DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix H. Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix H. Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT Appendix H. Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan June 2010 H-1 Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan FERC Docket No. CP09-54-000 June 2010 RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEED CONTROL PLAN Table of Contents Section Page 1 Introduction ............................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Project Description .............................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Plan Purpose....................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................... 1-2 2 Noxious Weed Management Plan........................................... 2-1 2.1 Noxious Weed Inventory ..................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Agency-Provided Data.............................................................. 2-5 2.2 Noxious Weed Management............................................................... 2-5 2.2.1 Identification of Problem Areas................................................. 2-5 2.2.2 Preventative Measures............................................................. 2-6 2.2.3 Treatment Methods .................................................................. 2-8 2.2.4 Restoration and Revegetation ................................................ 2-12 2.2.5 Agency-Specific Requirements............................................... 2-13 2.2.5.1 Bureau of Land Management .................................... 2-13 2.2.5.2 United States Forest Service Lands .......................... 2-14 2.2.5.3 Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS).............. 2-17 2.2.5.4 Bureau of Reclamation .............................................. 2-19 3.0 Monitoring................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Monitoring During Construction Phase................................................ 3-1 3.2 Post-Construction Monitoring .............................................................. 3-2 4.0 Herbicide Application, Handling, Spills, and Cleanup.......... 4-1 4.1 Herbicide Application and Handling .................................................... 4-1 4.2 Herbicide Spills and Cleanup .............................................................. 4-2 5.0 References .............................................................................. 5-1 Attachment A: Tables ......................................................................A-1 Attachment B: State Noxious Weed Laws......................................B-1 June 2010 i RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEED CONTROL PLAN List of Tables Table Page Table A-1 Noxious Weed Populations Indentified Along Ruby Pipeline Right-of-Way .......................................................................................A-1 Table A-2 Noxious Weed Populations Identified Along Ruby Pipeline Access Roads1 ..................................................................................A-25 Table A-3 Noxious Weed Populations Identified within 200 Feet of Potential Water Sources Along Ruby Pipeline ..................................A-48 Table A-4 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Wyoming and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Wyoming........................A-51 Table A-5 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Utah and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Utah ...............................A-53 Table A-6 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Nevada and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Nevada ..........................A-55 Table A-7 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Oregon and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Oregon...........................A-58 Table A-8 Weed Information Provided by Agencies and Jurisdictions Along the Pipeline Right-of-Way .......................................................A-63 Table A-9 Herbicides Approved and Proposed for Use on Public (BLM) Lands1 ...............................................................................................A-69 Table A-10 Herbicides Approved and Proposed for Use on the Fremont-Winema National Forest1....................................................A-71 Table A-11 Herbicides Approved and Proposed for Use on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest .......................................................A-71 Table A-12 Herbicides Approved and Proposed for Use on Bureau of Reclamation Lands in Oregon.......................................................A-72 Table A-13 Potential Treatments for Noxious Weeds on Fremont National Forest (Pending Approval of New EIS)1 ..............................A-73 Table A-14 Characteristics of Invasive Species...................................................A-74 Table A-15 Weed Cleaning Station Sites Along the Ruby Pipeline ROW, Based on Identified1 High Density2 Noxious Weed Populations, State Lines, Yards, and Other Boundaries ........................................................................................A-80 Table A-16 Post-Construction Weed Monitoring Sites.........................................A-86 Table A-17 Construction Spreads and Direction of Work ....................................A-99 June 2010 iii RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEED CONTROL PLAN List of Abbreviations and Acronyms BLM Bureau of Land Management EEAP Employee Environmental Awareness Program EIS Environmental impact statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement GIS Geographic Information System GPS global positioning system mph miles per hour NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service POD Plan of Development Project Ruby Pipeline Project PUP Pesticide Use Proposal PWS potential water sources Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation Refuge Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge ROW right-of-way Ruby Ruby Pipeline, LLC USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service June 2010 iv RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEED CONTROL PLAN 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Description The Ruby Pipeline Project (Project), proposed by Ruby Pipeline, LLC (Ruby), is composed of approximately 675.2 miles of 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline, along with associated compression and measurement facilities, located between Opal, Wyoming, and Malin, Oregon. The pipeline right-of-way (ROW) would cross four states: Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. In addition to the existing King Compressor Station at Opal, Wyoming, Ruby proposes to install four new compressor stations for the Project: one located near the Opal Hub, one in western Utah, one near the mid-point of the Project north of Elko, Nevada, and one northwest of Winnemucca, Nevada. 1.2 Plan Purpose The purpose of this plan is to prescribe methods to prevent, mitigate, and control the spread of noxious weeds during and following construction of the Project. Ruby and its contractors would be responsible for carrying out the methods described in this plan. This plan is applicable to both the construction and operations phases of the Project. Noxious weed control practices for the Project described in this plan have been developed utilizing the following sources and agency contacts. Wyoming: County Weed and Pest Control Districts in Lincoln and Uinta counties, The Wyoming Department of Agriculture, The Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act of 1973, The Wyoming State Weed Plan (2003), The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Office and Kemmerer Field Office, and The State Weed and Pest Control Council. Utah: County Weed Supervisors from Rich, Cache, and Box Elder counties; Utah Noxious Weed Act (2008); The BLM State Office and Salt Lake Field Office; The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Service; The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food; and June 2010 1-1 RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEED CONTROL PLAN Cooperative Weed Management/Weed Control Associations. Nevada: Nevada Revised Statutes: Chapter 555—Control of Insects, Pests and Noxious Weeds; The BLM State Office and Elko, Winnemucca, and Surprise field offices; The Nevada Department of Agriculture; and Nevada Weed Action Committees. Oregon: The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) – Fremont-Winema National Forest; The BLM Lakeview and Klamath Falls Resource Areas (KFRA); The Oregon Department of Agriculture (Noxious Weed Control Program); and The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Other: Cooperative Weed Management Associations in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon; The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Wyoming and Oregon (pending coordination from Utah and Nevada); and Information and observations made during field surveys performed by Ruby biologists in 2008 and 2009. Note that in most cases, coordination with the above agencies is ongoing and will continue during the post-construction restoration and weed monitoring phases of the Project. 1.3 Goals and Objectives The goal of Ruby’s Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan is to prevent the spread of existing noxious weeds identified in Project areas and avoid invasion of new sites or new noxious weeds by applying prevention and control mitigation measures where applicable and appropriate. Ruby’s objectives are to assist federal, state, and local agencies’ noxious weed control efforts; to comply with agency requirements designed to prevent the spread of noxious weeds; and to implement weed control measures on areas of the Project that are identified to be of special concern. In carrying
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]