The latest of ICIE’s annual “Gold Room Workshop,” held earlier this month, focused on bull trout, nearly 20 years after the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service was petitioned to list the species.
Brian Kelly and Ted Koch of the US Fish and Wildlife Service joined Nate Fisher of the Idaho Office of Species Conservation and Norm Semanko of the Idaho Water Users Association in providing historical context and highlighting key issues on the topic for a session of the House Resources and Conservation Committee. The presentation was made to the Senate Committee on Resources and the Environment on Monday.
Kelly described the process for designating critical habitat in Idaho, noting that the critical habitat designation that the USFWS made in 2005 excluded 75% of the area designated in the original rule. Lawsuits were filed and in 2008 the Inspector General found fault with the proposed plan. The new plan designates a total of more than 9,000 miles of streams and 170,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs in Idaho.
Kelly said the economic impact of this plan will be minimal since 94% of this habitat is occupied and protected by original listing regulations. The USFWS compiled the final rule, addressing more than 1,100 comments from 350 commentators including federal agencies, tribes, the state, and the general public all related to water use.
Kelly noted that the primary impact of establishing critical habitat is to focus recovery efforts, including educating the public, collaborating with partners to restore habitat and water flows, implementing improvements in stream habitat and water quality, and protecting the species from direct take. He maintained that so much of the state is designated as critical habitat precisely because Idaho’s bull trout population is in such good shape.
“Bull trout have been listed since 1998, and we have not made a jeopardy finding. In all the areas where bull trout is doing so well, a listing of critical habitat does help focus critical habitat dollars for things like piping or fish screens for ranchers, for example, that want to engage in those actions.”
Fisher contended, however, that efforts to downplay this extension of critical habitat as “no big deal” are disingenuous, otherwise, why sue the federal government to extend it?
“Conservation groups and the Fish and Wildlife Service say it (critical habitat extension) won’t do much since the species is listed anyway,” Fisher says, “We differ … Their estimate of $5 to 7 million in economic impact is a gross underestimate.”
Fisher also maintained that extending critical habitat will have an impact on efforts to curb invasive aquatic species such as milfoil.
“Under critical habitat designation,” he said, “what consultation will we have to undertake to control these species with pesticide? We cannot simply dismiss this as another procedural practice of a federal agency and move on.”
Semanko outlined several points of contention with the rule, including what he called the arbitrary and capricious decision of Secretary of the Interior to fail to exert his discretion to exclude any particular area from designation on the basis of economic impact, when industry experts estimate over a billion dollars in potential costs in southwest Idaho.
Koch noted that so few exclusions were made to the new critical habitat designation because of the mechanisms needed in order to identify potential exclusions, like tribal management plans, did not exist in Idaho.
“We excluded from critical habitat designation those lands with a plan authorized by us with an endangered species permit, or Tribal management plan, and there were none of those in Idaho,” Koch said. “This is a simple fact – there is no judgment beyond that.”
Drawdowns of Dworshak Dam doesn’t impact one of the most healthy habitats for bull trout, Koch said. “So we would be hard pressed to find that this draw down would have an adverse impact.”
Semanko also pointed out that the designation of critical habitat as spelled out in the rule includes bankful streams and reservoirs. While the Bureau of Reclamation attempted to fix the rule by recognizing reservoir fluctuations, the USFWS didn’t concur. This decision, Semanko asserted, could be used to make the argument that drawing down reservoirs to deliver water constitutes “adverse modification of bankful streams and reservoirs.”
“The fact that an existing Federal project is not presently adversely modifying critical habitat does not mean that the same operations would not result in adverse modification under future circumstances,” he said.
Semanko said there are other adverse impacts of the rule, such as requiring federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Federal regulations require federal agencies to re-initiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical habitat has subsequently been designated. As a result, federal agencies may sometimes need to re-initiate consultation on actions for which formal consultation has been completed. This is exactly what happened with the Upper Snake Basin water project in southwest Idaho, Semanko said, which has undergone consultation pursuant to the Nez Perce Water Rights Agreement.
“It is unclear what new conditions may be required because of re-initiation of consultation,” Semanko said, “or whether such consultations will undo the existing biological opinions for salmon. This potentially impacts the entire region.”
Activities listed in the rules that may result in consultation include:
- Detrimental alteration of the minimum flow or the natural flow regime of any designated stream segment or water bodies,
- Alteration to designated stream segments or water bodies including construction, grazing, off-road vehicle use and mining,
- Detrimental alteration of channel morphology,
- Detrimental alteration to water chemistry,
- Activities that could spread invasive species,
- Activities that could create significant instream barriers such as diversions, impounds and hydropower generation.
Semanko invited USFWS to voluntarily remand this rule and examine potential economic and other impacts in Southwest Idaho for potential exclusion of reservoirs from the critical habitat designation.
Representative Boyle noted her chagrin that the new designation is so much more extensive than the last one. Koch countered that this 2010 modification is very similar to the originally proposed rule, from which the USFWS deleted 75%, an action which resulted in a law suit and with which the inspector general found fault.
Representative Boyle was unsympathetic.
“It appears to be a job protection for federal agencies and a job killer for Idaho,” she said.
Chairman Stevenson addressed the anxiety expressed by the committee members in attendance at the end of the presentation.
“You know why we seem a little spooked with talk about listing species,” he said. “We’ve been burned by the wolf issue.”
Showing posts with label Goldroom Workshop. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Goldroom Workshop. Show all posts
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Friday, February 20, 2009
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.
#####
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.
#####
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)