Input needed on potential new noxious weed listing

Crook County Weed and Pest is reaching out for input on the potential listing of cheatgrass as a noxious weed.

Because this could have significant financial impacts and might affect the district’s ability to assist in treating other weeds and pests, says District Supervisor Alycia Davis, the board wants to hear from the public before casting its vote.

A Call for Action

The weed and pest districts for ten Wyoming counties have called for cheatgrass to be added to the State Designated Noxious Weed List, throwing their support behind prevention and management of the grass at a time when they believe it’s still possible to eradicate it.

According to a letter that the group sent to its fellow districts statewide, cheatgrass is expanding by as much as 12% each year and a management effort could slow and stop the impacts on rangelands, “before they become annual grasslands (like what has happened to the Great Basin).”

Funding, the group argues, is available like never before, including support from the governor and legislature, agencies and NEPA progression.

Meanwhile, a newer herbicide by the name of Rejuvra® “is proving to be highly effective”.

Previous discussions on cheatgrass have included pros and cons, the group argues, but many of the cons have been addressed with new tools and funding and the push from the Governor’s Office.

The Case for Listing

Institutions ranging from the Wyoming Stock Growers Association and the Department of Environmental Quality to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation are advocating for the movement to list cheatgrass.

Most note the continued spread of the weed, its impacts on the landscape and the availability of newer herbicides to combat it.

“Cheatgrass is spreading across the west, increasing wildfire frequency and size, threatening agriculture and wildlife habitat, transforming sagebrush ecosystems and reducing forage productivity,” wrote Jim Magagna, Executive Vice President of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association.

The Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts meanwhile calls cheatgrass, “One of the most widespread and ecologically damaging weeds in Wyoming”, estimated to be impacting up to ten million acres at an economic cost of $33 million.

According to Eric Wiltanger, Deputy Director of Wyoming Game & Fish, the expansion of cheatgrass is happening at “an alarming rate” and is negatively altering forage quantity and quality, increasing fire return intervals and decreasing species diversity.

Cattle can eat cheatgrass, says Davis, but, “Only when the grass is young and green. Once mature, it becomes less palatable with sharp awns which may cause harm to the animal”

The Bridger-Teton National Forest states in a memo of support that it applauds the efforts of Fremont, Lincoln, Sublette and Teton counties to control cheatgrass, but there is a limit to the effectiveness of local strategy.

“State highway right of ways and the associated vehicle traffic are a primary vector of cheatgrass. WYDOT provides funding for invasive treatments in the right of ways, but without a statewide declaration, WYDOT funds are not able to be expended to control cheatgrass in the right of ways, even in counties where it is a county-declared species,” the memo reads.

The Muley Fanatic Foundation, echoing a sentiment expressed by several agencies who support the listing, wrote, “New tools and funding opportunities are transforming the way agencies approach cheatgrass management. Providing for greater cooperation across jurisdictional boundaries to apply treatments at landscape scale. These efforts have the potential to not only manage current cheatgrass infestations, but to protect millions of currently uninfested acres.”

Counties that have suffered large fires this summer, such as Campbell and Johnson, are also concerned because, Davis says, “One of the first things that comes back after a fire regime is cheatgrass.”

The Negative Side

Unlike the ten counties that have called for action on cheatgrass, says Davis, Crook County remains undecided.

At this time, the board is leaning towards a “no” vote due to a single, overarching concern: finances.

The unofficial opinion of the board is that the budget to cover the issues that Crook County faces is already tight without adding another species to the list.

“We can’t control our leafy spurge already, and that’s on our special management list,” she says. “We get an actual mill levy for that and spotted knapweed and we really, really struggle with it.”

Proponents have argued that funding is available now that hasn’t been offered in the past.

“Right now, there’s a lot of federal support,” Davis agrees, adding that there is also state support, such as the $9 million granted by Governor Mark Gordon to combat ventenata, Medusa head and cheatgrass.

But what if that changes in the future, she questions, either because the war against cheatgrass is considered won or because of unforeseen drains on the available funding or a view from leadership that other priorities should come first?

“To my knowledge, once a species goes on the list, it does not come off,” she says.

The problem, she says, is that the rules for noxious weeds are black and white. Once cheatgrass is given the designation, the county will have no choice but to tackle it.

“We will have to run an effective program – and that greatly impacts our other programs,” she says.

Proponents argue that a listing will not necessarily create a financial burden because an effective program could be defined as education for landowners, limiting treatment to “hold the line” areas, offering treatment assistance only when grant funds are available or promotion of prevention measures.

However, Davis questions this claim, pointing out, for example, that state statutes require that noxious weeds be treated on all county roads and highways.

“Campbell County did some very quick figuring at our meeting in August. To do an effective program to treat the highways in Campbell County would be over $100,000,” she says.

Davis estimates that the cost to meet statutes on treating roads in Crook County would be even higher. However, she points out, “We only get allotted $22,000 right now” and the rest would need to come through grants and similar sources.

In addition, she notes that Crook is a border county. Costs to control the weed here could be higher and necessary for longer if Montana or South Dakota opts not to do the same.

Davis also questions why a state listing is necessary when private control is possible.

“There are effective ways to control it – grazing early in the spring,” she says. “A lot of people around here use that method because it is very expensive to control [chemically].”

Weed and Pest has two chemical treatments available, including the one touted by supporters of the listing as having greater effectiveness.

Plateau®, the older version, costs around $8.36 per acre to apply, while the newer Rejuvra costs $59.91 per acre. Rejuvra is significantly more effective on cheatgrass, Davis says, but Plateau is less directly targeted and will also assist with issues such as leafy spurge.

Some counties have strong documentation as to the amount of cheatgrass now present, but Crook has not commissioned an official survey, Davis says. This is largely because, while the counties supporting the listing have been fighting hard against cheatgrass, Crook County has been facing more pressing issues with leafy spurge.

That’s not to say we don’t have it here, though.

“I would probably bet my salary that there is cheatgrass on about 75% of Crook County acres,” she says.

Counties can individually declare weeds, which Davis suggests may be more appropriate for problem areas as cheatgrass could then be delisted once and would then no longer need to be managed or budgeted for.

Public Input

The Crook County Weed & Pest Board wants to hear from the landowners who will be impacted by the outcome of this decision, says Davis.

To facilitate this, the board is inviting the public to attend its monthly meeting at 6 p.m. on October 9 at the district office.

The question that the board would like to put to landowners: is the current or potential impact of cheatgrass on your land more or less important than the other issues you are facing with pests and/or weeds?

Davis believes there is a possibility that the listing of cheatgrass will force the district to cut cost share assistance for issues such as prairie dogs and other noxious weeds. What would this mean to you as a landowner to whom these services are available?

The board will vote to finalize the county’s position following the public input session.

Supervisors from all state districts, including Davis, will then convene at the end of October and cast their votes. The outcome of this vote will determine whether cheatgrass is designated a noxious weed.

Weed and Pest staff can also be contacted to discuss this issue from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Monday through Thursday.