The Duchesne County Weed Board on April 14 reviewed a summer of heavy invasive-weed activity across county rangelands and roadways and discussed next steps, including grant partnerships, contractor options and modest rate increases for private spraying services.

Board members and staff described widespread white top (verbascum/whitetop) and musk-thistle outbreaks in Pleasant Valley, Roosevelt, Indian Canyon and along the Strawberry River. A Weed Board staff member said crews “spent a couple days down there, got that knocked out,” but that in many areas the plants “seeded out before we could get most of the white top.” The board reported seeing infestations across much of the county and noted that dry conditions limited herbicide uptake this year, requiring repeat treatments.

Why it matters: speakers emphasized seed-bank longevity and cross-jurisdictional spread. Board members said musk thistle seed can persist for years and estimated a multi-year control effort will be required. Staff described a roughly 90-acre field of thistle that they plan to treat next spring, and warned that unchecked seed production in large patches can rapidly repopulate surrounding land.

Board discussion and technical details

Staff reported the county still has one year remaining on a contract with the Bureau of Land Management to treat infestations below Pleasant Valley and that crews focused on high-priority zones this season. Board members and staff described treatment challenges during a dry year: several herbicides and mixtures were used, including glyphosate (Roundup), 2,4-D and dicamba blends, but some treatments required follow-up because plants were not actively growing and did not absorb the spray. One staff member said the board ran “64 ounces an acre” for some mixes and that heavier rates were used where legally allowable.

For musk thistle, staff emphasized that hitting plants in the rosette stage is most effective; a staff member said, “If we can hit them in the rosette stage, kill everything that's been thrown in the rosette stage, it'll knock them back.” Board members discussed mechanical options (mowing, disking and grazing), chemical wipes (spot treatments with herbicide wipers), and contractor spraying with a boom sprayer for larger fields. For one particularly large private field where the landowner has not controlled thistle, staff said they plan to seek commission approval to treat it and, if necessary, apply the cost to the owner’s tax bill under the county’s collection options.

Russian olive and ISM grants

The board discussed use of ISM (Invasive Species Mitigation) grants and coordination with NRCS. Staff said the county received $15,000 in one recent ISM cycle but missed the current round after an update was delayed; they plan to apply again next year. Board members recounted that NRCS mitigation funds were used in previous flood-repair projects and suggested pursuing ISM funds and NRCS partnerships for Russian-olive removal, especially around Lake Bower, Timber Canyon and other riparian corridors. One board member cited Emery County as an example where ISM funding helped remove Russian olive on a large scale.

Speakers noted a recurring obstacle: much of the worst Russian-olive infestation is on tribal lands where access and approvals are inconsistent. Staff said they will re-engage tribal leaders and the Bureau of Indian Affairs contacts and try to identify leaseholders and cooperating landowners for ISM partnership applications.

Staffing, budget and equipment decisions

The board reported its budget was approved to fund one additional temporary seasonal worker next summer and to pursue procurement of an additional truck. The temporary hire would be for approximately three months (June–August) to staff peak-season spraying crews. Staff said temporaries must be 18 and hold a pesticide applicator certification appropriate to the work (noncommercial pesticide license applies for some tasks).

Recruitment and pay were recurring concerns. The board said the district’s current starting hourly pay for temporary staff is about $13 and that competing employers (state parks, mosquito abatement districts) are starting seasonal staff at $15–$17 or higher. Board members discussed raising pay to retain workers and recommended aiming for $17–$18 per hour for next season.

Private-spraying fees and equipment replacement

The board discussed fee changes for private-land spraying. The current charge for a side-by-side application is $30 per hour plus the cost of chemicals; board members said that price no longer covers equipment, fuel, labor and chemical costs. Several members recommended immediately raising the side-by-side rate to $50 per hour and increasing truck-based spraying from $60 per hour to $75–$80 per hour; members suggested revisiting the fees next year. A board member said private rates from local contractors range substantially higher, particularly when oilfield or commercial work is involved, and the recommended increase is intended to cover costs and modestly improve seasonal wages.

Equipment replacement and pooling options

Board members reviewed the fleet (two or more side-by-sides of mixed vintages and a few trucks) and discussed trade strategies: buy newer units with government discounts, rotate machines more frequently, or coordinate purchases with neighboring county entities to obtain better pricing. Staff said they do most routine maintenance in-house and that current machines performed adequately, but older units have transmission or axle wear that will require replacement in coming years.

Winter work and burn/cleanup plans

Board staff outlined winter projects: they will prioritize roadways, bus-turnaround sites and private projects that have funding (for example, an East Pleasant Valley landowner has agreed to pay for removal of Russian olive on about 25 acres of her property). For sites where trees are cut, the board intends to pile and burn material where permitted and follow up with stump treatment (cutting the wood with shears and applying stump herbicide) and at least three years of post-treatment monitoring where federal funds (e.g., NRCS) are involved.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to approve minutes from April 14, 2025: motion made and seconded; voice vote recorded as "Aye" with no recorded opposition. Outcome: approved.

Discussion vs. formal action

Board members distinguished direction (seek ISM grant funding, coordinate with NRCS and tribal contacts, prepare a target list of properties for winter work), routine administrative decisions (budget approval for one temporary seasonal hire and pursuit of an additional truck), and formal votes (approval of minutes). Proposed fee increases and a plan to apply costs to a noncompliant landowner’s tax bill were discussed as next steps but were not recorded as formal votes in the transcript.

Context and next steps

Staff said they will assemble a list of priority parcels for ISM grant partnership applications and will reengage Daryl (NRCS contact) and other regional partners in the coming months. The board asked staff to prepare a budgeted proposal for fee increases and to advertise early for seasonal hires. Members emphasized that sustained, multi-year control is required for musk thistle and white top because of seed-bank persistence and that a combined strategy of targeted spraying, mechanical removal and follow-up monitoring is necessary to keep infestations from reseeding.

Ending note

Board members closed by reiterating that winter work and grant coordination will be the immediate priorities and that staff should return with project lists, cost estimates and a formal fee schedule for board review before the next season.