2006 INVASIVE PLANT SURVEY of the NORTHERN HIGHLAND - AMERICAN LEGION STATE FOREST

Steve Garske and Miles Falck

Administrative Report 07-04 March 2007

Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission Biological Services Division PO Box 9 Odanah, WI 54861 (715) 682-6619 www.glifwc.org CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission ...... 1 The Northern Highlands...... 2 Invasive species ...... 2

METHODS ...... 3 Survey protocol ...... 3 Surveys of unique areas ...... 5 Data collection ...... 6 Plant collection ...... 6 Photos...... 6

RESULTS ...... 7 Land ownership and invasive species sites ...... 7 Landscape-level invasive plant populations ...... 9 Localized invasive plant populations...... 9 Unusual plant occurrences ...... 10 Ubiquitous plant species ...... 11 Mysterysnails...... 12 Rare species ...... 12 The Willow Flowage ...... 14

DISCUSSION ...... 15 Widespread invasives ...... 15 Glossy buckthorn ...... 15 Eurasian bush honeysuckles...... 15 Reed canarygrass ...... 16 Spotted knapweed ...... 16 Tansy ...... 17 Less common invasives ...... 17 Garlic mustard ...... 17 Eurasian marsh thistle ...... 18 Cypress spurge (with consideration of leafy spurge) ...... 18 Germander speedwell...... 19 Bulbous bluegrass ...... 19 Rose acacia ...... 20 Watercress ...... 20 Mysterysnails...... 20 The Willow Flowage ...... 20 Areas not fully surveyed ...... 21 General considerations ...... 21

APPENDIX. Rare species documented ...... 23

REFERENCES ...... 25

i TABLES

Table 1. Site attributes recorded during the 2006 invasive species survey ...... 4 Table 2. Number of invasive plant sites by land ownership ...... 7 Table 3. Nonindigenous plant species omitted or recorded only partially during the 2006 survey ...... 13 Table 4. Waterbodies with new mysterysnail populations ...... 14

FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of GLIFWC member tribes and ceded territories ...... 1 Figure 2. Survey route and nonindigenous invasive plant locations ...... 8

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Wisconsin DNR for financial and logistic support during this survey. Thanks also to David Schimpf of DUL, Neil Harriman of OSH, and Emmet Judziewicz of UWSP for their careful examination of the plant specimens collected during this survey.

Unless otherwise indicated, vascular plant nomenclature follows Gleason and Cronquist (1991).

A view of Long Lake, a small pristine lake in northern Oneida County surrounded by the NH-AL State Forest. Several small patches of glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), a non-native, highly invasive shrub, were found along the border of this lake and its surrounding wetlands. (GLIFWC photo)

ii INTRODUCTION

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission

The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) is an intertribal organization made up of 11 federally-recognized Ojibwe tribes in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (Figure 1). These tribes retain hunting, fishing, and gathering rights in the territories ceded to the United States through various treaties. These tribes have delegated authority to GLIFWC to study, monitor, and manage these resources, and to regulate tribal harvest in a way that protects the environment and preserves these rights.

Because the exercise of treaty rights may be threatened by the degradation of native ecosystems by invasive non-native species, GLIFWC has increasingly addressed the spread of invasive non-native plant species in the ceded territories. These efforts include purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) control, regional inventory and analysis of non-native plants and animals, education and outreach aimed at preventing the introduction and spread of non-native species, and coordination with cooperating universities, resource agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the general public.

Figure 1. Location of GLIFWC member tribes and ceded territories.

Page 1 The Northern Highlands

The Northern Highland-American Legion State Forest (NHAL) began with the consolidation of previously designated State Forest Reserve lands into the Northern Highland State Forest by the state legislature in 1925 (NHAL 2006). In 1929 the American Legion State Forest was established. The two forests were combined in 1968, to form the NHAL. The NHAL is now the largest State Forest in Wisconsin, covering approximately 231,000 acres in Vilas, Oneida and Iron counties (NHAL 2006).

Within the Regional Landscape Ecosystem Classification System (Albert 1995), the NHAL falls almost entirely within Subsection IX.5 (Lac Vieux Desert Outwash Plain) of Section IX (Northern Continental Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota). This pitted outwash plain covers most of Vilas and Oneida Counties. It is characterized by 100 to 300 feet of glacial drift on top of Precambrian quartzite bedrock, and is dotted with frequent kettle lakes. Soils are acidic sands. Winters historically are cold and summers warm, with average annual precipitation of 30 to 34 inches. The growing season ranges from 100 days in the north to 120 days in the south.

The Lac Vieux Desert Outwash Plain supports a wide variety of plant communities including jack pine (Pinus banksiana) barrens, white pine (P. strobus) - red pine (P. resinosa) forest, conifer swamps, and extensive peatlands (Albert 1995). Before European settlement red pine and white pine dominated the region’s uplands. Around the turn of the century nearly all these upland forests were clearcut, resulting in the conversion of large areas to trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) and white birch (Betula papyrifera).

Many of the private lands within and around the NHAL have been and continue to be developed, primarily for roads and vacation homes (Hawbaker et al. 2006). Commercial logging is prominent across most of the NHAL and surrounding county and private lands. Development across the region continues to fragment the landscape, alter natural communities, and introduce propagules (eggs, seeds, fragments, etc.) of nonnative organisms, increasing opportunities for invasive species to become established.

Invasive species

Invasion by nonindigenous (NI) introduced species is recognized as a major threat to native ecosystems worldwide (Hobbs and Humphries 1995). Nonindigenous invasive plants have altered hydrology and nutrient cycling (Vitousek, and Walker 1989, Zavaleta 2000). They have facilitated the conversion of floodplain marshland to forest (Thomas 1980 in Woods 1997). They have altered fire regimes, to the point of converting grasslands to forest (Richardson et al. 1994) and forests to grasslands (Melgoza et al. 1990, D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992). They have become a major cause of biodiversity loss and species extinction, including in many natural areas (OTA 1993, Wilcove et al. 1998, Enserink 1999). Pimentel et al. (2000) estimate that the approximately 50,000 NI species in the US cost the economy roughly $137 billion per year.

The ability of various NI species to invade an ecosystem or region varies greatly. Species widely

Page 2 considered major invasives in some habitats [e.g., spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe L., formerly C. maculosa) in shortgrass prairie and pine barrens] are no threat to others (in this case, moist hardwood forest). On the other hand, plants such as garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula) and Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) are major invasives of moist forest. Roads often facilitate the spread of invasive plants by providing habitat, reducing competition and allowing easier access by human or animal vectors (Parendes and Jones 2000, Trombulak and Frissell 2000).

During the summer of 2005 GLIFWC conducted a NI invasive species survey of the northern part of the Forest (Falck et al. 2005). This 2005 survey took place almost entirely north of Hwy 70, in Vilas and extreme northern Oneida Counties. The 2006 survey therefore focused primarily in the portions of the NHAL in western and central Vilas, eastern Iron, and northern Oneida Counties.

Like the 2005 survey, the 2006 survey was aimed at discovering which NI species are present in the NHAL region, and to quantify their abundance and distribution. While any survey for invasive plants over a large area must balance thoroughness and efficiency (Shuster et al. 2005), the goal was to inventory the surveyed areas as completely as possible. An attempt was made to gain an understanding of the abundance of widespread NI species, as well as to detect infestations of new or under-reported species. The data is ultimately intended to be used in the long-term management and control of invasive NI species in and around the NHAL.

METHODS

Survey protocol

While road-based surveys are a time-efficient and reasonably effective way of detecting populations of invasive plants across large areas (Brown et al. 2001, Shuster et al. 2005, Rew et al. 2006), they do a poor job of inventorying species that are small and inconspicuous, or that are wind, water, or bird- dispersed and that readily establish and spread in natural habitats. Therefore, in conjunction with the road surveys, a significant amount of time was spent surveying areas well away from roads and trails. This included walking the entire perimeter of a number of small and medium-sized lakes in the southern NHAL, including Dorothy, McGrath, Sureshot, Zottle, and others.

The 2006 survey began on March 31, and continued through October 26. While the survey was focused primarily on NHAL lands, invasive plant sites on surrounding private lands were also recorded whenever they were visible from the road. Cities, towns and other residential areas were generally not surveyed, with the assumption that they already harbored cultivated or naturalized populations of many or all the invasives found.

The methodology followed in 2006 was basically the same as that used during GLIFWC’s 2005 survey. Infestations were usually found by driving down main and back roads at a moderate speed, watching the roadsides, fields, and woods edges for invasives. Once an invasive plant or plant population was spotted, the adjacent area was searched to try and get a reasonably good idea of the size and extent of the

Page 3 population. The apparent middle of the population was then found, and the population’s location and attributes were recorded electronically (see “Data Collection” below). In cases where walking through the patch would present a risk of spreading seeds or other propagules, the location was recorded at the population’s edge.

For each invasive plant occurrence, the name and location was recorded, along with basic information on the size, extent, habitat, and other population attributes (Table 1). “Abundance” generally referred to the number of individuals for annuals and discrete, non-rhizomatous perennials, or shoots for rhizomatous perennials. This number was based only on the portion of the population observed, even if more plants were believed to be present out of view (which was then noted under “Comments”). This situation often occurred at boat landings, for example, where species such as reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) or water scorpion grass (Myosotis scorpioides) would be growing near the landing. While these species were very likely present elsewhere around the lake, time and logistics often precluded finding and delineating all these locations. “Natural Area” was interpreted broadly to include semi-natural habitats such as pine plantations and long-abandoned farm fields, as well as relatively undisturbed natural areas. “Right-of-way” included powerline and gas corridors, as well as main and back roads.

Whenever purple loosestrife or Eurasian honeysuckle populations were encountered, the presence or apparent absence of certain “biocontrol” insects was recorded. Purple loosestrife plants were checked for the characteristic “window paning” of the leaves caused by two chrysomelid beetles, Galerucella calmariensis L. and G. pusilla Duftschmidt. Eurasian bush honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.) plants were checked for “witch’s brooms” at the ends of the branches, caused by the Eurasian aphid Hyadaphis tataricae Aizenberg.

Significantly more time was spent walking areas well off the road in 2006 than in previous years. Much of this “off-road” time was spent trying to find remote or isolated populations of glossy buckthorn. When

Table 1. Site attributes recorded during the 2006 invasive species survey.

Attribute Categories

Genus and species Specific to species

Abundance 1-50, 50-100, 100-500, 500-1000, >1000

Area <0.25, 0.25-0.50, 0.50-1.0, or >1.0 acre

General Habitat Aquatic, Wetland, Woodland edge, Wooded, Open

Land use Natural area, Right-of-way, Agricultural, Residential

Hydrological Characteristics Wet, Seasonally wet, Mesic, Dry

Land Ownership Federal, State, Tribal, County, Local/Municipal, Private, Mixed, Unknown

Comments Specific to site

Page 4 populations of only one or few individuals of major NI plants were found, the plants were often dug or pulled up, bagging and removing flowers and seeds from the site if present. If such populations had already gone to seed, or if a seed bank was likely to be present, the site was marked as an invasives site, even if the existing plants were destroyed.

Boat landing locations were also recorded, while standing on the boat ramp just above the water line whenever possible. At each landing, the presence and types of invasive species informational signs (if any) posted at each landing were recorded, along with information such as whether the landing was public or private. This data will be combined with similar information collected by GLIFWC electroshocking crews and the WDNR, to identify any landings lacking signs.

The shoreline and shallow-water areas near each landing were searched for invasive plant fragments, and for evidence of striped or Georgia mysterysnails (Viviparus georgianus I. Lea), Chinese mysterysnails [Bellamya chinensis s.l., formerly Cipangopaludina chinensis Reeve (Smith 2000)], and other invasive aquatic animals. For aquatic animals (generally the two mysterysnails), “Abundance” and “Area” (presumed to be the maximum value for both) were not recorded, and ownership (generally navigable waters) was recorded as “State”. Chinese and Georgia mysterysnails were generally recorded only once for a lake or pond, with the assumption that if they were present at one spot on the waterbody, they were found throughout (or soon would be). They were sometimes recorded more than once on a river, though, if the new site was relatively distant from previously recorded sites.

Notes on the route taken and on general site characteristics were written down in a notebook, along with notes on each NI population recorded. Notes were also taken for photos, including (usually) the latitude and longitude.

Surveys of unique areas

The spring portion of the survey focused primarily on each of the NHAL’s 20 public campgrounds. Every campground was surveyed by walking or occasionally biking through each campsite, paying close attention to heavily-used areas such as toilets, shelters, picnic areas, boat landings, and beaches. These campground surveys were completed by Memorial Day.

The Willow Flowage was surveyed on July 19 and 20, and again on September 6 and 7. These surveys were conducted by boat, with the help of Sam Quagon and Dara Olson of GLIFWC’s aquatic invasives survey crew. Cathy Cleland of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) also assisted with the September survey. On the second trip all but one of the 35 public campsites around the flowage were checked for invasives, with campsite 6 left unsurveyed because it was occupied.

While the terrestrial portion of the Willow Flowage survey concentrated on the campsites, invasives elsewhere along the shoreline were recorded if found. Criteria for recording NI species were essentially the same as those used for the rest of the 2006 survey.

Page 5 Data collection

Locations were mapped using a handheld Recon 400 pocket PC (Trimble Navigation Ltd., Sunnyvale, CA ) with a Holux GM-270 compact flash GPS card (Holux Technology, Inc., Hsinchu City, Taiwan). ArcPad version 7.0 (ESRI Corp., Redlands, CA) was used to display the realtime GPS location along with existing GIS layers including lakes, roads, and previously recorded invasive species and boat landing locations. Site locations and attribute data for each site were entered directly into a GIS database using ArcPad. Custom data entry forms were created using ArcPad Application Builder to increase accuracy and efficiency of data entry. ArcPad allowed sites to be manually plotted in the field when satellite signals were unavailable, though it was never necessary to use this feature in 2006. Locational data were recorded as latitude and longitude (degrees/minutes/seconds), using the WGS 1984 datum.

The Recon 400 had to be returned to the factory for repair, and so was unavailable from August 7 through September 4. During this period the coordinates of each feature were obtained using a Magellan Sportrac Pro GPS receiver (Magellan Navigation, Inc., Santa Clara, California), and the attributes written in a notebook. This data was later transferred to an Excel spreadsheet and imported into ArcView.

Plant collection

Specimens of nonnative plants were usually collected whenever plants were found that were previously unknown from that county. Species thought to be uncommon or grossly undercollected in the region were also collected. Specimens of state-listed species were collected whenever appropriate.

Eighty-one specimens of 63 species were collected, labeled, and sent to four herbaria. Seventy three duplicate specimens were submitted to the Freckmann Herbarium, University of Wisconsin -Stevens Point (UWSP), with 34 duplicates going to the Northern Highland-American Legion State Forest Herbarium (NHAL), 15 to the UW-Oshkosh Herbarium (OSH), and 5 to the Olga Lakela Herbarium, University of Minnesota-Duluth (DUL). Some of the duplicates sent to UWSP were forwarded by them to the Wisconsin State Herbarium (WIS) in Madison (Emmet Judziewicz, UWSP, pers. comm.).

Photos

Photos were taken in high resolution RAW format, using a 5.5 megapixel Canon EOS digital camera (Canon Inc., Tokyo, Japan). Most photos were taken of native and introduced plants that were regionally uncommon, or for which photos were thought to be lacking in the GLIFWC collections. Photos were also taken of small populations (one or a few plants) of invasives, that were subsequently removed. Finally, a Rare Plant (or Animal) Field Report was completed and submitted to the WDNR - Bureau of Endangered Resources (BER) for each rare species occurrence. Photos were submitted to the WDNR on CDs, along with an Excel table giving file name, species, date, location, and additional information for each photo. Most are also available for download from the GLIFWC website.

Page 6 RESULTS

Land ownership and invasive species sites

Just over half the invasive plant sites recorded in 2006 were on state land (Table 2). The slightly greater number of sites on state land is almost certainly a direct result of the greater time and intensity with which these lands were surveyed. As with previous surveys, private lands seemed to have a much higher density of invasives than nearby state lands. This was especially true for invasives such as goutweed (Aegopodium podagraria), dead nettle (Lamium maculatum), orange daylily (Hemerocallis fulva), and other plants that rarely spread by seed, but that are often aggressive in natural habitats once established. Lands closer to cities, towns, and other settlements appeared to have much denser populations of invasive plants than more isolated areas. This effect can be clearly seen in the southern portion of the NHAL, where invasives sites become more sparse with increasing distance from the town of Lake Tomahawk (Figure 2).

Landscape-level invasive plant populations

Because it is highly aggressive and invasive, a significant amount of time and effort was expended delineating a large metapopulation of glossy buckthorn. This population seemed centered around Lake Tomahawk, Wisconsin, where a large wetland just west of town was thoroughly infested with glossy buckthorn. Within a few miles of Lake Tomahawk, glossy buckthorn was frequent along the wooded shorelines of lakes and wetlands. Subpopulations of glossy buckthorn were found as far south as the boat landing area of Fox Lake in the southern NHAL (though this population may have a different origin), and as far east as the southern shoreline of the Rainbow Flowage. Scattered large plants were found just east of County D and south of the flowage, along the banks of the Wisconsin River. A large patch consisting of mostly seedlings and saplings also occupied the floodplain of the river, about 2.5 miles south of the

Table 2. Number of invasive plant sites by land ownership, recorded in the Northern Highlands region during 2006. Ownership type Occurrences Percent

State 558 55.7

Private 418 41.8

Mixed 8 0.8

Unknown 9 0.9

Local Municipal 6 0.6

County 2 0.2

Total 1001 100.0

Page 7 Figure 2. Survey route and nonindigenous invasive plant locations, recorded during the 2006 survey of the NHAL region.

Page 8 flowage and just north of River Road. It is likely that this highly invasive species has spread even further along the Wisconsin River, especially downriver.

Eurasian bush honeysuckles (primarily Morrow’s honeysuckle, Lonicera morrowii, and Bell’s honeysuckle, L. x bella) were sparsely to rather densely established across much of the survey area. Many of these populations were sparsely to rather heavily infested with H. tataricae.

As with the glossy buckthorn infestation above, the prevailing distribution pattern of these honeysuckles appeared to be that of decreasing frequency and abundance with distance from Lake Tomahawk. Oddly this small town seemed to be the center of distribution for these and other invasives, while the significantly larger Minocqua-Woodruff area appeared to be less of a source for many of them.

Localized invasive plant populations

An invasive of great concern is garlic mustard. In fall 2005, with the help of local residents, a large patch of garlic mustard was located around a garage in Presque Isle. Another resident reported a small patch of garlic mustard on her land, about 1.8 miles east of town. Follow-up surveys at the start of the 2006 season revealed about 10 small to large patches on WDNR and adjacent private land, on the western outskirts Presque Isle. The two largest patches occupy both state and private land on the west side of town, just east of the WDNR fish-raising ponds. Both exceed 1 acre in size.

The 2006 survey revealed two populations of garlic mustard on NHAL lands, both in state campgrounds. Four campsites in Big Lake Campground supported small patches of garlic mustard, and a fifth patch was found on the bank between the campground and Big Lake. A somewhat larger and apparently rapidly growing patch was found at the back of campsite 14 of Indian Mounds Campground, where it had already spread well into the adjacent woods. And a small patch was found nearby, between campsite 18 and the road.

Dairymen’s Country Club is a private golf course and forest complex about 3 miles north of Boulder Junction. It covers over 5000 acres, and is surrounded by the NHAL. According to the Dairymen’s Country Club forester, Ralph Hewett (pers. comm.), a moderate-sized patch of garlic mustard occupies a roadside on their land. This patch may have become established when a commercial seed mix was spread there some years ago. The organization is in the process of eliminating this patch.

Seven small populations of garlic mustard were found in the surrounding region. All but one of these (a small patch at the UW-Madison Trout Lake Station, which the staff was eradicating) were on private land. Several of these populations were close to NHAL land, including a population of three modest- sized (all <200 ft2) patches in the road corridor and adjacent woodlot just west of Lake Tomahawk. This woodlot is contiguous with the NHAL. Other small populations (all visible from the road) were escaping from neglected flowerbeds, spreading from trailer parking spots, and colonizing a shrubby roadside. Unfortunately these patches are very likely only a small fraction of those on private land across the region.

Page 9 Common valerian (Valeriana officinalis) was well-established in Lake Tomahawk. Thirteen populations were also found outside of town, in and around the southern NHAL. Several of these were quite large, including one in the NHAL just east of McNaughton Lake. Here the plant was common in moist woods and fields. It was also the dominant herb in an adjacent wet woods, north of the parking area.

A large population of Japanese barberry was found southwest of Lake Tomahawk, between the southeast bay of Tomahawk Lake and the west side of Little Carr Lake. The densest part of this population appeared to be west of Rainbow Road, near the boundary of NHAL and McNaughton Prison land. How far this population extends onto prison land remains uncertain. Interestingly, several small colonies of this plant were found on NHAL and adjacent private land, on the west side of the bay. It seems plausible that this population was first planted on prison land, and that seeds were later carried across the bay by frugivorous birds.

Previous GLIFWC surveys had found small populations of Germander speedwell (Veronica chamaedrys) in the western Upper Peninsula (2003) and the northern part of the NHAL region (2005). But in 2006 a number of small to very large populations were found in the southern NHAL region. Several of these were on state land, including a metapopulation southwest of Lake Tomahawk. This population, covering several acres or more, inhabited power line corridors, imbedded wetland edges, old logging roads, and mature and disturbed old-growth forest.

A large colony of watercress (Rorippa microphylla) was found in a small, spring-fed headwaters stream north of County W in Vilas County, about 4 miles north of the NHAL. This stream flows south into Presque Isle Lake and the NHAL.

New populations of Eurasian marsh thistle (Cirsium palustre) were found in the southeastern and western parts of the NHAL region. The southeastern population occurs in the floodplain of the Kathan Creek, on private land bordering both sides of Lone Pine Road. The creek flows southwest from here into the NHAL. A portion of the floodplain southwest of here on the NHAL was surveyed on foot, north to the border of the private land, but no additional marsh thistle was found. A similar situation exists about 1 mile east of the Willow Flowage, where a fairly large population of marsh thistle occupies the ditches and adjacent wetland edges on both sides of Willow Dam Road, just east of Cedar Falls Road.

Unusual plant occurrences

Populations of several plant species rarely collected in Wisconsin were encountered. Campsites often seemed to sport a rather unique flora, including a number of NI plants not noted elsewhere in the region. These included vernal whitlow-grass (Draba verna), spring speedwell (Veronica verna), and small mouse-ear chickweed (Cerastium semidecandrum). All three of these spring-flowering annuals were found in multiple campgrounds, often occurring together. While these plants are presumably weak competitors in most natural habitats, they could be potentially invasive in dry, exposed or rocky habitats.

Willow bellflower (Campanula persicifolia) was found at three sites. Two of these populations were

Page 10 quite large. A well-established population of over 1000 ft2 inhabited a private woodlot behind a row of houses and adjacent to NHAL land, in the rather deep shade of young red maple. Also, a vigorous population of several acres or more was found on the NHAL, in the vicinity of the McNaughton Lake boat landing and the nonmotorized trail leading to the north. Here the plant was forming large patches in both sunny, open fields (an apparent old homestead site) and in the rather deep shade of a mature red pine plantation. Willow bellflower’s success in these areas provide strong evidence that this plant is capable of invading and thriving in a variety of upland habitats throughout the region. This plant is still uncommon in the state (UWSP 2006), and should be eradicated from these sites if possible.

Late in the season a thriving patch of wood bluegrass (Poa nemoralis) was found on NHAL land, growing along the woods edge and an old, narrow skidder trail with the woodland cudweed patch above. This plant was growing with a substantial patch of the state “special concern” plant Omalotheca sylvatica (L.) Schultz-Bipontinus & F. W. Schultz (see Appendix). Wood bluegrass may occur elsewhere in the NHAL region as well.

During the 2005 survey a single dense patch of Rose acacia (Robinia hispida) was found inhabiting natural woods on the NHAL, about 3.6 miles southeast of Boulder Junction (46 04' 40"N, 89 35' 18"W, WGS84). At this site this rhizomatous shrub was the dominant understory species over a nearly 10-acre area, in light to rather deep shade. In 2006 five additional patches of rose acacia were found. One was on NHAL land about 3 miles west of Lake Tomahawk, where a dense patch extended for about 100 ft along the road corridor and adjacent woods edge. The others were small to large patches, in residential settings easily visible from the road.

Bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa) was found in two proximal campsites in Clear Lake campground, in the NHAL. A population of perhaps 40 clumps occupied the first site. A considerably larger population of several hundred clumps occupied the second site, extending along the access road and into the adjacent woods.

Other unusual non-native plants encountered during the 2006 survey included a well-established population of clustered bellflower (Campanula glomerata), occupying a roadside and adjacent power corridor north of the NHAL, and a small population of coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara), escaping from cultivation to private and adjacent NHAL land along the shore of Sureshot Lake. Populations of cinnamon rose (Rosa majalis) were found on an old homestead site near Winchester, and along the wooded edge of a road corridor several miles west of that site, on the NHAL. Also, two small populations of the eastern rough-leaved goldenrod (Solidago rugosa) were found on the NHAL, both well away from current human settlements.

Ubiquitous plant species

Some NI species were common or nearly ubiquitous across the survey region. Many of these species are early-successional, ruderal (Grime et al. 1988) species that are generally restricted to roadsides, recent clearcuts, and other highly disturbed habitats. Some, such as bull thistle, common tansy (Tanacetum

Page 11 vulgare), and ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) are moderately invasive in certain habitats, particularly after disturbance. A minority, including reed canarygrass, are highly invasive in some habitats. Some common NI plants are small, low-growing, and difficult to detect from a moving vehicle.

Attempting to delineate these very common and sometimes inconspicuous species would require a large amount of effort, and provide little new information on their distribution and abundance. Mapping of these species was therefore limited (Table 3). Species that were reasonably conspicuous and considered to be at least moderately invasive in natural habitats were recorded on state land only. Species that were considered to be only moderately or slightly invasive in natural habitats and/or that are already so common as to make surveying impractical were not mapped at all. Unfortunately this latter group included species such as common speedwell (Veronica officinalis), orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum), common sorrel (Rumex acetocella) and hemp nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit), which are clearly invasive in natural habitats, particularly after disturbance.

Spotted knapweed was common along highways and county roads throughout the northern highlands region. It was also frequent along back roads, especially in relatively open, heavily logged areas. Tansy was similarly common along roadsides, old fields, and clearcuts. Reed canarygrass was common along roadsides, and occasionally along backroads and in wetlands as well.

Power and gas line corridors appeared to be major conduits for the spread of a number of weedy NI species including tansy, spotted knapweed, hoary alyssum, reed canarygrass, smooth brome, redtop, quackgrass, and common St. John’s wort. Due to limited time (and occasionally impassible roads or occupied osprey nests), power line corridors were only partially surveyed.

Mysterysnails

As was the case during previous GLIFWC surveys, Georgia and Chinese mysterysnails were fairly common across the region, and were often common to abundant in the lakes or rivers where they have been introduced. In 2006 new populations (not reported in previous GLIFWC surveys) of these two snails were found in 5 and 13 waterbodies, respectively, including Tomahawk Lake in the southern NHAL, where both were present (Table 4).

Rare species

Twelve populations of state-listed plants and two sightings of state-listed animals were observed and documented during the survey. Two of these species, the boreal arrowhead sweet coltsfoot (Petasites sagittatus) and the timber wolf (Canis lupus L.), are listed as “threatened” by the WDNR (WNHP 2004), with the wolf listed as federally endangered as well. The remaining plant and animal species are listed as “special concern” in Wisconsin. Rare species found during this survey are listed in the Appendix, along with notes on habitat and other relevant features.

Page 12 Table 3. Nonindigenous plant species recorded only on state-owned land, or generally not recorded at all, during the 2006 survey.

A) Recorded only on state land Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) Garden forget-me-not (Myosotis sylvestris) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Norway spruce (Picea abies) Creeping Charlie (Glechoma hederacea) Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) Bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) Common chickweed (Stellaria media) Butter-and-eggs (Linaria vulgaris) Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare)

B) Present but not recorded Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) Corn poppy (Papaver rhoeas) Sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) Timothy (Phleum pratense) Burdock (Arctium minus) Lance-leaved plantain (Plantago lanceolata) Redtop (Agrostis gigantea) Common plantain (Plantago major) Creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera) Annual bluegrass (Poa annua) Meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis) Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa) Asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) Wood bluegrass (Poa nemoralis) Hoary alyssum (Berteroa incana) Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) Smooth brome (Bromus inermis) Silvery cinquefoil (Potentilla argentea) Shepard’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris) Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) Small mouse-eared chickweed (Cerastium semidecandrum) Heal-all (Prunella vulgaris var. vulgaris) Mouse-eared chickweed (Cerastium vulgatum) Apple (Pyrus malus) Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Common buttercup (Ranunculus acris) Lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album) Sheep sorrel (Rumex acetocella) Ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) Curly dock (Rumex crispus) Chicory (Cichorium intybus) Bitter dock (Rumex obtusifolius) Orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) Perennial knawel (Scleranthus perennis) Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota) Yellow foxtail (Setaria glauca) Sweet William (Dianthus armeria) Giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) Smooth crab-grass (Digitaria ischaemum) White campion (Silene latifolia) Barnyard-grass (Echinochloa crusgalli) Bladder campion (Silene vulgaris) Quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) Climbing nightshade (Solanum dulcamara) Helleborine (Epipactis helleborine) Sow thistle (Sonchus arvensis) Smooth fescue (Festuca elatior) Common stitchwort (Stellaria graminea) Sheep fescue (Festuca ovina) Common lilac (Syringa vulgaris) Hemp nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit) Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale, T. laevigatum) Low cudweed (Gnaphalium uliginosum) Yellow goat's beard (Tragopogon pratensis) Orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum) Rabbit clover (Trifolium arvense) Yellow hawkweed (Hieracium piloselloides) Hop clover (Trifolium aureum) Common St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) Low hop clover (Trifolium campestre) Ballast toadflax (Linaria spartea) Alsike clover (Trifolium hybridum) Rye grass (Lolium perenne) Red clover (Trifolium pratense) Pineapple weed (Matricaria matricarioides) White clover (Trifolium repens) White sweet clover (Melilotus alba) Giant mullein (Verbascum thapsus) Yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis) Common speedwell (Veronica officinalis) Carpet weed (Mollugo verticillata) Spring speedwell (Veronica verna)

Page 13 Table 4. Waterbodies where new mysterysnail populations were observed during the 2006 survey. WBIC = WDNR waterbody identification code. Waterbody County WBIC Date recorded Chinese Georgia mysterysnail mysterysnail

Spring Creek Vilas 2964700 April 20 X

Lac du Lune Vilas 2766200 April 20 X

Little Rice Vilas 2338900 April 20 X

Clear Oneida 977500 May 17 X

Cunard Oneida 1590000 May 24 X

Tomahawk Oneida 1542700 May 25 X X

Wild Rice Vilas 2329800 June 23 X

North Nokomis Oneida 1595800 July 13 X

Mid Oneida 1542600 July 27 X

Stone Oneida 1597600 August 07 X

Sand Oneida 1597000 August 08 X

Rainbow Flowage Oneida 1595300 August 09 X

Manitowish River Vilas 2341000 August 17 X

Echo Iron 2301800 August 24 X

Grand Portage Iron 2314100 August 24 X

Dam Oneida 1596900 September 13 X

Little Tomahawk Oneida 1543900 October 25 X

The Willow Flowage

Reed canary grass was abundant around much of the Willow Flowage, especially in richer backwater areas and wetlands. A large population of Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) was discovered west of the dam on the July survey, leading to further surveys and more patches being found on the September trip. Common campsite invasives included spotted knapweed and common tansy One rare plant population, the Arrowhead sweet coltsfoot, appeared threatened to some degree by reed canarygrass. Several small reed canarygrass patches ranging from perhaps 10-20 ft2 had infiltrated the approximately 1800 ft2 sweet coltsfoot patch. These canarygrass patches were cut to within a few inches of the ground with a knife, taking care to avoid the coltsfoot leaf stalks. Because this site is in moderate shade, it is expected that after a few years of repeated cutting the canarygrass patches will die out. Unfortunately small to large patches of canarygrass are found nearly throughout this large wetland / floodplain complex, so the coltsfoot patch may have to be monitored indefinitely.

Page 14 DISCUSSION

Widespread invasives

Glossy buckthorn

This survey documented a large glossy buckthorn population inhabiting a several square mile area surrounding the town of Lake Tomahawk. This plant seems to have a rather strong affinity for wooded wetland edges and lakeshores, where the seeds are presumably left by frugivorous birds. An extensive wetland in the southern NHAL (roughly the southeastern ¼ of T38N, R7E, and eastward to the Wisconsin River floodplain) borders the southern edge of this population, and is therefore likely to harbor more buckthorn. This wetland should be surveyed before plans for controlling glossy buckthorn in the southern NHAL are formulated. To the east this wetland complex connects with a section of the Wisconsin River that flows south from the Rainbow Flowage and Wisconsin River outflow (where glossy buckthorn was already established), south past River Road (where it was also established) and beyond. The river and the east side of the wetlands should be surveyed also. The presence of glossy buckthorn at several locations along the Wisconsin River strongly suggests that this plant is at least intermittently established downstream for a significant but unknown distance from the flowage.

When attempting to control large invasive plant populations such as this one, eradicating the small satellite infestations and then attacking the main infestations from the outside is the most efficient and cost-effective method (Moody and Mack 1988). Priority should be given to the small isolated sites on the known perimeter of this population. Isolated small colonies within the perimeter should also be targeted. It may be impractical at this point to attempt to control the very large infestation occurring just west of Lake Tomahawk.

Any attempt to control this glossy buckthorn population should include additional, more localized surveys focused around and outside the known perimeter. This species seems to have an affinity to woods edges bordering lakes and open wetlands (S. Garske, pers. obs.), and walking the shoreline of the smaller lakes (or surveying larger lakes with a small boat) in the area will likely reveal new sites.

Eurasian bush honeysuckles

Eurasian bush honeysuckles were occasional to common throughout large portions of the survey area. These potentially large and invasive shrubs seem to have a rather strong affinity for shrubby fields, fencelines, and woods and wetland edges. The berries are spread primarily by birds (White and Stiles 1991). Because most native fruit-eating birds tend to land near forest gaps and edges rather than in interior closed forest, bird-dispersal increases the chances that the seed will be dropped into treefall gaps rather than in deep shade (Hoppes 1988). They were also occasionally common in pine plantations, such as the large plantings east of Woodruff. Unlike the very shade-tolerant, native fly honeysuckle (L. canadensis), these Eurasian honeysuckles are only moderately shade-tolerant, relying on disturbance and their extended in-leaf period to invade forests. For this reason they are generally not found in heavily

Page 15 shaded, closed forest (Lukin and Thieret 1996).

Because these Eurasian honeysuckles are widespread and sometimes common in the region, a control strategy might be very similar to that outlined for glossy buckthorn above. As noted previously, the aphid Hyadaphis tataricae is already found across temperate North America and may be exerting some control over Eurasian honeysuckle populations in the region. This insect is a natural pest of Tartarian honeysuckle (L. tartarica), attacking only Tartarian and the other closely-related Eurasian honeysuckle species. First detected in North America in 1976, H. tataricae has since become established across much of the northern US and southern Canada, including the upper Great Lakes region (Voegtlin and Stoetzel 1988). This species attacks the terminal branches where most of the flowers form, causing the leaves to become stunted and often killing the ends of the branches by the next spring (Mahr and Dittl 1986). Formation of these "witch’s brooms" can significantly reduce seed production and may lower plant vigor as well (Voetglin and Stoetzel 1988).

Reed Canarygrass

Until fairly recently there was considerable disagreement as to whether reed canarygrass is native to North America, or whether it is wholly introduced from Eurasia. Merigliano and Lesica (1998) present convincing evidence that reed canarygrass was widely established in the "Inland Northwest" (Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming), well before widespread European settlement. While some Great Lakes populations (particularly those along the Great Lakes shorelines) may be native as well (Dore and McNeill 1980 in Galatowitsch et al. 1999), the vast majority apparently consist of Eurasian strains or hybrids with these strains (Galatowitsch et al. 1999).

Reed canarygrass is one of the most aggressive invaders of wet meadows and open wetlands in the Great Lakes region. It is also very aggressive on roadsides, ditches, old fields, shorelines, floodplains, swamp forests, and even well-drained upland woods (Henderson 1991). It does best on moist to wet soils, but tolerates dry-mesic soils as well. Established patches on good sites are nearly impossible to eliminate. The plant is only moderately shade-tolerant (Maurer and Zedler 2002), though, and shaded patches are vulnerable to repeated cutting (S. Garske, pers. obs.). Cutting shaded clumps near the ground in early summer and again in late summer puts them under obvious stress, and if repeated for several years may eliminate them.

While reed canarygrass often does well on seasonally inundated sites, it is intolerant of prolonged flooding (Stannard and Crowder 2002, Maurer and Zedler 2002). Thus, flooding can be a useful tool in controlling reed canarygrass in some habitats.

Spotted knapweed

While spotted knapweed has little shade tolerance and is unable to invade closed forest, it can invade dry open areas and semi-open woods, especially where disturbance has reduced the native ground layer

Page 16 vegetation. The current high frequency and abundance of this plant means that except for small, high- value areas, control of this plant by conventional means may be expensive, environmentally damaging and ultimately futile.

Two closely-related insect predators of spotted knapweed are already found in Wisconsin: the seedhead flies Urophora affinis and U. quadrifasciata (Story 2002). Both are strong fliers, and have been widely introduced across the US as biocontrols for this plant. Both are well-established in the upper Great Lakes region. The larvae burrow into the flowerheads, forming galls from tissues of the ovary and receptacle. This stresses the plant and reduces seed production.

Using a variety of biocontrol insects, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture has successfully controlled spotted knapweed at a number of sites across the state (Cortilet and Northrop 2006). Along with the two seedhead flies, two seedhead weevils, Larinus minutus and L. obtusus, a root-boring weevil, Cyphocleonus achates, and a root-boring moth Agapeta zoegana, are established at multiple sites across Minnesota. In some cases these agents have become abundant enough that they can be collected for redistribution to new infestations. Apparently only one of these additional species, the root-boring moth, has been introduced in Wisconsin (Story 2002). Even with multiple agents, biological control of spotted knapweed can take up to a decade for large sites.

Tansy

Tansy is weedy and tenacious, forming dense, ungainly patches along roadsides, old fields, on log landings, and other disturbed, open or semi-open areas. Its low shade-tolerance prevents it from becoming a major forest invasive, however. Patches could be reduced or even eliminated by simply allowing the forest to regenerate, overtopping it and shading it out. It may also be susceptible to mowing around the time of flowering, as it is reputed to mobilize a large part of its energy resources early in the growing season for shoot and flower production. Finally, the Center for Applied BioScience International (CABI), a nonprofit research institution based in Switzerland (see www.cabi.org), is in the early stages of finding and testing possible biocontrol agents for tansy (Monika Chandler, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, pers. comm.)

Less common invasives

Garlic mustard

The discovery of scattered small populations of garlic mustard across the region is cause for concern. It seems likely that hundreds more such patches inhabit driveways, backyards, flowerbeds, and similar habitats across the region. In many cases these patches will spread unimpeded to adjacent woodlots on both private and public land.

In the short term, small patches of garlic mustard can be eradicated by digging and pulling the 2nd-year

Page 17 plants in spring, before they go to seed. Larger patches have been successfully treated with a weed torch (Colleen Matula, WDNR Northern Region Forest Ecologist, pers. comm.). The patches at Big Lake and Indian Mounds campgrounds were both treated this way soon after their discovery in 2006. Of the populations on private land, the one in the woodlot adjacent to the NHAL and east of Lake Tomahawk should be a priority, if landowner cooperation can be obtained.

The large garlic mustard infestation in Presque Isle turned out to be a catalyst for local efforts to prevent this and other terrestrial invasives from spreading further in the region. In fall 2005 and with permission of the landowner, local residents (including members of the Last Wilderness Conservation Association, a local conservation group) pulled and sprayed the population around the garage. With the discovery of the large patches on the outskirts of Presque Isle in 2006, these residents arranged a town board meeting on June 1st, resulting in the formation of a Terrestrial Invasives Committee. A public meeting on August 7th resulted in the formation of a Cooperative Weed Management Association. Control efforts included several weed-pulling sessions in early summer. These efforts are expected to resume in spring 2007.

Several weevil species are currently being evaluated by the WDNR (as well as the natural resource departments of Minnesota and several other states) as possible biocontrol agents. These weevils have passed CABI’s screening process, and are scheduled to undergo field testing at several sites in Wisconsin within the next few years.

Eurasian marsh thistle

Eurasian marsh thistle is a monocarpic perennial, with the rosettes usually bolting and producing seed their second, third or fourth year (Falinska 1997). It was first collected in the Midwest in Marquette County, Michigan in 1934 (Voss 1996). It has since spread throughout Upper Michigan, and into northern Lower Michigan and northeast Wisconsin. It is an aggressive invader of roadsides, fields, and ditches, as well as streambanks, lakeshores, bog edges, swamp forest, and wetlands. Unfortunately little has been done to stem the spread of Eurasian marsh thistle across the region.

The Eurasian marsh thistle populations discovered in 2006 are near the leading edge of the known range of this very invasive plant (UWSP 2006). Each population occurs on the border of a floodplain, a habitat where the species is likely to spread rapidly. Prompt action to contain and eventually eliminate these populations is highly recommended. Whenever treating Eurasian marsh thistle populations, care should be taken to avoid the similar-looking but far less weedy native swamp thistle (Cirsium muticum).

Cypress spurge (with consideration of leafy spurge)

Cypress spurge (Euphorbia cyparissias) proved to be relatively frequent in the southern NHAL region. Eight patches were found, at least one of which exceeded 1 acre. Rather surprisingly, leafy spurge (E. esula) was not encountered at all in or around the NHAL during the 2006 (or 2005) surveys. Leafy spurge is already common along roadsides in the Peshtigo River State Forest in northeastern Wisconsin

Page 18 (Mariquita Sheehan, WDNR, pers. comm.). Closer to the NHAL, there is a small patch along the Deerskin River, northeast of Eagle River. Cypress spurge is also occasional in the Eagle River area, where it is escaping from plantings. If and when leafy spurge reaches the NHAL, it should be treated promptly and aggressively.

Most of the biocontrol insects that attack leafy spurge also attack other members of the subgenus Esula, including cypress spurge (Nowierski and Pemberton 2002). The most successful so far have been flea beetles in the genus Aphthona. Six species of these flea beetles have been released in the US, of which 5 had established as of 2002. At least four of these (A. czwalinae, A. nigriscutis, A. lacertosa and A. cyparissiae) are established in Wisconsin. The adult flea beetles feed on the foliage and flower buds of spurge, and may even defoliate the plants, though this alone has little effect on them (Hansen et al. 1997). The newly emerged larvae feed in or on the fine root hairs of the host plant, attacking progressively larger roots as they grow. This root-feeding and burrowing disrupts water and nutrient transport, and may make the roots vulnerable to attack by pathogenic soil fungi. These flea beetles have had a dramatic impact on leafy spurge in the western US (Merritt et al. 2002).

Germander speedwell

Germander speedwell has already become locally common in and around the NHAL, south of Lake Tomahawk. This creeping perennial herb is capable of forming dense patches in lightly to fairly heavily- shaded natural habitats (Dale and Causton 1992). It readily grows on a variety of wet-mesic to dry-mesic soils (S. Garske, pers. obs.). This plant appears to be grossly undercollected in the NHAL region, and perhaps elsewhere in the state as well (UWSP 2006).

Further surveys should be implemented to better understand how widespread Germander speedwell is in the region, especially south and west of the 2006 survey area. Depending how widespread and abundant this plant has become, aggressive control measures might still be able to contain it, and prevent it from spreading further.

Bulbous bluegrass

Bulbous bluegrass was introduced to the US in the early 1900s, accidentally as a seed contaminant and purposely for erosion control and as a turf grass (Novak and Welfley 1997). It is now common in parts of the western US. Bulbous bluegrass is apparently still uncommon in Wisconsin and the upper Midwest, however (UWSP 2006, Voss 1972). This grass is well-adapted to a Mediterranean climate, and both the vegetative plants and the bulbs are highly drought-tolerant (Volaire et al. 2001). Bulbous bluegrass may therefore pose a future threat to the sandy, droughty pine forests, plantations and clearcuts so common around the Northern Highlands. It is recommended that eradication of these two bulbous bluegrass patches be a priority, and that NHAL personnel be made aware of this plant and watch for it to show up elsewhere. When treating these existing stands, care should be taken to avoid spreading the numerous tiny bulbs (and possibly seeds) to new locations.

Page 19 Rose acacia

The presence of scattered, vegetatively vigorous rose acacia patches in and around the NHAL indicates that this plant has the potential to become a significant invasive in the region. Its large, showy, pink flower clusters and attractive foliage invite humans to spread it to new sites. The two patches on NHAL will continue to spread unless action is taken to eliminate them.

Watercress

The well-established population of watercress found in the stream about 4 miles north of the NHAL is cause for concern. This stream flows south into Presque Isle Lake, and should be searched for more watercress. The north side of Presque Isle Lake should be searched too, paying particular attention to sheltered shoreline areas and adjacent wetland edges. This plant is easily spread by moving water, and will very likely spread southward into the NHAL if not stopped.

Mysterysnails

The Georgia mysterysnail is native to the southeastern United States, including the Ohio River drainage. It is apparently not native to the upper Great Lakes region (Pace and Szuch 1985, Myers and Burch 2001), though there is some disagreement about this (David Heath, WDNR, pers. comm.). Furthermore, the Georgia mysterysnail is nearly indistinguishable from the closely-related European mysterysnail V. viviparus, and some apparent Georgia mysterysnail populations in North America might really be this species (Clarke 1981, cited in Mills et al. 1993).

The Chinese mysterysnail is native to east Asia. This snail first reached Wisconsin roughly 50 years ago, and is now well established in northern Wisconsin (David Heath, WDNR, pers. comm.). A third NI snail, the Japanese mysterysnail or B. japonica, is not yet known from Wisconsin. It is a close relative of the Chinese mysterysnail, and while some authors consider it a subspecies or variety of that species, certain anatomical differences support the two-species concept (Jokinen 1982, Smith 2000).

As noted above, Chinese and Georgia mysterysnails often become common to abundant in the lakes where they have been introduced. Apparently little research has been done on the effects of these large snails on aquatic ecosystems to date.

The Willow Flowage

The Willow Flowage is almost entirely surrounded by very droughty, sandy soils, and is subject to severe water level fluctuations. These factors limit the number of native and NI plant species that are able to colonize the shoreline. One invasive that appeared to benefit from the fluctuating water levels is reed canary grass, which was abundant around much of the flowage, especially in richer backwater areas and wetlands.

Page 20 The WDNR is apparently formulating plans to control or eliminate the newly-discovered population of Eurasian water milfoil (Tom Shockley, WDNR, email to Dara Olson, GLIFWC). WDNR personnel have posted Eurasian milfoil stickers on the yellow “alert” signs at the landings, warning boaters and others of the presence of this invasive plant.

If time and resources allow, campsite populations of spotted knapweed and common tansy could be pulled and dug out. In areas where little or no competing native vegetation is present, larger populations of spotted knapweed in particular might also be treated with herbicide (glyphosate).

Areas not fully surveyed

Because of its very large size, only a small part of the NHAL could be directly observed. Even so, most of the NHAL was probably surveyed completely enough during 2005 and 2006 to reliably detect at least portions of the larger, more well-established invasive plant populations. Areas away from the roads were on average less well surveyed. Private lands were generally inaccessible except along roads and adjacent to public lands. Areas on the outskirts of towns and around settlements are especially likely to harbor high concentrations of invasives, and to serve as a constant source of infestation on the NHAL.

Because of its large size (16,000 acres) the Willow Flowage and its shoreline were only partially surveyed, and surrounding state and private lands were essentially not surveyed at all. In order to maintain the wild character of this flowage and surrounding lands, it would be advisable to at least do some road corridor surveys in the not-too-distant future. High-use areas around the flowage such as beaches, boat landings, and the dam area (which already supports Eurasian milfoil) should be monitored for additional invasives such as curly pondweed (Potamogeton crispus).

Due to its remoteness and terrain, the Powell Marsh and much of the far western part of the NHAL was not fully surveyed, especially away from the roads. This part of the NHAL includes extensive wetlands and deep marsh areas. Wildlife biologists and other NHAL personnel presumably visit some of these areas on occasion, and might be able to watch for invasive plant populations during these visits. The invasives most likely to show up in these areas might be aquatic and shoreline plants and animals (particularly around boat landings), along with bird-dispersed species such as Eurasian bush honeysuckles, Japanese barberry and even glossy and common buckthorn.

Other areas that may still be undersurveyed include the lands around Little Arbor Vitae Lake, lands (mostly private) around the St. Germain area, and the Wisconsin River and its floodplain.

General considerations

Unfortunately populations of invasives are often not detected (or ignored) until they become large populations. Because the influx of invasive plants and animals is likely to continue to increase (Sala et al. 2000), and because preventing invasives from becoming established is far easier and less expensive than

Page 21 trying to control them after they’re established (Moody and Mack 1988), continued monitoring across the NHAL is recommended.

The goal of keeping the NHAL relatively free of invasives might be greatly advanced if field staff were able to recognize the invasive species threatening the NHAL, particularly the more serious ones such as buckthorns, Eurasian honeysuckles, garlic mustard, valerian, reed canarygrass, and others. A training session on the identification and ecology of invasives for all NHAL field personnel might be helpful. Sessions could include the use of live plant material, and perhaps “field trips” to one or more invasives sites. It would seem that if field personnel were fully aware of the invasive plant problem and able to identify these invasives in the field, the chances of detecting and eradicating infestations in the early stages would be greatly enhanced.

The value of preventing the introduction of new invasives, and controlling and hopefully eradicating new populations while they are still small, cannot be overestimated. Once invasive plants have successfully colonized a landscape, they are difficult and expensive to control. Naylor (2000) performed an economic net present value (NPV) analysis of costs of prevention, early treatment, and late treatment of invasives. This analysis found that using discount rates typical of today’s economies (up to 10%) that preventing 100 species (most of which would never become problems) from being introduced was far less expensive in the long-term that treating 10 species that have shown invasive properties but that are just starting to spread significantly, and that this would be far cheaper than trying to control one species once it had become a major problem.

Finally, road construction and home development has increased exponentially across northern Wisconsin in recent decades (Hawbaker et al. 2006). Between 1937 and 1999, road density more than doubled, and the median, mean, and largest size of undeveloped landscape patches were reduced by a factor of four. Most of these roads are “unimproved” gravel or dirt roads used mainly for logging or for access to vacation homes. Without active intervention, development and fragmentation of private lands is likely to continue (Hawbaker et al. 2006). Increased roading and fragmentation of forests produces more forest edge habitat and promotes the spread of invasive plants (Brothers and Spingarn 1992, Watkins et al. 2003). Thus one of the most effective strategies for slowing the spread of invasive species may be to maintain large intact blocks of forest by purchasing inholdings before they’re developed.

Page 22 APPENDIX

Rare plants and animals documented during the 2006 invasive species survey of the NHAL and surrounding region are listed below. The timber wolf (Canis lupus L.) and the arrowhead sweet coltsfoot (Petasites sagittatus) are both listed as “threatened” in Wisconsin (WNHP 2004). The timber wolf is listed as federally threatened as well. The rest of these species are listed as “special concern” in the state. A completed Rare Plant (or Animal) Field Report was submitted to the WDNR - Bureau of Endangered Resources (BER) for each occurrences. All occurrences were documented with specimens (most of the plants), photos, or both.

Variegated scouring rush (Equisetum variegatum) A small population of this plant was found in a remnant black ash (Fraxinus nigra)-dominated swamp just north of the WDNR fish-raising ponds, on the outskirts of Presque Isle, Wisconsin.

Arrowhead sweet coltsfoot (Petasites sagittatus) A clone of this arctic remnant plant was found in the same remnant black ash-dominated swamp as the variegated scouring rush mentioned above. The population (presumably a single clone) covered about 1800 ft2. Within this area it appeared reasonably dense and vigorous, despite growing in significant shade.

Purple clematis (Clematis occidentalis) Two large flowering (and later fruiting) individuals were found in separate locations, both within the NHAL. The first was a previously unknown plant on the edge of the woods along an old logging road, near the northern edge of the Forest, north of Big Lake. The second plant was in the Cunard Lake campground, about 2 miles north of Lake Tomahawk in the southern part of the Forest. Both plants appeared healthy and vigorous. The Cunard Lake plant had recently had a close call, though, having been missed by plowing or ground-scraping activity by about 1 ft.

Vasey's pondweed (Potamogeton vaseyi) This plant was common in shallow water (to about 1.5 m deep) in a quiet back bay of the Willow Flowage.

Long-stem waterwort (Elatine triandra) This plant was fairly frequent near one boat landing on the Willow Flowage, where it was growing in shallow water on rather sterile, sandy and gravely substrate.

Northern reed grass (Calamagrostis lacustris, considered a variety of C. stricta by UWSP 2006) A population of scattered clumps and diffuse patches was found in a large several-year-old clearcut, on the NHAL east of Woodruff.

Pallid sedge (Carex pallescens) A colony of about 10 flowering clumps and one nonflowering clump was found on the edge of the McNaughton Trail. This plant is a common woodland species in the northeastern US, but becomes

Page 23 increasingly less common westward, finally disappearing from the flora in extreme northeast Minnesota (Anton A. Reznicek, Curator, University of Michigan Herbarium, pers. comm.). It is apparently somewhat disturbance-adapted.

Woodland cudweed (Omalotheca sylvatica (L.) Schultz-Bipontinus & F. W. Schultz, formerly Gnaphalium sylvaticum) A dense, thriving patch of this circumboreal plant was found on state land southwest of Lake Tomahawk, where it was spreading along a road corridor and along an old, narrow skidder trail into mature woods. To date this species has only been collected in the region from the Apostle Islands (UWSP 2006) and from Grand Island in Upper Michigan (Voss 1996). It has been suggested that this plant may be introduced from Eurasia (Nesom 2006).

Purple bladderwort (Utricularia purpurea) Two populations were noted during the 2006 survey. This plant was abundant in shallow water, on the west side of Gypsy Lake. It also seemed to be common along the shore of Swanson Lake. Both these small, sandy-bottom seepage lakes are in the southeastern NHAL.

Black tern (Chlidonias niger L.) Several individuals were noted in flight over a rather large, open wetland on the northeast side of Wind Pudding Lake. The birds seemed to be flying back and forth along the opposite side of the wetland and over the open water. When I (S. Garske) walked out on the wetland one individual flew across the wetland and dive-bombed me a few times, then seemed to lose interest and flew back. This behavior may indicate that the bird had nested in the area, and was still somewhat territorial.

Timber wolf (Canis lupus L.) A healthy-looking adult timber wolf was sighted on a back road several miles northwest of Boulder Junction. I (S. Garske) was able to get a photo.

Page 24 REFERENCES

Albert, D. A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working map and classification. Gen. Tech. Report NC-178. St Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

Brothers, T. S., and A. Spingarn. 1992. Forest fragmentation and alien plant invasion of central Indiana old-growth forests. Conservation Biology 6 (1): 91–100.

Brown W. T., M. E. Krasny, and N. Schoch. 2001. Volunteer monitoring of nonindigenous invasive plant species in the Adirondack Park, New York, USA. Natural Areas Journal 21 (2): 189-196.

Clarke, A. H. 1981. The freshwater molluscs of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museum of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

Cortilet, A. B. and N. Northrop. 2006. LCMR Final Work Program Report. Biological Control of European Buckthorn and Spotted Knapweed. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, MN. http://www.mda.state.mn.us/weedcontrol/knapweedlcmrfinalreport.pdf (January 2007).

D'Antonio, C. M. and P. M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 63-87.

Dale, M. P. and D. R. Causton. 1992. The ecophysiology of Veronica chamaedrys, Veronica montana and Veronica officinalis: I. Light quality and light quantity. Journal of Ecology 80 (3): 483-492.

Dore, W. G. and J. McNeill. 1980. Grasses of Ontario. Monograph No. 26. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ontario, Canada.

Enserink, M. 1999. Biological invaders sweep in. Science 285: 1834-1836.

Falinska K. 1997. Life history variation in Cirsium palustre and its consequences for the population demography in vegetation succession. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 66 (2): 207-220.

Falck, M., S. Garske, and D. Olson. 2006. Invasive Species Program 2003 - 2005. Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, Odanah, WI. http://www.glifwc-maps.org/pdf/Administrative%20Report%2006-03.pdf (March 2007).

Galatowitsch, S. M., N. O. Anderson, and P. D. Ascher. 1999. Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19 (4): 733-755.

Gleason, H. A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. New York Botanical Garden, New York.

Grime, J. P., J. G. Hodgson, and R. Hunt. 1988. Comparative plant ecology: a functional approach to common British species. Unwin Hyman, London, UK.

Hansen, R. W., R. D. Richard, P. E. Parker, and L. E. Wendel. 1997. Distribution of biological control agents of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) in the United States: 1988-1996. Biological Control 10 (2):

Page 25 129-142.

Hawbaker, T. J., V. C. Radeloff, M. K. Clayton, R. B. Hammer, and C. E. Gonzalez-Abraham. 2006. Road development, housing growth, and landscape fragmentation in northern Wisconsin: 1937–1999. Ecological Applications 16 (3): 1222-1237.

Henderson, R A. 1991. Reed canarygrass poses threat to oak savanna restoration and maintenance (Wisconsin). Restoration & Management Notes 9 (1): 32.

Hobbs R.. J and S. E. Humphries. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conservation Biology 9 (4): 761-770.

Hoppes, W. G. 1988. Seedfall pattern of several species of bird-dispersed plants in an Illinois woodland. Ecology 69 (2): 320-329.

Jokinen, E. H. 1982. Cipangopaludina chinensis (Gastropoda: Viviparoidae) in North America, review and update. Nautilus 96 (3): 89-95.

Lukin, J. O. and J. W. Thieret. 1996. Amur honeysuckle, its fall from grace. BioScience 46 (1): 18-24.

Mahr, D. L. and T. G. Dittl. 1986. Chemical, natural, and cultural control of Hyadaphis tataricae (Homoptera: Aphididae) on honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica). Great Lakes Entomologist 19 (2): 91-100.

Maurer, D. A. and J. B . Zedler. 2002. Differential invasion of a wetland grass explained by tests of nutrients and light availability on establishment and clonal growth. Oecologia 131 (2): 279-288.

Melgoza G., R. S. Nowak, and R. J. Tausch. 1990. Soil water exploitation after fire: Competition between Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and two native species. Oecologia (Heidelberg) 83 (1): 7-13.

Merigliano M. F. and P. Lesica. 1998. The native status of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in the Inland Northwest, USA. Natural Areas Journal 18 (3): 223-230.

Merritt, S., D. Hirsch, and D. Nelson. 2002. Biological control of leafy spurge: a comprehensive, easy-to-read manual on how to use biological control as an effective leafy spurge management tool. USDA-ARS TEAM Leafy Spurge and North Dakota Department of Agriculture. http://www.team.ars.usda.gov/biocontrolmanual.pdf (January 2007).

Mills, E. L., J. H. Leach, J. T. Carlton, and C. L. Secor. 1993. Exotic species in the Great Lakes: A history of biotic crises and anthropogenic introductions. Journal of Great Lakes Research 19 (1): 1-54.

Moody, M. E. and R. N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: The importance of nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25 (3): 1009-1022.

Myers, P. and J. Burch. 2001. Gastropoda (gastropods, slugs and snails). University of Michigan Museum of Zoology animal diversity web. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI USA. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Gastropoda.html (December 2004).

Naylor, R. L. 2000. The economics of alien species invasions. Pages 241-259 in Mooney, H. A. and R. J.

Page 26 Hobbs. Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Nesom, G. L. Omalotheca sylvatica (Linnaeus) Schultz-Bipontinus & F. W. Schultz in F. W. Schultz, Arch. Fl. 311. 1861. P. 440 in: Flora of North America Online. http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=250067218 (January 2007).

[NHAL] Northern Highland-American Legion State Forest, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2006. State forest semi-annual report 2006, Northern Highland - American Legion State Forest. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/Forestry/StateForests/SF-NH-AL/pdf/NH-AL-Semi-AnnualReport- May2006.pdf (December 2006).

Novak, S. J. and A. Y. Welfley. 1997. Genetic diversity in the introduced clonal grass Poa bulbosa (bulbous bluegrass). Northwest Science 71 (4): 271-280.

Nowierski, R M. and R. W. Pemberton. 2002. Leafy spurge. In Van Driesche, R. et al., 2002. Biological control of invasive plants in the eastern United States. USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET- 2002-04, 413 p. http://www.invasiveplants.net/biologicalcontrol/14LeafySpurge.html (January 2007).

[OTA] Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress. 1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. OTA-F-565, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1993/9325_n.html (January 2007).

Pace, G. L. and E. J. Szuch 1985. An exceptional stream population of the banded apple snail Viviparus georgianus in Michigan USA. Nautilus 99 (2-3): 48-53.

Parendes, L. A. and J. A. Jones. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along roads and streams in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conservation Biology 14 (1): 64-75.

Pimentel D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50 (1): 53-64.

Rew, L. J., B. D. Maxwell, F. L. Dougher, and R. Aspinall. 2006. Searching for a needle in a haystack: evaluating survey methods for non-indigenous plant species. Biological Invasions 8 (3): 523-539.

Richardson, D. M., P. A. Williams, and R. J. Hobbs. 1994. Pine invasions in the southern hemisphere: determinants of spread and invadability. Journal of Biogeography 21 (5): 511-527.

Sala, O. E., F. S. Chapin III, J. J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L. F. Huenneke, R. B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D. M. Lodge, H. A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N. L. Poff, M. T. Sykes, B. H. Walker, M. Walker, and D. H. Wall. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science (New Series) 287 (5459): 1770-1774.

Shuster, W. D., Herms, C. P., Frey, M. N., Doohan, D. J., and J. Cardina. 2005. Comparison of survey methods for an invasive plant at the subwatershed level. Biological Invasions 7 (3): 393-403.

Smith, D. G. 2000. Notes on the taxonomy of introduced Bellamya (Gastropoda: Viviparidae) species in northeastern North America. Nautilus 114 (2): 31-37.

Page 27 Stannard, M. and W. Crowder. 2002. Plant guide: Reed canarygrass. Phalaris arundinacea L. Pullman Plant Materials Center, Natural Resources Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture, Pullman, WA USA. http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_phar3.pdf (January 2007).

Story, J. 2002. Spotted Knapweed. In: Van Driesche, R., et al., 2002. Biological control of invasive plants in the Eastern United States. USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04, 413 p. http://www.invasiveplants.net/biologicalcontrol/13Knapweed.html (January 2007).

Thomas, L. K. 1980. The impact of three exotic plant species on a Potomac Island. U.S.D.I. National Park Service Monograph Series 13.

Trombulak, S. C. and C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14 (1): 18-30.

[UWSP] Robert W. Freckmann Herbarium, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point. 2006. Vascular plants. http://wisplants.uwsp.edu/VascularPlants.html (January 2007).

Vitousek, P. M. and L. R. Walker. 1989. Biological invasions by Myrica faya in Hawaii: plant demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecological Monographs 59 (3): 247-265.

Voegtlin, D. and M.B. Stoetzel. 1988. Hyadaphis tataricae (Homoptera: Aphididae): 10 years after its introduction into North American. Proceeding of the Entomological Society of Washington 90 (2): 256-257.

Volaire, F., G. Conejero, and F. Lelievre. 2001. Drought survival and dehydration tolerance in Dactylis glomerata and Poa bulbosa. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 28 (8): 743-754.

Voss, E. G. 1972. Michigan Flora Part I, Gymnosperms and monocots. Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin 61 and University of Michigan Herbarium. xv + 488 pp.

Voss, E. G. 1996. Michigan Flora Part III, Dicots (Pyrolaceae-Compositae). Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin 61 and University of Michigan Herbarium. xix + 622 pp.

Watkins, R. Z., J. Chen, J. Pickens, and K. D. Brosofske. Effects of forest roads on understory plants in a managed hardwood landscape. Conservation Biology 17 (2): 411–419.

White, D. and E. Stiles. 1991. Bird dispersal of fruits of species introduced into North America. Canadian Journal of Botany 70: 1689-1696.

Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48 (8): 607-615.

[WNHP] Wisconsin Natural Heritage Program - Bureau of Endangered Resources. 2004. Natural heritage working list. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/working_list/taxalists/Working%20List%2001-13-04.pdf (December 2006).

Woods, K. D. 1997. Community response to plant invasion. Pages 56-68 in J. O. Lukin and J. W. Thieret,

Page 28 editors. Assessment and management of plant invasions. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

Zavaleta, E. 2000. Valuing ecosystem services lost to Tamarix invasion in the United States. Pages 261- 300 in Mooney, H. A. and R. J. Hobbs. Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Page 29