DOCSLIB.ORG

Noxious Weed Treatment Project Summary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Noxious Weed Treatment Project Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement Noxious Weed Treatment Project Summary March 2003 Bitterroot National Forest The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Summary S - 1 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Limit spread of weeds into and within wilderness areas. The Bitterroot National Forest (Forest) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Burn areas are at high risk for weed invasion due proposes to implement specific noxious weed to removal of overstory vegetation and litter, and treatments and prevention measures on as a result of fire suppression activities. Although approximately 35,445 acres of Forest land in weeds establish and spread rapidly on disturbed support of the Forest’s Integrated Weed sites, they can also invade native bunchgrass Management Plan and Forest Plan, U.S. Forest community inter-spaces in the absence of Service (USFS) policy, and Executive Order disturbance. Aerial observations, aerial 13112. The proposed weed treatment and photographs, and ground surveys were used to management project (Project) is located on the review burned areas for risk of noxious weed Forest, which is approximately 1.6 million acres in establishment. High risk areas include those Ravalli County, Montana. Proposed methods to where: control noxious weeds include a combination of ground and aerial application of herbicides; Tree canopy and most ground-level native mechanical, biological, and cultural weed plants were killed or severely injured; treatments; education; and prevention. The Project area is distributed across the Montana Burn severity was moderate or high; portion of the Forest and occurs only on National Forest System land. Noxious weeds were present in or adjacent to the burned area prior to the wildfires of 2000 (e.g., infested parklands and grasslands); PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR and ACTION Site is dry to moderately dry. The purpose and need for the Proposed Action is to prevent and reduce loss of native plant communities associated with spread of noxious SUMMARY OF PROPOSED weeds. Specifically, the purposes of this Project ACTION are to accomplish the following within proposed treatment areas: The intent of the Proposed Action (Alternative A) Prevent or discourage introduction and is to prevent and reduce loss of native plant establishment of newly invading weed communities associated with the spread of species on Forest land, particularly areas at noxious weeds. The Proposed Action includes high risk due to recent fires; treatment of approximately 35,445 acres in the following areas: Prevent or limit spread of established weeds into areas with few or no infestations on Approximately 29,503 acres of known Forest land, particularly areas at high risk due infestations at specific sites distributed across to recent fires; the Forest; and Restore native plant communities and Approximately 5,942 acres of High Risk improve forage on specific big game summer Burned Areas (if monitoring/surveys indicate and winter ranges; presence of invasive weeds). Treat weeds near the Forest boundary where This Project would also include pre- and post- adjacent landowners are interested in or are treatment monitoring and follow-up treatments. currently managing weeds; and, Specific treatment sites, size (acres), target species, and treatment method(s) are described Final EIS S - 2 Summary in further detail in Chapter 2. The Proposed Biological agents would be released on 20 Action is composed of several elements, which sites on the Forest including big game winter would individually or in combination address the ranges, burned areas at high risk, cross- various Purpose and Need components. These boundary cooperation treatment areas, and elements include: recreation sites. Introduction of biological agents would follow initial treatment with Ground and aerial application of herbicides herbicide. (as the primary method of treatment) on approximately 5,942 acres of previously Cultural treatments (seeding) would occur on forested areas at high risk for weed invasion disturbed areas such as road cuts and due to fires. This addresses the need to burned areas 1-2 years following treatment prevent or discourage introduction and with herbicides. Seeding is intended to re- establishment of newly invading weed establish native plant communities while species, and limit spread of existing decreasing the density of invasive weed infestations on previously forested areas at species. high risk due to recent fires. This would also address the need to restore native plant Education and prevention programs on the communities in infested areas on big game Forest would continue with addition of winter and summer ranges (if monitoring specific education and prevention strategies identifies new infestations). developed for this Project. Ground application of herbicides (as the Mechanical (mowing/hand-pulling) treatments primary treatment method) on Forest roads, would be intermittent due to roadside trails, and recreation areas where weeds obstacles such as rocks, logs, trees, and exist in relatively uninfested areas shrubs and would occur on level surfaces, (approximately 14,107 acres). This some shoulder areas, and turn-outs or addresses the need to prevent or limit parking areas. Mowing, topping, and hand- spread of existing infestations into relatively pulling would likely occur twice per year. uninfested areas both within and outside Established rhizomatous weeds may have to burned areas. This also addresses the need be mowed indefinitely since mowing would to prevent or discourage introduction and decrease seed production, but would not kill establishment of newly invading weed the plants. species. Spot treatment with ground-applied herbicides along trail corridors and trailheads would help to limit spread of ISSUES USED TO DEVELOP weeds into wilderness areas. ALTERNATIVES Aerial and ground application of herbicides The following issues were used to develop on big game winter and summer range alternatives to the Proposed Action: (approximately 10,007 acres) meets the purpose and need to restore native plant Potential effects of herbicides on human communities in these infested areas. health; In conjunction with winter range treatments, Potential effects of aerial application of six areas along the Forest boundary herbicides; (approximately 5,317 acres) would be treated to coincide with active weed management on Potential effects of the Proposed Action on land adjacent to the Forest. A combination of big game, other wildlife, native plant treatment methods would be employed to communities, sensitive plants, fish, water address the need to treat weed infestations quality, soil, and air quality; along the Forest boundary where adjacent landowners are interested in or are currently Potential effects of proposed treatments on managing weeds. wilderness values; Bitterroot Weed EIS Summary S - 3 Potential for ground disturbing activities to methods such as seeding. This alternative would further spread weeds on the Forest as a treat fewer acres than Alternatives A, B, or E due “connected action”; to the feasibility and cost of accomplishing labor intensive treatments. Amendment to the Forest Plan; and Cooperation and coordination with adjacent Potential effects of the Proposed Action on landowners treating weeds on private and State travel. land would also be key in this alternative. The majority of treatments occurring or proposed on PROJECT ALTERNATIVES adjacent private and State land include use of herbicides. Treatments on Forest land associated with this cross-boundary cooperation effort would ALTERNATIVE B be limited to treatment methods described in this alternative, which do not include use of Alternative B was developed in response to herbicides. potential impacts associated with aerial application of herbicides on non-target areas. Roadside treatments are proposed primarily for Alternative B would incorporate all components of arterials and collectors on the Forest. Mowing the Proposed Action (Alternative A) but would treatments would be intermittent due to roadside eliminate aerial application of herbicides. Areas obstacles such as rocks, logs, trees, and shrubs proposed for aerial application of herbicide would and would occur on level surfaces, some instead be treated by ground application methods shoulder areas and turn-outs or parking areas. where possible. This strategy would rely on Acreage associated with roadside treatments education, biological management, and ground under Alternative C is based on a mowing width applied herbicides to reduce and contain existing of 10-feet on either side of a road (20-feet total). invasive weeds and eradicate small, new, and Based on these criteria, approximately 25 percent isolated invasive weed populations. Areas with (785 acres/327miles) of Forest Roads
Load more

Recommended publications
  • F Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices
    Prevention Restoration Detection Monitoring Control USDA - FOREST SERVICE Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices 2 INDEX Introduction…………………………………………………………………...4 Supporting Direction…………………………………………………………4 Using This Guide……………………………………………………………...5 General Weed Prevention Practices for Site-disturbing Projects and Maintenance Programs………………………………………..6 Aquatic Weed Prevention Practices…………………………………………8 Cultural Resources…………………………………………………………..10 Fire Management Pre-fire, Pre-incident Training………………………………………10 Plans…………………………………………………………………...10 Wildfires-General…………………………………………………….10 Prescribed Fire………………………………………………………..11 Fire Rehabilitation……………………………………………………11 Forest Vegetation Management Timber Harvest Operations & Stewardship Contracting…………12 Post Vegetation Management Operations…………………………..13 Grazing Management……………………………………………………….13 Lands and Special Uses……………………………………………………...15 Minerals………………………………………………………………………16 Recreation, Wilderness, and Special Management Areas………………....16 Research Activities…………………………………………………………...17 Road Management New and Reconstruction………………………………………………17 Road Maintenance and Decommissioning…………………………...17 Version 1.0, Dated July 5, 2001 3 Watershed Management…………………………………………………….18 Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany……………………………………………...19 Appendix 1, Forest Service Timber Sale Contract Provisions…………....20 Appendix 2, Sample Special Use Supplemental Clause………..…………..23 Appendix 3, Example of a Closure Order………………….……………….25 Version 1.0, Dated July 5, 2001 4 USDA-Forest Service GUIDE TO NOXIOUS
    [Show full text]
  • (Catclaw) Mimosa Managed Forests (Mimosa Pigra L.,Syn
    Black (Catclaw) Mimosa Managed Forests (Mimosa pigra L.,Syn. Mimosa pellita Kunch ex Willd.) Victor Maddox, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Associate, Mississippi State University Randy Westbrooks, Ph.D., Invasive Species Specialist, U.S. Geological Survey John D. Byrd, Jr., Ph.D., Extension/Research Professor, Mississippi State University Fig. 1. Black, catclaw, or lollipop mi- Fig. 2. Black Mimosa Showing Hairy Stems and Fig. 3. Black Mimosa Showing Flowerhead and Bristly mosa is a sprawling shrub native to Bipinnate Leaves (USDA APHIS PPQ Archive, Fruit (USDA APHIS PPQ Archive, USDA APHIS PPQ, Central America. USDA APHIS PPQ, Bugwood.org. Bugwood.org) Introduction Problems Caused Black, catclaw, or lollipop mimosa (Mimosa pigra L.,Syn. Mimosa pellita Kunch ex Willd.) is a sprawling shrub native to Central America. Other common names include giant sensitive-plant and shamebush. It was introduced into Florida sometime prior to 1953 and escaped. It is not clear if it was introduced into Florida as an ornamental or the introduction was accidental. It has proved to be a serious invasive plant in wetlands in Thailand, Australia, and Florida. Having spines and forming dense thickets to 20’ high, it can displace native species and form a barrier to animal and human activity. Although it can be a serious weed in wetlands, it may also inhabit drier sites. The presence of spines on stems and leaves may implicate it as a threat in pastures. Regulations Black mimosa is a Federal Noxious weed in the United States. It is a Class A noxious weed in Alabama, North Carolina, and Vermont and a Noxious weed in Florida and Hawaii.
    [Show full text]
  • Noxious Weed Impacts Weed Identification
    National Invasive Species Library Statewide Noxious Weed Awareness and Education NOXIOUS WEED IMPACTS Growing What's So Pains. Why Should Dangerous Facts I Care about About the about Noxious Impacts of Weed Noxious Weeds Weeds? Restoring Invasions on the Ecology in the and Economy native wildlife habitat for Western of Montana? today and United (being updated for a tomorrow. States. regional audience) Greater Yellowstone US Department R.L. Sheley et al. 2005. Coordinating of the Interior Montana State University Committee Noxious Bureau of Land Extension Bulletin 152 Weed Subcommittee Management WEED IDENTIFICATION Identification is Key to Zero Weed Pocket Spread weed management. Early Detection Rapid Response Cards US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Guide Conservation Service, Montana Department of Yellow Starthistle - Leafy Spurge - Dalmatian Toadflax - Greater Yellowstone Agriculture, and Montana State University Statewide Spotted Knapweed. A weed you should get to know. Coordinating Committee Noxious Weed Awareness and Education Campaign Center for Invasive Plant Management Protect our water resources with Zero Spread aquatics management. 2006. US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service and Montana Statewide Noxious Weed Awareness and Education Campaign (POSTER) Not All Alien Invaders Eurasian Are From Outer Space. watermilfoil Somewhere out there, in a An Aggressive remote part of the world, a Non-Native Water Weed. creature awaits ... The S.O.S. Unknown Invader Save our Shores Scaryus eatumpis
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Protection and Weed Control
    Noxious and Invasive Weed Update Plant Protection and Weed Control Spring 2019 The “Other” Weeds List We have discussed noxious move- antine for the two Old weeds and the law that ment of World bluestem species, regulates them in Kansas all fed- Caucasian and Yellow Special points of interest: quite a bit in these articles erally bluestem. This one will be so this time I thought we listed a little different in that it • Parasitism is one of three types of might mix things up a bit noxious will only quarantine the symbiosis, or close relationships and discuss another law weeds. seeds and roots rather between two different species. The While three types of symbiosis are: that regulates other weeds than the plants them- in other ways. The Plant only a few of the more selves. This will help re- Mutualism, in which both species • Pest and Agriculture Com- than 100 species on the duce the introduction and benefit, modity Certification Act federal noxious weed list spread of the species. • Commensalism, in which one spe- (K.S.A. 2-2112, et seq.), could potentially infest This same quarantine can, cies benefits and the other is unaf- allows for certain plant Kansas, we have listed all fected, and and is, used pests to be quarantined. A of them to ensure we don’t for other • Parasitism, in which one species quarantine means that the get surprised in the future. threatening benefits and the other is harmed. species listed cannot be This also allows us to help pests out moved into, or within, the the federal government in their work to stop the there like the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Herbicides and Noxious Weeds: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
    Herbicides and Noxious Weeds: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Kim Goodwin Research Associate, Center for Invasive Species Management Jane Mangold Assistant Professor, Extension Invasive Plant Specialist Cecil Tharp Extension Pesticide Education Specialist Why are you killing those pretty flowers? The Montana County Weed Control Act requires landowners to control noxious weeds, including those with attractive flowers. Many of these plants were originally brought to the U.S. from Eurasia for ornamental and landscape use. They escaped cultivation and invaded native habitats where they now cause serious environmental problems. Noxious weeds with showy flowers include Dalmatian leafy spurge - Clinton Shock, Oregon State University toadflax, saltcedar, oxeye daisy and others. The widespread use of pesticides to control pests on What are noxious weeds? crops for agricultural productivity has raised concern The Montana County Weed Control Act designates noxious weeds about chronic effects to the environment and human as priority plants for control by landowners by rule of the Montana health. Because pesticides are a concern to the Department of Agriculture or a county weed district. A noxious weed public, noxious weed crews may receive questions is a plant that meets the following criteria: about herbicides and how they affect us and our • Is non-native or exotic to Montana, and environment. • When introduced, may render land unfit for agriculture, forestry, This brochure presents an overview of commonly livestock, wildlife, or other beneficial uses, or may harm native asked questions posed by the public. Questions focus plant communities. on the use of herbicides to control noxious weeds Certain noxious weeds are invasive. They invade native habitats and on non-crop sites, such as rangelands and pastures, then spread, outcompeting and displacing native plants, causing forests and roadway rights-of-way, and the potential significant losses of grazing land and wildlife habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Year Round Gardening My Battle with Noxious Weeds
    Year Round Gardening My Battle with Noxious Weeds Kitty West, Colorado Master Gardener Since 2015, I have battled the noxious weeds on our Black Forest property; specifically, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and Common mullein (Verbascum thapsus). I have not won this war, but currently, there are no large patches of these weeds on my land. A noxious weed is an alien (non-native) plant which causes damage to agricultural or natural ecosystems. The plant must have been designated as noxious by a governmental body to be included as a noxious species. Landowners are required to control designated species under Colorado State Law. Acceptable controls can range from simply preventing spread to mandatory eradication, What a landowner is required to do depends on the specific weed. El Paso County has an excellent pamphlet available– Noxious Weeds and Control Methods available online at Newt sitting by some Mullein https://communityservices.elpasoco.com/wp- content/uploads/Environmental-Division-Picture/Noxious-Weeds/Noxious-Weed- Control-Book.pdf. Weeds can spread readily via dispersal of seeds, producing thousands of seeds per plant in a season. Common mullein can produce in excess of 200,000 seeds per plant! Those seeds are viable for decades. They germinate when the soil temperature is within an appropriate range and there is sufficient oxygen and water, generally in disturbed soil. I use only manual methods (pulling and digging) to eradicate the weeds on our property. This method has been successful, but it is not a one-and-done. From May through October- I prowl for weeds on my walk almost daily walks.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E Forest Service Manual 2080 Noxious Weed Management
    : APPENDIX E FOREST SERVICE MANUAL 2080 NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT E-1 R1 SUPPLEMENT 2000-2001-1 2080 EFFECTIVE DATE: 05/14/2001 Page 2 of 18 DURATION: Effective until superseded or removed FSM 2000 – NATIONAL FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ZERO CODE 2080 – NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT FOREST SERVICE MANUAL NORTHERN REGION (REGION 1) MISSOULA, MT. FSM 2000 – NATIONAL FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ZERO CODE 2080 – NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT Supplement No.: R1 2000-2001-1 Effective Date: May 14, 2001 Duration: Effective until superseded or removed Approved: KATHY A. MCALLISTER Date Approved: 04/27/2001 Acting Regional Forester Posting Instructions: Supplements are numbered consecutively by Title and calendar year. Post by document name. Remove entire document and replace with this supplement. Retain this transmittal as the first page of this document. New Document(s): 2080 16 Pages Superseded Document(s): None. (This is the first supplement to this 0 Pages Manual.) Digest: This supplement implements an Integrated Weed Management approach for management of noxious weeds on National Forest System lands in Region 1. E-2 R1 SUPPLEMENT 2000-2001-1 2080 EFFECTIVE DATE: 05/14/2001 Page 3 of 18 DURATION: Effective until superseded or removed FSM 2000 – NATIONAL FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ZERO CODE 2080 – NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT 2080.4 - Responsibility. Encourage weed awareness and education in employee development and training plans and orientation for both field and administrative work. 2080.43 - Forest Supervisor. Forest Supervisors are responsible for: 1. Emphasizing weed awareness and weed prevention in all fire training, especially resource advisors, fire management teams, guard school, and district orientation. 2. Adding weed awareness and prevention education to Fire Effects and Prescribed Fire training.
    [Show full text]
  • Noxious Weed Risk Assessment
    Sugarberry Project Final Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Appendix C Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Sugarberry Project Prepared for: USDA Forest Service Plumas National Forest Feather River Ranger District Prepared by: Date Chris Christofferson, Assistant District Botanist Plumas National Forest, Feather River Ranger District Reviewed and edited by: Date Linnea Hanson, District Botanist Plumas National Forest, Feather River Ranger District G:\~USFS WEBSITES\plumas\projects_and_plans\sugarberry_project\pdf\feis_specialist_reports\Botany\Appendix_C_N WRA_040307_FINAL.doc - 1 - Sugarberry Project Final Noxious Weed Risk Assessment INTRODUCTION This Noxious Weed Risk Assessment has been prepared to evaluate the effect of the Sugarberry project on California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) listed noxious weeds and other invasive non-native plant species. This assessment is in compliance with the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1988), the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 1999), the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2001), and the direction in the Forest Service Manual section 2080, Noxious Weed Management (amendment effective since 11/29/95) (USDA Forest Service 1991), which includes a policy statement calling for a risk assessment for noxious weeds to be completed for every project. The overriding principle stated in these documents is that “…it is much cheaper to prevent an infestation from becoming established than to try to eliminate it once it has begun to spread, or deal with the effects of a degraded plant community.” Specifically, the manual states: 2081.03 - Policy. When any ground disturbing action or activity is proposed, determine the risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds associated with the proposed action.
    [Show full text]
  • Weed Risk Assessment for Mimosa Pudica L. (Fabaceae)
    Weed Risk Assessment for Mimosa United States pudica L. (Fabaceae) – Sensitive plant Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service August 1, 2014 Version 1 Dried pods (top), plant habit (bottom), flower, leaves, and stem of M. pudica (right). [Photo source: top and bottom Starr and Starr (2005-2009), and right, K. A. Rawlins, invasive.org]. Agency Contact: Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Weed Risk Assessment for Mimosa pudica Introduction Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) regulates noxious weeds under the authority of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000) and the Federal Seed Act (7 U.S.C. § 1581-1610, 1939). A noxious weed is defined as “any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment” (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000). We use weed risk assessment (WRA)— specifically, the PPQ WRA model (Koop et al., 2012)—to evaluate the risk potential of plants, including those newly detected in the United States, those proposed for import, and those emerging as weeds elsewhere in the world. Because the PPQ WRA model is geographically and climatically neutral, it can be used to evaluate the baseline invasive/weed potential of any plant species for the entire United States or for any area within it.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislation and Policy 15 Faith T
    This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy. Legislation and Policy 15 Faith T. Campbell, Hilda Diaz-Soltero, and Deborah C. Hayes 15.1 Introduction authorized to deal with a range of taxonomic groups consid- ered to be “plant pests,” as well as diseases of livestock and In the United States, biological invaders are managed by all poultry. The Department of the Interior (DOI) US Fish and Federal agencies that have responsibility for natural Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulates the introduction and resources, as well as the States, territories, and occasionally spread of vertebrate animals and some invertebrates that the regional entities. Federal agencies’ invasive species pro- Secretary of the Interior has determined to be “injurious” to grams are implemented under the mandates and guidance human beings; to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, provided by dozens of laws, which include statutes enacted forestry; or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United 1 by the Congress, Executive Orders issued by the President, States. and regulations adopted by the relevant agencies. Although A small group of laws authorize Federal agencies to con- there are numerous laws implemented by the States or occa- trol invasive species where they have invaded. These laws sionally regional entities, this chapter will focus on Federal often specifcally direct either USDA or DOI as the lead for legislation and regulations that guide work on all public and control or management; however, they apply to all Federal private forests, rangelands, and grasslands in the United land management agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Update to the Noxious Weed Law
    Teasel (left; photo courtesy of US Dept. of Agriculture) and Old World Caucasian Bluestem (right; photo courtesy of The Noble Foundation) Update to the Noxious Weed Law By Emily Wilder, Kansas LTAP Local agencies in Kansas must remove noxious weeds from land they own, including roadsides. The Kansas Noxious Weed Law was updated last October to allow the creation of a state noxious weed advisory committee. This article will briefly discuss the committee, its organization and duties, and two weeds that are likely to be reviewed by this committee, for possible additions to the State’s noxious weeds list. State Noxious Weed Advisory Committee Breakdown The committee will consist of 13 voting members and the Secretary of Agriculture as a non-voting ex officio member. Members will be appointed by the Secretary to represent the different geographic areas of the state as equally as possible and will consist of the following breakdown: • One natural resource management professional from the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism • Two weed specialists from Kansas State University with one having knowledge of non-chemical methods of weed control • One county commissioner recommended by the Kansas Association of Counties • Two weed supervisors recommended by the board of directors of the County Weed Director’s Association of Kansas • Four private landowners involved in agricultural production, to include: o At least one traditional Kansas grower o At least one non-traditional grower o At least one certified organic producer • One representative
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Noxious Weed List
    2020 Noxious Weed List The Minnesota Noxious Weed Law (Minnesota Statutes 18.75-18.91) defines a noxious weed as an annual, biennial, or perennial plant that the Commissioner of Agriculture designates to be injurious to public health, the environment, public roads, crops, livestock, or other property. The law protects residents of the state from the injurious effects of noxious weeds. Links to the online lists and species pages can be found at this link: Minnesota Noxious Weed List Prohibited Noxious Weeds Attempts must be made by all landowners to control or eradicate species on these lists. These species cannot be transported illegally or sold in Minnesota. There are two Prohibited categories: Eradicate and Control. Prohibited Eradicate – Must be eradicated by killing the above and below-ground parts of the plant. Common name Scientific name Year added 1. Black swallow-wort Cynanchum louiseae Kartesz & Gandhi 2013 2. Brown knapweed Centaurea jacea L. 2013 3. Common teasel Dipsacus fullonum L. 2012 4. Cutleaf teasel Dipsacus laciniatus L. 2012 5. Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica (L.) Mill. 2012 6. Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa L. 2017 7. Giant hogweed* Heracleum mantegazzianum Sommier & Levier 2012 8. Grecian foxglove Digitalis lanata Ehrh. 2010 9. Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Thunb. 2020 10. Japanese hops Humulus japonicus Siebold & Zucc. 2012 11. Meadow knapweed Centurea x moncktonii C.E. Britton 2013 12. Oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus Thunb. 2011 13. Palmer amaranth Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson 2015 14. Poison hemlock Conium maculatum L. 2018 15. Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle 2017 16. Yellow starthistle* Centaurea solstitialis L. 2010 *Species not known to be in Minnesota, but have been determined to be a threat to invade the state.
    [Show full text]