               |
Updates
A Meeting SUMMARY: California’s Interagency Noxious Weed Free
Forage and Mulch Program Attendees Karl Bishop, Plumas/Sierra Agricultural Commissioner
Introduction Steve Schoenig chaired the meeting. Introductions
were made. Steve proceeded to explain the difference between the Steering
and the Stakeholder Meetings. The former consists of members making
decisions and discussing related issues assuming the California
Interagency Noxious Weed Free Forage and Mulch Program (NWFFM) will be
implemented. The members of this committee are consistent in attendance,
whereas the Stakeholder’s Meeting is open to the general public; any
person is allowed to attend and voice their opinion or learn more about
NWFFM Program developments. Pellets and Pelletizing The majority of the meeting focused on the definition of a California certified mill. There are currently guidelines in the California Code of Regulations, which give California Agricultural Commissioners the authority to certify mills according to California standards. The issue of what type of process would kill any noxious weeds in alfalfa hay when it is being processed in a mill was not agreed upon. Daneece Percy from Nature’s Best Pelleting explained the pelletization process in addition to stating that her mill is California certified. The committee was skeptical in agreeing that her mill may be California noxious weed free certified, as supportive research has not been found. Among the research that has been conducted, the only reference to noxious weed devitalization is the Q.C. Circular 206 adopted by the California Department of Food and Agriculture in 1984. However, the research supporting these treatments cannot be located. Additionally, the Circular notes that it is only a guide to base approval of feed grain and storage mill areas upon. Bonnie Davis noted that Percy had her mill “certified” in October of 2000. She uses a 3/16” screen, and also noted that it was not too expensive to upgrade her equipment. She purchases alfalfa hay and sells it as “weed-free,” according to the label on her bag. Rick Landon stated Daneece Percy’s mill may be approved; however, unless the research supporting the 190 degrees Fahrenheit devitalization treatment actually kills noxious weed seeds, a mill should not be certified as California noxious weed free. Kiran Johl noted that the state of Montana purges their machines with 500 pounds of alfalfa hay certified by field inspection. The product is run through a #6 screen, and at 140 degrees Fahrenheit; the certified hay run through the machine after the initial 500 pounds is considered to be noxious weed free. The basis for these requirements, unfortunately, may not be researched due to the sudden death of Montana’s Noxious Weed Free Forage Director, Barbara Mullin. Dan Putnam moved for the Steering Committee to adopt a policy, seconded by Duane Chamberlain. Putnam motioned to require the purchase of California certified noxious weed free hay until by California mills until it can be proved that the combination of screen, heat and steam treatments actually devitalize noxious weed seeds when manufacturing pellets to be sold as California noxious weed-free/certified, etc. The committee was split in their decision with an 8 to vote; the issue was not resolved. Duane Chamberlain added that Hance Helleby manufactures pellets; however, even though they go through a treatment/devitalization process, weeds will still grow out of the pellets. Dan Putnam said that seeds have various characteristics, and that some seeds are not devitalized by heat. There was discussion regarding whether or not the public should be notified if the heat treatments may be 190 degrees Fahrenheit. Steve Schoenig and Kiran Johl supported that the public not be notified until we reached a decision; however, Bonnie Davis will be posting the Q.C. Circular on her website http://www.weedfreefeed.com as a reference. The committee agreed by a majority vote that no decision can be made about the heat treatments process at this time, and therefore mills should not be California certified noxious weed free until further evidence of seed devitalization is obtained by further research. During the discussion, Tom Ellis stated that the
problems on the production end are not close to being resolved. He
suggested that an evaluation be performed on what is currently being done
and realize that important components in ensuring a successful program,
such as conducting the Environmental Impact Statements, have not been
completed yet. With important factors yet to be completed, growers and
others are conflicted in their assumption that the program will actually
be implemented. Joanna Clines expressed her desire for people such as
himself to stay involved. LUNCH BREAK Twine Stephanie Balsdon gave a brief update on the status of obtaining twine. Several manufacturers have been contacted, such as Bridon Cordage, Poly-Ty Baler Twine, and Western Continental. Additionally, Frank Sloup, a representative from Bridon Cordage, suggested that there may be a surplus of twine at a supply store in Stanislaus. When Stephanie contacted the supply company, they noted that they had a surplus of chartreuse twine, which she reported to the committee. The proprietary twine must be purchased at a minimum of 42 pallets, the equivalent of one truckload, at approximately $32,000.00. Steve Schoenig informed the committee about the survey that was distributed to the commissioners, reporting that the majority of those that responded were willing to contribute $200 to $500 for twine. Mike Boitano stated that the USFS had originally committed to come up with money for twine. Steve noted that a long-term funding mechanism is needed. The suggestion of having the Agricultural Commissioners responsible for the twine was discussed. Karl stated that he is not allowed to have a fund in which he can withdraw from; other commissioners may also be in the same position. Dan Putnam questioned the possibility of having the Forest Service provide a non-profit grant for purchasing the twine. Cheri Rohrer replied that this is not an option, but creative financing may be explored. Cheri also mentioned that she could work with the BLM for creative financing. Mietek Kolipinski suggested the NWFFM Program find a partner and work on a proposal for buying the twine. Tom Ellis questioned what the other states do to fund the twine. Steve Schoenig stated that other states had legislative funding to purchase the twine. He also stated that we might apply for a grant; however, a grant cannot be depended upon. He also mentioned if 32 counties were willing to contribute $500 for the twine, the expense would be covered. At the latter part of the meeting, funding for twine was discussed again. Mike Boitano proposed that each governmental agency come up with $5,000 each, and then the $16,000 could be split among the counties. Boitano and Putnam agree that there needs to be a lead agency in this program, especially for collecting twine fees, tracking paperwork, etcetera. Boitano is again going to address this issue at his next Weed and Vertebrate Committee Meeting. Tom Ellis mentioned that the twine is an issue that may be resolved even after the program is implemented if no decision can be reached or if no funding is available at this time. Karl Bishop noted how there are other state “trust” programs, such as the organic program. Steve Schoenig noted that one simply “follows the paper trail back” to ensure certification. He also mentioned that bale tags may be used for identification purposes in the initial stages of the program; this process, however, would still not alleviate the bookkeeping that will be involved in tracking the certified bales. Duane Chamberlain suggested that rather than putting a tag on each bale, a tag could be attached to each block (64-90 bales per block). At the feed store, however, a tag would need to be on each bale. Mike Boitano said that tags are fairly cheap, and that approximately 2,000 may be ordered at an estimated $20.00. At this point, Steve mentioned that we do not need to be overly concerned about fraudulent activities during the period of time we are using tags, as by the time the program is implemented we will hopefully have the twine. Fines will not be charged for the first year the program begins its’ interim period. Dan Putnam supports the use of tags as a form of identification. Mike Boitano, Karl Bishop, and Bonnie Davis agreed to research the issue more, as well as researching whether the tags can be stamped with a “California Weed Free” seal. Karl spoke about creating a standard inspection form so that the process will be more consistent throughout the state. Dan Putnam agreed that inspection forms and tags would be a good initial combination for identification and tracking purposes. Tom Ellis stated that the education and outreach components of this program need to have a good plan; this is a large state, and there are many people to contact. Steve Schoenig stated that we will have another Steering Committee Meeting approximately one month from this meeting date, and then there will be a Stakeholder’s Meeting. The Forest Service and the National Park Service reported on their NEPA process. Cheri Rohrer, on behalf of the Forest Service, reported that Joanna and Allison Sanger are assisting her with the public comments. The environmental assessment will be completed in approximately two (2) months, and there is then a 30-day public comment and review period. It is still possible to have process completed by the April 2003 “deadline.” Mietek from the National Park Service reported that the NEPA process would not begin until a coordinator is hired. Dianna Brink was not present to report on the BLM process; however, Steve Schoenig summarized a report she had given at a recent interagency meeting. The listing process for the Federal Register had recently changed and may now be listed more quickly. The Federal Register is where proposed regulations are published, and is the equivalent of the Forest Service scoping process.
For more information, please contact us. |
