HomeMy WebLinkAbout112017_cabs01CABS
Commissioners Office
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
FROM: Jill Silver, 10,000 Year Institute
DATE: November 20, 2017
SUBJECT: West Jefferson County invasive species and jobs projects
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
An update on the Pulling Together in Restoration and Hoh River Riparian Restoration projects —
results, challenges, and jobs created in 2017 in west Jefferson County; and future proposals with a
request for letters of support.
ANALYSIS:
Please see attachments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Prevention of roadside invasive species is the single -most effective means to reduce spread of noxious,
habitat -destructive, agriculture -impacting, and forest -degrading invasive plants.
REVIEWED BY:
Philip Morle , County Admin' ator D to
WASHINGTON COAST RESTORATION INITIATIVE
2015 - 2017 BIENNIUM
Pulling Together in Restoration Project Summary
Project Description
The Pulling Together in Restoration Project (PTIR) is a pilot invasive species program working across
jurisdictions in thirteen coastal watersheds to prevent the spread of invasive species into sensitive
habitats. Through cost-effective containment, community-based education and engagement, the
program focuses local crews to work on a short list of invasive species that cause great harm to forest
health, agriculture, and habitat for fish and wildlife; and which are not effectively managed by other
programs or projects.
Which species and why?
Knotweeds, Scotch broom, reed canarygrass, herb Robert, everlasting peavine and other several other
noxious weeds replace important functions of plants including food, structure, shade, nutrient cycling,
and carbon storage. These particularly aggressive non-native species form 'monocultures' which arrest
the growth of other species; affecting forests, rivers, wetlands, and pastures. Knotweed is the focus of
many projects as funding is available through WSDA. Without funding to prevent their spread, the other
afore -mentioned species are advancing on the coast. There's no funding in part because they're widely
distributed across some parts of the state where it is believed that control is not achievable, but in fact,
prevention IS achievable, and where .
Scotch broom (SB) is a good example. SB is present over perhaps 10% of coastal watersheds at present.
A SB monoculture grows to ten feet tall, producing 12,000 seeds per plant per year, which may remain
viable for 90 years. SB is shown to arrests native forest succession through a variety of influences,
replacing early successional native willow, alder, and in time, the conifer forests providing forage, shade,
nutrients, and other services including large woody debris, bank stability and sediment filtration to keep
streams and rivers and forests naturally healthy. SB alters the composition of several important soil
nutrients, and reportedly disrupts the mycorrhizal fungi critical to healthy forest growth'. It is mildly
toxic to grazers, which avoid it. It is also more flammable than native shrubs and trees.
Although SB causes significant ecological impacts, control in forestlands is often assumed unnecessary —
i.e. it will be 'shaded out' by conifer forest growth. Unfortunately, not only does SB impede the growth
of conifer and other forest species by nutrient and mycorrhizal fungi impacts; with 30 to 50 -year harvest
rotations over a 90 -year seed bank and seed -infested gravel spread on forest roads, SB outcompetes
native forest species again.
The fact is: With local jobs and training, SB can be reduced and even eliminated, saving the public
millions of dollars of long-term impact and control costs (State of Oregon reports 34:1 cost/benefit
analysiS2, and State of Washington reports a $142.8 million per year impact'). Early and persistent
action is key to protecting our landscapes and resources from invasive species.
1 Grove S, Haubensak KA, Parker IM (2012) Direct and indirect effects of allelopathy in the soil legacy of an exotic plant invasion. Plant Ecol
213:1869-1882
2 http://www.ore-gon.-goy/oda/shared/documents/publications/weeds/ornoxiousweedeconomicimpact.pdf
3 httD://invasivesoecies.wa.aov/council Droiects/economic impact/Invasive%20SDecies%20Economic%20lmoacts%20Fact%20sheet%20Jan%202017.Ddf
Summary: Pulling Together in Restoration — WCRI FY18 and FY19 Page 1
How will this project make a difference?
This project represents a critical investment in local environmental and economic health, by training
local crews in Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) methods, and conducting on -the -ground
control, stitching up gaps in prevention and protection across jurisdictional boundaries. Contributing to
existing projects and programs conducted by agency, tribal, and local partners, these teams work along
connecting pathways including roads and rivers along which millions of weed seeds and fragments move
via tires, mowers, wind, and water into tributaries, pastures, and forest stands.
To improve the success of salmon recovery and restoration projects, we will continue to provide a field
review of each of 300+ projects, and develop recommendations for invasive species management for
each. Where time and capacity are available, we will provide control services. We are working with the
Department of Natural Resources for an offender crew to be dedicated to roadside and gravel mine
Scotch broom control. The crew and a trained and licensed supervisor would be available to agency,
tribal and non-profit landowners and partnerships at a reasonable cost.
The program also provides detailed watershed -specific education and outreach, coordination and
information encapsulated in a platform focused on increasing prevention and control of resource -
damaging invasive species. With local jobs focused on effective prevention of the rising tide of invasive
species; protecting investments in coastal restoration and economic vitality in forestry, fisheries, local
agriculture, recreation, and tourism is an achievable outcome.
More details and current project work to date
The PTIR project evolved in response to expanding populations and impacts of invasive plants in
forested and aquatic habitats, combined with insufficient funding and coordination necessary to
effectively prevent and contain them. With changing climate, receding glaciers and unstable river
channels, increasing traffic, rapid timber harvest, and billions invested in restoration for threatened fish
populations, it's time to invest in preventing the spread of noxious invasive Eurasian plants so that
habitats can be resilient to these impacts where protected and restored.
This program addresses the movement of invasive plants between multiple ownerships with differing
capacity, interest, and legal authority or responsibility to reduce or control invasive species in each
watershed on the coast. Layered on that ownership, rivers and roads connect between watersheds, and
invasive species move down these pathways. Each entity does some weed control, but all lack sufficient
resources and strategies to address species moving across their ownership boundaries via wind, water,
construction, or traffic. When small Scotch broom, knotweed, everlasting peavine, and reed canarygrass
sites are removed from roadsides, source populations are prevented from traveling down ditches and
through culverts to streams, where water transports each seed to bare gravel and banks, the ideal
environments for invasion.
Invasive species also degrade other categories of restoration. Whether constructing instream jams or
restoring fish passage through a barrier, planning to treat existing invasives or to prevent the
introduction of new ones is necessary to avoid inadvertent spread via construction, materials, and
equipment. If the gravel for a forest road comes from a mine covered with Scotch broom or knotweed,
seeds and fragments of these species become established in stands that were likely free of them, quickly
growing and eliminating important habitats and ecosystem services ranging from carbon storage to air
and water temperature attenuation. Prevention is easy, but the cost of eliminating these species grows
with the size of the infestation, producing more seeds, and spreading environmental impacts through
the various pathways.
Finally, most weed control focuses only on Class A or B weeds — not the Class C weeds such as Scotch
broom4. SB is an issue of climate resiliency, riparian succession, and forest growth, and is allowed to
Summary: Pulling Together in Restoration — WCRI FY18 and FY19 Page 2
grow until it has inundated roadsides, harvest units, gravel mines, or pastures, and soil or gravel is
contaminated with seeds lasting 90 years, continuing the spread. It is a climate issue because it is
extremely flammable, and it replaces the forest stands sequestering carbon, providing humidity, shade,
and capturing fog drip. Counties on the east side of the Olympic Peninsula blanketed in SB have a
substantially different fire response and management plan than the current response on the coast.
Most of the Olympic Peninsula is NOT invaded YET, and all invasive species are preventable if we act
upon them persistently — meaning EARLY and OFTEN. So, let's pull together!
Goals and Objectives
The primary goals of the program are 1) Increased effectiveness of invasive species prevention and
management across these coastal watersheds, addressing root causes and sources of invasions; 2)
Employing, training and deploying a local workforce for local benefit; 3) Improving containment of
invasives that affect forests and habitat creation; and 4) Public and agency education, engagement and
empowerment.
Objectives are to 1) Decrease the costs of invasive species impacts and control, 2) Improve the success
of restoration investments, 3) Develop a coastal coordinated weed management plan that is
incorporated into Lead Entity Salmon Restoration Strategies and other relevant plans, 4) Decrease
herbicide use across the coastal landscape, and 5) A final objective is to demonstrate the success of local
jobs in invasive species prevention and control, to encourage the investment of dedicated funding to
similar programs in every watershed.
How will the project have a direct positive benefit for the local ecosystem?
Native plants and their diverse communities are the foundations of coastal ecosystem food webs and
terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic habitats. The project will provide a direct positive benefit to the local
ecosystem through increased protection from degrading impacts of invasive Eurasian plants.
All life history stages of fish and aquatic organisms benefit by the continuous inputs of native plant
materials they've evolved to use for creating pools, providing insect prey, and filtering sediment,
providing bank stability through root structures, and maintaining nutrients in the soil and water that
they're adapted to. A specific example has been reported by Amy Borde, Battelle Laboratory, from
research on reed canarygrass (RCG) and native Lynbye's sedge: RCG significantly reduced the production
of chironomids (black fly larvae) eaten by juvenile fish', affecting their food web. Another example is
the recent ESA listing of Oregon spotted frogs, which do not successfully breed in RCG.
All native animals, birds, amphibians, and insects benefit from healthy native plant communities. A
specific animal example is Roosevelt elk, a keystone species in floodplain forests, which will benefit from
fewer toxic plants (tansy ragwort, Scotch broom, and foxglove) and more native high quality forage.
All native forest soil biota directly benefit from the prevention and removal of Eurasian allelopathic,
acidic, or nutrient -impoverishing species including knotweeds, Scotch broom, and herb Robert.
Aspects of life in the local community that will benefit from the project
The local community will benefit through healthier forests growing faster (less competition from Scotch
broom, herb Robert, and blackberry) and cleaner (i.e. less herbicide application — benefiting all species
and people), fish and wildlife for recreational, commercial, and subsistence harvest, hiking and nature
experiences in native plant communities, supporting native biodiversity and the Olympic Biosphere
Reserve. Fewer resources will have to be allocated and spent on fire suppression (from SB and due to
healthier forests), as well as weed control in restoration and road management.
Summary: Pulling Together in Restoration — WCRI FY18 and FY19 Page 3
Project partners
• Olympic National Park (ONP) — Upper Queets Invasive Plant Control Project, others TBD
• Olympic National Forest (ONF) — ONF Invasive Plant Control Projects — Queets, Sol Duc
• Tribes: Quileute, Hoh, Queets, and Quinault — Knotweed and other weed projects, boat cleaning stations
• WA Department of Transportation — IVM Control Program, Adopt -a -Highway Program
• WA Department of Natural Resources — Access to all state lands sites, forest road and gravel mine invasives
prevention and control, sites for signage, participation in weed -free seed mix use
• WA State Parks - Partner on control at Bogachiel State Park, possible site for signage
• Counties: Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor Weed Boards — Contribution to protocol development, partner on
roadside control, participation in weed -free seed mix use
• County Parks and Rec Sites: - Allow access for treatment and educational outreach
• County Road Departments — partner in control and prevention activities on county roads
• City of Forks — Roadside weed control collaboration, opportunities for community outreach, possible pilot
weed disposal site or processing facility
• Nonprofits: North Olympic Land Trust, Jefferson Land Trust — educational outreach, practice methods
• Pacific Coast Salmon Coalition — Partner and crew for Hoh, Queets, Clearwater projects
• The Nature Conservancy — Partner in Hoh, Queets, and Clearwater invasives control
• Recreational groups: Guides Association — Partner in education/outreach to river guides
• Olympic Correction Camp — Partner in developing and deploying a dedicated Scotch broom control crew
• Private residential landowners — Partners in preventing and controlling ornamental and other invasives.
Update on current project activities and achievements
25 crew trained and employed
800 miles of roads surveyed, and focal species pulled, cut, treated
Two tons of seeds collected and disposed of
Contract crews from Hoh, Queets, Chehalis and Elma
Partnerships expanded with ONP and ONF
Bio -control releases with WSU
Outreach and education to resource professionals and community members
Quinault Nation
Hoh Indian Tribe
City of Forks
Local Schools, Forks and Sequim
Olympic Natural Resources Center
COAST
North Pacific Coast Lead Entity
North Pacific Coast Marine Resources Committee
Washington State Salmon Recovery Conference
Scotch broom
Forks Community Garden
Hoh, Queets, Quillayute and Clearwater Rivers
Residential outreach
Reed Canarygrass
14 miles Snahapish River, Year 1
13 of 26 miles Clearwater, Year 6
Summary: Pulling Together in Restoration — WCRI FY18 and FY19 Page 4
8 miles Goodman Creek, Year 1
7 miles Queets River and Estuary, Year 5
1 mile Thunder Road/Meadow
Leyendecker Boat Launch, Year 1
Eagle Springs Off -Channel Spawning and Rearing Pond, Year 2
Tansy ragwort and St. John's -wort
SR 101, 109, 110
Clallam, Jefferson, and Grays Harbor county roads
Biocontrols with WSU
Herb Robert
Jefferson County roads
Olympic National Forest
Olympic National Park
Knotweed
City of Forks
Bogachiel River
SR 101
Clearwater
In summary, without persistent and early action, the unique biodiversity of the Olympic Peninsula will
be rapidly overwhelmed; more restoration will be required, but with exponentially higher costs and
reduced opportunity for long-term success. Based on achievements in the Hoh, Queets, and Clearwater
rivers, we can demonstrate that prevention is highly cost-effective; analysis on the costs of control,
effectiveness of actions, estimated numbers of invasive species stopped from invading specific places,
and economic inputs to the local community will be provided in year-end reports.
Why the project is a good fit for WCRI funding
WCRI is the only non -salmon funding source focused on coastal restoration issues with sufficient funds
to add significantly to the resolution of ongoing restoration needs, especially with regard to invasive
species impacts, which are some of the most important restoration issues for coastal counties, and the
lowest priority in all other resource or infrastructure management programs.
Funding for invasive species prevention and control is extremely limited, and requires yearly application
and reporting. WSDA is the sole reliable funding for knotweed control, but has much less funding than
is needed. The State Department of Transportation's Integrated Vegetation Management Program is
also underfunded relative to need, and lacks the ability or authority (state or county weed board -
mandated) to work on SB. The State Salmon Recovery Funding is not intended to fund repeat projects
(they term these 'programs') —which invasive species require.
It is also the only program available to non-profit organizations, focused on local jobs and therefore local
expertise and knowledge. Empowering communities, local youth, agencies and tribes in protecting and
maintaining local ecosystems and the forestry, fisheries, and clean water, air, and soil that all rely on is
really what coastal restoration is about; modeling how it can become locally -owned and operated.
Added to that, it's funding the current PTIR program, saving the public, agencies, private industry, and
tribes lots of money in the future by doing the work to end the destructive cycles of constant and costly
habitat degradation resulting from invasive species.
Summary: Pulling Together in Restoration — WCRI FY18 and FY19 Page 5
Sponsor Contact Information
Name I Jill Silver
Organization 110,000 Years Institute
Phone 1 360.301.4306
E -Mail Address I (silver(cD10000yearsinstitute.org
Summary: Pulling Together in Restoration — WCRI FY18 and FY19 Page 6
o w1404�F
4 b
C
a x
O yb
NFWFH
{b« 00�
Pre -proposal Project Narrative
1. Context: (Describe the project in terms of current conditions, opportunities for improvement, and
relevance to existing conservation plans, strategies, or priorities (may provide links to documents).
Ignored for decades on Washington State's Olympic Peninsula (OP) as merely a ubiquitous irritant, Scotch
broom (Cytisus scoparius or CS) has migrated from roadsides and timber harvest units to the OP's dynamic
river corridors and shorelines. From mid -elevation forest to nearshore dunes, CS out -competes native plant
communities critical to species ranging from endangered Pacific salmon to marbled murrelets. Healthy resilient
forests are an implicit goal of recovery programs for both species, and millions of dollars are both invested and
accrued in forestry, fisheries, and restoration. Local economies are struggling with effects of climate change as
precipitation regimes change and glaciers recede, reducing summer flow to aquatic habitats and drinking wells.
As we all know, native plant communities support the entire ecosystem's web of biota, and non-native plants
cause cascading harm throughout ecosystems. Research on the complex interaction of CS on native species is
still evolving, and without science, the full impact of Scotch broom has yet to be accepted by landscape and
resource managers, and the regulatory agencies, who guide practices to be most beneficial for both economies
and environment.
At present, CS is present over perhaps 10% of coastal watersheds, but has become a dominant forest cover to
the east and south sides of the OP. A CS monoculture grows to 15 feet in height, produces 12,000 seeds per
plant per year, which can remain viable for 80 years, and will not change over time as do natural plant
communities, via forest succession. It replaces the early successional native species in disturbance zones such
as river gravel bars, landslides, roadsides, and clearings: Willow, alder, and in time, the conifer forests; habitats
providing forage, shade, nutrients, and other services including large woody debris, bank stability and sediment
filtration to keep streams and rivers and forests naturally healthy. CS alters the composition of several
important soil nutrients, and reportedly disrupts the mycorrhizal fungi critical to healthy forest growth 1. It is
toxic to grazers, which avoid it. It is also considerably more flammable than native shrubs and trees, and
certainly does not store the carbon taken up by a 200 foot tall Sitka spruce or Douglas fir.
Although CS has enormous ecological impacts, it allowed to proliferate because it is assumed too costly and
unnecessary to address. Not so! With people to do the work (local JOBS!), it can be done, saving the public
millions of dollars of long-term impact and control costs. A recent economic impact analysis conducted by the
state of Oregon reports 34:1 cost/benefit analysis2 for controlling CS. A similar study conducted by
Washington State and released early this year states that CS costs $142.8 million in impacts, and 660 jobs3. Our
work on the Hoh River shows a 40:1 benefit to cost ratio for pulling a plant in seedling stage rather than as a
mature seeded plant. Contrary to a widely -held belief that CS is shaded out by forest regrowth — at 30-50 year
rotations, it is the first species to appear in new harvest units, and glacial sediments in migrating rivers are
transporting it too. Disturbance is the new normal, and CS thrives on it.
The strategy to turn this situation around is the goal of the Scotch Broom Working Group (SBWG), a vibrant
coalition of non-profit groups, tribes, timber industry, farmers, federal, state, and local agencies, and private
landowners from the region, which has functionally dissolved without the support of a coordinator. 10KYI and
a local concerned citizen established the group in 2013 to address the lack of regulatory and funding tools
available to respond to the visible explosion of Scotch broom on the Olympic Peninsula. At that time, as now,
as a Class C noxious weed, CS is relegated to 'voluntary control, usually by unpaid volunteers — completely
inadequate to the task of eradicating this truly noxious invasive species that threatens so much of our economy
1 Grove S, Haubensak KA, Parker IM (2012) Direct and indirect effects of allelopathy in the soil legacy of an exotic plant invasion. Plant Ecol
213:1869-1882
2 http://www.oregon.gov/oda/shared/documents/publications/weeds/ornoxiousweedeconomicimpact.pdf
3 http://invasivespecies.wa.gov/council projects/economic impact/Invasive%20Species%20Economic%201mpacts%20Report%20Jan2017.pdf
and wellbeing. Indeed, two of the goals outlined by the SBWG have been completed with hard work from four
state agencies and others: 1) The initial Washington State Economic Impact Analysis, and 2) A region -wide
symposium on the ecology and management of Scotch broom, held on May 23, 2017 in Snoqualmie,
Washington. Three hundred concerned federal, state, local, tribal, non-profit and private citizens attended the
conference', indicating the degree to which concern has risen. These two achievements, combined with
persistent presentations and outreach to open-minded elected officials, information generated by researchers,
and results from fieldwork conducted by IOKYI, have set a stage for massive change on the front of the `battle
with broom'. This proposal and funding would create the foundational support of a formal working group and
CISMA for the Olympic and Kitsap Peninsulas. The group would be supported by a coordinator with skills in
all of the above disciplines and activities to make the case to decision -makers that a significant
investment in CS eradication jobs, BMPs such as clean gravel, training in prevention, monitoring and control,
tools, and other strategies is necessary and prudent to protect our forests, salmon, endangered species, and
communities from decades of easily avoidable harm.
2. Activities: Project activities how achievable and expected to lead to the outcomes indicated below.
A. Re-establish the working group; develop education and outreach tools and materials, speakers bureaus
B. Craft legislation for funding for jobs; advocate for an Olympic and Kitsap Peninsula Conservation Corps to
train local workers in effective methods.
C. Design legislation for changing requirements for construction, landscaping, and other materials to be free of
Scotch broom.
D. Develop a certification program for clean materials and practices
E. Develop the Second Scotch Broom Ecology and Management Symposium
3. Outcomes: Describe project outcomes using quantifiable metrics as described in RFP discuss what
makes the outcomes achievable.
1. A demonstration of thriving early, mid, and late neral stage forest and riverine habitats where prevention and
control is clearly effective in preventing costly impacts from CS. Most say `it can't be done'! We say
`Pull one, stop many; early and often!'
We're showing that it's achievable, modeling the BMPs.
2. The increased recognition and ranking of CS as an impact to salmon recovery and climate resiliency in
Washington's Salmon Recovery and Watershed Planning processes and forums.
We're bringing research, data, imagery, and results to these forums, making presentations that are opening
eyes and minds.
3. The development and refinement of ED/RR management protocols for the focal noxious weed species
impacting forest development and growth, but which are considered too widely spread and infeasible to
prevent and control, and which are rarely approached on a regional scale.
4. Increasing awareness of the value of ED/RR for protection of resource industries and salmon and their
habitats, and carbon storage/climate change, at all levels of government, resource management agencies,
academia, private commercial and industrial landowners, and the public.
5. A locally -based Conservation Corps contributing their knowledge of the rivers and forest, learning about
watershed ecosystem services and the degrading impacts of non-native plants; which is then shared with
their family and friends and their elected representatives, and makes the case that investing in local jobs on
CS has an enormous benefit to the resources the sustain these communities.
We're working with a regional group — Rural Communities Partnership Initiative — made up of many
jurisdictions and industries on the Olympic Peninsula to bring this idea forward. Everyone wants local
sustainable jobs and resilient communities. This FITS.
4. Other (Optional): Provide any additional information important for the review of this proposal.
4 http://www.invasivespecies.wa.aov/scotch-broom-symposium.shtml Page 2
Economic Impact
of Invasive
Species to
Washington
State
$1.3 Billion Total Economic Impact
Invasive species are non-native organisms that cause economic or environmental
harm and are capable of spreading to new areas of the state. Invasive species
harm Washington State's landscapes, ecosystems, agriculture, commerce,
recreation, and sometimes human health. The damages from invasive species
translate into economic losses for communities and businesses.
While there more than over 200 known invasive species found within or near
Washington State, this economic analysis highlights the damages and potential
impacts that could result if 23 of these plant and animal species were allowed to
spread in Washington in a single year. Without prevention and control, the
selected invasive species could have a total impact of $1.3 billion dollars annually
Four Costly Invasive Species
These four invasive species damage our state economy and resources.
The dollar amounts and lostjobs represent the potential total economic
impact* of each species.
Plants
Scotch Broom
Cytisus scoparius
Ubiquitous Scotch broom is a serious
threat to native prairies and forests.
It prevents timber regeneration and
displaces pasture forage for grazing
animals. The plant is toxic to livestock
and is a fire hazard.
$142.8 million 660 jobs lost
Animals
Quagga/Zebra Mussels
Dreissena bugensis/D, polymorpha
While not established in Washington,
invasive mussels have the potential to
devastate numerous industries. The
freshwater mollusks threaten lakes,
rivers, dams, and irrigation systems;
degrade water quality; and impact the
ability to recreate on waterways.
$100.1 million 500 jobs lost
Smooth Cordgrass
Spartina alterniflora
Smooth cordgrass is an estuarine
grass that has densely arranged stems
and a thick mat of roots. It displaces
native species, destroying habitat and
food sources for fish, waterfowl, and
other marine life.
$48.6 million 360 jobs lost
Apple Maggot
Rhagoletis pomonella
A major threat to Washington's apple
industry, the apple maggot also
affects pear, plum and cherry crops. If
apple maggots are found in an
orchard, the fruit is unsuitable for
export.
$392.5 million 2,900 jobs lost
°..., .,NGYIGa,@ 1K9$41
sh' Nto lnvaST&" Control Bo ird I s
%^CIPS f`f%afFCll I
Industry Impacts
The dollar amounts shown
represent the potential total
economic impact* of 23 invasive
species on Washington industries in
terms of lost revenue and jobs.
Cad
Recreation
$47.6 million
300 jobs
Water Facilities
$100.5 million
500 jobs
Livestock
$282.9 million
1,500 jobs
Timber
$297.0 million
1,300 jobs
Crops
$589.2 million
4,400 jobs
Invasive species included in this analysis
Rush skeletonweed
Scotch broom
Himalayan blackberry
Yellow starthistle
Knapweed species
Leafy spurge
Purple loosestrife
Invasive knotweed
Eurasian watermilfoil
Smooth cordgrass
Apple maggot
Quagga/zebra mussels
Gypsy moths
Emerald ash borer
Nutria
Feral swine
*Total economic impact includes direct,
indirect and induced impacts
vrPWSDOT
ECOLOGY° 4
7 §
§
CQ ]
�t
j
�\
» §
/ 2
� I
a
LU
�
§
ui
U,
/
LS
§
k
HI
�
§ LU
§ §
2
n m o'
1O oo
O m N m m ci m V1 .-I c -I 01 m W 'oci oo oo n
N c -I m oo N N N
m Lf1 m c -I c -I c -I Lfl c -I c -I N Oo N ti m c -I N N W
ai oo
oo Qa
N 2 m mJ w
�
71m c6N Q
d N D. N
U1 c -I N a N c -I U1 c -I O N rl m c -I 00
U to N n N N ci W N n U N ry M
O .-I l0 l0 N N N N O O Ory .-i l0 V1 O N
ON
on N N .-I .-I O c j O
O Ul Ul N a -I N ci oc
V1 J O I� N V1 m Q U to to ry 01 a , c -I l0 v J .-I J J
�,o
oo I.fl ci I.f1 V1 01 to Q N
N
N O 01 Q Ul m ~pp N
octo c -I J
Q
N c -I c -I
N c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I m N N N N N L(1
O
n N
c -I
ti
N ? ti ti ti N ry to ci D-
<
N c -I rl DO
Wc � bD d
Q ? C N
Q to J N Q to Q O
> N
ID � n
N � �
C
Q
a
w
V' (7
m m
U U w = m m m m m V a Z
of K >j Y 2 U >
H m U U H H (7 � m U m V 2
�j 2 K 2 K
m K K U~_ (7 C7 ~ H 2 (7 2 m V U� (7
H Y K U �.'' K U
U V ` K x Y LL Y K U K m K
K Y ~ K m K m K
' d> U H K
[� Y u mK m K = U 2
� � w
U
K
m
L
bD W
J r
O in
c C O
N O
o a a[
a v W m
o w c
O a c mo
— m
o
p 6 n Y
N -6 O N CO C m Y f0 N Y rl C -6 K
Y Y U1 N Y Y L h ` C Y LL ` U LC L
m 3 w w v> v v v =U
c m U o v 2 T x
p c _ c U U `w of0n c c m U v w +• v
oY Y oi3 o o c 3 Ju D-
3 o 0 0 o a o o— a
¢ m U x o o O 2 Z Z a d v - x o x
d
V)
m
m
rl
N
O
2
Ln
N N
Ln
�v O
M
N
e4
ti
n
W
m
N
N
N
m
N
N
cr
N
00
N
W
V
O ti
N
m
m N
Qj N
M N N
N Ln
N N
N
N N N
N (h
n n
N Q
N N
� N
� N In
n
N
ti
W
O
m
N
Lf1
7
c -I
bD
�
Q
Ln
N N
Ln
�v O
M
N
e4
K
�
W
W
NLn
�
V
O
m
O
V
v
O
m
i
�
s
N_Ln
Y
N
22
Y
N
c
01
z
01
U
U
y
V
U
Ln
ui
0
m
3
H
N
H
Nm
u
eN-I
LA
Y
�
W
W
NLn
v
O
{A
i
v
2:
s
N_Ln
Y
c
01
z
01
Ln
ui
0
m
3
c -I
N
Nm
eN-I
LA
Ln
y
V
Ln
Ycr
7
N
N
N
N
Ul
V
c -I
>
14
Y
.0
.ro
cr
CL
3
3 H
Ln
L
v
v
O
to
V
V