Photo © USDA ARS, www.invasive.org Rangeland Noxious Weed - Yellow Starthistle The largest infestation of these noxious weeds is generally restricted to the area from Lewiston north, with over 200,000 acres infested in Clearwater, Idaho, Latah, Lewis, and Nez Perce Counties. But new colonies have been detected as far south as Cambridge. Most of Idaho’s rangelands are susceptible to invasion. Yellow starthistle affects livestock production by reducing grazing capacity. It is also poisonous to horses. The impacts on recreation, particularly upland hunting are extreme, because once it becomes established, the spiny seedheads make sites difficult to walk through. Control is possible but expensive.

Key Findings

Fortunately there are programs in place that have, within limits, been effective in keeping many invasive species at manageable levels or in preventing their entry into the state. Existing efforts have largely been directed toward various agricultural pests or noxious weeds. Idaho has enacted laws to direct these programs, including specific statutes to address noxious weeds, plant pests, exotic animals, forest pests and human health. Significant financial resources have been dedicated to the problem. While it is difficult to deri ve a total expenditure in Idaho for all invasive species, the available data indicates that the amount spent to control noxious weeds and agricultural pests probably exceeds $10 million per year.

However, despite many efforts, the invasive species problem is growing. New invaders cross Idaho’s borders each year. Some, like forest insects or agricultural pests, are tracked closely and controlled by public agencies. Others may go unnoticed, growing quietly on our lands or in our waters until their populations explode to nuisance levels. Idaho is good at managing some types of invasive species and ineffective at managing others. Overall, management is fragmented, marked by gaps and overlaps in authorities and responsibilities among agencies who could be powerful allies in the fight against invasive species.

One product of the piecemeal approach used in the past in managing invasive species is that in Idaho, as well as at the federal level, a large number of agencies and organizations share occasionally conflicting or overlapping authorities. The Idaho Departments of Agriculture, Lands, Fish and Game, Environmental Quality, Transportation, Parks and Recreation, along with the University of Idaho all have roles to play in invasive species management. They are joined by federal agencies in Idaho that include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service, various Department of Agriculture agencies, Commerce and the military, among others.

One result of the large number of participants is recognition of the need for a coordinating body. Both the state and the federal government have created “invasive species councils,” established, in both cases, through executive orders. In addition, Congress has introduced a number of bills to better coordinate invasive species programs or to authorize additional financial support for them. Idaho’s congressional delegation has strongly supported these efforts. Much of the anticipated future financial support would flow through to the states. While there is a clear role for the federal government in coordination, sponsoring research and extension of knowledge, or monitoring international or interstate commerce to prevent entry of undesirable species, much of the work to track, prevent, eradicate and control invasions of undesirable species will fall to the individual states.

Although progress is being made in stepping up to the invasive species challenge, much work remains. There are gaps in existing prevention and control programs that need to be filled and there are new actions needed if we are to be effective in the future. The Assessment reviewed existing local, state, and federal programs to protect Idaho from invasive species. A review of the invasive species literature was conducted, dozens of agency staff and other experts were interviewed, and a survey taken of Idaho’s invasive species managers. The resulting key findings include:

• Invasive species management in Idaho is fragmented. Responsibilities and authorities for invasive species management are not clearly defined for most agencies. There is no clear relationship among budgets, needs, and results. There is a need to set priorities and measure results.
• The levels of education and awareness among landowners, policy makers, and the general public are not commensurate with the degree of the problem. Landowners need to better understand their obligations to control weeds and the costs associated with failure to manage them. Political leaders need to ensure adequate funding, appropriate legal authorities, and accountability from the agencies. The general public needs to understand invasive species so people become mindful of actions they can take, and join in building broad public and political support for adequate programs.
• Idaho does a good job at managing noxious weeds, agricultural pests, forest insects, and invasives that threaten human health. Other invasive species, such as aquatic invaders, receive little attention.
• Resources are scarce, so we must ensure that we expend them wisely. Science can help us set priorities and develop cost-effective methods for managing invasive species.
• There is a need for adequate resources to do the job, including funding. This was perceived as the greatest barrier to effective invasive species management. Counties have widely different levels of resources and capacities to fight a problem that affects everyone.
• It is better to prevent than to control, due to our limited ability to eradicate or control invasive species once they become established. Idaho managers placed a high premium on prevention (i.e. actions to keep an invasive species from ever arriving here) and on early detection and rapid response once a species arrives.