Cook County has officially joined an interagency fight against “invasive terrestrial, aquatic, and airborne species,” and in the hope of receiving up to $100,000 in federal Environmental Protection Agency funding, it may partner with Lake and St. Louis counties as well.
On Tuesday, February 22, 2010, the county board agreed to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with nine other Cook County entities called the Cook County Invasives Team: Cook County Extension, Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Grand Portage National Monument, Superior National Forest, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District, Sugarloaf/North Shore Stewardship Association, and the Gunflint Trail Scenic Byway Committee.
According to the MOU, an invasive species has competitive advantage over native plants and can harm native vegetation because of the absence of natural diseases, insects or other organisms to keep the species in check and/or the ability to leaf out earlier than native plants, harm trees by feeding on or nesting in them, reproduce rapidly and in great numbers, or thrive in a wide variety of conditions.
“Invasive, non-native species are recognized as a widespread and increasing problem in northeastern Minnesota,” the MOU states, “with serious and detrimental effects occurring on public and private lands and waters. Invasive, non-native terrestrial, airborne, aquatic, and plant species are displacing native communities throughout Cook County.”
According to Cook County Agricultural Inspector Shae Kosmalski, the county Highway Department is “on target” to receive up to $100,000 from the EPA under its Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a funding program being pursued on the county’s behalf by the U.S. Forest Service. Thefunding would allow the county to hire a coordinator to launch an invasive species program.
U.S. Forest Service District Ranger Dennis Neitzke said the interagency collaboration could be used as a tool to secure other funding as well.
The priorities of the Cook County Invasives Team are preventing introduction of noxious weeds and pests through education, halting new invasions, and containing established infestations.
“While citizens may be environmentally aware,” the team’s management plan states, “they may be not conscious of how human activities spread invasives. Prevention measures in communities can dramatically curtail the expansion of invasive infestations.”
Methods to control invasives
Sometimes pulling, cutting, or stressing invasive plants can control an invasion. On the other hand, doing so can disturb the soil enough to encourage reinvasion.
Chemical control is advocated by some and strongly opposed by others. Last summer, community members successfully lobbied the county board to call off the county’s plan to control weeds chemically alongside county roads.
“Although chemical controls…are an effective means of controlling unwanted vegetation,” the management plan states, “they may also have the most adverse consequences. The risk of using an herbicide must be weighed against the negative impact of the invasive species on the area of concern, and the effectiveness of chemical control should be compared to other control methods.”
“Biocontrol” is the use of animals, fungi or other microbes to feed upon, parasitize, or otherwise stress a targeted pest species, the plan states. “Biocontrol is often seen as a progressive and environmentally friendly way to control pest organisms. …However, some biocontrol programs have resulted in significant, irreversible harm to untargeted (non-pest) organisms and to ecological processes.”
Another method is “cultural control,” which uses flooding, smothering, fires, or competing vegetation to reduce the impact of invasive species.
Commissioners say no new rules
The proposed plan called for the Invasives Team to participate in committees outside the county, “providing a bigger voice to invasives control at all levels,” it stated. “It will also help legislators and other agencies see that invasives control is a priority for Cook County, enhancing rules and funding options to assist with our efforts.” Commissioner Jan Hall expressed concern over that sentence’s reference to “enhancing rules.” Will this lead to more laws and restrictions, such as access to trails? she asked.
Commissioner Fritz Sobanja also commented on that paragraph, saying he was “shocked” by it. He was not sure how much of a priority invasive species should be compared to other high-priority needs such as funding for Public Health and Human Services. He was concerned that the county would be left paying for a program after the initial funding was gone and wondered whether controlling invasive species was really possible or if it was as hopeless as “chasing birds carrying seeds from Iowa.”
The MOU would not
” require any agency to deviate from their own practices, Kosmalski said.
One of the ways to shape policy is to be involved in the process, Commissioner Bob Fenwick said.
“I think we’d shoot ourselves in the foot in terms of credibility if we didn’t participate in these discussions,” Commissioner Jim Johnson said. “We’ve got lots of weeds all over the county that shouldn’t be there.”
Commissioner Hall said, “I can see that, like Jim said, it would benefit all of us to work together.”
County Extension Director Diane Booth said the number of calls she gets from people concerned about invasive species continues to grow. One farmer from outside the county said he would get fined if certain invasive species were found on his property.
Commissioner Sobanja asked if the county’s involvement would take Highway Department personnel away from other duties. Kosmalski replied that administering the grant would take minimal staff time and would probably bring more money in to pay for the work.
“No new positions are going to be created in this county,” Commissioner Fenwick said, “without the board’s approval.”
Theboard approved the MOU with the stipulation that the paragraph in the plan regarding the benefits of participating in committees outside the county be amended to read, “It will also help legislators and other agencies see that invasives control is important [rather than ‘a priority’] for Cook County, enhancing funding options [not ‘enhancing rules and funding options’] to assist with our efforts.”
Noxious weeds
prohibited in Minnesota:
ll Field bindweed
ll Hemp
ll Purple loosestrife
ll Garlic mustard
ll Poison ivy (native to Minnesota)
ll Leafy spurge
ll Perennial sowthistle
ll Bull thistle
ll Canada thistle
ll Musk thistle
ll Plumeless thistle
Restricted from sale
or transportation:
ll Common or European
buckthorn
ll Glossy buckthorn
Secondary noxious weeds that
are native to Minnesota but
which counties can prohibit:
ll Jerusalem artichoke
ll Buffalobur
ll Bracken
ll Common cocklebur
ll Curlycup gumweed
llMarshelder
ll Common milkweed
ll Wirestem muhly
ll Common ragweed
ll Giant ragweed
ll Long-spined sandbur
ll Pennsylvania smartweed
ll Common sunflower
(except cultivars)
Leave a Reply