2009 Goldroom Workshop: Noxious Weeds - Are We Winning or Losing?

Notes from the 2009 ICIE Goldroom Workshop
February 9, 2009

The Workshop was opened by Rep. Bert Stevenson, Chairman of House Committee on Resources and Environment, and ICIE President Trent Clark, who noted that this is the 20th year of this workshop – the first topic of which was Global Warming.

John D. Cantlon: Government Resource Manager, E.I. DuPont DeNemours Company
Cantlon noted that noxious weeds cause losses from agricultural production, increase wildfire events, diminish water and air quality, threaten public health due to pest control issues, and reduce recreational opportunities.

There are roughly about 300 undesirable plants in all states, with about 57 of those in Idaho. The spread rate is increasing from between 10 and 24% per year. Noxious weeds are alarming in their ability to spread.

Cantlon outlined a six part structure to a solution to this problem:
The State is the core – if we make sure county and state efforts are robust in terms of funding and structure, we begin to approach a solution.
Third party science is critical – Millions and millions of dollars are going into researching this issue, whereas in the late 90’s there were no research dollars. The Federal agencies are multipliers – Funding that comes through US Forest Service, Department of Agriculture or BLM can help when the funding in the state does not occur. The specialized informants – a number of NGO’s are very involved in this issue in terms of looking at managing their own properties. The suppliers – fabricators, contractors, manufacturers, and industry are involved in developing materials to solve some of these problems.
Legislation and appropriation are the fabric – the Western Governors’ Association, advocates at the Federal level, and other groups are collaborating on solutions.

Cantlon noted a number of what he called premier states in the noxious weeds issue – those that have excellent funding and structure:

Wyoming has the luxury of using tax receipts to fund this issue. Wyoming targets leafy spurge. The state works closely with its Department of Transportation to curtail invasive weed spread. Wyoming has implemented a pesticide registration fee.

Montana is similar in how they approach cost share.

Key actions on invasive species have happened since the early 1990s with the Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act targeting the zebra mussel. The National Invasive Species Act was reauthorized in 1996.

All these components have come together for these states. Groups from a number of states came together recently to talk about the issue, and outlined their key findings:

Need One – Stable, more dependable funding for prevention, detection, eradication and control. Need to gain champions in the legislature, advocating and educating.
Need Two – Regional communication and coordination.
Need Three – Awareness of these issues’ importance and how noxious weeds can harm us.

George N. Gough: Director, State & Local Government Affairs, Monsanto Company
Gough discussed the topic from an agricultural perspective. He noted that a weed is “a plant that interferes with management objectives for a particular piece of property.”

Farm crops compete with weeds for space, water, fertilizer. Weeds interfere with the full objective capacity of a farm field and can be harbingers of pests that can be harmful.

Herbicides control weeds today, but early on weeds were controlled manually, then mechanically. Both systems have their drawbacks. In the early 1900’s, herbicides often included kerosene or diesel. In the 1940’s, 2-4D helped us enter into effective weed control.

What is the impact on agriculture of weeds and weed control? Nationally, farmers spend about 60% of all the volume of agricultural crop protection on combating weeds. In Idaho, according to the CropLife Foundation, there is about 2.35 million pounds of herbicide utilized at a cost of about $63.5 million dollars for product, application, and fees.

The value back to agriculture of weed control totals about $432 million.

Without herbicide, the impact to crop yield in corn would be 35%; in dry beans, 25%; in hops, 25%; in onions, 15%; in potatoes, 35%, and in sugar beets, 40%.

Biotech crop technology has been the biggest growth area in the history of agriculture. This includes herbicide-resistant crops. Benefits of this technology go beyond effective weed control including increased soil moisture, reduced erosion, decreased soil compaction, reduced carbon dioxide emissions, and reduced production costs.

In recent years, herbicide-tolerant corn in Idaho resulted in decreased weed management costs of $1.239 million. Round Up-ready alfalfa and sugar beets are being introduced into Idaho with phenomenal results.

Jeffrey Pettingill: Weed Control Manager, Bonneville County Weed Department
Mr. Pettingill noted and thanked legislators for helping to pass a state weed law two years ago which helps with early detection; rapid-response; control of weeds that are present, but are not an immediate threat; containment of noxious weeds which are present in large quantities and cannot be eradicated immediately.

Cost-share funding combines help from private and public funding sources.

The worst thing Pettingill says he hears is: “If we are winning this war, why do we need more money for weeds?” He says we are doing a poor job of communicating what we have been able to preserve. “We are out there hand targeting weeds in draws and steep canyons,” he said, and noted that additional funding is needed for education and outreach.

County weed programs include:
- Northern Idaho – which contracts weed control services through the landowners, but performs no roadside maintenance
- Western Idaho – Which addresses noxious weeds and pests (gophers, mosquitoes and rabbits), but not a lot of roadside maintenance
- Eastern Idaho (which is the area that Pettingill manages for Bonneville County) – Which manages all noxious weeds and roadside maintenance.

This is an educational issue. One example is the salt cedar tree. One tree will consume 200 gallons of water per day. The trees produce a sap that makes it impossible for anything to grow around it. When the county offered to cut down any such trees in the area, they were contacted about the Ririe Reservoir—which had 240 salt cedar trees around it.

Another example is policeman’s helmet which is listed as one of Britain’s top 10 noxious weeds but was brought into the county as an ornamental plant.

Roger Batt: Statewide Coordinator if the Idaho Weed Awareness Campaign
Batt noted that the campaign started in 2001 as a result of the Idaho Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious and Invasive Weeds. The organization will have accomplished the objectives in this plan within the next three years.

The goal of the campaign is to get weeds in the media. Batt noted that they have done several things using paid and earned media opportunities. He showed some PSAs on leafy spurge. One with Governor Butch Otter promotes the website (http://www.idahoweedawareness.org/) and the weed hotline to report noxious weeds in a specific area. The hotline generates about 11,000 calls and the website about 40,000 hits a month. It has most of the 57 species listed, and a virtual field guide.

War of the Weeds was an Outdoor Idaho spot filmed in conjunction with Idaho Public Television. A similar radio spot promoted a weed identification booklet.

Batt introduced Elwood the Elk, the campaign’s award-winning mascot. Batt showed the group a video featuring Elwood outlining the top noxious weeds and the need to control them. He also distributed copies of the video to the committee members.
#####