PETITION REQUESTS BOARD BE SET UP

WEED-CONTROL PROPOSAL TO GET PAIR OF HEARINGS

By MARY DUNCAN

Even before listening to a presentation Tuesday night on the need for a weed-control board organized by a coalition of citizens and incorporating an award-winning presentation by Future Farmers of America from Mary M. Knight High School, the Mason County Commission set two public hearings on the activation of such a board.

The hearings will be held at 7 p.m. Tuesday, May 15, in Olympic Hall at the Mason County Fairgrounds and at 7:45 p.m. Thursday, May 17, in the North Mason High School Auditorium. Commissioners will hear testimony to determine the need to activate a weed-control board due to damaging infestations from a noxious weeds.

Prior to the presentation, the coalition turned in a petition with approximately 120 signatures requesting that the commissioners activate a weed board.

THE SIGNATURES were from people widely scattered across the county, Commissioner Wes Johnson observed, so to cut down on travel time the board decided to hold one hearing in North Mason and one in Shelton.

Seven students from MMK began the coalition's Tuesday night presentation, which Commissioner Mary Jo Cady called at the conclusion a preview of the May public hearings.

The students presented the FFA project by which they won the district competition in the agricultural issues category, sending the team to the FFA state convention May 16 to 21 at Washington

State University in Pullman. Their advisor is Ken Brown and Anita Kingman is the parent coach for the team.

Solomon de los Santos introduced the Power Point presentation and focused on the questions. Does Mason County need a weed board? and should the commissioners activate a weed board? The team presented the pros and cons after outlining background information.

KAMI KINGMAN told the commissioners about the state legislation establishing local weed boards WITH THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT STATE LAW AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. She said the primary reason for weed boards is to limit economic loss and the adverse effects of noxious weed on Washington State agricultural, natural and human resources. She said the boards consist of five directors, four of them from an agricultural or forestry background and all volunteers with the FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM A WEED ASSESSMENT ON LAND OR FROM THE COUNTY'S GENERAL FUND.

Next up was Kyle Chaplin who presented a definition of noxious weeds as non-native plants introduced accidentally or from gardens. He defined three classifications of weeds, showing pictures of the plants from each class. He pointed out that noxious weeds in Mason County include giant hogweed, Spanish broom -- a close relative of Scotch broom but with all parts poisonous if eaten -- three varieties of napweeds and purple loosestrife.

RENEE CHAPLIN REPRESENTED A MEMBER OF A WEED BOARD FROM A NEIGHBORING COUNTY. Mason County is one of two counties having no such board; Douglas is the other. She said a weed board provides a service to the community by doing early detection surveys, providing technical assistance and education, offering prevention strategies and control options and ENFORCING state noxious weed legislation. She urged the commissioners to activate a weed board here.

Isaac Richards identified himself as a resident of Mason County testifying in support of a weed board, noting the effect on the economy due to the spread of terrestrial and aquatic noxious weeds. Spartina threatens the marine shorelines and Scotch broom threatens the forestlands, he said, noting that noxious weeds can impact land use. "The longer we wait the more damage the species can cause, making control more difficult," he concluded.

The reason there's no weed board in Mason County is because there's no money in the budget to fund one, Theresa Brown told the board as she represented a citizen opposed to the activation.

IMPOSING A LAND FEE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IS UNFAIR, she argued.

Brown said there are other departments capable of handling weed control, like the road department's vegetation-control program, and they too provide educational and preventive services, a job of the cooperative extension office.

Kyle Kingman testified as a landowner and "good steward to my land." He said A WEED IMPACT FEE IS A FURTHER TAX BURDEN and there is no provision for the money from the assessment fee to be given back to landowners to help control noxious weeds. He also suggested there are existing agencies which can control invasive weeds to the state's satisfaction.

COALITION MEMBER Mary Jo Seery told the commission she is a weed technician for Thurston County and lives in Mason County, "so weeds are my profession and my passion."

She said the threats posed by infestations of noxious weed in this county are "very real and very present." For example, an infestation of napweed on Johns Prairie has gone unchecked despite the fact that three varieties are identified on the state list. Large napweed infestations can threaten salmon-bearing streams from silt runoff, she said, and Johns Creek has two species.

Last year, added Seery, she contacted the county about infestations she had observed here and agreed to do a survey of noxious weeds along county roads and state highways. She did, submitting it to the Washington State University Extension Office. "The extension office is no longer willing to serve as contact for weed control," she said.

Seery also developed a map of infestations in the county. "Early detection and control are imperative," she concluded. "ESTABLISHING A WEED BOARD WILL NOT COST THE COUNTY ANYTHING."

BRUCE SANTE, another coalition member, presented data from his master's thesis completed last year on funding for noxious weed boards as well as the economic impacts of noxious weeds nationwide. He began by noting noxious weeds have become international and national problems, using examples of infestations on Lake Victoria in Kenya and on the Columbia River. He also discussed the economic impacts.

"We believe as a coalition that selecting the funding method is very important," Sante said, recommending a LAND-BASED FUNDING METHOD WITH AN ANNUAL BUDGET OF AROUND $75,000.

Sandi Dunlap, a coalition member who helped organize the presentation, gave the commissioners a mission statement for the weed board and additional letters of support from landowners and state agencies.

Coalition member Anita Latch provided a list of qualified people interested in serving on the board.

**EMPHASIS ADDED**