Proceedings of the Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the Northeastern ...
Proceedings of the Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the Northeastern ... Proceedings of the Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the Northeastern ...
136 THE MASSACHUSETTS EXAMPLE: ONE STREAM BANK, MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS. R.G. Prostak and D.J. Picking, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst. ABSTRACT In MA, individuals wishing to control or eradicate invasive plants in riparian areas face many regulations that are unique to the commonwealth. These regulations predate invasive plant recognition and consciousness to the degree that it exists today. In 1972, the Commonwealth of MA passed the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), MA General Laws Chapter 131 section 40. The Act defines areas subject to protection, including Bordering Vegetative Wetlands (BVW), stream banks, and lands subject to flooding. The Act protects not only BVW but identifies a 100 foot buffer zone beyond the wetland edge. The Act requires that a permit be obtained for nearly all activities within the BVW. Activities in the wetland buffer zone may or may not require a permit depending on the likelihood of the activity adversely impacting the resource area. In 1996, MA passed the Rivers Protection Act (RPA) that further amended the WPA. RPA establishes a 200 foot resource area along all perennial rivers and streams. This is a regulated resource area and may or may not overlap a BVW and its associated buffer zone. Almost all activities within this area will require a permit. The WPA is administered by a local Conservation Commission in each municipality with oversight and final authority from the MA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Under "home rule" in MA, municipalities may pass local wetland bylaws that are more stringent than those of the commonwealth. For example, some municipalities have imposed 'no build' and /or ‘no disturb’ zones adjacent to wetland resource areas that prohibit all activities within these locally defined zones. Decisions made based on the WPA by municipal conservation commissions may be appealed to the DEP, but decisions made based on local by-laws can not be appealed. Local conservation commissioners serve voluntarily once appointed by local town officials. Training programs are offered by the MA Association of Conservation Commissioners but attendance at these programs is not mandatory. The make-up of commissions varies significantly from town to town due to the professional background and experience of the commissioners, therefore, decisions and interpretations of regulation can also vary. The importance of invasive plant management is recognized by most (if not all) local conservation commissions, however, conservation commission differ widely in their views on the use of herbicides in or near wetlands. Another set of regulations that may impact ones ability to manage invasive plants in riparian zones is the MA Endangered Species Act, MA General Law Chapter 131 A. The Act is administered by Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program (NHESP) within the MA Department of Fish and Game and reviews all proposed activities in estimated rare or endangered species habitat, as delineated on the NHESP database. With the exception of utility right-of-ways, the WPA and RPA do not address the use of herbicides. The exclusive authority for the regulation of the labeling, distribution, sale, storage, transportation, use and application, and disposal of pesticides in the commonwealth is determined by the MA Pesticide Control Act, MA General Law Chapter 132B administered by the MA Department of Agricultural Resources. 118
137 Supplement to the Proceedings Sixtieth Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society Westin Hotel Providence, RI January 3-6, 2006 Hilary A. Sandler, Editor University of Massachusetts-Amherst Cranberry Station East Wareham, MA 119
- Page 86 and 87: 86 AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION. M.J. Van
- Page 88 and 89: 88 HERBICIDE COMPARISON IN WET BLAD
- Page 90 and 91: 90 Table 1. Morrow's honeysuckle (L
- Page 92 and 93: 92 EVALUATION OF HERBICIDES FOR CON
- Page 94 and 95: 94 EVALUATION OF HERBICIDES FOR CON
- Page 96 and 97: 96 HOT WATER SYSTEMS FOR VEGETATION
- Page 98 and 99: 98 SEEDHEAD SUPPRESSION OF ANNUAL B
- Page 100 and 101: 100 ROUGHSTALK BLUEGRASS CONTROL WI
- Page 102 and 103: 102 EFFECT OF DEW AND GRANULAR FORM
- Page 104 and 105: 104 USE OF TRICLOPYR TO REDUCE ANTI
- Page 106 and 107: 106 YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL WITH SU
- Page 108 and 109: 108 PRE AND POST EMERGENT ANNUAL BL
- Page 110 and 111: 110 PUMPKIN RESPONSE TO HALOSUFSULF
- Page 112 and 113: 112 Figure 1. Grass cover following
- Page 114 and 115: 114 CHEMICAL CONTROL OF APPLE ROOT
- Page 116 and 117: 116 STRAWBERRY PLANTING YEAR WEED C
- Page 118 and 119: 118 WEED CONTROL IN NO-TILL PUMPKIN
- Page 120 and 121: 120 NATURAL PRODUCT POTENTIAL FOR W
- Page 122 and 123: 122 THE IR-4 PROJECT: UPDATE ON HER
- Page 124 and 125: 124 PEDIGREE OF A PESTICIDE. D.R. S
- Page 126 and 127: 126 SEEDHEAD SUPPRESSION OF ANNUAL
- Page 128 and 129: 128 APPLICATIONS FOR SULFENTRAZONE
- Page 130 and 131: 130 HORSEWEED: FROM OBSCURITY TO TH
- Page 132 and 133: 132 RECENT FINDINGS ON THE FIELD BE
- Page 134 and 135: 134 HORSEWEED RESPONSE TO NO-TILL P
- Page 138 and 139: 138 Supplemental NEWSS Abstracts (p
- Page 140 and 141: 140 ABSTRACTS AND BIOGRAPHIES FOR P
- Page 142 and 143: 142 EVALUATION OF AN HERBICIDE APPL
- Page 144 and 145: 144 ALUMINUM TREATMENT FOR PHOSPHOR
- Page 146 and 147: 146 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF AQUATIC W
- Page 148 and 149: 148 THE 2002 FARM BILL AND ITS EFFE
- Page 150 and 151: 150 LAND USE PRACTICE IMPACTS ON NO
- Page 152 and 153: 152 A NEW STANDARD FOR DEFINING AQU
- Page 154 and 155: 154 PORTRAIT OF THE HEALTH STATUS O
- Page 156 and 157: 156 TEN YEARS OF VARIABLE WATER MIL
- Page 158 and 159: 158 Northeastern Weed Science Socie
- Page 160 and 161: 160 meeting attendance numbers have
- Page 162 and 163: 162 members or to members of the Ex
- Page 164 and 165: 164 primary areas that had increase
- Page 166 and 167: 166 1 st place: Evaluation of Kentu
- Page 168 and 169: 168 d) Resolutions Committee Appoin
- Page 170 and 171: 170 2005, Hilary Sandler and Brent
- Page 172 and 173: 172 (Ornamentals), Rakesh Chandran
- Page 174 and 175: 174 Total Expenses $38,227.24 Total
- Page 176 and 177: 176 PUBLIC RELATIONS Brent Lackey A
- Page 178 and 179: 178 • 2 nd place team: Guelph tea
- Page 180 and 181: 180 WSSA REPRESENTATIVE Jeffrey Der
- Page 182 and 183: 182 b. Legislative Visits training
- Page 184 and 185: 184 b. Selection of a WSSA Member f
137<br />
Supplement<br />
to <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong><br />
Sixtieth <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Meeting</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Nor<strong>the</strong>astern Weed Science Society<br />
Westin Hotel<br />
Providence, RI<br />
January 3-6, 2006<br />
Hilary A. Sandler, Editor<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Massachusetts-Amherst Cranberry Station<br />
East Wareham, MA<br />
119