White/Caucasian/Anglo Female Disabled Veteran No BC Boards and Commissions Application No New Contact New Case Edit LangiBCA-00125 Housing Ovm u, ID as LGBTQ Education Level No Bachelors Degree Created By Last Modified By SLCCRM Site Guest User(/lightning/r/005f4000004ysvwAAA/view). SLCCRM Site Guest User(/lightning/r/005f4000004ysvwAAA/view). ........................................................................... ........................................................................... 12/15/2021 2:33 PM 12/15/2021 2:33 PM hftps://slcgov.lightning.force.com/lightning/r/BC_Boards_and_Commissions_Application_c/a7S5G000001 QojTUAS/view 2/2 J0 H N N A E SKILLS • Systems thinking • Project management N A R D O N E • Training & instruction • Audience research • Consensus building • Copywriting • Highly organized • Empathy/ High EQ DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER EXPERIENCE driven,analytical and creative SENIOR SOCIAL MEDIA STRATEGIST UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY I APRIL 2019 - PRESENT • Manage and grow UTA's social media presence, email list, and blogs. • 10+years of helping . Created UTA's first rider email newsletter: Rider Insider. nonprofits and businesses • Coach, monitor and advise eight-person team of social turn ideas and goals into media customer service agents. • Established process and ongoing improvements to email and engaging content. text alert system for riders. • Experienced in a variety of DIGITAL STRATEGIST + PROJECT MANANGER digital tools and channels. THIRD SUN I JUNE 2016 - APRIL 2018 • Provided project management, content consultation, and ongoing support and training to our clients as part of a • Particularly skilled at small, creative team serving small businesses and nonprofits planning,defining and in Utah and beyond. improving process, and • In order to meet production goals and empower our clients to use our products, I: thinking Systems and - Coached clients through content strategy and production. details. - Designed and lead trainings in digital communications. - Managed over 20 branding and web design projects. COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATE PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK I MAR 2013 - MAY 2016 FOR MORE INFORMATION • Managed, measured, and engaged online communities to LINKEDIN.COM/IN/JOHNNAENARDONE increase participation with PAN's issues. W@JOHNNAESHINES • Drafted, proofed, and edited blogs, web pages, posts, and other collateral to educate and sway public opinion of our issues. • Created and maintain communications calendar to produce timely and relevant content. • Coached, mentored, and motivated staff to participate in social media to increase PAN's reach and share its expertise. CONTACT EDUCATION 714-369-3066 BACHELOR OF ARTS, ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE JOHNNAENARDONE@GMAIL.COM GRADUATE COURSEWORK, COMMUNICATION INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATION CERTIFICATE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 7/20/22,4:43 PM BCA-00264-Salesforce-Unlimited Edition • Close Window •ZD - Print This Page Expand All I Collapse All BCA-00264 BC Boards and BCA-00264 Outcome Commissions Application Name Board Applied For Bicycle Advisory Case 00053460 Applicant Greta Sommerfeld Contact Greta Sommerfeld Applicant Phone 6128165914 Owner SLCCRM Applicant Address 163 West 200 South 310 Salt Lake City, Stage New UT 84101 Applicant City Council Previous Contact No District How Heard Other Previous Contact Details Profession Marketing Analyst Questionaire Reason of Interest As an avid bike commuter in SLC proper- Membership NA I'd love to help in any way I can! Community Service Board member for SLC Track Club Other Information Volunteer at Best Friends Humane Society References Reference 1 Name Maria Reference 3 Name Alla Reference 1 Last Name McLeod Reference 3 Last Name Chernenko Reference 1 Phone 8013269105 Reference 3 Phone 6156058038 Reference 2 Name Annabelle Reference 2 Last Name Schwab Reference 2 Phone 8019278404 Demographics Ethnic Group White/Caucasian/Anglo Gender Identity Female Disabled No Veteran No Languages English Housing Own Home ID as LGBTQ No Education Level Bachelors Degree Created By SLCCRM Site Guest User,7/5/2022 2:20 Last Modified By Dan Milam,7/19/2022 2:29 PM PM Files GSommerfeld Resume Last Modified 7/5/2022 2:21 PM Created By SLCCRM https://slcgov.my.salesforce.com/a7S5GOOOOOlQt4WUAS/p 1/2 Greta Sommerfeld 612-816-5914; 163 W 200 S Unit 310, Salt Lake City UT 84101 Experience Senior MarketingAnalyst Progrexion, Salt Lake City,UT May 2019-Present • Assist in the strategy,budgeting,testing,planning,optimization,measurement,and analysis of TV&Radio channels for CreditRepair.com&Credit.com brands • Own data for the TV&Radio channels-creating&maintaining Tableau dashboards to enable decisions to be made both in real-time&summarizing prior periods for broader analysis&strategy • Maintain relationships with media agencies-communicating our campaign strategy,media budget,and testing goals;while optimizing the network and creative mix to increase efficiencies • Key decision maker in new&existing creative content for the channels-providing feedback,editing copy, working hand-in-hand with the creative team during production Senior FinancialAnalyst Progrexion, Salt Lake City,UT June 2018-May 2019 • Consult to the Operations division-performing key analyses on both day-to-day operations to improve efficiencies as well as analyses on long term plans&special initiatives to drive growth for the business • Created&implemented weekly reporting to give Operations team up-to-date details on the business,helping drive real-time decisions&inform the team of performance on a more frequent basis • Spearheaded effort of five fellow analysts to create an ROI model for business cases for use across departments FinancialAnalyst Ancestry,Lehi,UT February 2017-June 2018 • Aided in overhauling Member Services model to better serve our customers:reducing average wait times by 50%in a cost effective manner • Supported Canadian Family History business in growing inventory by over 20%2017 v 2016,with projections to continue the growth trend in 2018;while also supporting DNA growth of 40% • Consult to US Marketing VPs:accountable for their budgets,lead analysis on projects to determine strategy, profitability,&efficiency FinancialAnalyst General Mills,Inc., Minneapolis, MN July 2014-February 2017 • Awarded prestigious Champions of Finance award for analysis to mitigate profit impact during the avian flu crisis;efforts led to the maintenance of key customers without a detrimental business impact • Implemented a database for company's hundreds of bank accounts managed across both different countries and different subsidiaries,replacing a myriad of paper files&spreadsheet records • Prevented over$3MM of incorrect bank transfers through diligence in reviewing wire transfer documentation Education Michigan State University,East Lansing,MI -BA Accounting August 2010-May 2014 Minor in Mathematics,International Business Specialization;Semester Abroad-Barcelona,Spain Other+ Community Involvement Board Member: Vice President - Salt Take City Track Club Volunteer- Utah Humane Sociely,Besl Friends Registered Yoga Teacher(RIf200) - Radiant Life Yoga StrengthsFinder:Analytical,Discipline,Learner,Focus,Input 3/8/24, 11:20 AM BCA-00661 —Salesforce-Unlimited Edition • Close Window • Print This Page • Expand All Collapse All BCA-00661 BC Boards and BCA-00661 Outcome Commissions Application Name Board Applied For Transportation Advisory Board Case 00134591 Second Choice Bicycle Advisory Owner B&C Application Queue Third Choice Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, Stage New and Trails Advisory Board Profession Product Management(Software Previous contact with Yes Products) board or members Previous Contact Emailing with Amy Details How Heard Current Board or Commission member Applicant Applicant Miranda Bradshaw Applicant City Council District Applicant Email bradshaw.miranda@gmail.com Contact Miranda Bradshaw Applicant Phone 3854224126 Contact Email bradshaw.miranda@gmail.com Applicant Address 438 North Center Street 209 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Questionaire Reason for interest in I have worked in the parking and Civic/Professional Org International Parking and Mobility this board transportation industry and have a Memberships Institute(IPMI) thorough understanding of policy, operations, and, in particular,technology relevant to this space.Thoughtful transportation policy is key to the city's sustainability, economic growth, and accessibility goals. Community Service Public speaking and advocating for Other Information I love our city and would welcome an activ. past/present parking reform opportunity to serve on this board. References Reference 1 Name Jason Reference 3 Name Cole Reference 1 Last Sutton Reference 3 Last Jaillet Name Name Reference 1 Phone 770-8833162 Reference 3 Phone 603-501-9927 Reference 2 Name Sarah Reference 2 Last Ratcliffe Name Reference 2 Phone 773-860-7314 Demographics https://slcgov.my.salesforce.com/a7S50000000kLk5UAE/p 1/2 3/8/24, 11:20 AM BCA-00661 —Salesforce-Unlimited Edition Ethnic Group White/Caucasian/Anglo Gender Identity Female Disabled No Veteran No Languages English, Spanish, Danish Housing Own Home ID as LGBTQ Yes Education Level Masters Degree Created By mySLC Site Guest User, 3/8/2024 11:18 Last Modified By mySLC Site Guest User, 3/8/2024 11:18 AM AM Files CV Miranda Bradshaw_2024 Metropolis Last Modified 3/8/2024 11:18 AM Created By Salt Lake City System Account Copyright©2000-2024 salesforce.com, inc.All rights reserved. https://slcgov.my.salesforce.com/a7S50000000kLk5UAE/p 2/2 Miranda Bradshaw Iinkedin.com/in/miranda-bradshaw/ bradshaw.miranda@gmail.com 438 N Center St,APT 209, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84103 385-422-4126 RELATED WORK EXPERIENCE Senior Product Manager April 2022—Current Passport Labs, Remote • Created industry-first collaboration tools that enabled city leaders to share municipal parking data • Leveraged data-modeling and predictive occupancy estimates to provide new insights for users • Lead product discovery work through on-site visits, online interviews, workshops, surveys, etc. • Presented and demoed at the parking and mobility industry's largest conventions • Worked cross-functionally to create, test, and evaluate experimental new features • Created launch plans, trained internal teams, and ensured that new features were successfully launched • Created Passport's first monetized add-on features and performed extensive WTP and price modeling research IT Product Manager I Canyon Laboratories December 2020—April 2022 Ultradent, Salt Lake City, UT • Worked with a team of chemists, business managers, and marketers to build a lab-facing B2B laboratory services platform • Built a B2B business development platform that visualized sales data and automated key workflows • Hired and onboarded UX designers, participated in UX testing for usability and accessibility • Worked with diverse stakeholders worldwide • Lead an agile team of developers, testers, and designers Product Manager I Global Design Services December 2018—November 2020 3Shape, Copenhagen, DK • Lead UX research initiatives through customer visits, prototyping, and user testing • Worked with agile teams to build a customer facing,Al powered dental design platform • Lead a significant redesign for a B2B enterprise grade medical services platform to increase usability • Created the R&D and product strategies for the Global Design Services business unit • Pioneered the entry into new customer segments through the design and delivery of clinical workflows and platform integrations for both mobile and desktop applications • Designed and automated a new customer onboarding process Product Manager I Data Quality January 2018—November 2018 Nordea Bank, Copenhagen, DK • Worked with agile teams to build big data exploration tools on the Hadoop platform • Prioritized user-center design while managing the software development lifecycle • Gathered feedback from users and stakeholders to create a prioritized product backlog • Developed product strategies and roadmaps, presented to stakeholders and management • Planned deployments with the development team and participated in scrum rituals • Defined and documented processes for the development team Business Analyst I Data Engineering July 2017—December 2017 Nordea Bank, Copenhagen, DK • Trained and on-boarded users for a variety of big data exploration and BI visualization tools • Oversaw installation, upgrades, and performance testing for BI tools • Worked with cross-functional agile teams to ensure that technical requirements were met Research Analyst I Applied Economics Department August 2014—December 2015 Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA • Created consumer segments and a targeted marketing strategy based on sales data and statistical modeling • Taught undergraduate classes on business and entrepreneurship OTHER WORK EXPERIENCE Economics Instructor August 2016—July 2017 Independence University, Utah, USA • Taught economics courses via a remote learning platform • Assisted at-risk students with study and composition skills Professional Athlete I Volleyball August 2016—April 2017 Brondby Volleyball Klub, Brondby, DK • Trained and competed in the top volleyball leagues in Denmark and the Nordics-2016 Danish National Championship team member SERVICE AND LEADERSHIP Mentor February 2016—August 2016 Women of the World, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA • Met weekly with a refugee to study for her citizenship exam and practice English and interviewing skills SKILLS AND PROFESSIONAL QUALITIES • Fluent in English and Spanish, intermediate Danish • Able to work and communicate effectively with people from a variety of backgrounds EDUCATION Economics, MSc Graduated May 2016 Utah State University, Logan, UT • GPA: 3.9 Economics, BS Graduated May 2012 Boise State University, Boise, ID • GPA: 3.89 Stakeholder Presentation Process Purpose: To permit organizations or a stakeholder group (such as a community group, business, etc.) to present to the PNUT Board on matters regarding Public Lands within Salt Lake City that are not part of the Board's regularly scheduled Agenda. This would exclude topics such as CIP proposals and budget requests. When Available: At regular Board meetings, subject to approval by the Board and availability on the Agenda. Conditions: • No more than one (up to 10 minute) presentation per meeting, allocated on a first come, first serve basis. If topics are more urgent, public comment and electronic communication are still available. • Repeat topics within the same calendar year will be reviewed at the Board's discretion to allow for diverse topics to be discussed as applicable. o If multiple requests are made for the same meeting, preference will be given to stakeholders who have not presented to the Board within the calendar year. After that, presentation order will be determined by the timestamp on the request form. • If multiple requests are made for the same meeting and all stakeholders have not presented to the Board within the calendar year, presentation order will be determined by the timestamp on the request form as there can be only one stakeholder presentation per meeting. • Requests need to be made no less than one month in advance of a meeting in order to allow for agenda approval and planning, according to the open meeting requirements. Communications: • This process will be advertised on the Board website. • Requests for presentations should be directed to and planned with the Board Communications Subcommittee, beginning with completing a request form on the PNUT website. Request Form Language: Thank you for your interest in sharing with the PNUT Board. Please fill out the form below to begin the scheduling process. A PNUT Board Communications Subcommittee member will respond to the email provided within 7 business days to coordinate a presentation time and to follow up with any additional questions and considerations. Please review our community guidelines before continuing: `Board meetings are intended to be a place for people to feel safe and comfortable in participating in their government. A respectful and safe environment allows Board meetings to be conducted in an orderly, efficient, effective, and dignified fashion, free from distraction, intimidation, and threats to safety. We welcome everyone and ask all meeting participants to keep comments free of discriminatory language. In order to support a respectful meeting, items that disrupt the meeting, intimidate other participants or that may cause safety concerns are not allowed. If any person fails to conduct themselves in a civil manner, that person may be directed to leave the meeting, or the chair may elect to terminate a Board meeting if Board business cannot be conducted.' o Please describe the presentation's purpose to the Board. o Describe how this presentation relates to parks, natural lands, or urban trails in Salt Lake City, UT. o Preferred Board meeting dates available to present (must list at least 2 Board meeting dates). o Please describe any accommodations that would be helpful to the presenter. o Contact information: Email and phone number. o Please add relevant district numbers so that the associated PNUT Board members can be informed ahead of time. • Outcomes o What would be helpful for the Board to consider with your presentation? • Reminders: o Presentations may not exceed more than 10 minutes and presentation materials have to be shared with the Board's communications subcommittee at least 14 business days before the presentation date. o Presenting to the Board does not guarantee any future actions will be taken. Please review the Board's powers and duties for more information on our scope. o Topics that are regularly covered in meeting agendas will not be considered for this avenue. Excluded topics include CIP projects, budget considerations, etc. Please use the public comment period for those discussions. o We also encourage other forms of communication with the Board, such as emails, phone calls, and letters. o The Board reserves the right to stop or end the presentation at any time if the process does not adhere to the Board's community guidelines. Thank you for your interest in connecting with the PNUT Board! We look forward to working with you! In the meantime, feel free to utilize the public comment period at the beginning of each PNUT Board meeting (advertised on our website) or reach out with any thoughts or ideas to our Board email. Thank you for your engagement! 8/28/24,8:56 AM PNUT Stakeholder Presentation Request Form PNUT Stakeholder Presentation Request Form Thank you for your interest in sharing with the PNUT Board. Please fill out the form below to begin the scheduling process. A PNUT Board Communications Subcommittee member will respond to the email provided within 7 business days to coordinate a presentation time and to follow up with any additional questions and considerations. Presentation information: 1. Presentations may not exceed more than 10 minutes and presentation materials have to be shared with the Board's communications subcommittee at least 14 business days before the presentation date. 2. Presenting to the Board does not guarantee any future actions will be taken. Please review the Board's powers and duties for more information on our scope. 3. Topics that are regularly covered in meeting agendas will not be considered for this avenue. Excluded topics include CIP projects, budget considerations, etc. Please use the public comment period for those discussions. 4. We also encourage other forms of communication with the Board, such as emails, phone calls, and letters. 5. The Board reserves the right to stop or end the presentation at any time if the process does not adhere to the Board's community guidelines. Please review our community guidelines before continuing: 'Board meetings are intended to be a place for people to feel safe and comfortable in participating in their government. A respectful and safe environment allows Board meetings to be conducted in an orderly, efficient, effective, and dignified fashion, free from distraction, intimidation, and threats to safety. We welcome everyone and ask all meeting participants to keep comments free of discriminatory language. In order to support a respectful meeting, items that disrupt the meeting, intimidate other participants or that may cause safety concerns are not allowed. If any person fails to conduct themselves in a civil manner, that person may be directed to leave the meeting, or the chair may elect to terminate a Board meeting if Board business cannot be conducted.' * Inriiratac raniiirari niiactinn 1. Email https://docs.google.com/forms/d/lISVs8EY18MZjCDbilgr HbvOEkbAq4g3G7XQUOgfpko/edit 1/3 8/28/24,8:56 AM PNUT Stakeholder Presentation Request Form 2. Please describe the presentation's purpose to the Board. * 3. Describe how this presentation relates to parks, natural lands, or urban trails in Salt Lake City, UT. 4. Preferred Board meeting dates available to present (must list at least 2 Board meeting dates). 5. Please describe any accommodations that would be helpful to the presenter. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/lISVs8EY18MZjCDbilgr HbvOEkbAq4g3G7XQUOgfpko/edit 2/3 8/28/24,8:56 AM PNUT Stakeholder Presentation Request Form 6. What would be helpful for the Board to consider with your presentation? 7. Please share a contact email: * 8. Please share a contact phone number: 9. Please add relevant district numbers so that the associated PNUT Board members can be informed ahead of time. Check all that apply. ❑ District 1 ❑ District 2 ❑ District 3 ❑ District 4 ❑ District 5 ❑ District 6 ❑ District 7 This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Google Forms https://docs.google.com/forms/d/lISVs8EY18MZjCDbilgr HbvOEkbAq4g3G7XQUOgfpko/edit 3/3 Social Media : We have a new way for you all to engage with the community PNUT Board! In addition to being able to give public comments, email, and call the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory (PNUT) Board , community groups and organizations can present to our board to keep them informed of the issues that matter to you. Check out our website [link in bio] for more information if you would like to present to the PNUT Board on anything around our parks and natural land systems! Newsletter: Title:A New Way to Engage with the PNUT Advisory Board! In addition to being able to give public comments, email, and call the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board (PNUT Board), we can host presentations from groups and organizations. Check out our [website] for more information if you are looking to share information with the Board on anything around our parks and natural land systems! Website: Stakeholder Presentations Purpose: To permit organizations or a stakeholder group (such as a community group, business, etc.) to present to the PNUT Advisory Board on matters regarding Public Lands within Salt Lake City that are not part of the Board's regularly scheduled Agenda. This would exclude topics such as Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) proposals and budget requests. When Available: At regular Board meetings, subject to approval by the Board and availability on the Agenda. Conditions: • No more than one (up to 10 minute) presentation per meeting, allocated on a first come, first serve basis. If topics are more urgent, public comment and electronic communication are still available. • Repeat topics within the same calendar year will be reviewed at the Board's discretion to allow for diverse topics to be discussed as applicable. • If multiple requests are made for the same meeting, preference will be given to stakeholders who have not presented to the Board within the calendar year. After that, presentation order will be determined by the timestamp on the request form. • If multiple requests are made for the same meeting and all stakeholders have not presented to the Board within the calendar year, presentation order will be determined by the timestamp on the request form as there can be only one stakeholder presentation per meeting. • Requests need to be made no less than one month in advance of a meeting in order to allow for agenda approval and planning, according to the open meeting requirements. Interested in presenting to the Board? Fill out this form to get started! [Add button for form] https://forms.gle/4axWyt5gzECFoXE9A