[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1462, TO CONTROL OR ERADICATE HARMFUL, NONNATIVE WEEDS ON PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE LAND
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
June 19, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-42
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
-------
77-881 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Samoa
George Radanovich, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Chris Cannon, Utah Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Hilda L. Solis, California
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 19, 2001.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Craig, Hon. Larry E., a United States Senator from the State
of Idaho................................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Christensen, Hon. Donna, a Delegate to Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 2
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Beck, Dr. K. George, Professor of Weed Science, Colorado
State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado.................... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Carroll, Michael, Vice President, North American Weed
Management Association, Ft. Collins, Colorado.............. 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 51
Rains, Michael T., Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
DC......................................................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Randall, Dr. John, Director, Wildland Invasive Species
Program, The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC............ 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Riley, Dr. Terry Z., Director of Conservation, Wildlife
Management Institute, Washington, DC....................... 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Skinner, Bob, Rancher, National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
Jordan Valley, Oregon...................................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Tate, Dr. James, Jr., Science Advisor, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Additional materials supplied:
American Farm Bureau Federation, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 63
Colorado Department of Agriculture, Letter submitted for the
record by Hon. Joel Hefley................................. 65
Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Letter submitted for the
record by Hon. Joel Hefley................................. 68
Montana Department of Agriculture, Letter submitted for the
record by Hon. Joel Hefley................................. 70
Weed Science Society of America, Letter submitted for the
record by Hon. Joel Hefley................................. 72
Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Letter submitted for the
record by Hon. Barbara Cubin............................... 75
H.R. 1462, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ESTABLISH A
PROGRAM TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE THROUGH STATES ELIGIBLE WEED MANAGEMENT
ENTITIES TO CONTROL OR ERADICATE HARMFUL, NONNATIVE WEEDS ON PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE LAND
----------
Tuesday, June 19, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:07
a.m., in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joel
Hefley [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Hefley. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation,
and Public Lands will now hear testimony on H.R. 1462. This
important legislation, which I introduced, represents my
attempt to assist thousands of increasingly desperate ranchers,
farmers and Federal land managers throughout the country who
have been and continue to be under siege from noxious, non-
native weeds. The goal of H.R. 1462 is clear, to get the money
directly to the folks at the local level who are on the front
lines combating these weeds. I think it is clear from reading
the testimony of today's witnesses that this is a major problem
and one that requires vigilance and a comprehensive approach
from all levels of government.
To illustrate the seriousness of this national weed
epidemic, I need only to turn to some of our witness'
testimony. According to Dr. Tate's testimony, invasive plant
species are estimated to cost more than $20 billion per year in
economic damage and affect millions of acres of private and
public land. Other estimates put it as high as $130 billion
annually. Moreover, according to Dr. Riley's testimony, some
exotic weed populations increase about 14 percent per year, and
left unchecked can easily overtake the land, and displace
native plant populations rendering the land useless for
ranchers and farmers.
Specifically, H.R. 1462 would require the Secretary of the
Interior to establish a grant program to provide assistance
through States to eligible weed management entities to control
or eradicate harmful, non-native weeds on public and private
land. I realize to most folks in the audience or to those
listening to this hearing that noxious weeds may not seem as
important as some issues, but to those of us who have seen the
devastation caused by these insidious weeds of pastures that
were once productive, it is indeed a major problem that
requires greater attention from Congress.
Mr. Hefley. I would like to thank Senator Craig and all of
our witnesses for being here today. I look forward to your
suggestions on how the Federal Government might be a more
effective player in the fight against these unwanted pests. I
now turn to our Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen.
[The prepared staement of Chairman Hefley follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Joel Hefley, Chairman, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Good morning and welcome to the hearing today. This morning, the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands will hear
testimony on H.R. 1462.
This important legislation, which I introduced, represents my
attempt to assist thousands of increasingly desperate ranchers,
farmers, and Federal land managers throughout the country who have
been, and continue to be, under siege from noxious, non-native weeds.
The goal of H.R. 1462 is clear - get the money directly to the folks at
the local level who are on the front lines combating these weeds. I
think it is clear from reading the testimony of today's witnesses that
this is a major problem, and one that requires vigilance and a
comprehensive approach from all levels of government.
To illustrate the seriousness of this national weed epidemic, I
need only to turn to some of our witnesses testimony. According to Dr.
Tate's testimony, invasive plant species are estimated to cause more
than $20 BILLION per year in economic damage and affect millions of
acres of private and public land - though other estimates put it as
high as $130 billion annually. Moreover, according to Dr. Riley's
testimony, some exotic weed populations increase about 14% per year and
left unchecked, can easily over take the land and displace native plant
populations rendering the land useless for ranchers and farmers.
Specifically, H.R. 1462 would require the Secretary of Interior to
establish a grant program to provide assistance through States to
eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate harmful,
nonnative weeds on public and private land.
I realize to most folks in the audience or to those listening to
this hearing that noxious weeds may not seem as important as some
issues, but to those of us who have seen the devastation caused by
these insidious weeds of once productive pastures, it is indeed a major
problem that requires greater attention from Congress.
I would like to thank Senator Craig and all of our witnesses for
being here today. I look forward to your suggestions on how the Federal
Government might be a more effective player in the fight against these
unwanted pests.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONNA CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to
welcome our panelists and extend a special welcome to Senator
Craig, who is with us here this morning. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate your interest in invasive species, as evidenced by
the introduction of H.R. 1462, the Harmful, Non-Native Weed
Control Act of 2001.
Invasive species, which include non-native weeds, are a
serious and growing problem in the United States. I do not
believe there is an area of the country that has not had some
problem with invasive species. They have caused problems in the
Virgin Islands and I am sure many other members could tell
stories, as well. In fact, with several Committee members,
invasive species are an extremely serious environmental issue
in their districts. Much of the testimony that has been
provided for today's hearing outlines a number of concerns and
problems with H.R. 1462.
I am also aware that other legislative proposals dealing
with invasive species are being developed. However, it is my
hope that today's hearing and other work being done on invasive
species will provide us with a sound foundation on which to
address this issue of invasive species on a consensus basis.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the presence of all of our witnesses
here today, and I look forward to their testimony on this
important issue. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much, and, Senator Craig,
welcome home. We are glad to have you back, and after the
activities of the Senate in recent times, this must seem like a
respite to you, to come back to your roots. We appreciate your
being here and we will turn the time over to you.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LARRY CRAIG, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Craig. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let
me also thank Congresswoman Christensen. It is great to see
Congressman Kildee again. It is always important that I be here
to support my congressmen, and I appreciate them being here
this morning, both Congressman Simpson and Congressman Otter.
They, too, understand, as I think as you do, Mr. Chairman, the
kind of situation that we have as it relates to weeds and our
public lands.
Earlier this year, I was joined by several colleagues in
the Senate in introducing the Harmful, Non-Native Weeds Control
Act of 2001. This legislation is similar to your legislation,
H.R. 1462. Ours is S 198. I have enjoyed working with you, Mr.
Chairman and your staff, on this issue, and I look forward to
working with you on others. We worked successfully together
last year in the passage of S 910, which I called A Stop The
Weeds At The Border Law, and now, of course, we are going
inside to look at how we manage the problem.
I have stood before Congress for the past 3 years, pushing
legislation and speaking out on the noxious weed issue. I know
some members, at least on my side, are growing tired of hearing
about the issue, Mr. Chairman. As westerners, we have seen
firsthand the destruction caused when non-native weeds are not
treated and are left to take over native species. Because of
this, we understand the need for the Federal Government to be a
partner in addressing this problem.
Non-Native weeds are a very serious problem on both public
and private lands across the nation. They are particularly
troublesome in the West, where much of our land is entrusted to
the management of the Federal Government. Like a slow burning
wildfire, in my opinion, noxious weeds take land out of
production, force native species off the land, and interrupt
the commerce and the activity of all those who rely on the land
for their livelihood. You have mentioned farmers and ranchers
and recreationalists and others.
Non-Native weeds threatened fully two-thirds of all of the
endangered species, and are now considered by some experts to
be second in importance to the threat to biodiversity on our
public lands. In some areas, Spotted Knapweed grows so thick
that big game, like deer, simply cannot move through it and
cannot use that area for foraging purposes. Noxious weeds also
increase soil erosion and prevent recreationalists from
accessing the land that is infested with these kinds of weeds.
Because of these problems, I am committed to stopping the
spread of non-native weeds. For the last few years, I have
worked with the State of Idaho in finding funding for the Idaho
Strategic Plan for the Managing of Noxious Weeds. This program
has been very successful in Idaho, and was the basis for the
Harmful, Non-Native Weeds Control Act. Let me tell you briefly
how the program works in Idaho. The Department of Agriculture
in Idaho administers the Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious
Weeds through a collaborative effort involving private
landowners, State and Federal land managers, State and local
governmental entities, and other interested parties.
Cooperative weed management areas are the centerpiece of
the strategic plan. Cooperative weed management areas cross
jurisdictional boundaries and to bring together all of the
landowners, land managers and interested parties to identify
and prioritize noxious weeds in a strategy within the
cooperative management, weed management area, in a
collaborative manner.
The primary responsibility for the State Department of
Agriculture is to provide the coordinated administrative
support, facilitation and project cost share funding for these
collaborative efforts. Idaho already has a record of working in
a collaborative way on this issue. The Harmful, Non-Native
Weeds Control Act will build on the progress that we have made
in Idaho and other States, and establish the same formula for
success in States who wish to use it.
This is how the program works in Idaho. Other States have
programs that are not exactly the same as Idaho's, but equally
effective. When developing this legislation, we wanted to
create a Federal program that worked with existing State weed
control programs, created incentives for more States to develop
weed control plans, and to foster greater community
collaborative processes in identifying this problem. I think we
have achieved just that. The Harmful, Non-Native Weeds Control
Act provides a mechanism to get funding to the local level,
where weeds can be fought in a cooperative way and a
collaborative way with all of the different entities involved.
Noxious weeds do not recognize property boundaries. Mr.
Chairman, as you know, in the West over the last several
decades, property boundaries were the problem. We had come to a
point where we were not managing the weeds on public lands, and
literally, they had taken off like the wildfires I had
referenced. So those on private lands adjacent to the public
lands found themselves in almost a defenseless posture. They
could treat their lands and treat their weeds, only to have
them immediately affected again by the movement of a bird or
the movement of wind.
So, to win the war on weeds, clearly all parties have to be
involved, private, State and Federal. Counties have had weed
control programs in most States for the last good number of
years, and yet, struggle as they might, they simply have lost
the battle and the weeds really have become the dominant force.
As a result of that, Idaho looked toward building this
cooperative, collaborative model, and in so doing it, they have
found that it works. I have worked over the last good number of
years to help them fund it and to sensitize the Forest Service
and the BLM and other Federal land management agencies to their
responsibility.
Now, by creating a new template of the kind that you are
proposing in your legislation and we are proposing in ours, we
bring all of these entities together under the law without
wiping out State authority, but in fact, incorporating State
authority and giving them a primary responsibility and role in
working with our Federal agencies. I think this is a model that
can work. It is supported across the Nation by most all who are
involved in the battle against non-native species of weeds, and
we will work with you to make this happen.
We appreciate the hearing you are holding. We would hope
that you could expedite, as we will try to do in the Senate.
This is an issue that really does deserve some Federal
direction and some Federal responsibility. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Larry E. Craig, a United States Senator from
the State of Idaho
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today to raise
awareness on the issue of invasive weeds and to discuss a solution we
are both working on. Earlier this year I was joined by several
colleagues in the Senate in introducing Harmful Non-Native Weed Control
Act of 2001, legislation similar to your bill. I have enjoyed working
with you and your staff on the Harmful Non-Native Weed Control Act and
I look forward to working together to pass this legislation into law.
I have stood before Congress for the past three years pushing
legislation and speaking on the issue of noxious weeds. I know some
members tire of hearing me bring up this issue, but Mr.. Chairman, as
Westerners, we have seen first hand the destruction caused when non-
native weeds are not treated and are left to over take native species.
Because of this we understand the need for the Federal government to be
a partner in addressing this problem.
Non-native weeds are a serious problem on both public and private
lands across the nation. They are particularly troublesome in the West
where much of our land is entrusted to the management of the federal
government. Like a ``slow burning wildfire,'' noxious weeds take land
out of production, force native species off the land, and interrupt the
commerce and activities of all those who rely on the land for their
livelihoods--including farmers, ranchers, recreationists, and others.
Non-native weeds threaten fully two-thirds of all endangered
species and are now considered by some experts to be the second most
important threat to bio-diversity. In some areas, spotted knapweed
grows so thick that big game like deer will move out of the area to
find edible plants. Noxious weeds also increase soil erosion, and
prevent recreationists from accessing land that is infested with
poisonous plants.
Because of these problems I am committed to stopping the spread of
non-native weeds. For the last few years, I have worked with the State
of Idaho to find funding for the Idaho Strategic Plan for Managing
Noxious Weeds. This program has been very successful in Idaho and was
tile basis for the Harmful Non-Native Weed Control Act.
Let me tell you how the program works in Idaho. The Department of
Agriculture in Idaho administers the Strategic Plan for Managing
Noxious Weeds through a collaborative effort involving private
landowners, state and federal land managers, state and local
governmental entities, and other interested parties. Cooperative Weed
Management Areas are the centerpiece of the strategic plan. Cooperative
Weed Management Areas cross jurisdictional boundaries to bring together
all landowners, land managers, and interested parties to identify and
prioritize noxious weed strategies within the Cooperative Weed
Management Areas in a collaborative manner. The primary
responsibilities of the State Department of Agriculture are to provide
coordination, administrative support, facilitation, and project cost-
share funding for this collaborative effort. Idaho already has a record
of working in a collaborative way on this issue--The Harmful Non-Native
Weed Control Act will build on the progress we have had in Idaho and
other states, and establish the same formula for success in other
states.
This is how the program works in Idaho. Other states have programs
that are not exactly the same as Idaho's, but equally effective. When
developing this legislation we wanted to create a federal program that
worked with existing state weed control plans, created incentive for
more status to develop weed control plans, and fostered greater
community collaboration to address this problem. I think we have
achieved just that. The Harmful Non-Native Weed Control Act provides a
mechanism to get funding to the local level where weeds can be fought
in a collaborative way.
Noxious weeds do not recognize property boundaries, so if we want
to win this war on weeds, we must be fighting at the federal, state,
local, and individual levels. The Harmful Nonnative Weed Control Act is
an important step to ensure we are diligent in stopping the spread of
these weeds. If we work together at all levels of government and
throughout our communities, we can protect our land, livelihood, and
environment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today, and
as I said before, I look forward to working with you to pass this
legislation into law.
______
Mr. Hefley. Larry, thank you and you have really been the
leader in this. We thank you for your diligence, your
leadership, the way you have tenaciously stayed after this
issue. It is a serious issue. We know it in the West but it is
also a serious issue in the East, as well, and I think we are
on to the right approach. I appreciate your efforts and
appreciate your being here this morning.
Mrs. Christensen?
Mrs. Christensen. I do not have any questions of the
Senator.
Mr. Hefley. Any questions for the Senator?
Mr. Souder. Senator, I am from the Midwest, Indiana, where
we have very few public lands, and yet every spring when we
watch the television news it seems like there is a war going on
because it seems like there are 20 different kinds of weed
killers every commercial break, trying to get it for the
farmers and their soybeans and corn and other types of things.
For those who are using public land for ranching or for
other agricultural reasons; are they allowed to do any
attacking of the weeds themselves and are they participants in
the program?
Senator Craig. In many instances, they are not. The reason
they are not is we have largely had a ban on the use of
herbicides on public lands for the last good number of years,
some for justifiable reasons because of the residual effect,
others largely with no basis. It had just become the policy of
the Forest Service and the BLM. A lot of experiments have been
tried. There are biological efforts underway now that are
working in some instances that we ought to incorporate, along
with now some certified and licensed herbicides that can be
effectively used, but the program really broke down over the
last 20 years.
There was a period of time when I would suggest that almost
every Federal land management agency had no program, and weeds
were allowed, literally, to run rampant. When you have these
adjacent private lands or State lands, they become instantly
infected. We have seen massive spread of weeds, literally, tens
of thousands of acres of public land in Idaho are now dominated
by non-native weed species today, that have turned those lands
into totally nonproductive areas for any purpose, including
wildlife or environmental reasons.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Yes?
Mr. Otter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for your leadership on this issue. Larry, in Idaho, we
obviously have the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Agriculture with the Forest Service, but I am
also aware that we have got a lot of other departments, like
the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the Corps
of Engineers, the EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife that all have
management responsibilities over some public lands or some
element of the public lands. Are we addressing those folks, as
well? So, the entire 35 million acres in Idaho, of Federal
land, the noxious weed problem, is going to come under control
of the Secretary of Interior; is that right?
Senator Craig. Well, in cooperation with the Department of
Agriculture in Idaho. The strategic plan, Congressman Otter,
that Idaho created over the last several years, and you were
there as Lieutenant Governor and there is a former Speaker of
the House who deserve credit for this, really looks at a
targeted area and says who are the landlords? They all become
involved. It is not just for the Forest Service and BLM. They
are the dominant landowners in Idaho, but you are right. We
have other large Federal establishments, like the INEEL, DOE,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and all of those--all of those
become a part of the total plan, as you break out and devise
these strategic areas.
Then, through a collaborative effort, you coordinate the
resources. You identify the problems--in this case, the weeds--
and you begin to coordinate the resources to bring that
together. That way, you can develop a variety of things, and we
offer flexibility within the law to develop cost sharings, all
of those types of things. Maybe DOE does not have a division
within them that can actually go out and control the weeds
through whatever method. They could partnership with Bonneville
County, and the county weed control authority would then gain
access to, under a devised plan, the properties of DOE for the
purposes of weed management. Those boundaries get broken down
through this legislation by the development of the strategic
plan or some cooperative mechanism in a collaborative way, if
other States have other mechanisms that seemed to be working.
Mr. Otter. All other lands in Idaho, Senator, as you well
know and I have experienced myself, are under the county. The
county, if they notice a noxious weed population on my
property, they come in and spray it, then they put a lien
against my property until I pay the bill. It is like a tax
lien. My question would be is this going to authorize the State
to do that? Is this going to authorize the counties to demand
some action against noxious weeds on Federal land?
Senator Craig. It does not, not in that authority, because
the State does not, nor does the county, have that authority at
this time. My guess is we are not going to get a Congress to
grant that authority to State or local governments over the
Federal Government. What I am hoping, and what is working now
in Idaho, is the idea of bringing them all together. We have
progressed a long way in the last decade as to understanding
the problem, and most importantly, how you apply the chemical
or the biologic agent, and/or in some instances, I would
suggest that in certain areas, the business of raising goats
will become a profitable business. We literately have goat
herding going on now in these large weed areas, that goats can
consume and control weeds, because of their particular
appetites. I have been out watching them and found it very
interesting. We have Navajo tribespeople up in Idaho with their
goat herds on some experimental plots down in Bennett County,
and we are getting some results on Knapweed and Leafy Spurge.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Hefley. The other gentlemen from Idaho?
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a question. I just
wanted to thank Senator Craig for his leadership on this issue.
In Idaho, he is known as the Weed Eater. He has been very
active and really has been the leader in this area. It is a
very severe problem in Idaho. Just to demonstrate, one of the
problems is that last year, when forest fires ravaged something
like 1.2 million acres in Idaho, I spent a couple days up there
toward the end of--I guess they burned for 3 months or 4 months
or something like that--one of the forest rangers had come back
from on of the areas where the fire had started and it cooled
down and stuff. He had been out there examining it, and he
said, ``There is good news and there is bad news.'' I said,
``What is that?'' He said, ``Well, it is cool there now and it
is starting to green up.'' I said, ``That's good.'' He said,
``Yes, the bad news is it is weeds, and they come back faster
than the native species in those areas.''
We have a real problem when we have forest fires in those
areas, trying to control the weeds, particularly if they are in
wilderness areas and so forth. So we have got a problem, not
only on the public lands we all have access to, but getting
weeds controlled in the wilderness areas is becoming more and
more of a problem than it has in the past, but I thank the
Senator for his leadership on this.
Senator Craig. Well, the congressman makes an extremely
valuable point. Last year in our country we lost more acres to
wildfire, both forested and non-forested acres, than ever in
our history, I believe nearly 6 million. In most instances,
weeds will replace the native species that were on those acres.
Now, sometimes native species come back and ultimately, if they
are the dominant species, they will knock out the weeds, but
some of the weeds we now have become the dominant species and
you totally change the landscape and the ecosystems of those
fire areas.
It is absolutely true in our State of Idaho--we lost one
million acres last year or more. We could well do that again
this year. As you know, there is a fire burning out of control
in California as we speak, right on the breaks between
California and Nevada. That land ought to be covered with snow
still today, but because of the drought in the Great Basin
Region of the West, we are going to lose millions of acres
again to fire this year probably. We will hope not.
The tragedy is exactly what the Congressman has just said.
The weeds beat the native species back and they become the
dominant species in those fire zones, and that is something
that we have really not controlled very well. In some
instances, in timbered areas, they are so dominant, they will
actually choke out the recovery of trees.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Senator, for coming over. You are so
convincing that there is not a raft of questions. I am sure,
with your testimony, this will move very well. We appreciate
you being here.
Senator Craig. Well, Joel, it is good to see you again and
thank you all very much for your time.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. I just briefly wanted to welcome Larry back
over here. He and I have worked together on many issues before
and I look forward to working together with you on this issue.
Senator Craig. Dale, thank you. It is good to see you.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much. The second panel will be
composed of Dr. Jim Tate, Science Advisor to Secretary of
Interior; and Michael Raines, Deputy Chief, State and Private
Forestry, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. Dr.
Tate will be accompanied by Gina Ramos, Senior Weed Specialist,
Bureau of Land Management; Gary Johnston, Invasive Species
Specialist, National Park Service and Michael Ielmini, Refuge
Program Specialist, the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Dr. Tate, we would ask that you, if you would, keep your
testimony to around 5 minutes. You will see the little lights
there in front of you. Then we will have an opportunity for
questions.
Dr. Tate?
STATEMENT OF JIM TATE, SCIENCE ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY OF
INTERIOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Tate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today. I am Jim Tate, Science Advisor to Interior Secretary
Gail Norton, and on behalf of the Secretary, we want to thank
you for bringing attention to this very important problem. As
you stated, this is one that is costing our Nation more than
$20 billion per year. In addition, we have looked at the study
by David Pimatell, et al; and he looks at invasive species
costs in general, not just the plants, and comes up with a
figure of $130.2 billion per year, introduced weeds in
agriculture being $13 billion. With your permission, I would
like to share this chart that Dr. Pimatell has provided.
Mr. Hefley. Without objection.
Mr. Tate. Thank you. Three bureaus in our Department of
Interior are most affected by H.R. 1462; the National Park
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of
Land Management. At your invitation, that is why I am
accompanied today by Gina Ramos, Mike Ielmini, and Gary
Johnston. Secretary Norton has stated, very early in the time
she has been here, her support for the concept of Federal
agencies as partners in developing coordinated efforts to
manage invasive species. She wants to be inclusive; States,
tribes, private landowners.
Foremost among our efforts is the National Invasive Species
Council, co-chaired by Interior, Agriculture, Commerce. The
council provides Federal coordination in invasive species
issues and encourages partnership efforts to control invasive
species. The council, we think, can also help to ensure a
coordinated Federal, State, tribal approach. In the next couple
of minutes, I want to leave you with one message above all
others. We are eager to work with you on any of the issues that
are before you today.
I would like to just summarize very quickly selected
portions of the written testimony. We note that some States,
especially in the West, have existing infrastructures that are
likely under your bill to qualify as weed management entities,
but other States have not yet established such infrastructure.
Since invasive species cross State boundaries and there are
many existing regional weed management programs, we recommend a
multistate inclusion--those efforts that are multistate to be
included. We encourage you to consider extending the bill to
include other kinds of weeds, namely the submerged and floating
aquatic weeds and animal pests, weeds in their assets.
We recommend the bill allow for funding that maximizes the
flexibility to States, tribes, and local entities. We want to
bring your attention today to some of the ongoing, highly
successful partnership efforts, the prime example is the
Pulling Together initiative. Pulling Together is a partnership
between Federal agencies and the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation. Since 1997, through cost-sharing efforts, the
partners have supported more than 175 weed management projects
in 32 States and one territory. Each project in Pulling
Together requires a one-to-one match of non-Federal funds. To
date, $5 million in Federal dollars have been matched with
almost $10 million in non-Federal dollars under this program.
We recommend that language be included in the bill to clarify
how this legislation would relate to existing Federal
initiatives, like Pulling Together.
On another note, we note that the bill creates a new
advisory Committee within the department to oversee the
allocation of funds to States and tribes. We believe that this
need is already covered through the Invasive Species Advisory
Committee, which already exists to provide advice to the
National Invasive Species Council, in accordance with Executive
Order 13112. It is administered by the Department of Interior.
We recommend the existing advisory Committee be used to make
recommendations to the secretaries for the allocations of funds
to States and tribes, rather than establishing a new advisory
Committee.
We recommend H.R. 1462 include an authorization of
appropriations section to help these funds, specifically now,
the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife, and BLM. The Park
Service's Five-year Natural Resource Challenge Program
identified non-native species as a significant component of the
threat to our heritage on national park units. That is 80
million acres of U.S. land under Park Service control. They
have established a new management strategy--teams, called
Exotic Plant Management Teams. Four of these teams were fielded
to identify, treat, control, restore and monitor park areas
that were invested with exotic plants.
The four teams that exist serve 38 regionally grouped
parks, not 41, as in our testimony. I am sorry. The success of
these derives from their ability to adapt to local conditions,
something is different in Florida than it is in the D.C. area
and so forth. The President's budget for Fiscal Year 2002
includes a funding request for six more of these teams. This
will raise the Park Service's capacity to control invasive
plants at 152 parks or 40 percent of our parks in the lower 48.
The Park Service has specifically asked if we could
consider a definitions section of terms used in the bill, just
for consistency's sake among the various terms used by the
various agencies already working with these things.
Moving on to the Fish and Wildlife Service, over 6 million
acres of National Wildlife Refuge System are infested with
exotic plants alone. So, there are critical wildlife management
objectives on over 50 percent of all of our refuges. The refuge
system is identified over 300 projects and an estimated cost of
$120 million just for invasive species. The refuge system
already works with private landowners to help restore degraded
fish and wildlife habitats on properties adjacent to and within
our refuges. In the case of the Fish and Wildlife Service, it
is especially important that terrestrial plants and non-native
animals be considered as a part of the weed problem that we
have. I draw your attention especially to the nutria issue that
is discussed in our testimony.
Finally, the BLM has been working with States, other
Federal agencies and tribes, especially with private landowners
and industries. They have numerous ongoing programs. For
example, today the BLM in New Mexico will be taking part in the
signing of a memorandum of understanding with tribes, State and
Federal agencies to manage invasive and noxious weeds in that
State.
The Department of Interior considers public education a key
to winning the war on weeds. BLM's Partners Against Weeds
strategy focuses on education and outreach. We note that the
bill encourages weed management entities solely for education.
We believe education is an important part of the invasive
species program and one that is covered at the Department of
Interior and in the council. Using the existing authorization
would release other dollars to reach management entities
outside of the Federal Government. BLM manages over 264 million
acres of public lands, and their cooperative weed management
program has been established in those areas.
One item not mentioned in our testimony is we support the
comment of the USDA, that documentation and monitoring should
be addressed, both within and outside of NEPA compliance. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today. We
certainly applaud the bill's recognition of partnership as keys
to success, and this concludes my prepared remarks and I am
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Tate follows:]
Statement of Dr. James Tate, Jr., Science Advisor, U.S. Department of
the Interior, on H.R. 1462
Mr. Chairman, my name is Jim Tate, and I am the Science Advisor at
the Department of the Interior. I am accompanied today by Gina Ramos,
Senior Weed Specialist, Bureau of Land Management; Michael Lelmini,
Refuge Program Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and Gary
Johnston, Invasive Species Specialist, National Park Service. I thank
you for the opportunity to appear before your Committee to present the
views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1462, the Harmful
Nonnative Weed Control Act of 2001.
The Department commends Congress for bringing attention to this
important issue that has significant impacts on both public and private
landowners and managers across the country. Invasive plant species are
estimated to cause more than $20 billion per year in economic damage
and affect millions of acres of private and public lands. We concur
with the basic principles embodied in the legislation; specifically,
the recognition that a concerted and coordinated effort by the public
and private sectors with requisite accountability is critical to the
successful prevention, control, and management of invasive species.
However, we need to identify more clearly the possible costs of this
proposal and how it would be funded within the context of a balanced
budget. We view this legislation as an important step toward greater
engagement between Federal and non-Federal partners to counter the
harmful impacts of invasive species.
The Department has identified three primary areas of concern with
H.R. 1462 where textual changes could clarify the intent of the bill. I
will outline these areas of concern briefly in this statement. This
statement also addresses certain concerns that are specific to the
three bureaus affected by H.R. 1462, the National Park Service, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. In
addition, we are advised by the Department of Justice that language
contained in Section 9(a) of the bill requiring the consent of property
owners may be problematic as it pertains to weed management activities
on Indian lands, especially when such lands are held in trust for
multiple beneficiaries, thereby making the process of obtaining consent
extremely burdensome. We are eager to work with the Committee to
develop amendatory language to address these concerns. We also hope the
bill will include Federal agencies as partners in developing these
coordinated efforts to manage invasive species. The National Invasive
Species Council, which is co-chaired by the Departments of the
Interior, Commerce and Agriculture, provides Federal coordination on
invasive species issues, including invasive plants, and encourages
partnership efforts to prevent and control invasive species. The
Council can provide assistance with efforts to ensure a coordinated
Federal/State approach. Finally, this statement will also touch upon
the bureaus' programs in the areas of invasive species prevention,
management, and eradication.
The first area of concern is the scope of the bill: what is covered
by and excluded from the bill, both in terms of geography and the types
of activities that are eligible for funding. Although the bill
technically applies to the entire nation, we think it would be
difficult for most of the eastern and southeastern states to compete
with western states that have existing infrastructures that are likely
to qualify as ``weed management entities.'' Also, since invasive
species cross state boundaries and there are many existing regional
weed management programs, the exclusion of multi-state efforts in the
bill could eliminate flexibility and hamper comprehensive control and
management programs.
In addition to our concerns about the bill's scope, its prohibition
on funding for control of submerged or floating aquatic noxious weeds
and animal pests, operates against efforts to initiate a comprehensive
approach to this growing threat. This prohibition could have a
dampening effect on key coastal states with substantial aquatic
invasive species, discouraging them from participating in the program.
Feral pigs in Hawaii provide an example of an excluded animal pest. The
National Park Service wanted to remove invasive plant species in
national parks in Hawaii, but the pigs were serving as a mechanism for
distributing the seeds of some of the invasive plants and disturbing
the soil. Without removal of the pigs, any program to remove invasive
plant species would fail. We recommend that the bill allow for funding
that maximizes flexibility to the States, Tribes, and local entities to
control invasive species.
There are many ongoing, highly successful partnership efforts
between the public and private sectors to control invasive species. One
example is the ``Pulling Together Initiative,'' a partnership between
Federal agencies and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Since
1997, through cost-sharing efforts, the partners have supported more
than 175 weed management projects in 33 states and one territory. The
purpose of the ``Pulling Together Initiative'' is to encourage the
development of weed management areas, similar to the intent of this
legislation. These projects bring together many stakeholders--Federal,
State, Tribal, private, and non-governmental organizations--to
coordinate management of weeds based on an integrated pest management
approach. Each project funded through ``Pulling Together'' must have a
minimum 1 to 1 match of non-Federal funds or in-kind contributions for
every dollar of Federal funds requested. As a result, $5 million in
Federal dollars have been matched with almost $10 million in non-
Federal contributions. We recommend that language be included in this
bill that would clarify how this legislation would relate to existing
Federal initiatives so that significant, well-established, Federal-
private partnership efforts will continue and flourish.
The second area of concern relates to the process established by
the legislation and whether it provides for sufficient accountability,
consultation, and coordination with Federal efforts and quality
assurances. The bill creates a new advisory committee within the
Department to oversee the allocation of funds to States and Tribes.
Currently, the Invasive Species Advisory Committee already exists to
provide advice to the National Invasive Species Council in accordance
with Executive Order 13112, and is administered by the Department of
the Interior. The Committee consists of members with similar expertise
and representing many of the same interests in invasive species that
are called for in H.R. 1462. We recommend that the existing advisory
committee be used to make recommendations to the Secretary for the
allocation of funds to States and Tribes, rather than establishing a
new advisory committee.
While there is a reporting requirement for local weed management
entities in H.R. 1462, the scope of the reporting requirement is
unclear, as is how the results relate to the selection and renewal
process. There is little specific guidance in the bill on how funds
would be allocated to States and Tribes, or how they, in turn, are to
allocate the funds to weed management entities. In addition, it is
unclear whether these funds can be allocated to Federal agencies for
coordination activities at the State and local levels. We recommend
that language be added to the bill that establishes requirements for a
standard reporting and review system that would ensure accountability
and improve coordination and information exchange among Federal
agencies, States and Tribes. We also recommend the bill be amended to
specify which State agencies have the responsibility for allocating
funds to weed management entities so it is consistent from state to
state.
Except for the allocation of funds by the Secretary to States and
Tribes, H.R. 1462 contains no requirement for consultation or
coordination with Federal agencies. Given that invasive species cover
Federal as well as State, Tribal, and private lands, we recommend that
language be included that would require weed management entities to
coordinate and consult with Federal agencies to promote comprehensive
invasive species programs across all affected lands. This targeting,
based upon existing capacity and resources, will help concentrate
efforts to make a significant improvement in overall land health.
Our third area of concern surrounds the budgetary implications of
the legislation and whether funding for this legislation would come at
the expense of Federal control efforts and existing programs that
provide matching funds for weed control. This program could involve
significant new funding obligations that are not now assumed in the
President's Budget. It is unclear how much funding is needed or how it
will be paid for. Because this bill does not include an authorization
of appropriations section that would provide a separate authorization
of funds, we are concerned that there would be no authorization limit
on funds or any assurance that this program would not impact existing
agency and multi-agency programs (such as the ``Pulling Together
Initiative'') that support local and regional weed prevention and
control projects.
Finally, as our experiences have shown, having a matching funds
requirement is critical to the success of these projects because it
ensures that the Federal funds available are used for projects that
have strong support and financial backing at the regional, State or
local levels. We are concerned that H.R. 1462 might undermine that
success by allowing the Governor of any State to change the percentage
of the match required. Additionally, except in the case of Tribes, we
are also concerned about allowing States to count Federal funds from
other sources outside this legislation as a weed management entity's
non-Federal match. It is important for Federal funds to be used to
leverage non-Federal funds to maximize the impact of Federal monies
available for invasive species control programs.
The following are bureau-specific comments concerning H.R. 1462 and
the bureaus' ongoing programs:
National Park Service
The principles of coordination, targeted funding, and
accountability are fundamental aspects of the nonnative invasive
species management strategy pursued under the National Park Service's
five-year Natural Resource Challenge program. In Fiscal Year 2000, the
National Park Service (NPS) identified nonnative invasive species as a
significant component of the threat to the natural and cultural
heritage preserved in national park units across the country covering
over 80 million acres of land.
As part of the Natural Resource Challenge, a new management
strategy for controlling harmful nonnative invasive plants was
implemented, called the Exotic Plant Management Team (EPMT). Four teams
were fielded to identify, treat, control, restore, and monitor areas of
parks that were infested with harmful exotic plants. The four teams
serve 41 parks, comprising 11% of national park units, in the
Chihuahuan Desert-Shortgrass Prairie, Florida, Hawaii, and the National
Capital Region. The success of each EPMT derives from its ability to
adapt to local conditions and needs. Each team sets work priorities
based on a number of factors including: severity of threat to high-
quality natural areas and rare species; extent of targeted infestation;
probability of successful control and potential for restoration; and
opportunities for public involvement. In addition, the President's
budget for Fiscal Year 2002 includes a funding request for six
additional EPMTs. Funding of these teams will raise our capacity to
control invasive plants at 152 parks or approximately 40% of the parks
in the lower forty-eight states. The NPS hopes that H.R.1462 will
improve the team's work in our park units by increasing collaborative
efforts between public and private adjacent landowners.
The EPMT of Florida provides an excellent illustration of the
effectiveness of local partnerships. The Florida EPMT formed a
partnership with the Upland Invasive Plant Management Program of the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection and approximately 136
other groups in the program to control invasive plants. Together they
fund removal of exotic species in 11 units of the National Park System
in Florida with the State of Florida matching the NPS contribution
dollar for dollar.
The NPS has many successful public and private partners in its
efforts to control and manage invasive species, including tribal
governments. The NPS recommends that H.R. 1462 clearly state that
Tribal governments are to be included in all definitions of local
stakeholders and weed management entities, and that they should be
included in all sections of the bill relating to coordinated actions
and distribution of financial assistance. Tribes should also be able to
participate outside their own reservations when they belong to a larger
weed management entity, without their funding being restricted. The NPS
recognizes that effective management of invasive plants must be
conducted on a coordinated basis involving all stakeholders. However,
the authority for Interior agencies, including NPS, to work with
cooperating land managers outside the Interior agencies' boundaries is
not clear. We recommend that language be included in H.R. 1462 that
would provide the Federal agencies greater flexibility in managing
invasive plants in concert with willing adjoining landowners where
Federal lands are threatened by invasions from adjoining lands.
The NPS is concerned about the lack of definitions for many of the
terms used in the bill. Without terms being clearly defined, their use
in the legislation may lead to confusion or disagreements over
terminology. We note also that the bill as currently drafted permits
the establishment of a weed management entity solely for the purpose of
education. We believe that education, while an important part of any
weed management entity's role, should not be it's only objective.
Moreover, the NPS believes that substantial gains can be made through
an education campaign at the national level so that individuals can
learn about what efforts they can undertake to address this problem. We
look forward to working with the Committee to address these and other
issues.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Invasive species are one of the leading threats to fish and
wildlife, with potential to degrade entire ecosystems. The Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) is working to develop and implement
aggressive programs to enhance its capability and leadership to respond
effectively to present and future invasive species problems. The
Service works in cooperation with private groups, State agencies, other
Federal agencies, and other countries to combat invasive plant and
animal species. National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) from Alaska to the
Caribbean are affected by this problem. Based on national interagency
estimates, over 6 million acres of the National Wildlife Refuge System
are infested with exotic plants alone, interfering with crucial
wildlife management objectives on over 50% of all refuges. Refuge field
managers have identified invasive species problems as one of the most
serious threats affecting the Refuge System. Nationwide, the rate of
spread of invasive plants is estimated to be 5,400 acres per year. The
Refuge System has identified over 300 projects with an estimated cost
of $120 million to combat invasive species.
Among the most insidious plant invaders to fish and wildlife
resources are salt cedar, leafy spurge, whitetop, exotic thistles,
Brazilian pepper, purple loosestrife, Australian pine, Chinese tallow
trees, old world climbing fern, and melaleuca. At Loxahatchee Refuge in
Florida's Everglades, for example, the exotic melaleuca tree and the
Old World climbing fern have infested thousands of acres of the refuge,
out-competing native vegetation and effectively eliminating wildlife-
dependent habitat. Sevilleta and Bosque del Apache NWRs in New Mexico
continually invest large amounts of time and operational funds in
eradication efforts on the salt cedar. Salt cedar disrupts the
structure and stability of native plant communities, crowding out
native plant species, altering existing water regimes, and increasing
soil salinity.
In addition, the Refuge System works with private landowners to
help them restore degraded fish and wildlife habitats on their
property, which includes the control of invasive plants. Through the
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, which provides financial and
technical assistance, the Service helps landowners benefit from
improved productivity of their lands by minimizing the spread of
invasive species and improving habitat for a variety of fish and
wildlife species. Activities included prescribed burning, integrated
pest management techniques, physical removal, fence construction, and
restoration of native plant communities.
Unfortunately, the invasive species negatively affecting fish and
wildlife resources are not solely contained within terrestrial plant
taxa. Many refuges have significant wetland components, making aquatic
invasive species, such as phragmites, a serious threat to these
ecosystems. Service programs support activities to prevent and control
highly invasive plants and animal species such as zebra mussels, giant
salvinia, Caulerpa taxifolia, Chinese mitten crabs, round gobies,
Norway rats, Asian carp, nutria, Asian swamp eels, feral goats and
pigs.
Nutria are an exotic invasive rodent, native to South America, that
have been introduced in 22 states nationwide, and affect over 1,000,000
acres of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Among areas with high
nutria populations is the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland, including
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. Blackwater has lost over 7,000
acres of marsh since 1933, and the rate of marsh loss has accelerated
in recent years to approximately 200 acres per year. Although there are
many contributing factors (e.g., sea level rise, land subsidence),
nutria are a catalyst of marsh loss due to their habit of foraging on
the below-ground portions of marsh plants. This activity compromises
the integrity of the marsh root mat, facilitating erosion and leading
to permanent marsh loss. In light of the damage caused by nutria, the
Service and 22 other Federal, State, and private partners joined forces
in 1997 to identify appropriate methods for controlling nutria and
restoring degraded marsh habitat. The Partnership prepared a 3-year
pilot program proposal, which was subsequently approved by Congress,
including authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to spend up
to $2.9 million over 3 years beginning in Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law
105-322).
The number of invasive species threats to fish and wildlife
resources continues to increase dramatically. As noted earlier, we
recommend that H.R. 1462 be amended to increase its scope of coverage
to include not only invasive terrestrial plant species, but aquatic
plants as well. We would also recommend that certain invasive animal
species be included.
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recognizes the need for
expanding on-the-ground efforts at controlling noxious weeds. Since the
completion of the BLM's ``Partners Agains'' Weeds@ Strategy Plan, the
BLM has followed the plan's recommendation of expanding cooperative
partnerships. We can attribute much of the BLM's success in managing
invasive species through cooperative partnerships with Federal, State,
and local government agencies, private landowners, and industries. As
noted earlier, we have concerns about the need to expand the scope of
H.R. 1462 to permit weed management efforts that cross state lines. The
BLM has numerous ongoing cooperative management relationships in this
area and amending the bill to permit cross-jurisdictional efforts would
foster further development of these relationships.
The BLM considers public education the key to winning the war on
weeds. Accordingly, our Partners Against Weeds Strategy focuses on
education and outreach. BLM personnel have given over 200 weed slide
presentations, prepared videos, produced flyers and classroom projects,
and conducted numerous public weed field trips. The BLM has also
developed a Weed Awareness Course that is given to each BLM employee.
In Grand Junction, Colorado, for example, the Field Office Weed
Coordinator has held classes for public land users at which all of the
major grazing permittees in that field office have attended. Ranchers
are now reporting new weed infestations and cooperating to help control
them on private and BLM lands.
As the awareness of invasive plants and their impacts accelerates,
our efforts with the public also increase. Today, for example, the BLM
in New Mexico will be taking part in the signing of a Memorandum of
Understanding with Tribes, and State and Federal agencies to manage
invasive and noxious weeds.
Recently, the creation of new Cooperative Weed Management Areas has
risen significantly. Because the BLM manages over 264 million acres of
public lands, cooperative weed management efforts are essential,
primarily in those areas where public lands are intermingled with
State, private, and other Federally-managed lands. Today more than
ninety percent of the Federal, State and private lands in Idaho and
California are part of cooperative weed management areas. For example,
in Fiscal Year 2000 the BLM treated 291,000 acres and is involved in
over 30 weed management areas. That figure is expected to rise
annually.
In Fiscal Year 2001, the BLM received $8.9 million for weed
management, a majority of which went to the BLM offices for on-the-
ground weed efforts including inventory, weed treatments, and
monitoring. In states with smaller amounts of infested acreage, the BLM
focuses funding on efforts to provide states with the capability to
detect small weed infestations in high-risk areas and to treat small
infestations before they spread. The BLM is also dedicating funding to
states with larger infestations, focusing efforts on areas not
previously inventoried, but at risk. In addition, in Fiscal Year 2001,
the BLM provided nearly $469,000 for the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation's Pulling Together Initiative for comprehensive, on-the-
ground weed management, treatment, prevention and control efforts. We
are concerned that, as currently drafted, H.R. 1462 could impact BLM's
future efforts to fund this successful, ongoing program.
Conclusion
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee to
discuss the issue of invasive species and we wish to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for your efforts to address this issue through your
sponsorship of H.R. 1462. We welcome this legislation as a symbol of
future commitment to early detection and rapid response to mitigate the
rampant spread of invasive plants. We, too, have recognized the need to
work directly with private landowners and State and local governments.
We applaud the bill's recognition of partnerships as key to success
across multiple jurisdictions of natural resource management. Our goal
is to ensure that the main provisions of H.R. 1462 allow for the
coordination of existing Federal efforts and local control programs so
that the bill serves to strengthen ongoing invasive species programs
and support new partnerships and initiatives. We look forward to
working with the Committee in formulating legislation that best
reflects our mutual goal of assisting States, Tribes, and local
entities to prevent, control, and manage nonnative invasive species
while recognizing and strengthening existing partnership efforts among
all stakeholders.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks and I will be
happy to answer any questions you or other committee members might
have.
______
[An attachment to Dr. Tate's statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.001
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rains?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL RAINS, DEPUTY CHIEF, STATE AND PRIVATE
FORESTRY, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Rains. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Michael Rains. I work for the Forest
Service in the Department of Agriculture, and today I am
accompanied by my partners here at the table, but also Dr.
Deborah Hayes, a specialist in the subject matter. It has been
said many times that non-native weeds pose an enormous economic
threat, and the problem needs to be addressed in a very
aggressive, systematic way. With the huge economic losses that
we are faced with, it is a huge task, but I feel like we are up
to it.
Fundamentally, we support the premise of the proposed
legislation, but we would like to work with you and your
colleagues to ensure that your efforts augment the current fine
work that is already under way. Let me talk a little bit about
that current work. We believe in USDA that we are probably
uniquely qualified to address the non-native weed problem. We
have six agencies currently that are dealing with that aspect
right now.
For example, in the Forest Service, we have a wide range of
existing authorities under way to help control non-native weeds
on Federal, State and private lands. We have been doing that
for the better part of 50 years. To answer the question of one
of the congressmen on DOE and DOD lands, and Camp David lands,
we also have the authority to deal with that. To be fair, our
focus has been on insects and diseases in the past, and that is
probably an issue of resources, but we do have the authority,
and are focusing on, when we can, non-native weeds.
For example, this year in the National Fire Plan--which
many of you are aware of--you have helped support it to help
deal with the impact on the environments and communities due to
the fires of 2000, and what we fear may be the fires of 2001.
This year we put almost $25 million specifically in the West to
deal with the non-native weeds. It is a big influx of cash from
where we were last year. In my view, the basic elixir for the
success of the program continues to remain adequate resources,
continued cooperation and a wide range of tools to combat the
problem, including biocontrol.
Our ARS agency in the Department of Agriculture is doing
tremendous work along those lines of biocontrol. Let me talk
about coordination. We have an existing National Invasive
Species Council, as Dr. Tate has already mentioned, and we have
various Committees and work groups under way. I think there is
a strong foundation already in place to help ensure that
coordination. We can always do better and with your guidance we
will look for ways to do that.
The spread of non-native weeds is a national problem. We
need to ensure that any legislation and current work focuses on
that issue. In other words, it is not a Western or an Eastern
thing. It is a national problem. Like Mr. Craig says, non-
native weeds ignore boundaries. So, our work needs to be done
on landscape-level issues or multistate issues. Clearly, if we
begin to allocate funds, we can do that under existing
authorities to State-by-State and actually sub-State issues. To
me, existing authorities will help to deal with any solution
that we might be able to address.
Once again, I remind myself that the basic solution to the
problem is adequate resources, continued cooperation, and
adequate control methods. Let me talk a little bit about the
fire plan as maybe a model. We are currently underway with the
Department of Interior and every State across the country in
addressing the wildfire impacts of 2000. A key tactical
component of the fire plan is invasive species management, and
with the Department of Interior and the Department of
Agriculture, we will probably put in about $40 million this
year, primarily in the West, to address that problem.
A similar approach, with the existing tactics and command
systems, if you will--if I can talk fire for a minute, could be
used to address this problem--again, adequate resources, close
coordination, a wide range of tactics, like we are doing with
the fire plan. We might view the non-native weed problem as a
fire issue. It is exactly like that. The solution to the
problem is complicated and I cannot overstress the importance
of good, sound science in helping us deal with the problem.
Again, although I am probably bias, I think the Department of
Agriculture has a good standing in there. But I will also give
nod and very strong compliments to our partners in the
Department of Interior.
In summary, non-native weeds and other exotic pests
threaten the health and sustainability of our productive lands,
no question about it. We must address this problem in an
aggressive way. Thank you for seeing the problem so clearly.
Thank you for helping us solve it. The USDA is able and willing
to help you and your colleagues meet this challenge. This
concludes my remarks. Ms. Hayes and I will be happy to answer
any questions that you might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rains follows:]
Statement of Michael T. Rains, Deputy Chief, State and Private
Forestry, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Michael Rains, Deputy.
Chief, State and Private Forestry, USDA Forest Service. My comments
today represent the views of the USDA on H.R. 1462, Harmful Nonnative
Weed Control Act of 2001.
First, I would like to thank the subcommittee for recognizing
noxious weeds as a significant threat to our nation's ecosystem health.
Non-native invasive plants alter ecosystem functions and reduce
biological diversity by eliminating native plants, which in turn can
lower the water table, increase soil erosion, runoff, and/or increase
fire frequency and intensity. Non-native invasive plants also change
the plant community used by domestic livestock, wildlife, and
recreationists. These changes in the ecosystem often result in
eliminating or restricting use of our wildlands and urban areas and
increase the economic costs associated with these losses. We face a
daunting challenge in managing non-native invasive plants, but the
Department is committed to working with the Committee to identify
solutions. USDA is in a strong position to address non-native invasive
species because of the broad authorities supporting non-native species
management: field operations for prevention, detection, control,
monitoring and restoration; research and technology development;
technical assistance to States, Tribes and private landowners;
financial assistance including cooperative agreements and grants; and
international collaboration.
USDA supports the objectives of H.R. 1462 to address the problem of
invasive non-native plants. The Department supports the premise of the
bill, that controlling invasive plants should be solved at the local
level with support provided by a multitude of partners. USDA has
numerous programs and delivery systems already in place under existing
statutory authorities to address non-native invasive species
management. Within the Forest Service in particular, there is a full
range of existing authorities to support an integrated program of
research and development, technical assistance and management of
invasive species on public and private lands. These programs focus on
invasive insects such as the Asian longhorn beetle and Gypsy Moth,
invasive pathogens such as Sudden Oak Death Disease, and non-native
invasive plants, which are the focus of this bill.
For reasons I will detail in my testimony, USDA strongly supports
the concept of allocating more resources for controlling non-native
invasive plants at the local level. However, H.R. 1462 raises a number
of questions for USDA. The Department would like to engage the
Committee in more detail regarding (1) process, accountability and
federal involvement; (2) compatibility with existing authorities in
USDA; (3) scope of the legislation; and (4) current partnership
funding.
The Department would like to work with the Committee to resolve
some of the issues raised by this bill and move toward outcomes that
will integrate the collaborative, mufti-agency planning that has begun
over the past three years at all levels of government for invasive
plants (and other non-native invasive species) management.
PROCESS, ACCOUNTABILITY AND FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT
Under H.R. 1462, roles and duties of the advisory committee should
be identified to ensure duties arid responsibilities carried out by the
Executive Branch are not being delegated to outside entities. States
would also need authority from Federal agencies to manage weeds on
Federal land, in particular National Forest System lands. USDA would
like to work with the Committee to address these issues of concern, in
particular management of Federal land. The Department believes these
decisions should remain within the jurisdiction of Federal land
managers.
H.R. 1462 would set up a new program entirely within the U.S.
Department of the Interior. Six USDA agencies have programs that help
manage the invasive plant issue: USDA is highly interested in working
with the Committee to identify areas where these programs can be
enhanced by this bill, and to determine what existing USDA programs fit
well with the Department of the Interior programs proposed in this bill
to avoid any redundancy.
USDA has some issues regarding implementation and coordination if a
new program dealing with invasive species management is developed in
the Department of the Interior. Under H.R. 1462, a new advisory
committee would be created, exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee
Act of 1972. The roles and duties of this committee are not clear,
particularly in relationship to already existing advisory committees,
such as the Invasive Species Advisory Committee that was created by
Executive Order 13112. Members on the Invasive Species Advisory
Committee were appointed by the National Invasive Species Council,
which is an inter-Departmental Council, co-chaired by the Departments
of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior. Also, there are a number of
other diverse stakeholder committees that could be used as an advisory
committee to provide peer review of submitted projects from ``weed
management entities.'' One such program is the ``Pulling Together
Initiative Steering Committee'' sponsored by the Federal Interagency
Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW). The
Pulling Together Partnership Initiative has been ongoing since 1996,
and is a mufti-agency effort that provides federal matching grants
through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for local and
regional weed prevention and control projects. Federal agencies
involved include the FS, BLM, FWS, Bureau of Reclamation, NPS,
Department of Defense, and APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service).
USDA notes very little specific direction in the bill on how funds
will be allocated to and by the States. The Department would like to
work with the Committee to establish criteria in the bill to ensure
that regional differences and needs are accounted for and that a
balance of funding is achieved among regions and states.
USDA recommends that a mechanism for State and local consultation
and/or coordination with Federal partners be specified in the bill.
Currently, the bill requires no consultation or coordination with
Federal agencies other than allocation by the Secretary of the Interior
of funds to the States based on input from an advisory committee
established by H.R. 1462. Coordination and consultation is important
between Federal and private landowners who work together to manage non-
native weeds that, grow across boundaries. An example of this
coordinated effort is occurring on the Humboldt-Toiyabe NF where
noxious weeds are confined to several thousand acres and are still
considered to be in manageable patches. The State of Nevada is
allocating available funds to this area based on the coordinated
efforts by local entities and Federal managers to eradicate invasive
weeds. The coordination and priority setting that is occurring between
Federal, State, and private partners becomes more critical as State and
Federal funds are allocated that impacted multi-jurisdictional
boundaries. USDA would like to work with the Committee to identify
language to address the issue of coordination and consultation with
Federal agencies. Fostering a climate of cooperation and coordination
with all concerned entities results in increased sharing of expertise,
information, resources, experience, and applied action to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of any invasive weed management program.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING AUTHORITIES IN USDA
Currently, within USDA there are six agencies that have a
leadership role in dealing with the introduction and spread of invasive
species and involved in research, regulation, operations, partnerships,
technical and financial assistance, and education: APHIS is the front
line of prevention, dealing with detecting and mitigating
disseminations, and providing, control of new introductions. The USDA
research agencies, Agricultural Research Service, Cooperative State
Research, Education; and Extension Service and Forest Service; provide
information on the: basic ecology of invasive 'species; as well as
detection, monitoring and control methodologies and' technologies. The
Forest Service responsibilities include Research and Development, State
and Private Forestry, and, the National Forest System. In addition it
has the lead for research in natural areas. The Forest Service has a
broad range of authorities to address the invasive species issue and to
coordinate with other Federal agencies with corresponding
responsibilities.
Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, APHIS and
Farm Services Administration provide technical and financial
assistance, consultation, and technology transfer prevention, control
of invasive species, and landscape restoration following an invasion or
disaster. The invasive species programs in these agencies run both
independently and collaboratively. FICMNEW is a prime example of a
collaborative government effort affecting land management. FICMNEW was
established under a Memorandum Of Understanding signed by 17 Federal
Agencies in 1994, with the charge of enhancing Federal coordination for
the management of weeds. Member agencies seek to improve the Federal
government's ability to prevent, control, and manage harmful non-
indigenous plant species, maintain and restore healthy ecosystems, and
preserve biological diversity on Native American and Federal lands and
waters, with assistance on private lands and waters. Federal agencies
work cooperatively to achieve this through advancement of knowledge and
skills, good land stewardship practices, public awareness of noxious
weed issues and management, and collaborative projects. We will work
with the Committee to ensure that H.R. 1462 does not conflict, and
where possible enhances, existing USDA programs.
SCOPE OF THE LEGISLATION
FICMNEW stated in a 1998 report that invasive plants (called non-
native weeds in the bill) cause more than $20 billion per year in
economic damage and affect millions of acres of all types of private
and public lands across the United States. H.R. 1462 provides a
framework for States and local governments to work with local weed
groups to control and eradicate invasive plants.. However, the
Department is concerned how balance will be maintained between
different regions of the U.S. or how multiple state efforts will be
supported.
Under the bill's framework it may be difficult for the Southeast
and eastern States to compete with Western states that .have an
existing infrastructure likely to qualify as ``weed management
entities.'' There currently exist well over 100 weed management areas
that have been organized at the local level by various partners in the
west. These organizations are virtually non-existent in the eastern
States. USDA would like to work with the Committee to identify
potential alternative structures, which partner with the Natural
Resource Conservation Service, such as conservation districts, which
could serve as ``weed management entities.''
The Department would like to work with the Committee to ensure that
the bill adequately addresses multiple state efforts. Partnerships with
States (especially those adjoining other States), other Federal
agencies, and local groups are important since plants grow across
jurisdictional areas. Projects can be split at the State line and
funded separately while being coordinated across State lines, but
additional constraints are sometimes imposed when this occurs. The
recent fires in Idaho and Montana for example, demonstrate how natural
forces do, not heed political boundaries. As a result of the 2000 fire
season, in the states of Idaho and Montana, the Forest Service has
spent approximately $24.5 million in treating invasive plants on
National Forest System lands and private lands (4.2 million in NFS
noxious weeds funding, 17.0 million from the National Fire Plan
Restoration program, and 3.5 million from State and Private Forestry
funds). Many of these invasive species treatments are directly
attributable to interstate coordination.
The Department also believes that the bill language should clarify
to indicate that the purpose of funding for weed management entities
through this bill is, at least in part, for environmental restoration
purposes as much as it may be for economic purposes.
CURRENT PARTNERSHIP FUNDING
Invasive weeds have been coming into this country for over a
century, and they are well established in many areas. New species
continue to be encountered at our national border and at individual
State's borders. USDA along with agencies in the Department of the
Interior has been working with State and local entities for many years
on various partnerships to eradicate this problem. Funds have been
allocated through these partnerships and the Department continues to
participate in them. H.R. 1462 does not identify funding sources for
the States allocation, the incentive payment program, or how this
program will relate to projects already funded in USDA. This program
could involve significant new funding obligations that are not now
assumed in the President's Budget. It is unclear how much funding is
needed or how it will be paid for. Because the bill does not include an
authorization of appropriations section that would provide a separate
authorization of funds, we are concerned that there would be no
authorization limit on funds or any assurance that this program would
not impact existing agency and multi-agency programs that support local
and regional weed prevention and control projects. The Department would
like to work with the Committee to ensure currently funded programs are
continued and adequate funding provided.
The bill's impact on current partnerships for local action, such
as, the mufti-agency ``Pulling Together Initiative'' (PTI) mentioned
earlier is uncertain. In Fiscal Year 2001 the Forest Service
contributed $300,000 to this program. In addition to FS support of the
PTI program, the FS also directly supports local weed entities through
its S&PF and NFS programs. Many projects are already underway with this
initiative, which demonstrate some of our best examples of need,
partnerships, integrated weed management, and monitoring.
USDA has found that research and technology development is often
critical to successful land management, including efforts with State
and local partners. Similarly, restoration actions following weed
treatments are often key to sustaining control and ecosystem health
over the long-term. Options are needed for supporting applied field
tests, technology development and restoration actions, which are
essential components of an effective on-the-ground management strategy.
The Department would like to work with the Committee to identify how
``weed management entities'' can obtain flexibility to fund and conduct
field tests, demonstrations and other applied research activities when
these components are essential for success of management goals.
Once weeds are brought under control or eradicated, it is important
to consider what will come in behind them. USDA believes the bill
should provide for and encourage the restoration of a treated area,
thus lessening impacts of the treatment as well as improving the health
of the site making it less vulnerable to reinfestation. Knowledge from
research and development would help ``weed management entities'' in
evaluating what tools and/or techniques can best be used in an area
that needs treatment.
In conclusion, non-native invasive species threaten forest and
rangeland sustainability and ecosystem viability. Populations of
invasive plants in the U.S. are expanding annually by 7 to 14%.
Although there are points of concern related to this bill, both the
Department and its Agencies believe this bill is a commendable effort
to address invasive species management on public and private lands.
The Department is committed to working cooperatively with the
Committee and the bill sponsors toward solutions that will meet our
mutual concerns and objectives.
This concludes my testimony. I would be .happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much, both of you, and thank you
for your suggestions. We would like to work with you
specifically on suggestions on changes that you think need to
be in the legislation to make it more effective.
Would you both agree that the problem is so big and so
pervasive that it is not something the Federal Government can
do on its own, that we do need that local management and
control, coordination, to help make this thing work?
Mr. Rains. Absolutely, in the Forest Service, specifically
in our State and Private Forestry mission area, everything we
do is through somebody else, and typically that is the States.
We have county weed councils, for example, in the West in
almost every State where we work with them, but lack these
entities in the East. And so every dollar that we invest, they
will invest at least another dollar and typically overmatch
that. There is no question about it. We can provide an niche
or, perhaps, an elixir, if you will, to get going, but we need
the State and county level involvement to make it a success.
Mr. Tate. We would certainly agree with you. The problem is
beyond the capabilities of any one of us in this room or any
one of us out working the fields and working the crops.
Integrated planning, the kind that I was doing at the Idaho
Engineering Laboratory just a few months ago, before I took
this job, is something that we are very interested in seeing,
using all of the tools available to us in an integrated manner
that controls the weeds. A brief example, Cheatgrass in the
West is a cold season grass. It grows well during the cool
season, especially in the spring. By the time summer comes, it
has used up all the nutrients and goes senescent. It makes a
tremendous fire potential. We have discovered in the West that
we can toss the advantage back to our native warm season
grasses by fertilizing at the right time of year. In Idaho, we
have a natural fertilizer in the form of about 75 million
gallons of potato-processing wastes available to us. That helps
us to use this one tool to throw Cheatgrass back to the native
plants, when combined with other integrated methodologies, it
might be just what we need. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. What exactly do you see the council doing to
address noxious weeds at the local level? Will the council
action duplicate ongoing efforts? You said that you do not
think we need a new council. Would you speak to that a little
further?
Mr. Tate. Could I ask one of you to--is one of you
particularly interested in that?
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, we believe the council would
help. First of all, there is an existing council with an
advisory Committee, established under the executive order, and
we believe the membership of that existing advisory Committee,
established under the executive order, represents many of the
stakeholders and interest groups that have an interest in this
area, and would, I think, serve as a good model for addressing
some of the issues in the bill.
Mr. Hefley. Does it include local--or could it include
local participation, as well?
Mr. Tate. No response.
Mr. Rains. The answer is yes, we do have a wide range of
participation at the national level, but it is important to
know that that is guidance, and then what we have from that is
a series of work Committees that then begins to quickly delve
into regional and local issues. Of course, at the regional and
local level, we have that grass-roots involvement. So, there is
no question we could seek ways to tighten up, but perhaps one
might view this as a duplication. We want to work with you
carefully on that so you really focus your resources.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you. You talk about aquatic weeds. Will
they be addressed in the reauthorization of the National
Invasive Species Act in 2002 or do they need to be included in
this? It is certainly a problem and we want to deal with the
problem as best we can.
Mr. Tate. The Invasive Species Act dealt especially with
ballast water and with marine species, and there is apparently
some effort and some interest in including aquatic species
there. Within the broader concept, though, our Fish and
Wildlife Service's refuges, in particular, are subjected to
large numbers of aquatic species, plants, that would fall under
the concept of weeds and plants and would be especially
important that they be included here, so that we do not stop
when the jurisdictional wetlands start or something of the
nature.
Mr. Rains. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Agriculture
really strongly supports that notion, as well.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you. I think you mentioned, Mr. Rains,
that the Department of Agriculture spends about $40 million a
year on this. I wonder, from Interior, what are you spending on
weeds at this point, and what do you anticipate would be spent
under legislation such as this?
Mr. Tate. I would let Ms. Ramos answer.
Ms. Ramos. Well, at this time, the Bureau of Land
Management spends $8.9 million per year on invasive and noxious
weeds, and I would let the Fish and Wildlife Service and Park
Service tell you what they spend.
Mr. Tate. Our total Interior contribution is about $40
million, that includes interesting species such as the Brown
Tree Snake in Guam, and its cost as well.
Mr. Rains. The fire plan allowed us a real opportunity to
increase our expenditures. What I did say, that between the
Department of Interior and the Forest Service, we are spending
on the fire plan about $40 million. Prior to the fire plan, the
Forest Service spent about $11 million, and maybe the
Department of Agriculture spent about $15 million. Now with the
additional $25 million on the fire plan, we have been able to
augment that considerably.
Mr. Hefley. What would you anticipate under this
legislation that you would be requesting? Do you have any idea?
Mr. Rains. We really do not know, but I can tell you, we
are probably going to at least work with our Department to
probably have a request, at least in discussions, about double
our current funding.
Mr. Hefley. What do you think the increase would be if you
add aquatics to this, as well?
Mr. Tate. Mike, do you--would you add Aquatics?
Mr. Ielmini. Yes. Mr. Chairman, the aquatic problem, at
least in the National Wildlife Refuge System, would probably at
least double our needs and in the terrestrial plant arena, at
least those that we have identified as priority projects, and
right now we are talking about approximately 6 million acres
affected in the Refuge System--terrestrial plants alone, if we
identify that most of the refuges in the system have an aquatic
component, i.e., a wetland component, and the impacts are
rapidly increasing there, we could certainly say that that
increase would probably double.
Mr. Hefley. Do you have the dollar figures at all?
Mr. Ielmini. Our current projects identified in the Refuge
Operation Needs System, identifying all terrestrial and aquatic
projects that are needed, amounts to approximately $140
million, about a $1.1 million backlog of total operations, also
a large percentage of our overall operations needs.
Mr. Rains. In the Department of Agriculture, we are
probably looking at a figure of around $100 million that would
include the aquatic species.
Mr. Hefley. Who is winning the battle with what you are
doing now? The weeds that came from outer space, are they
conquering humanity, or is humanity beginning to push them
back?
Mr. Tate. This problem is often referred to as a long fuse
and a big boom. In some cases, Cheatgrass and Star Thistle and
a few others, we are approaching the boom. The fuse is getting
very short and it could, in fact, overwhelm our facilities. I
am thinking how it already has in some cases. We keep referring
to the fires and the relationships on rangelands caused by
these things. We see in Florida, in some of the semitropical
ecosystems, the same kinds of problems. We are very much at the
big boom in the Southeast.
Mr. Rains. I think from the Department of Agriculture's
point of view, maybe overall we might be losing, but we have
some real success stories, especially on National Forest System
land, where we are winning the battle. I will have to say,
because of the fire plan in those burned areas, we are going to
win that battle. In some of the eastern areas of the country,
where the focus is--where the Southern Pine Beetle and the
Gypsy Moth are taking away a majority of our resources, we are
a little bit behind.
Mr. Hefley. What kind of a priority are you giving this
within the departments? Are you requesting the money you need
to do the job?
Mr. Tate. We are systematically looking at this, and we
have requested, as I had mentioned in the case of the National
Park Service, additional teams, and that is in the 2002 budget,
and we are looking hard at the 2003 budget right now. We do see
additional needs and we will be making additional requests.
Mr. Rains. I think in the Department of Agriculture--I
think in the past we might have begun to focus a little bit too
much on what I call insect and diseases. But every now and
again there is a catalytic event, and really perhaps the fire
plan was that for us. So, in the last year or two, we have been
aggressively asking for and planning for the type of funds that
we need, and I think Secretary Veneman is going to do a
marvelous job for us, in being able to make some real strong,
legitimate requests for us.
Mr. Hefley. Well, thank you very much, all of you. We
appreciate your being here and we look forward to working with
you to try to perfect this piece of legislation so it will be
an additional weapon you can use in the battle.
The next panel will be composed of Dr. George Beck,
Professor of Weed Science at Colorado State University; Mr. Bob
Skinner, who is a rancher, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, from Oregon; Dr. John Randall, Director, Wildland
Invasive Species Program, from the Nature Conservancy; Mr. Mike
Carroll, Vice President of the North American Weed Management
Association, Fort Collins, Colorado; and Dr. Terry Riley,
Director of Conservation, Wildlife Management Institute,
Washington, D.C.
Okay, I would want to remind you again, if you would, to
try to hold your testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire testimony
will be put in the record, so if you would summarize it for me.
We will start with Dr. Beck, from Fort Collins, Colorado.
Welcome to Washington D.C., Dr. Beck.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE BECK, PROFESSOR OF WEED SCIENCE AT COLORADO
STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Beck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful for the
opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 1462, the Harmful
Non-Native Weed Control Act of 2001, and indeed, it is an honor
to do so. My name is George Beck and I am a professor of weed
science at Colorado State University. I also am the Chairman of
the Intermountain Noxious Weed Advisory Council, also known as
INWAC. Invasive weeds threaten the integrity and environmental
stability of our ecosystems, and dramatically interfere with
agriculture production. The serious nature of this problem
across our nation certainly requires that a concerted weed
management effort be waged by private landowners and public
land managers alike if we are to be successful.
I believe H.R. 1462 will help us to succeed and there are
many positive aspects to the bill. The bill will provide much-
needed funds to manage basic weeds throughout our country.
Certainly, weed management is expensive and easily can cost
from $100 to $200 per acre. Financial assistance from H.R. 1462
will help to defray weed management expenses and stimulate more
people to become involved in this effort. Our collective
experience at the county weed district level clearly
demonstrates that financial assistance often engages the most
recalcitrant of landowners in weed management.
Federal land managers have been frustrated by the cost of
weed management because of their inadequate budgets. For many
years, INWAC has recommended to Federal agencies that they
augment their weed management budgets. While some progress has
been made, their budgets do still remain inadequate. H.R. 1462
will certainly help to alleviate the situation, but Federal
agencies still must dramatically increase their weed management
budgets through the normal process.
H.R. 1462 will be awarded to weed management entities, thus
the bill will foster the formation of weed management areas,
and weeds are more efficiently and effectively managed on a
landscape or watershed scale, and doing so creates the
opportunity to form partnerships where all participants have
ownership in project planning and implementation. When one has
a sense of ownership, they become engaged willingly and
actively. Fostering such partnerships is an extremely powerful
aspect to H.R. 1462.
Grant funds in California, Montana and Colorado have
encouraged landowners and land managers to become organized
into weed management areas. Clearly, this is outstanding and
H.R. 1462 will be a powerful engine to take this process to the
next level. Also, the bill appropriately limits the duration of
incentive payments so as to encourage weed management entities
to become self-sufficient, thereby preserving funds to help
others become organized.
There are, however, a few aspects of the bill that deserve
attention or clarification. Many are concerned about how funds
associated with the goals of H.R. 1462 will affect existing
programs within Federal agencies. The funds to support the bill
should be new monies and should not be taken from existing
Federal land management programs. Taking monies from existing
programs to fund H.R. 1462 may well cause a setback in invasive
weed management by Federal agencies.
There are active weed management areas in the West that
include partners from several States, and Colorado is an
excellent example of the need for States to cooperate and form
multistate weed management areas. We are the headwaters for
several major rivers that flow throughout the West and, for
example, salt cedar infests the Colorado River and small
tributaries near Rifle and Silt. These then serve as
infestation sources for the entire river drainage from Rifle
clear to the Gulf of California.
H.R. 1462 should encourage the formation of multistate weed
management areas, but instead, it prohibits using funds to
operate weed management areas in more than one State. This is
confusing and potentially counterproductive to the goals of the
bill. Research based information is the fundamental component
for developing weed management, and while data are available
for the majority of invasive weeds, certainly not all the
questions have been answered and new weeds continue to show up.
Funds from H.R. 1462 should be available to support applied
research that provides immediate and practical results when
necessary. H.R. 1462 prohibits the use of funds to manage weeds
on land that is used to produce an agricultural commodity, but
appropriately excludes livestock production from this
prohibition. However, the definitions cited are broad enough
that when subjected to interpretation, it may lead to
logistical problems when administering the bill.
In summary, H.R. 1462 is an outstanding bill that will take
our collective weed management efforts in our country to a new
and much more appropriate level than we currently enjoy. The
essence of invasive weed management is to be a good neighbor
and a conscientious steward of the land. H.R. 1462 will help
promote these fundamental tenets. Thank you very much, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beck follows:]
Statement of K. George Beck, Ph.D., Professor of Weed Science, Colorado
State University, also representing The Intermountain Noxious Weed
Advisory Council
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee, I am grateful
for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 1462, the Harmful
Nonnative Weed Control Act of 2001. Indeed, it is an honor to do so. My
name is George Beck. I am a Professor of Weed Science at Colorado State
University in Fort Collins, Colorado, and I also am chairman of the
Intermountain Noxious Weed Advisory Council. INWAC has worked
diligently since its inception in 1987 to raise the awareness of the
problems associated with invasive, nonnative weeds throughout the
western United States, particularly on lands managed by the federal
government. Invasive weeds threaten the integrity and environmental
stability of our ecosystems and dramatically interfere with
agricultural production systems. Invasive weeds displace native plants,
decrease native biological diversity, and disrupt established ecosystem
processes. Invasive weeds also decrease livestock production on
rangelands and pastures, decrease crop yields, and decrease wildlife
habitat. The breadth and serious nature of this problem across our
nation certainly requires that a concerted weed management effort be
waged by private landowners and public land managers, if we are to be
successful.
H.R. 1462 will provide much-needed funds to manage invasive weeds
throughout our country. Weed management is expensive and easily can
cost from $100 to $200 per acre especially if seeding of desirable
plant species is necessary. Financial assistance provided by H.R. 1462
will help to defray weed management expenses and stimulate more
landowners and land managers to become engaged in this effort. Our
collective experience at the county weed district level clearly
demonstrates that financial assistance often engages the recalcitrant
landowner in weed management. Federal land managers in particular have
been frustrated by the cost of weed management because of inadequate
budgets. For many years, INWAC has recommended to federal agencies that
they request additional funds targeted specifically for weed
management. While some progress has been made, federal agency budgets
for weed management remain inadequate. H.R. 1462 will help to alleviate
this situation, but federal agencies still must dramatically increase
their weed management budgets through the normal fiscal process.
H.R. 1462 funds will be awarded to weed management entities; thus,
the bill will foster the formation of weed management areas and
stimulate a concerted weed management effort. Weeds are more
efficiently and effectively managed on a landscape or watershed scale.
Managing weeds in a watershed or across a landscape creates the
opportunity to form partnerships where all participants have ownership
in project planning and implementation. When one has a sense of
ownership, they become engaged willingly and actively. Fostering such
partnerships is an extremely powerful aspect of H.R. 1462 and the bill
not only will help stimulate new partnerships it also will enhance the
activities of the many weed management areas that already exist in the
western United States. Weed management areas such as the Big Hole
Resource Area in Montana, the Tri-county Weed Management Area in
Oregon, the Cheyenne River Weed Management Area in Wyoming, the Upper
Arkansas River Weed Management Area in Colorado, and the Axial Basin
Weed Management Area also in Colorado area are in operation and poised
to take advantage of the competitive funds to be made available by H.R.
1462. Competitive grant funds in California, Montana, and Colorado,
while modest in comparison to H.R. 1462, have encouraged landowners and
land managers to cooperate and become organized into weed management
areas in a fashion that otherwise would not have occurred. Clearly,
this is outstanding and H.R. 1462 will be a powerful engine to take
this process to the next level. However, competitive grants only should
be a tool to boost the activities of existing weed management areas or
stimulate the formation of new ones such that they become self-
sufficient. H.R. 1462 limits the duration of incentive payments so as
to encourage weed management areas to become self-sufficient, thereby
preserving funds to help others become organized.
There are, however, a few aspects of the bill that deserve
attention or clarification. Many people are concerned about how funds
associated with the goals of H.R. 1462 will affect existing programs
within federal agencies. The funds to support H.R. 1462 should be new
monies and should not be taken from existing federal land management
programs. It is critically important that federal agencies continue to
increase their budgets for weed management in addition to the potential
help offered by H.R. 1462. Taking money from existing programs to fund
H.R. 1462 may well cause a setback in invasive weed management by
federal agencies.
There are weed management areas in the west that include partners
from several states. Good examples of these include the Monida Pass
Weed Management Area on the border of Montana and Idaho where each
state is trying to keep their weeds from spreading to their neighbor;
the Team Leafy Spurge Project on the Missouri River breaks where
multiple governmental agencies and private landowners from Montana,
Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota employ a coordinated effort to
battle leafy spurge; and the Greater Yellowstone Weed Management Area
is perhaps the oldest weed management area in the country and involves
Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. Colorado is an excellent example of the
need for states to cooperate and form multi-state weed management
areas. We are the headwaters for several major rivers that flow
throughout the west. Salt cedar infests the small tributaries near
Rifle and Silt that flow into the Colorado River, which then serve as
infestation sources for the Colorado River drainage from Rifle to the
Gulf of California. The North Platte River flows through North Park in
north central Colorado and on into Wyoming. Leafy spurge infests the
banks of the North Platte on both sides of the Colorado-Wyoming border
and a very active weed management area encompasses the neighboring
counties in each state. H.R. 1462 should encourage the formation of
multi-state weed management areas, but section 7(d)3(B) prohibits any
weed management entity from using funds to operate a weed management
area in more than one state. This is confusing and potentially
counterproductive to the goals of H.R. 1462.
Research-based information is the fundamental component for
developing effective weed management. While data are available for the
majority of invasive weeds and the various habitats they infest, not
all the questions have been answered. This is especially the case when
a new weed occurrence is found. Funds from H.R. 1462 should be
available to support applied research that provides immediate and
practical results when necessary. While H.R. 1462 does not prohibit
funds from being used on research, it is not specifically mentioned. A
clause in the bill that describes the type of research that could be
supported would be beneficial.
H.R. 1462 prohibits use of funds to manage weeds on land that is
used to produce an agricultural commodity. This is understandable in
light of other federal programs that are available to crop producers.
H.R. 1462 excludes livestock production from this prohibition, but the
definitions cited are broad enough that when subject to interpretation,
may lead to logistical problems when administering the bill. For
example, forage growing on rangeland could be construed by some to be
an agricultural commodity and thus, funds from H.R. 1462 could not be
used by weed management entities to manage weeds on that land. If this
occurs, it would be counter to the goals of H.R. 1462. Perhaps language
could be inserted in the bill that clearly states rangeland and
pastures upon which forage is grown and directly consumed by grazing
livestock is excluded as an agricultural commodity.
H.R. 1462 is an outstanding bill that will help take our collective
weed management efforts in our country to a new and much more
appropriate level than we now enjoy. The essence of invasive weed
management is to be a good neighbor and conscientious steward of the
land. H.R. 1462 will promote these fundamental tenets.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you.
Mr. Bob Skinner?
STATEMENT OF BOB SKINNER, RANCHER, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Skinner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Robert
Skinner. I am here on behalf of the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association and the Public Lands Council. I want to thank you
for your interest in my comments concerning weeds and H.R.
1462. I am a fifth-generation rancher from Jordan Valley, a
small community in extreme southeastern Oregon. I have lived on
and operated my family ranch now for over 50 years. My family
currently owns about 10,000 acres and leases well over 30,000
acres from the BLM, on which we graze livestock.
The reason I am here today is because I have a vested
interest in the health of our rangeland resources, and it is
absolutely crucial that we act now for the sake of the
resource-dependent industries, as well as the watersheds and
ecosystems. Folks, we are fighting a war on weeds out West, and
weeds are like a dreaded cancer. Once invaded, there is a
certain point where treatment becomes almost feudal. But if we
treat the cancer early, our chances of winning will certainly
greatly improve.
I became more aware of the magnitude of the weed problem
when I served on a regional resource advisory council, RAC.
Recently, our RAC had the opportunity to tour Hell's Canyon
National Recreation Area. What we witnessed was absolutely
sobering. From canyon rim to canyon rim, all you could see were
tens of thousands of acres of Yellow Star Thistle. In fact, our
local BLM district office asked me to invite you and the
members of this Committee to take this very same tour up the
Snake River and the Salmon River in a jet boat, and I strongly
recommend that you take this trip to witness, firsthand, the
devastating impact of Yellow Star Thistle to this national
treasure.
To fight the weed scourge on Federal lands in Fiscal Year
2002, the Forest Service plans to treat 85,000 acres, while BLM
plans to treat 245,000 acres. The number of acres these
agencies plan to treat is rather trivial, considering that the
Forest Service manages approximately 192 million acres, or an
area larger than Texas. The BLM manages over 264 million acres
or about one-eighth of the total land mass of the United
States. Simply put, this means the Forest Service is treating
roughly one out of every 2,300 acres, and BLM is treating one
out of every 1,100 acres. Numbers do not lie and these figures
speak volumes on the dire need for more weed management
activity by these two agencies.
In comparison, my home county covers 9,926 square miles, or
close to 6.5 million acres. Furthermore, there are 36 counties
in Oregon, and the Forest Service and BLM could expend their
entire planned effort in my home state, or my home county for
that matter, and not even a make a dent in the weed crisis. My
county and the state of Oregon are not alone in this
predicament. Imagine this scenario repeated for every rural
county.
H.R. 1462 is a gallant effort and a needed effort by
Congress to address the weed problem. However, we believe the
bill could be improved. For instance, the bill caps the Federal
cost share of any financial award to 50 percent. When we are
confronted with a serious invasion, we have to have the ability
to focus as many resources as possible to fighting that
problem. We need a provision allowing for up to 100 percent of
the Federal share of the financial award to effectively fight
that problem. I am also concerned with the multiple state
section. I am afraid weeds straddling lines cannot be properly
treated under this provision. Weeds absolutely know no
boundaries and geographic location should not be a restriction
to receiving any funding.
Overall, perhaps my biggest concern with the bill is the
lack of a NEPA exemption, and in my area, the BLM is constantly
under attack for undertaking any management action at all,
regardless of whether the action will actually benefit the
resources. These delays can actually have a devastating effect
on the very environment that it tries to protect.
In closing, I support the goals of H.R. 1462. It provides
the necessary funding to help us wage the war on the weeds on
the ground. The Federal land management agencies currently do
not have the capability to address the problem sufficiently,
and the bill directs funds where needed most, at the local
level. We need a collaborative and cooperative approach between
the Federal, State and local governments' weed management
entities, citizens, coupled with more Federal funding to tackle
the current problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to speak to you and members of the Committee today,
and I will be happy to answer any questions at the end.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Skinner follows:]
Statement of Mr. Bob Skinner, Jordan Valley, Oregon, on behalf of the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and Public Lands Council
Chairman Hefley and Distinguished Members of the House Resources
Committee:
On behalf of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), the
trade association of America's cattle farmers and ranchers, and the
marketing organization for the largest segment of the nation's food and
fiber industry, and the Public Lands Council (PLC), a non-profit
organization representing over 27,000 federal grazing permittees, thank
you for your interest in my comments concerning very important matters
to me, weed eradication and H.R. 1462. I appreciate the opportunity to
express my concerns about the war currently being waged on weeds across
the West and in my own backyard.
I am a fifth generation rancher from Jordan Valley, Oregon, a small
community in southeastern Oregon close to the Oregon/Idaho border and
approximately 100 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho. I have resided on
and operated my family ranch for over 50 years. I am a member of NCBA,
the PLC and the Oregon Cattlemen's Association (OCA). I serve on NCBA's
Board of Directors for the Policy Division and as President-elect for
OCA. I am speaking today in support of H.R. 1462 as a rancher, a
citizen and as a member of these organizations.
I am here today to discuss my experience and share some
observations about harmful nonnative plants. I would also like to share
my thoughts on H.R. 1462. Hopefully my comments will provide some
insight into our country's weed problem.
The spread of weeds is a matter of grave concern to me. My family
owns over 10,000 deeded acres and leases well over 30,000 acres from
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on which we graze livestock.
Therefore, I have a vested interest in the health of my own land as
well as the land surrounding my private acreage.
Members of the Committee, we are fighting a war out West. A war
that in many places has already been lost. The enemy in the war I am
speaking about is weeds. I am currently fighting new invasions of leafy
spurge, yellow starthistle and pepperweed. These weeds are like cancer.
Once we are invaded, there is a certain point where treatment becomes
futile. However, if we treat the cancer early in the process our
chances of winning greatly improve. We absolutely have to strike now or
we will continue to lose huge masses of this nation's land resources.
Recovery will be extremely expensive, if recovery is at all possible.
I am a federal lands rancher and like my 27,000 counterparts, face
major weed problems. Some ranchers face weed problems that cannot
immediately be solved. Others face problems that can at least be fought
to a standstill. Nonetheless, the majority of us are facing severe
problems that require urgent action. These ranchers and farmers lease
federal land managed by the BLM or the United States Forest Service
(USFS). We use this land to graze cattle, horses, sheep or goats.
Livestock, namely sheep and goats, may consume noxious or invasive
weeds and can be used as an effective tool in weed management. However,
for the most part, cattle, wild horses and burros, and wildlife do not
consume noxious weeds except only when other native forage is not
available. Some weeds, such as the yellow larkspur, tansy ragwort, and
locoweed, can be harmful or even lethal if consumed. Leafy spurge can
cause irritation of the mouth and digestive tract of cattle and wild
ungulates and may even result in death.
In spite of all these dangerous weeds, I am not here today to
discuss the health hazards of weeds to animals. I am more concerned
about the impact of weeds on ecosystems and the environment. It is
absolutely imperative for the sake of our resource dependent industry,
wildlife, wildlife habitat, endangered species, native plants,
watersheds and the entire ecosystem that we act now.
I have lived in Jordan Valley for over 50 years and I have never
seen a threat as severe I am witnessing now. In many areas of the West,
weeds have completely consumed vast areas of federal land. The federal
government is the major landowner in my home county. As the major
landowner, the government must do their part or all landowners' efforts
are fruitless. If the government wants to own land, it has to take
responsibility for managing it properly.
For example, the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR) is the
largest national wildlife refuge in the United States and completely
overrun by pepperweed. The MNWR is approximately 60 air miles west of
my ranch. Pepperweed can grow up to six feet tall and in extremely
dense growth resulting in the destruction or diminution of wildlife
habitat. It shocks the conscience to see this wildlife refuge being
destroyed by pepperweed and other nonnative weeds. I find it ironic
where the government has set aside land to preserve and enhance
wildlife and wildlife habitat, the government's failure to address the
weed problem has destroyed the very purpose the refuge was set aside to
accomplish.
Furthermore, pepperweed on the MNWR, or anywhere else, is
particularly problematic since it produces a waterborne seed.
Pepperweed is now spreading onto contiguous lands via any available
watercourse. In effect, pepperweed on the MNWR is a source of
infestation for lands downstream from this wildlife refuge. Whatever
occurs on the MNWR affects all the surrounding landowners, whether they
are private individuals or the state or federal government. The spread
of pepperweed is not just restricted to contiguous landowners, the
entire watershed is now affected. No matter what landowners downstream
try to do, they are constantly susceptible to new invasions. Now, pause
for a moment and imagine this scenario played out across the entire
West. As I stated earlier, we must declare war on these invaders.
I have been involved in fighting weeds for a number of years now. I
became more aware of the significance of the weed problem when former
Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Babbitt, appointed me to serve on
our local Resource Advisory Council (RAC). The weed problem was one of
the most important issues our RAC faced. The BLM provided field tours
for the RAC with the intent of examining the weed problem. While the
BLM appears willing to address the weed problem they are severely
lacking in manpower and financial resources to complete the task. More
funding is needed, more manpower is needed, and more collective effort
is needed.
Recently, our RAC had the opportunity to tour Hell's Canyon
National Recreation Area (HCNRA). Hell's Canyon spans the Oregon and
Idaho border and is located north of Boise. The BLM offered to take
members of our RAC on a boat tour of the area to see first hand one of
the worst invasions by a nonnative weed in the West. What we witnessed
was a sobering sight, all we could see were thousands of acres of
yellow starthistle from canyon rim to canyon rim. This weed-infested
landscape extended for mile after mile. Yellow starthistle is a
horrible weed and can grow to three feet tall and contains very sharp
thorns. It grows very thick, chokes out almost all competing plants.
Walking through it requires snakeboots, leather pants or the equivalent
to be protected from its vicious spines. This weed is dangerous to
wildlife, livestock or anything attempting to consume it. Wildlife or
livestock will not eat this plant due to its viscous thorns. What used
to be an area of breathtaking beauty is now overcome with an ugly
scourge. The topography restricts aerial spraying and in a lot of
areas, even hand spraying. Hell's Canyon is just another example
illustrating what can happen if strict and effective control is not
extended early in the process.
I have also become more engaged with our local weed organization,
the Malheur County Weed Advisory Board. This Board consists of seven
members appointed by the County Court. The Board's purpose is to assist
county citizens in controlling and eradicating noxious weeds in the
county. Malheur County also has a County Weed Inspector. These people
have been a great resource in identifying weeds, determining the best
control measures such as spraying, chemicals, organic methods and
identifying the best time to treat the weed. So far, this practice has
worked well.
Considering demographics, Malheur County is a very large county.
The county is the state's second largest in total acreage. It is 94
percent rangeland, two-thirds of which is controlled by the BLM.
Malheur County is also one of Oregon's most rural counties with only
about 28,000 residents. Furthermore, most of these residents rely on
agriculture in some fashion such as growing, processing, packing or
other business supporting agriculture. Irrigated fields in the county's
northeastern corner, known as Western Treasure Valley, are the center
of intensive and diversified farming. With such a large dependence on
agriculture, weeds pose a major threat to the economic well-being of
Malheur County. Thus, weeds and weed management are of vital importance
to my agriculture-dependent county.
Since Malheur County is a rural county and heavily dependent on
agriculture, you can imagine the pressures the Malheur Weed Advisory
Board and County Weed Inspector face. Weeds have no regard for
economics, heritage, public or private land, livelihoods or any type of
boundary. Noxious weeds will continue to spread and place added
pressure on the residents of Malheur County, the Weed Board and the
Weed Inspector. The same holds true for almost every other rural county
throughout the West.
As I stated before, luckily our Weed Board has been somewhat
successful in stemming the invasion of noxious weeds. However, we are
fighting a losing battle. In fact, I recently noticed new colonies of
leafy spurge in areas that were completely free of this nonnative
noxious weed. Soon, our Weed Board will not be able to handle all the
demands for assistance. Without further economic assistance, our Weed
Board and County will not be able to cope with the assault upon the
county by weeds. The bottom line is that more funding and resources
must be devoted to battling noxious weeds.
Weeds are a major problem out West. They threaten the livelihood of
western communities, county infrastructure, the rural landscape and our
range resources. Action needs to be taken soon. I am pleased to finally
see a mechanism to assist localities in the battle against a ubiquitous
and persistent enemy. H.R. 1462 is that mechanism. I support this bill
and would like to see its passage. H.R. 1462 is a good start to help
our war against weeds. I do have some concerns, however, and also some
praise for the bill. I will also provide my recommendations on how we
can improve the bill.
First of all, I like the emphasis on local participation required
by this bill. Effective weed management cannot take place without the
input of local citizens. When you are fighting a weed problem you will
find that landowners and interested citizens will be more than willing
to do whatever can be done to defeat the invasion or control the
spread. Providing funds at the local level in order to battle weeds on
federal or private lands is much more efficient and effective than
anything federal agencies can perform. I am not saying that federal
agencies cannot perform the task, currently the BLM and USFS simply
lack the manpower, resources and budget to undertake the necessary
countermeasures against weeds.
Every year the BLM and USFS are appropriated funds specifically for
fighting weeds. For Fiscal Year 2002, the USFS plans to target 85,000
acres for noxious weed control while the BLM plans to treat 245,000
acres. I am sure that weed infestation on federal lands far exceeds the
number of acres these agencies plan to treat. In fact, the number of
acres these two agencies plan to treat are rather paltry considering
that the USFS manages approximately 192 million acres, an area larger
than the state of Texas. The BLM manages over 264 million acres, or
about one-eighth of the U.S. land mass. This means that the USFS is
only treating approximately one out of every 2,300 acres. For the BLM,
roughly one out of 1,100 acres will be treated. Numbers do not lie and
these figures speak volumes on the need for more resources and activity
in weed management by these two federal agencies.
In comparison, my home county, Malheur County, covers 9,926 square
miles. With one square mile equaling 640 acres, Malheur County consists
of 6,352,640 acres. The BLM's and USFS's planned treatment could not
come anywhere close to covering my county. There are 36 counties in
Oregon and the USFS and BLM could expend their entire planned treatment
acreage in Oregon and not even make a dent in the weed crisis. This
lack of focus on weed management on federal lands boggles the mind that
more effort has not been extended to address the weed problem. Again,
imagine this scenario repeated for every rural county across the West.
My county and the state of Oregon are not alone in this predicament.
Fortunately, the majority of rural counties have weed advisory
boards or weed management entities. Currently, most of these weed
management entities obtain funding directly from the state with some
funding coming from the county. Since my county has a weed management
entity that would be eligible for funding under this bill, I hope to
see this bill pass. Nonetheless, most counties' resources are limited
with most of the work being completed by individual landowners.
Moreover, most of these weed groups are not allowed to extend any
management effort to federal lands. In counties with high percentages
of federal lands, most of the management activity is restricted to
controlling weeds on rights-of-way. We need to extend these management
efforts onto federal lands in order to obtain results and to finally
gain some control of our country's weed problem. Only when we can
achieve cooperation and collaboration with the federal agencies, state
agencies and local weed control groups will we see results.
The above statistics and the necessity for more effort on federal
lands signify the importance and need for H.R. 1462. As good as this
bill is, I believe that the bill can be improved. For instance, the
bill limits the federal cost share of any financial award to 50
percent. I believe that when we are confronted with a severe invasion,
we must divert as many resources to the problem as possible. I would
like to see a provision that allows an increase to a maximum of 100% of
the federal share to meet the need. We must extend all available
resources if we really want to see success. Such a provision already
exists in the bill under Section 7(b) (C)(ii). Placing a similar
provision under the financial awards section can only improve this
bill.
I am also concerned with Section 7(d)(3)(B), titled ``Multiple
States.'' As I have stated previously, weeds know no boundaries and I
live near a state line. Does Section 7(d)(3)(B) mean that my weed
management group cannot treat weeds straddling the Oregon and Idaho
border? What about other citizens, ranchers or groups in the same
situation? Geographic location should not be a restriction to receiving
any funding in this bill. Many areas in the West are considerably
remote with the only access being from a neighboring state. Federal
agencies realize this and often one jurisdictional district extends
into another adjoining state in order to facilitate administration and
management. To facilitate weed control and improve the bill to achieve
the H.R. 1462's goals, Section 7(d)(3)(B) must be removed.
Perhaps my biggest concern with H.R. 1462 is the lack of National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) exclusion language. In my area, the BLM
is constantly under attack by radical obstructionists for undertaking
any management decision, irregardless of whether the decision will
actually benefit the environment, ecosystem, riparian area, habitat, or
endangered species. Radical obstructionists initiate these attacks and
seek to stop or at least hinder any action planned by the BLM. The
result is that problems or issues that require immediate action are
suspended or delayed leading to more environmental degradation,
increased cost and overall frustration. My problem here is not with
environmentalists per se, but with radical, obstruction-minded
environmentalists. Delays caused by radical obstructionists, while
proclaiming to save the environment, essentially destroy the very
environment we are trying to protect. A NEPA exclusion will demonstrate
to the world Congress's commitment to protect our natural resources
from weeds.
I have worked with many environmental groups and most are rational
and favor decisions and activities based on sound science devoid of
political maneuvering. In fact, this very bill has the support of The
Nature Conservancy (TNC). TNC has worked diligently with NCBA and PLC
staff to help bring this bill to fruition. I sincerely applaud TNC's
efforts on this bill. This type of combined effort between industry and
conservation groups is the kind of effort that can only bring positive
results.
In closing, NCBA and PLC support this bill. H.R. 1462 provides the
funding necessary to help wage the war against weeds on private, state,
and federal lands. The BLM and USFS do not have the capacity to
adequately address the weed problem. This bill directs funding where
resources are needed the most--at the local level and on the ground. We
need a collaborative and cooperative approach with more federal funding
directed to problems on the ground. We need this bill to stem the tide
of the harmful nonnative weed invasion. Otherwise, we will lose more
habitat to weeds. Unless we act soon, rangelands will continue to
disappear and continue to be inundated with weeds. Moreover, wildlife
will be forced to move off of public lands onto private lands resulting
in more human/wildlife conflicts.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to visit with you and
the House Resources Committee today. I look forward to further
discussion on weeds and weed management. We need to take action,
immediate and tough action to control the weed problem in order to
preserve our environment, wildlife habitat and our range resources. I
will be happy to answer any questions you or Members of the Committee
may have.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Skinner.
Dr. Randall?
STATEMENT OF JOHN RANDALL, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, WILDLAND INVASIVE
SPECIES PROGRAM, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Mr. Randall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee and staff. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
on behalf of H.R. 1462 today, and in particular, I am grateful
for the opportunity to bring more attention to the issue of
invasive species. I am Dr. John Randall. I represent the Nature
Conservancy. I lead our invasive species program. The
Conservancy is a private, nonprofit conservation organization.
We have 1.1 million individual members and over 1,900 corporate
sponsors. We have programs in all 50 States and in 27 other
countries. To date, we have protected more than 12 million
acres in the 50 States and we have worked with partner
organizations to protect tens of millions of acres in other
countries. We, ourselves, own over 1,300 preserves. That is the
largest private nature sanctuary system in the world.
I say all this by way of giving background on our group
because we are a little different than the others who are here,
and I want to make clear why we care as much as we do about the
issue. I want to make four points in my summary of the
testimony. The first one is that weed invasions are a severe
threat to native plants and animals and, as such, are a major
problem for the Nature Conservancy and other conservation
groups.
The second point is that we regard the suite of invaders,
plants and animals, as a problem, and would love to see
Congress take action to address them all, but we recognize that
often on complex issues, such as this, incremental progress is
the way forward.
The third point is that we have direct experience working
in and with cooperative weed management areas and other similar
entities across the country in various States, and we see them
as effective.
The fourth point is, finally, that we support this bill and
recommend it be funded with uncommitted funds. It can be most
effective only if the complementary Federal work in the Federal
land managing agencies continues and grows, in fact.
Now I would like to make some more detailed remarks. The
Conservancy determines how and where to do its work through a
fairly rigorous process of planning that helps us identify
where we should do our work. We then analyze the threats that
we face that are present to biological diversity at these
sites. We have recently done a summary of sites across the
country and, indeed, in other sites across the world and found
that the number one, the widest threat that we faced, was
invasive species. It was surprisingly not other threats that
come more commonly to mind.
Now, this is reflected in the information that in terms of
bio-diversity threats worldwide, it is now commonly regarded
that invasive species are the second greatest threat that is
present. We found at sites that they were the single most
widespread threat. This has brought the issue to the attention
of all of our higher level executives. This is a major problem
for us, and weeds are one aspect of that.
We recognize also that there are threats to economic
interests, including ranching and others, and that is why we
have been working together with the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association to support this bill, and with other partners, as
well. We often find that these economic interests are
dovetailed very well with our interest in protecting biological
diversity. Here, we clearly have a common problem that we can
work together on. Cooperative weed management areas and, again,
similar entities that would be funded under this bill in all
the States are an excellent way to go forward with this.
We would also like to point out that in the Senate
version--Senate 198, the companion bill to H.R. 1462, was
introduced, as you heard this morning by Senator Craig, but
also Senators Daschle, Conrad, Crapo, Smith, Burns, Johnson and
Dorgan--and since its introduction, has been cosponsored by
Senators Wyden, Akaka and Inouye. What we see there is a
beautiful representation of the bipartisan support for this
bill.
I want to discuss a little bit the weed management entities
that would be supported financially by this bill. They are not
a creation of this bill. As you heard before, they exist in
many States. California has more than 30 cooperative weed
management areas. There are cooperative weed management areas
or demonstration weed management areas in many or most of the
Western States. There are similar entities, often under
different names, in the East, as well. We are involved in them
in various states; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida. We see
that they work. They do good work. They bring people together.
They help them decide on their common interests and set
priorities. They deserve funding.
The bill also addresses the fact that some States may not
be as organized as others to fight weeds, and for this reason
incentive payments are made available to stimulate formation of
these entities. And, funds are explicitly made available for
Indian tribes in recognition of the large role they play in the
control of invasive weeds.
We would also like to make a point that has been previously
made by other witnesses, that local cooperation also crosses
State lines. We are involved ourselves in the Tristate
Demonstration Weed Management Area, which encompasses parts of
Idaho, Oregon and Washington. This is an excellent weed
management area. This illustrates beautifully why the
amendment, a change in language that would include multistate
weed management entities, would be valuable and helpful.
We would like to address the questions that have been asked
about the fact that the bill bars payments for projects related
to submerged and floating aquatic noxious weeds. As I had
mentioned earlier, our concern is with all invaders that are
harmful to biological diversity, and we would love to see
Congress enact legislation that effectively addresses all
aquatic weeds and animal pests, but we do believe that progress
on an issue like this is complex and can be achieved best
incrementally. We also understand that under the Aquatics Act,
which we hope to see amended or reauthorized in the next year
or the year after, that some of these species will be
addressed. We would like to point out that wetland species,
such as Purple Loose Strife, are explicitly covered under this
bill.
Finally, I would like to speak to the amount of funding.
There is no existing independent Federal account to address the
issues presented by non-native, harmful weeds across private
and public lands. There is a great case to be made for enhanced
Federal involvement here. In connection with preparing this
testimony, we went to various States, to do a survey of their
needs. We were only able to reach, I believe, 12 States, and
they reported an unmet need for funding for these entities in
excess of $219 million. Divided by 12, that equals about,
$18.25 million per state. Multiply back out by 50 and we get
something over $900 million. That is what we believe to be a
very conservative estimate. In light of this, we would like to
see Congress authorize an expenditure of up to $300 million for
H.R. 1462. That ends my prepared testimony and I would be glad
to answer questions as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Randall follows:]
Statement of John M. Randall, Ph. D., Wildland Invasive Species Program
Director, The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this testimony for the record on H.R. 1462, the
Harmful Nonnative Weed Control Act of 2001. In particular, I would like
to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing which is bringing needed
attention to the importance of the noxious weeds issue and the vital
role that H.R. 1462 may play in abating this pernicious threat to both
our heritage of native species and natural communities and the economic
livelihood of our nation's farmers, ranchers, and foresters.
The Nature Conservancy is dedicated to preserving the plants,
animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on
Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The
Conservancy has more than 1.1 million individual members and over 1,900
corporate sponsors. We currently have programs in all 50 states and in
27 nations. To date our organization has protected more than 12 million
acres in the 50 states and abroad, and has helped local partner
organizations preserve millions of acres in other nations. The
Conservancy itself owns more than 1,340 preserves--the largest private
system of nature sanctuaries in the world. Our conservation work is
grounded on sound science, strong partnerships with other landowners,
and tangible results at local places.
The Conservancy determines where and how to do its work through a
planning process that identifies areas in the country containing the
most viable and important examples of plant and animal communities.
This process further identifies the principal threats to the integrity
of the sites such as land conversion, non-point source runoff, or
repression of natural fire regimes. An overwhelming 94% of our sites
have identified invasive species as the most significant threat to the
integrity of biodiversity. The next most important threat, development
of roads or utilities, was identified by 62% of reporting sites.
HARMFUL NON-NATIVE WEED PROBLEM
Non-native weeds cause severe economic and environmental losses.
Generally, non-native weeds damage ranch, farming, and natural lands by
out-competing and replacing indigenous vegetation. Loss of this
vegetation can transform the physical characteristics of the affected
landscape as well as eliminate the animal species that depend on the
native vegetation. Invasive plants and animals are now widely
recognized as second only to habitat loss as threat to biological
diversity. Unlike pollution, invasive organisms continue to spread on
their own and do not degrade with time. Once introduced, invasive weeds
can spread from site to site, region to region, without further human
assistance. Rare species appear to be particularly vulnerable to the
changes wrought by non-native invaders, but even relatively common
plants or animals can be driven to near extinction by particularly
disruptive invaders.
Conservative estimates are that non-native harmful weeds exact a
price of hundreds of millions of dollars each year in losses and
control costs to the nation's farmers and ranchers. In particular, the
Federal Interagency Weed Committee attributed a $20 billion annual loss
in the productivity of our nation's agricultural sector to damages
caused by noxious weeds. The Idaho Department of Agriculture has
estimated the cost of noxious weed damage on all Idaho lands to be $300
million annually. A study of the damage caused by leafy spurge in
Montana, Wyoming, and North and South Dakota showed a reduction of $129
million annually to the regional economy and to ranchers' net income.
Although we are not aware of any study documenting this issue, losses
of this magnitude logically translate to higher costs for consumers for
agricultural products.
Non-native harmful weeds also cause severe damage to America's
public and private natural areas and wildlands. These are lands set
aside for the stated purpose of protecting our natural heritage of
plants, animals, and biological communities. Just as farms and ranches
are managed for a specific crop or valuable forage, natural areas are
managed for certain plants, animals, and other organisms. Weeds prevent
achievement of these goals, and ruin the values for which these lands
have been dedicated.
H.R. 1462: THE HARMFUL NONNATIVE WEED CONTROL ACT OF 2001
Organizations and people who have an interest in land, whether an
economic interest and/or an interest in natural values, recognize the
seriousness of the threat posed by invasive weeds and are eager to take
effective action to fight weeds. For this reason, the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association and The Nature Conservancy are natural
partners in this fight. Together with a number of Senate and House
offices and our partners, we have worked to create the Harmful
Nonnative Weed Control Act of 2001. Members of Congress from both
parties understand the practical nature of the need to take immediate,
effective action. In the Senate, S. 198, the companion bill to H.R.
1462, was introduced by Senators Craig, Daschle, Conrad, Crapo, Smith,
Burns, Johnson, and Dorgan. Since its introduction, it has been co-
sponsored by Senators Wyden, Akaka, and Inouye.
H.R. 1462 employs the right approach to fighting weeds. It promotes
cooperation and control by local public and private stakeholders; it
makes funds available to public and private entities; it seeks to
stimulate the creation of additional cooperative efforts; and, it funds
all activities related to the management of weeds.
1. Weed Management Entities
Harmful weeds pay no heed to property lines and can only be
controlled when neighbors work together. For this reason, The Nature
Conservancy strongly believes the structural heart of H.R. 1462 is the
weed management entities. These entities consist of local public and
private landowners who voluntarily come together to fight weeds
affecting all their lands. Only these entities are eligible to receive
funding under the program. It is anticipated that federal land managing
agencies will participate on the entities as good neighbors working to
fight a common scourge. All stakeholders participating in an entity
will come to agreement about a proposal to submit to a state government
for approval. The proposals will address harmful weeds on either
private or public land, or some combination of the two. States will
then submit packages of approved proposals to the Department of
Interior which will make broad allocations of available funds to the
states based on criteria set forth in the statute. Depending on the
availability of funds, all projects approved by states may not be
funded under the allocation made by the Department.
Weed management entities are not a creation of this bill. They have
a demonstrated track record of success in leveraging cooperation on the
ground. California has more than 30 such entities. Other states with
entities include Arizona, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming,
Colorado, Florida, Utah, Delaware, and Pennsylvania among others.
Cooperative efforts to fight weeds take place in Massachusetts, New
York, Illinois, and other states. Descriptions of the activities of
five of these entities are attached to this statement as Appendix A.
H.R. 1462 builds on what is already successful. It does not seek to
impose a different order on those engaged in the states in fighting
weeds.
The bill addresses the fact that some states may not be as
organized as others to fight weeds. For this reason, incentive payments
are made available to stimulate the formation of entities.
Additionally, funds are explicitly made available for Indian tribes in
recognition of the large land areas they control and the important role
tribes play in the fight.
A final point about local cooperation is that it also occurs across
state lines. For example, the Tri-State Demonstration Weed Management
Area is composed of local stakeholders from Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington who have banded together to fight weeds in Hells Canyon. The
Senate version of H.R. 1462 recognized multi-state weed management
entities and authorized funding for them. H.R. 1462 does not include
this provision. The Conservancy urges the Committee to include
recognition of multi-state weed management entities in its bill out of
deference to the judgment of people leading the fight on the ground.
2. Funding
A. Scope of Funded Activities
The Harmful Nonnative Weed Control Act provides funding for
education, inventories and mapping, management, and monitoring related
to the control or eradication of weeds. The Senate bill also provides
funding for innovative practices and we urge this Committee to include
a similar provision in its bill. More work needs to be done by experts
to determine the most effective methods for controlling weeds, and this
bill should support these efforts. Additionally, it would be helpful
for the bill to explicitly authorize payment for restoration of
vegetation on land damaged by weeds since proper restoration is one of
the more important steps that can be taken to suppress future
infestations.
The bill bars payments for projects related to submerged or
floating aquatic noxious weeds or animal pests. As indicated above,
invasive species are an issue of the highest concern to The Nature
Conservancy. We want Congress to enact legislation that effectively
addresses all invasives, including aquatic weeds and animal pests. We
also believe that progress on complex issues often occurs
incrementally. This is the first major piece of legislation to emerge
since the issue of invasives received a boost in attention with the
issuance of the Executive Order in February, 1999. We urge Congress to
seize this opportunity to take effective action against a problem
ruining the economic and natural value of our lands. Aquatic weeds and
animal pests will be addressed during reauthorization of the National
Invasive Species Act in the next session of Congress. The Nature
Conservancy anticipates being fully engaged and supportive of efforts
to strengthen that legislation when its time arrives for attention from
this body.
B. Amount of Funding
There is no existing independent federal account to address the
issues presented by non-native harmful weeds across private and public
lands. The case for an enhanced federal role in providing funding is
that existing sources of funds do not come close to addressing the need
for management of noxious weeds on public and private lands and across
state borders.
In connection with preparing this testimony, the Conservancy
attempted to conduct a survey of states to determine what their funding
needs are to fight weeds. The collected information presents at least a
ballpark estimate of the kind of funding twelve states have determined
their agencies are capable of using to fight weeds. The information
does not address the larger question of how much funding is needed to
address the underlying resource issue. In conducting this survey, we
also learned that many states have made slow progress in determining
the scope and cost of weed infestation and damages in their states.
The twelve surveyed states reported an unmet need for funding in
excess of $219 million annually. 1 This works out to be an
average of $18.25 million per state. Multiplying this figure by 50
states yields a total of $912.5 million. We recognize that the need for
funding may not be distributed equally across all the states, and so
each state may not need $18.25 million to address noxious weeds. On the
other hand, the $219 million figure is based on very incomplete
information about the degree of infestation in the responding states,
and so the required national figure is very likely considerably higher
than $912.5 million. Furthermore, we know this figure does not address
what the actual resource need may be, or what the need is for funding
on federal lands. In short, the $912.5 million estimate of national
need is very likely a conservative guess; but it is a guess with some
basis in fact. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The reporting states and the amount they reported are as
follows: California, $5 million; Hawaii, $16.3 million; Idaho, $39.7
million; Kansas, $19 million; Montana, $38.3 million; New Mexico, $4.5
million; Nevada, $1.8 million; Oregon, $12.4 million; South Dakota,
$24.7 million; Tennessee, $22.7 million; Washington, $24.6 million; and
Wyoming, $10 million. Additional background information on many of
these states is set forth in Appendix B.
\2\ The Conservancy was not able to systematically collect
information about the independent federal need for weed funding. The
information for Montana, South Dakota, and Washington includes amounts
needed to address weed needs on public lands in those states. See
Appendix B. We understand that the refuge system in the Fish and
Wildlife Service has a backlog of 300 projects requiring funding of
approximately $120 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of this information, the Nature Conservancy asks Congress
to authorize the expenditure of $300 million through the Harmful
Nonnative Weed Control Act. An authorization of this amount
acknowledges the scope and severity of the problem posed by harmful
nonnative weeds as a matter of policy, even though the amount is still
far short of what is needed in the country. Should the time come to
appropriate funds for the legislation, we understand the Appropriations
Committee may make an amount smaller than $300 million available for
the bill.
Appropriations for the bill should not be drawn from existing
accounts, but rather should be drawn from uncommitted funds. Federal
land managers need secure sources of funding for managing weeds on
their own land. Appropriations for this legislation will be available
for those situations in which weeds on federal land also adversely
affects neighboring private land, when a weed management entity decides
to submit a proposal involving exclusively federal land, and of course
situations in which no federal land is involved.
Again, The Nature Conservancy thanks the Committee for holding this
hearing and bringing needed attention to this important problem. We
urge this Committee to report H.R. 1462 to the floor of the House with
the minor amendments and authorization level we have identified today.
We would be pleased to answer any questions you have about our
testimony.
APPENDIX A
WEED MANAGEMENT AREAS
The Tri-State Demonstration Weed Management Area, ID/OR/WA
The Tri-State Weed Management Area (DWMA) includes roughly 250,000
acres in the Hells Canyon Area of Idaho, Oregon and Washington, with
most of the acreage in Idaho. Within the DWMA area there is a mix of
state lands, BLM lands, and National Forest lands with some private
lands. Grasslands and sagebrush steppe are the predominant vegetation,
with some mixed coniferous forest at higher elevations. The terrain is
steep, rugged and inaccessible. The Snake River runs through the middle
of the DWMA. The Tri-State DWMA got its start as an initiative of the
Bureau of Land Management, but now includes 16 other federal and state
land management agencies, county weed programs, private landowners,
non-profit organizations and the Nez Perce Tribe.
Treatment of some weed infestations has produced results. For
example, the group has successfully treated every known occurrence of
rush skeletonweed, contained spotted knapweed, and contained leafy
spurge with two of five spurge sites remaining. Additional needs of the
DWMA include hiring additional seasonal workers to inventory and treat
additional acreage, release bio-control agents in critical areas,
engage more private landowners. There is also a need to greatly
increase the supply of native seed for restoration.
Red Rock Watershed Weed Project, Centennial Valley, MT
Centennial Valley is a remote area in southwest Montana that
provides habitat for more than 230 bird species (including trumpeter
swan, sandhill cranes, and peregrine falcons), mammals such as
pronghorn, badgers, wolverines, bears, and wolves, and native fish such
as arctic grayling and westslope cutthroat trout. Small populations of
invasives occur in the Valley, and large populations of weeds occur
nearby. The high quality of Centennial Valley habitat is clearly
threatened.
In 1999, a coalition of landowners and groups including
representatives from The Nature Conservancy, Beaverhead County, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners for Fish and Wildlife program,
the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the Bureau of Land
Management, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, the Montana Audubon
Society, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation formed the Red Rock
Watershed Weed Project (RRWWP). The RRWWP is a joint effort to help
private landowners of the lower Centennial Valley deal with noxious
weed control. Twenty-five of the thirty-four landowners within the
400,000 acre project area, controlling 88% of the land, have agreed to
participate in the program. Educational brochures and workshops have
been made available. At least 2500 acres of weeds have been sprayed. An
increasing amount of the project area has been mapped, and weed
inventories are being made. The RRWWP is far from finished in its work,
and sustained vigilance will be required to protect the Valley.
North Fork Cache la Poudre Watershed Cooperative Integrated Weed
Management Area, CO
The North Fork of the Cache la Poudre is rich in biological and
cultural diversity but is under grave threat from a suite of weeds
including leafy spurge, Russian and Spotted knapweed, Dalmatian
toadflax, yellow toadflax, Canada thistle, and cheat grass. In 1998, a
cooperative weed management area was formed by area landowners and it
now includes: Phantom Canyon Ranches Landowners Association (PCR LOA),
Colorado Division of Wildlife, North Poudre Irrigation Company, Glade
Ranch, Colorado State University's Maxwell Ranch, Colorado Lien (mining
company), The Nature Conservancy, Abbey of St. Walburga, U.S. Forest
Service, Colorado State Forest Service and several other private
landowners including both ranches and ranchettes. This group owns or
manages approximately 40,000 acres. All other landowners within the
watershed have been invited to participate. Other partners include
Western Governors' Association, State Weed Coordinator (Dept. of
Agriculture), Colorado State University Departments of Fishery and
Wildlife Biology, Recreation, Natural Resources and Tourism, Sociology,
Integrated Pest Management, and the Society For Conservation Biology
student chapter at Colorado State University. Western Governors'
Association adopted this project as a possible ``pilot'' community-
driven initiative focusing on managing alien species cooperatively.
Digital mapping has already been carried out for part of the
project area illustrating the extent of the problem, and helping to set
management priorities. Selective spraying and mowing of priority
patches and roadsides on PCR LOA lands has begun to reduce the spread
of weeds along these corridors. Biological control insects were
released on leafy spurge patches on PCR LOA land. Some cooperating
ranchers have changed grazing patterns to intensely graze weedy patches
and reduce seed production. Prescribed fire is being used to reduce
density of cheat grass on Conservancy lands. Restoration efforts have
also begun with several landowners collecting and planting native seed
into treatment areas. The Conservancy conducted 65 volunteer weed
management and restoration workdays.
Critical next steps and resources needed to move this project
forward include project-wide mapping of weed populations; setting
priorities and strategies through integrated management plans; training
in plant identification, best management practices, and safe use of
herbicides and equipment; applying integrated methods including
cutting, pulling, spraying, grazing, biocontrol releases, and burning;
and producing a newsletter to help disseminate information to
landowners. Many of the weed species are not yet widespread, and can be
contained and with an intensive 3-year effort.
Berkshire Taconic Landscape, CT/MA/NY
The Berkshire Taconic Landscape is a 36,000 acre area of the
Berkshire Taconic range in western Massachusetts and adjacent
Connecticut and New York. Most of the land in the area is forested and
owned by private landowners, or the state with some small TNC holdings.
Mapping indicated that the core 16,000 of the area has few invasive
weeds now but that weeds have begun to penetrate the area. To combat
this, TNC and area landowners combined to produce a cooperative project
(Weed It Now) for expanding the uninvaded core to 24,000 acres.
The Florida Keys Invasive Exotics Task Force (Task Force) was
organized in early 1996 to address invasive exotic plants in the
Florida Keys. These biological pollutants beset the Keys' subtropical
ecosystem and the flora and fauna supported by it. The Task Force is
composed of biologists, planners and natural resource managers from 25
local, state and federal agencies, non-profits and public utilities
(see list below). Goals of the Task Force include documentation of weed
populations, prioritization and control of infestations, and public
education and promotion of interagency cooperation. Members also put
their muscles where their mouths are while toiling together on invasive
exotic plant control workdays.
Region-wide identification and mapping of invasive exotic plant
populations enabled the group to prioritize control projects. An
educational brochure, the ``Keys' Invasive Exotic Removal Guide,'' was
produced and distributed to thousands of interested property owners.
And a highly visible exotic removal and native species restoration
demonstration project was carried out to prove the efficiency of the
interagency cooperative approach on a 50 acre island. Since 1997 the
West Summerland Key Demonstration Project has involved 780 volunteers
including Boy and Girl Scouts, AmeriCorps members, Alternative Spring
Breakers and local residents. As the project nears completion, the
island is 99% exotics free and native plants are being restored to
their rightful place.
The GreenSweep initiative will also strive to address the ``missing
link'' in exotics control efforts up to this point, the private
residential landscape. By teaming up with the Monroe County Cooperative
Extension Service and its highly successful Florida Yards and
Neighborhoods Program (FYN), The Nature Conservancy and other Task
Force members will step up public education and outreach.
Task Force members are confident that the group's comprehensive
interagency approach and sheer determination, will result in an early
and lasting victory in the war on invasive exotic plants in the Keys.
It is estimated that an annual budget of $400,000 would enable the Task
Force to reach a maintenance level of control in the Keys by the year
2010. After this time the cost of maintaining control would be
significantly reduced.
Florida Keys Invasive Exotics Task Force Members
Private:
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, Clean Florida Keys, Inc, Florida
Keys Environmental Restoration Trust Fund, Key Deer Protection
Alliance, The Nature Conservancy, City Electric System, Florida Keys
Electric Cooperative, and Friends and Volunteers of Refuges.
ocal governments:
City of Key West, Village of Islamorada, Monroe County Division of
Environmental Resources, Monroe County Cooperative Extension Service,
Monroe County Grants Department, Monroe County Public Works, and,
Monroe County Land Authority;
State of Florida:
Division of Parks and Recreation, Bureau of Invasive Plant
Management, Division of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas,
Environmental Resources Permitting Office, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Florida Department of Transportation, Florida
Department of Community Affairs, and, South Florida Water Management
District.
Federal Government:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Navy.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.009
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Carroll?
STATEMENT OF MIKE CARROLL, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN
WEED MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Mr. Carroll. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
members, it is indeed an honor to come before you and offer
testimony on behalf of H.R. 1462. My name is Mike Carroll. I am
the vice president of the North American Weed Management
Association, and we are a professional organization that is
dedicated to the control, management, and eradication of
noxious, invasive plant species in the North American
hemisphere. We are comprised of over 300 dedicated weed
management professionals from the United States, Canada and
Mexico. Our membership ranges from people on the local level,
who are on the front lines of this battle, to research
scientists and government administration.
Many of our members are located in counties throughout our
great country, where the Federal Government owns 50 percent or
more of the land. Typically, our membership receives their
funding to address noxious and harmful vegetation from their
county tax rolls. Currently, in counties where the Federal
Government is the majority landowner, there exists a gross
inequity in funding for this concern. Citizens are taxed for
the control of noxious and harmful vegetation levied on private
land, while no funding or very little is available for Federal
lands.
I would like to share with you today how House Resolution
1462 would benefit members of the North American Weed
Management Association in their efforts to provide protection
from this nemesis for the citizens of this country. House
Resolution 1462 would create the very distinct possibility of
noxious plant eradication within 10-to-15 years in Rocky
Mountain National Park. Jeff Connors of the National Park
Service states, ``That is the goal of our exotic plant
management team, to eradicate 10 of the 32 species within 3
years, to control an additional eight species, with the longer-
term goal of eradication in 5 years and to contain the
remaining 14 spaces to isolated areas of the park, with the
long-term goal of eradication in 10-to-15 years.''
This proposal has been approved and, if funded, 1462 would
help. Rocky Mountain National Park would be one of the few
large National Parks in the lower 48 States that would be
relatively free of invasive exotic plants. Tim Deitzler,
agricultural field man from Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and
president of the North American Weed Management Association,
informs us, ``The establishment of such a program would have a
positive impact, even outside the borders of the U.S.'' An
example is the Spotted Knapweed problem in Glacier Waterton
National Park, along the Montana-Alberta border. Knapweed is a
restricted week under Alberta's Weed Control Act, meaning the
few infestations that occur in Alberta--and when it is found,
all infestations must be eradicated, not just controlled.
From our membership in the State of Utah, Craig Ceril
states, ``Utah is a State that is nearly 70-percent public
lands. Most of these lands are threatened by exotic and
invasive plant species. Currently, counties provide the
majority of the funding for invasive plant control, with some
landowners and agencies providing limited support. Getting
landowner participation can be difficult when the nearby public
lands receive little or no attention because of limited Federal
funding. The additional funding that would be provided through
this legislation could be used to organize weed management
areas that would include both public and private lands.''
Boundaries could be eliminated and the invasive plant
problem could be addressed throughout the weed management area.
This would be a winning situation for everyone involved. Larry
Walker, president of the Colorado Weed Management Association,
also supports House Resolution 1462, ``It will offer a way to
shore up the lines between Federal lands and private lands and
will allow private landowners that have weeds moving off
government land to get help in managing those areas.''
Eric Lane, member of the Colorado State Department of
Agriculture, State Weed Coordinator, ``Like many other States,
Colorado and its citizens are engaged to fight and stop the
spread of harmful, non-native weeds and reduce the significant
impact these species inflict upon agriculture, environment,
State and local economies, recreation and public health. In
Colorado, these impacts easily exceed $100 million annually to
agriculture alone.''
From Miami, Adrian Peterson informs us, ``Sublet County,
Wyoming is probably one of the cleanest counties of invasive
weed species in the western United States. Eradication of
noxious, invasive plant species is practiced and realized in
Sublet County. Some of our major successes have been on public
lands. This eradication effort is extremely expensive. The fact
that public land comprises 75 percent of Sublet County means
the programs are funded by only 25 percent of the landowners.
This additional resource would enable us to respond rapidly and
more effectively to newly-discovered infestations.''
The North American Weed Management Association Board of
Directors and members support House Resolution 1462. We would
like to see a change to the bill where a member of the North
American Weed Management Association be appointed to the
advisory board, so you could truly get the on-the-ground level
of comments and concern that we could provide to this effort.
That is pretty much it. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carroll follows:]
Statement of Michael Carroll, Vice President, North American Weed
Management Association
The North American Weed Management Association is a professional
organization dedicated to the control; management, and eradication of
noxious invasive plant species in the North American Hemisphere. We are
comprised of over three hundred dedicated weed management professionals
from the United States, Canada, and Mexico Our membership ranges from
people on the local level who are on the front lines of this battle to
research scientists and government administration.
Many of our members are located in counties throughout our great
country Where the federal government owns fifty percent or more of the
land. Typically our membership receives their funding to address
noxious arid harmful vegetation from their county tax roles. Currently,
in counties where the federal government is the majority landowner,
there exists a gross inequity in funding for this concern. Citizens are
taxed for the control of noxious and harmful vegetation levied on
private land while no funding or very little is available for federal
lands. These same citizens, the owners of these federal lands, are
taxed by the federal government for the maintenance and upkeep of these
lands, but federal funding for harmful and noxious weed control
remains, sadly, ignored for the most part.
I would like to share with you how H.R. 1462 would benefit members
of the North American Weed Management Association in their efforts to
provide protection froze this nemesis for the citizens of this great
country.
H.R. 1462 would create the very distinct possibility of noxious
plant eradication within 10 to 15 years in Rocky Mountain National
Park. Jeff Connors of the National Park Service states, ``That it is
the goal of our Exotic Plant Management Plan to eradicate 10 of the 32
species within three years, to control an additional 8 species with the
longer term goal of eradication within five years and to contain the
remaining 14 species to isolated areas of the park with a long-term
goal of eradication within 10 to 15 years. This proposal has been
approved and if funded, Rocky Mountain National Park would be one of
the few large national parks in the lower 48 states that will be
relatively free of invasive exotic plants.
Tim Dietzler, Agricultural Fieldman from Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
and President of North American Weed Management Association, informs
us, ``'The establishment of such a program would have a positive impact
even outside the borders of the US. An example is the spotted knapweed
problem a in Glacier/Waterton National park along the Montana/Alberta
border. Knapweed is a restricted weed under Alberta's Weed Control Act,
meaning few infestations occur in Alberta anal when it is found, all
infestations must be eradicated (not just controlled). An active weed.
management program. in this geographic location would help prevent the
spread into ecologically sensitive areas here in Alberta. Secondly, any
program undertaken in the U.S. to slow the spread of harmful invasive,
non-native weeds have repercussions in Canada. Creation of the National
Invasive Species Council has attracted an attention in Canada, and has
helped move public opinion (and agencies dealing with invasive plant
species) to recognize the ecological importance of this issue. I
applaud consideration of consideration of H.R. 1462.
From our membership in the state of Utah, Craig Searle states,
``Utah is a state that is nearly 70% public lands. Most of these lands
are threatened by exotic invasive plant species. Currently the counties
provide the majority of the funding for invasive plant control with
some landowners and agencies providing limited support. Getting
landowner participation can be difficult when the near by public lands
receive little or no attention because of limited federal funding. The
additional ;funding that would be provided through this legislation
could be used to organize weed management areas that would include both
public and private lands, boundaries could be eliminated and the
invasive plant problem could be addressed throughout the weed
management area. This would be a winning situation for everyone
involved. One such WMA, exists here in Utah, the Squarrose Knapweed
Management .Area. This project covers portions of 4 counties and
includes private, state, and federal lands. The partnerships that have
been developed have proven to be very effective in controlling invasive
plants. The most important thing is to find a way to get the funding to
the local level where the work is done.
Larry Walker, the President of the Colorado Weed Management
Association states, H.R. 1462 will offer a way to shore up the lines
between Federal lands and private lands. It will allow private
landowners that have weeds moving off government land to get help
managing those areas. Our county is about 73% public land, so this
could be an important tool in helping local concerns manage weed
problems. Since Federal lands are woefully under funded for noxious
plant management this will assist the local land managers attack
invasives moving in their direction.
Eric Lane, NAWMA member and Colorado State Department of
Agriculture State Weed Coordinator states, ``Like many other states,
Colorado and its citizens are engaged in a fight to stop the spread of
harmful, nonnative weeds and reduce the significant negative impacts
these species inflict upon agriculture, the environment, state and
local economies, recreation, and public health. In Colorado, these
impacts easily exceed $100 million annually to agriculture alone.
While our citizens are committed to being good stewards of our
public and private lands, the cost of developing and implementing
effective weed management strategies is not small.. In fact, research
suggests that the cost of managing harmful nonnative weeds is on par
with the cost of annual wildfire fighting efforts. However, the nation
invests comparatively little to assist its citizens and local
governments in the war on weeds. H.R. 1462 will help to address this
inequity by providing for a nationwide competitive grant-making program
to support cooperative weed management efforts and leverage additional
funds tom a variety of public and private sources to enhance such
efforts. Colorado and several other western states including California
and Montana have already initiated similar, albeit very limited,
funding programs which have helped local communities to launch
effective weed management efforts but have not been able to meet the
demand and need demonstrated throughout these states. I believe that
additional funding made available through H.R. 1462 would help to
better meet the need expressed by our communities as well as
communities throughout the nation.
From Wyoming, Adrianne Peterson informs us, ``Sublette County,
Wyoming is probably one of the cleanest counties in the western United
States. Eradication of noxious invasive plant species is practiced and
realized in Sublette County. Some of our major successes have been on
public lands. This eradication effort is extremely expensive. The fact
that public land comprises seventy five percent of Sublette County
means programs are funded by only twenty five percent of the
landowners. This additional resource would enable us to respond rapidly
and more effectively to newly discovered infestations. Hopefully this
would strengthen the relationship between producers and public land
managers.
The North American Weed Management Board of Directors and members
feel that H.R. 1462 would equalize funding opportunities between highly
populated areas and remotely urban areas, which are both under siege.
Each is unique in the obstacles they face to commence dais effort, but
lack of funding is the common denominator that restricts active
environmentalists such as our members and other state, local and
private interests and keeps these efforts grounded.
Infestations of noxious and harmful vegetation have had a long time
to become established throughout our country. One of the major forces
we need to enlist in our struggle to conquer this scourge is the talent
and dedication of our fixture generations. We can only accomplish this
by education. H.R. 1462 will enable this to become a major component
in. this battle. It Will. complement and enhance programs already in
existence and facilitate the creation of new education programs- Such
programs currently inn existence are woefully under funded currently.
Our members throughout the country, working with limited resources,
have some excellent programs. One such program in Nebraska teaches
children the dangers of noxious and harmful vegetation by utilizing
global positioning techniques performed by these students to map and
inventory invasive plant populations. Wyoming is involved in this
education effort by teaching materials supplied to elementary
classrooms. There are many other education programs worth mentioning,
but for a lack of funding, most will never realize their full
potential.
There are chore invasive plant infestations than all the members of
congress and vegetation management professionals will be able to battle
alone. This bill will enable these professionals the ability to
assemble a wide variety of very concerned citizens, especially private
landowners to turn the tide of this effort frown local skirmishes to
full-fledged battle of these invaders.
H.R. 1462 will help states and local authorities facilitate the
implementation of the North American Weed Management Associations Weed
Free Forage Standards. Perhaps the single most important program to
date to stop the spread and transport of the seeds of these invaders.
This resolution will put this great country on par with other
countries such as Australia, by providing the means for halting the
spread of these invasives , treatment of infestations that for too long
have been ignored, of which many, perhaps the majority are on public
land. The citizen owners of this land, desperately need this
opportunity.
While current efforts to manage known infestation of invasives
would benefit, it is the newly discovered infestations that H.R. 1462
would benefit greatest. This funding would make possible the
realization of the Early Detection and Rapid Response program currently
being designed by the Federal Interagency for the Control and
Management of Noxious and Exotic weeds committee.
As I've traveled often to our nations Capital, I've had the
opportunity to see the administration of various federal agencies
recognition of this plague increase. I've seen the efforts and have
been quoted the numbers of funding dollars committed for this cause.
Dollars, that by the hard work of these dedicated professionals, have
increased. Awareness of this issue in Washington, is at an all time
high.
When I travel back home and deal with the local and regional
offices of these agencies, they are unaware of these increases in
funding. Our membership in Idaho confirms this concerning the Crater
Moon and City of Rocks National monuments, where efforts to partner
with these agencies to control noxious vegetation have faded for lack
of funding available to these federal interests. Typically these movies
are lumped into conservation programs and may or may not be utilized in
this effort. These dedicated professionals have long been aware of the
dangers posed by these invaders, and have been some of the strongest
allies in the effort to stem this tide, but have been hamstrung by the
lack of definitive funding. H.R. 1462 will allow these federal agencies
to commit and form partnerships, with definitive, targeted dollars.
The threat of invasive plants to the United States of America has
truly been the number one environmental pollution threat of the 20th
century and will continue to be throughout the 21st century.
In it's current state, the effort to combat this problem, which is
often referred to as wildfire in slow motion, is analogues to that
extremely dangerous period in this country's history immediately
preceding our great nations invasion of Normandy on D-Day in World War
Il.
The resistance fighters are in place and have been exerting great
effort with very limited resources, trying to hold these invaders at
bay. They are extremely skilled professionals who are creative in
stretching their resources to the limit, prioritizing the battles that
can be won with these limited resources. They fight this relentless
fight with one eye trained to the shore, hoping to see their Allies
landing on the beach with the desperately needed resources to achieve
victory.
This battle will be won in tinge, with the passage of H.R. 1462 and
similar bills. If passage of this resolution fails, the fight will
continue. When the citizen owners of our public lands can visually see
that these invaders have conquered an ecosystem, as is the case in the
State of Hawaii, where only two percent of the native plant population
remains, they will again come before you and ask why our government did
not. act. In this war, an ounce of prevention, truly is, worth a pound
of cure.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Dr. Riley?
STATEMENT OF TERRY RILEY, Ph.D., DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION,
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
Mr. Riley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting
the Wildlife Management Institute to speak today on this
extremely important issue. The Wildlife Management Institute
was formed in 1911, and we are staffed by scientists and
managers that have extensive experience in wildlife and natural
resource management on Federal and private land. Our main goal
is the conservation, management, and the wise use of wildlife
and other natural resources in North America. We are concerned
about the effects of noxious and invasive, non-native weeds on
wildlife habitat throughout the entire country, not just the
East or the West or aquatic species or upland species. This is
an extremely important issue to WMI and to the wildlife species
we are concerned about.
There are estimates that some people have put forth that
say that noxious weeds are spreading at a rate of about 5,000-
to-10,000 acres a day in this country. That is having a
devastating effect on ranchers and farmers and Federal land
managers and State land managers, and counties. It is
everywhere and it is happening very, very quickly. As has been
said by previous witnesses, if we do not do something now, the
explosion will be shortly upon us. In fact, invasive plant
species impact many different wildlife, particularly those that
nest and breed on the ground. Many grassland birds are losing
important habitats, because the habitat in places where they
hide their nests and rear their young and feed and sleep at
night are all being devastated by these invasive species.
Long-term funding is needed. This cannot be addressed in a
1-year, big-shot-of-money, with hope that the problem will go
away. It is not going to go away. The problem is here to stay.
At best, we may be able to, at some point of time in the
future, get it to the point where we can stop most of the
spreading, if we put enough resources to it now. That is going
to require a coordinated effort by all participants, all
stakeholders, county weed boards, State wildlife agencies,
State Departments of Agriculture, the Federal Land Management
Agencies, and every individual out there that is impacted by
these invasive species.
We recommend, also, that whatever plan or program is
developed and supported by any legislation that is developed,
that it take a watershed approach. My experience with
controlling noxious weeds on national forests, as a certified
applicator of pesticides in South Dakota, particularly,
required us to start at the top of a watershed and work down.
If you do not do that, you end up with the weeds moving all
around on you, and it takes an organized approach to actually
attack this problem, and you cannot just hope to throw it out
all over the landscape, and the control is going to land in the
right places.
Federal Land Management Agency funding is a very big
concern for us with respect to noxious weeds and invasive
weeds. We consistently request more funding and a more-
coordinated approach to controlling noxious weeds on Federal
land, and I think you have heard from previous witnesses that
we really have a serious problem here, and the Federal agencies
have to be an active participant in whatever plan and program
is developed from this or other pieces of legislation involving
invasive weeds.
We are concerned about coordination, particularly between
Department of Agriculture and Department of Interior. Both
departments have their own programs, but there are times they
do not coordinate very well. We hope anything that comes out of
H.R. 1462 does not somehow pull away existing funding that is
out there right now for invasive species, but that it also
tries to bond those two agencies, those two departments,
together, and all their various agencies, so they can work and
do coordinated projects.
We are also concerned that H.R. 1462 may compete with other
existing programs that are working very, very well out there
right now. Dr. Tate mentioned in his testimony the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Pulling Together initiative.
This program is doing exactly what the legislation would
propose, and it is doing it very effectively. Pulling together
partners from local communities, from State and Federal
agencies and county weed boards, and a variety of other
entities, and we hope H.R. 1462 would not detract from all the
effort, of pulling together and all the Federal dollars from
six different agencies that are leveraged for this program.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Riley follows:]
Statement of Dr. Terry Z. Riley, Director of Conservation, Wildlife
Management Institute
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, I am Terry Z. Riley, Director of Conservation for the
Wildlife Management Institute. The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI),
established in 1911, is staffed by professional wildlife scientists and
managers. Its purpose is to promote the restoration and improved
management of wildlife and other natural resources in North America.
WMI commends the Committee for initiating this dialog. The
seriousness of the invasive weeds issue cannot be overstated, and we
urge the Committee to lay the groundwork today that will lead to a plan
for long-term control of invasive weeds across the US.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to offer our insights. The
debate that will occur on invasive weeds is not an either-or
proposition. The economic viability of farms and ranches is dependent
on a national, coordinated effort to control the spread of weeds.
Production of wildlife, agricultural crops and livestock already have
been compromised, and farmers and ranchers are losing billions of
dollars each year to weeds. Credible evidence exists that the cost of
invasive weeds on our Nation's economy is at least $130 billion per
year.
We are deeply concerned about the accelerating spread of invasive
exotic plants, or ``weeds,'' on public and private land. Some estimates
indicate that exotic invasive plants are overtaking our Nation's native
vegetation at a rate of about 10,000 acres per day. Infestations are
reducing the productivity and biodiversity of our Nation's natural
resources at a dramatic rate. For example, research shows that weed
populations frequently reduce livestock carrying capacity between 35
and 90 percent. These infestations also are increasing the predicament
for threatened and endangered species and the likelihood that
additional species will warrant listing under the Endangered Species
Act. Furthermore, weeds increase erosion, reduce water quality and
quantity and reduce natural regeneration of our Nation's prairies,
shrublands and forests.
These non-native invasive plants arrive here from other countries
without the natural insects, diseases and pathogens that kept them in
balance with other plants in their country of origin. Consequently,
these plants aggressively out-compete our native wildland plant
communities. The following examples of increased weed populations on
private, state, and federal wildlands illustrate the devastation
underway: In Montana spotted knapweed increased from a few plants in
1920 to 5 million acres today; in Idaho rush skeleton weed from a few
plants in 1954 to 4 million acres today; in Northern California yellow
starthistle from 1 million acres in 1981 to about 15 million acres
today. Since these weed populations increase at about 14% per year,
they continue to increase - at an increasing rate. Consequently,
thousands of watersheds on public and private land are undergoing the
greatest permanent degradation in their recorded history--with wildlife
habitat and livestock forage suffering the greatest losses.
Local cooperative approaches offer the best opportunity to prevent
and control weeds within a specific watershed. In a few states, Weed
Cooperatives or County Weed Boards are bringing land owners and
operators, utility companies, county and state road departments, state
fish and wildlife agencies, federal land management agencies,
businesses, nonprofit conservation organizations and public land users
together to attack this insidious plague of weeds. Federal funds
through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's ``Pulling Together
Initiative'' already are providing these local cooperatives with the
funds they need to develop and implement long-term plans to control
invasive weeds within local watersheds. One-hundred and eighty weed
control cooperatives have been supported by the ``Pulling Together
Initiative'' since 1998, however, another 247 weed cooperatives
submitted projects proposals to the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation that went unfunded because of insufficient funds. A wide
array of partners associated with these projects have contributed
millions of dollars to these cooperative weed-control ventures,
leveraging 1.8 non-federal dollars for each federal dollar committed to
the program. The Wildlife Management Institute has been the grantee on
one of these ``Pulling Together'' projects since 1998 that brought
together 14 federal, state, county and private partners to collectively
control the spread of purple loosestrife up the Missouri River and its
tributaries in Nebraska and South Dakota. These diverse groups come
together enthusiastically to fight a common enemy. Unfortunately, in
most areas and in most watersheds, these cooperative efforts to control
and eradicate weeds are not yet in place, or have not been able to
secure funding.
The technology is available to cooperatively bring the spread of
invasive weeds down over the long term to a level approximating ``no
net increase''; along with making good progress at controlling and
restoring some large infestations. However, the cost to apply this
technology will not come cheaply. Without substantial federal funding
over several years that can be used to leverage state and private
funds, many more vast areas will become permanently degraded as these
invasive weeds spread across our landscape.
Only now are we beginning to see the danger that lies ahead. There
is great economic efficiency in increasing investments now to keep
relatively healthy watersheds from becoming severely infested by weeds.
Enormous increases in investments will be needed to restore land once
it is seriously infested. With prompt action now these disasters can
economically and efficiently be avoided.
Last year, our nation experienced some of the most devastating
wildfires we have seen in some time; burning over 6 million acres and
destroying immense amounts of public and private property. While most
of those fires were ignited naturally by lighting strikes, the fuels
that carried those fires often were invasive weeds, such as cheatgrass,
that have invaded millions of acres of our western rangelands.
Congress immediately responded to these disasters by allocating
nearly 2 billion dollars in Fiscal Year 2001 to aggressively deal with
the wildfire hazards across the country on public and private land.
While exotic invasive weeds do not destroy homes like catastrophic
wildfires did last year, and thus do not receive the interest of the
Press, they are doing just as much if not more damage to the lives and
livelihood of farmers and ranchers over a much larger area than
wildfires.
House Bill 1462, the ``Harmful Nonnative Weed Control Act of 2001''
is a good first step at addressing the invasive weeds, but we believe
it does not go far enough. Our concerns related to HR 1462 include:
Sufficient and long-term funding on public and private
land;
watershed-based approach to controlling weeds;
Coordinated weed control projects on public and private
lands;
Assurances that all nonnative invasive weeds are
addressed;
Requirements to leverage non-federal funds;
Opportunities to fund multi state weed control projects;
and
The future of the NFWF's Pulling Together Initiative.
Recommendation
We strongly urge the Committee to address the issue of annual and
long-term funding needed to control invasive nonnative weeds on our
Nation's public and private lands. Local cooperative efforts to control
invasive nonnative weeds must have some assurances that funding will be
available to help plan and implement their programs. Federal land
management agencies also must have the funds to control weeds on our
public lands, and there must be methods developed to ensure
coordination between weed control efforts on public and adjacent
private lands. We strongly urge the Committee to allocate at least
$100,000,000 per year for nonnative invasive weed control projects on
private land, and to commit at least 5 years of funding.
We also urge the Committee to allocate sufficient funds to the
federal land management agencies to control noxious weeds on public
lands. For example, the Bureau of Land Management needs at least $15
million in Fiscal Year 2002 to implement their weed control program,
and they will need at least $30 million per year once the program is
fully implemented. Congress provided $8 million in Fiscal Year 2001 to
the USDA Forest Service to control invasive weeds on 150,000 acres, but
already there are over 8 million acres of the agencies' 192 million
acres that are infested by nonnative invasive weeds. Much more funding
is needed to stop the spread of weeds on federal land. If they are not
stopped, the consequences will be extremely expensive and tragic.
We are concerned that H.R. 1462 will reduce funding for other
natural resource programs within the Department of the Interior (DOI).
Since funding for H.R. 1462 has not been clearly identified in the text
of the bill (specifically referred to as Section 11 in the bill), we
believe H.R. 1462 will require the Secretary of the Interior to cut
funding for other programs in order to meet the requirements in H.R.
1462. We urge the Committee to clearly identify the funding necessary
to implement an effective weed control program, but not at the cost of
other natural resource programs.
Most successful efforts to control weeds have been those that
address the problem within an entire watershed. We recommend that the
Committee require that all programs and projects using federal dollars
to control weeds must be based on a watershed planning and
implementation approach.
There are many nonnative invasive weed control programs already in
existence on public and private land. However, many of these programs
do not bring together all private and public agencies, organizations
and stakeholders to mount a coordinated effort to control weeds.
Government funding for control of invasive weeds on private land
traditionally has come from the various federal and state departments
of agriculture. We are concerned that federal funding through the
Secretary of Interior might disrupt these traditional cooperative
ventures. We recommend that the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture
are equally involved in the administration of any nonnative invasive
weed control program on public and private lands.
We are concerned that efforts to control invasive weeds might only
focus on the widespread infestations in the western states. Our
Nation's waterways often provide the avenues by which invasive weeds
spread throughout a watershed, and many of our waterways (rivers,
streams, lakes and wetlands) are completely choked and dysfunctional
because of weed infestations. We urge the Committee to address all
nonnative invasive weeds in any legislation they approve, including
those weeds in waterways, wetlands, farmlands, pasture and haylands and
our western rangelands.
Almost all local agencies, organizations and stakeholders are
concerned about invasive weeds, and most are eager to commit their own
time and resources to provide control. The National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation's Pulling Together Initiative demonstrated that it can
leverage millions of dollars from a wide array of private and public
partners to control weeds. We recommend that the Committee use the
proven model for leveraging private resources for weed control that has
been successfully employed by the NFWF's Pulling Together Initiative.
Often nonnative weeds infestations cross boundaries created between
administrative, political and state entities. We are concerned that
H.R. 1462 would not accommodate nor encourage cooperative efforts
across all of these boundaries, such as a multi-state weed control
project. We recommend that the Committee provide funding to a broad
array of cooperative ventures to control invasive weeds, including
multi-state projects.
Finally, we are concerned that H.R. 1462 will reduce or eliminate
much of the federal funds available to the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation's (NFWF) Pulling Together Initiative. Six federal agencies
contribute substantial funds each year to the cooperative invasive weed
control partnerships that have been formed under the Pulling Together
Initiative. Many of these existing partnership, including the purple
loosestrife control project that WMI administers in Nebraska and South
Dakota, would be affected severely if the Secretary of the Interior
withdrew the federal commitment to these cooperative weed control
ventures. We urge the Committee to support the existing and future
cooperative weed control partnerships in the NFWF's Pulling Together
Initiative (PTI). The PTI has a proven record of leveraging millions of
private dollars to match federal dollars in cooperatively controlling
invasive weeds on private and public lands. We would be very
disappointed to see the effectiveness of the PTI program diminished or
destroyed by a new duplicative program that draws upon the same
partners and the same private and public funds.
Concluding Remarks
We thank the Chairman and members of the Committee for inviting the
Wildlife Management Institute to testify on H.R. 1462. Nonnative weeds
are costing our nation's economy more that $130 billion per year, and
we are very concerned that our wildlife and other natural resources
will suffer irreparable harm if we do not act now. We fully support a
broad array of active and cooperative nonnative invasive weed control
ventures on public and private lands. We believe significant and long-
term funding is needed to assist these partnerships in controlling
weeds within all of our Nation's watersheds. Funding for invasive weed
control on our public lands is woefully inadequate to stop the spread
of these insidious pests, but we would not support funding for any new
weed control program that would be at the expense of other federal
natural resource programs or existing cooperative weed control
partnerships, such as our purple loosestrife project in Nebraska and
South Dakota that is funded through the highly successful Pulling
Together Initiative. Mr. Chairman, we respectfully request that our
written and oral comments presented here today be entered into the
permanent written record of this hearing.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Dr. Riley. Am I given to understand
correctly that, by and large, these weeds that we are talking
about are not consumed by either livestock or wildlife? Mr.
Skinner could probably speak to the livestock part of it.
Mr. Skinner. In some cases, you are right. Of course, some
of the noxious weeds--and you have got to be careful when you
use the word ``noxious.'' Some of the noxious weeds, invasive
would be a better word, because noxious weeds do not
necessarily fit the category. But they talked about using goats
earlier to control these, sometimes sheep will control them.
Sometimes cattle or horses will control these weeds. That
doesn't necessarily totally address the problem in all cases,
because sometimes those invasive species are just totally
taking over the habitat for our wildlife, or are destroying our
watersheds. They are destroying our croplands.
I cannot possibly emphasize the importance, and I am so
frustrated. I guess that is why I am here, as a person on the
ground, who sees the magnitude of what is hitting us. I do not
think people can fathom what is coming our way. It is almost
overwhelming to me.
Mr. Riley. From the wildlife perspective, there are some
species out there that can have an impact on invasive weeds,
but landowners probably would not want the densities of those
species, such as pronghorn antelope, necessary to do some
damage to these invasive species. It could take thousands and
thousands of them. As an example, just looking at goats, as
Senator Craig had mentioned earlier, in Idaho, they have been
putting as many as 5,000 goats into one pasture to try to
control the invasive species over a fairly short period of
time. It is quite an impressive sight to see 5,000 goats
concentrated in one pasture. Well, that has an impact in
itself, just putting that many animals in one place, and you
can just imagine most ranchers out West thinking, ``Okay, well,
I'd like to have 5,000 animals concentrated in my pasture,''
which might be very impractical. But you cannot get the
densities of wildlife up to the point that they could have an
impact on invasive species. So it would be difficult.
Mr. Beck. Whether livestock or wildlife will consume weeds
is, at least in my experience, highly dependent upon the weed
species. A plant like Leafy Spurge is not consumed by horses or
cattle, but is consumed by sheep and goats, and I have not seen
too many wildlife species to know whether they really consume
it or not. But probably just as importantly, even plants like
Knapweeds tend to be very palatable at their early stages of
growth during the spring of the year, but once they flower,
very few--animals, including grasshoppers, will refuse to eat
them.
So it is very dependent upon weed species, the situation.
Certainly, I think more times than not, weeds are detrimental
to wildlife and livestock.
Mr. Randall. I would just like to add to that, that we do
see declines in the numbers of species and in the diversity of
species, and that is what we are focused on. So we clearly see,
across the board with most of these weeds, that we lost at
least some of the species we are interested in, plants and
animals.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you. Further questions, Committee?
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I have a few
questions, and it is unfortunate that one the victims of the
noxious weed invasion that we have not talked about, and I use
that term, noxious weeds, instead of just invasive weeds,
because having been the Lieutenant Governor of the State of
Idaho for 14 years and led a lot of international trade
delegations, I was surprised, in fact, amazed at how many
countries would not let some of our products into their
countries because of an infestation of a problem with some of
our seed, and Idaho is a big seed grower.
They actually boycotted a lot of our products from Idaho,
because of noxious weeds, for instance, in our potato seed
crop, which is big in Idaho, because of nematodes and some of
the noxious weeds--not nematodes--were the vectors for. They
would not allow us to ship those practically any place in the
world for quite a period of time. Mr. Randall, I was impressed
with your testimony and also with your suggestion relative to
the inclusion of water plants and particularly Purple Loose
Strife. We have a tendency to think of invasive weeds as
invading land and pushing out habitat, and I am familiar,
especially along the reaches of the Lower Boise River, that
runs through the Treasure Valley in Idaho, where it is being
actually choked off by Purple Loose Strife.
The only known chemical that we can use, the only certified
chemical, I think, is Rodeo, that we can use over water. But we
have been working and found some bugs that will eat the
reproductive part of the Purple Loose Strife plants, and of
course we are concerned now, if we turned the bugs lose and we
run out of Purple Loose Strife, what are we going to get to eat
the bugs, or what else are they going to want to eat?
False Indigo is another one that is very invasive on water
bodies, and interestingly enough, both Purple Loose Strife and
False Indigo are transmitted or relocated by the very water
that they are invading. I was told that one plant can release
as many as one million seeds of the Purple Loose Strife, and
where that ends up down the river and in whose backyard. Yet,
interestingly enough, we have government rules and regulations
on the eradication of those, even on private lands that are
adjacent to what they call navigable waters of the United
States Government.
I would be interested, especially from the Nature
Conservancy, because I know you folks probably do a better job
than any of the other conservation groups that I am aware of,
of managing your lands for beneficial use and multiple use, at
least you do in Idaho. I do not know about the other projects
you have. But I would be interested if we could put a dimension
in here that included the eradication of weeds on private
lands, as well, and projects that would encourage that.
Mr. Randall. Yes, as the bill is written now, it definitely
encourages the inclusion of private landowners in these
cooperative weed management entities.
Mr. Otter. Under that process, do you see a permit would be
required?
Mr. Randall. For use of herbicides on private-entity lands?
Mr. Otter. Yes.
Mr. Randall. I believe that is going to be regulated by the
States themselves. So, as far as I understand it, this bill
does not address that directly. The examples that I can give
you are where I have been involved as an adviser-consultant, if
you will, on cooperative weed management areas that the
conservancy is a partner in, and we are a private landowner,
and we have been directly involved in cooperative weed
management.
Mr. Otter. Do you pay taxes on that land?
Mr. Randall. Yes.
Mr. Otter. How much taxes do you pay per acre, for weed
control, to the county?
Mr. Randall. Since we are all across the country, it is all
over the board, and I do not know. I could get that
information.
Mr. Otter. That would be interesting. I would like to have
that information.
Mr. Randall. I will say that it will be all over the board,
because we have 1,300 preserves and they are all across the
country.
Mr. Otter. Mr. Carroll, you are going to have to help me
out with part of this, because I am not aware of how the other
States are, but in Idaho, we have 44 counties. So,
subsequently, we have 44 weed control districts, and then we
have some spread across the counties. In my home county of Ada
County, if I have got a noxious weed patch that the county weed
supervisors happen to see, and they give me warning and I do
not eradicate those weeds, they can then come in and take
defensive action on those weeds to eradicate them and then send
me a bill, and if i do not pay the bill, they can actually put
a lien against my land.
I think maybe you were in the audience when I asked Senator
Craig if this was the direction we were going here. But it
seems to me that responsible land ownership, no matter who owns
the land, requires that you have a peaceful existence with your
neighbor, and it seems to me that the Federal Government has
not been a peaceful neighbor. Am I right or wrong there?
Mr. Carroll. I believe you are right. Typically, in the
West, that basically the way the laws are set up, that if
mitigation is not completed by the landowner, then they have
the ability to go in and make a treatment and lien the
property. I am also a local county weed manager. One of the
problems we run into, you cannot get blood out of a turnip, so
if you go into a portion of Federal land that pays no taxes, I
have no way to lien their taxes.
Mr. Otter. But it is not just the taxes, sir, it is my
property. If I went to sell that property, the results of the
income that come off of that property, actually, the county can
come in and attach part of that.
Mr. Carroll. That is true.
Mr. Otter. Or any income that comes off that property, that
the county knows about.
Mr. Carroll. I think that might vary from State to State.
Mr. Otter. Well, in Idaho, I can tell you on the private
ground, because about 65 percent of the land mass of the State
of Idaho is Federal ground. So the larger the neighbor, the
larger the problem.
Mr. Carroll. Exactly.
Mr. Otter. Whether it is with Mr. Skinner's industry in the
cattle business--and I have been in the cattle business, and I
have gone through the larkspur kills in the early spring,
because we were not allowed, in many cases, to eradicate the
flower, and, of course, that is the first thing that turns
green and when you turn the cattle out, that is the first thing
they are going to eat, and it kills them.
So we have got many problems as far as I am concerned. This
bill is going in the right direction, but it is not near far
enough, because I think if it is a public policy, and it is
necessary for the government to say noxious weeds are a
problem, and so therefore we need teeth in the law in order to
be able to control those invasive weeds, that teeth in the law
should apply no matter whom the property owner is. So I would
hope that this is a beginning and not the end of where we need
to go with the eradication.
Mr. Carroll. Perhaps I could clarify a little bit; when
Senator Craig made the statement that counties or States are
not able to do what they term is an enforcement action on
Federal land, that is not the case in Colorado. In Colorado, we
do have the authority to go and enforce on Federally-owned
ground. I do not believe anybody has ever tried it and I am not
quite sure how it would end up, but the main thing is you are
right. This bill is a good start. It points us in the right
direction. It allows the formation of partnerships, and that is
probably key.
Mr. Otter. I am interested in your right to enforce the
Federal Government on their land, because under the equal
standings doctrine, it seems to me if Colorado has that
authority, every State should have that authority or does have
that authority.
Mr. Hefley. Colorado has particularly good representation
in Congress, is the reason they have that authority.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carroll. That is exactly right.
Mr. Otter. Actually, beginning this year, so does Idaho,
but I am only a 160-day wonder here, Joe. Give me a little
time. I would be interested in that authority and the source of
that authority, because if that is truly the case and if we can
enforce that law--it is the right thing to do--then I think we
certainly have been missing the bet, because we ought to be
able to do the same thing in the Oregon Breaks. We ought to be
able to do the same thing everywhere.
Mr. Carroll. I think Dr. Beck be able to talk a little bit
about that. He has been around forever, so he probably wrote
the law.
Mr. Beck. I think the legislation that Mike is referring to
is out of the Plant Protection Act, and I think it is Section
2814 out of the old Federal Noxious Weed Act, is what he is
referring to, and that portion of the law requires Federal
agencies to manage weeds in cooperation with State and local
government.
Mr. Otter. What is the penalty if they do not?
Mr. Beck. There is no penalty in there, that I am aware of.
Mr. Otter. I want to say that is the problem, and that is
the problem that I see in this bill. If Butch Otter does not
manage his land in a peaceful way to his neighbors, there is a
penalty, and people sitting in this Congress and probably in
this room at one time or another said we have to have teeth in
the law to make people obey it, yet we never have teeth in the
law when we want to make our big neighbor, the Federal
Government, obey the law. I understand, in many ways, how
difficult that is for people to understand. But I also feel
what is good for the citizen is good for every citizen; what is
good for the landowner, the private landowner, is good for
every landowner.
I am going to continue to pursue that course during my time
in Congress. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. I hope you do, Congressman. I always feel it is
necessary to apologize that we do not have more Committee
members here, and many of you have come a long way to testify.
I do not want you to think that it is not important for you to
be here. You can help shape this legislation, and I think the
fact that there are not more members here is the fact that this
is not a very controversial issue, for which I am thankful. I
do not usually introduce legislation that turns out to be
supported by both the departments of the government and the
environmental community and everybody concerned. So I am very
pleased that there is strong support here.
We would like any specific recommendations, in addition to
what you have testified to, that you would have to make this a
better bill, a more effective piece of legislation. So we would
welcome that and ask you to submit that to us. Let me ask you,
Mr. Skinner, before we close, do you ranch near Bob Smith?
Mr. Skinner. About 130 miles from where Bob Smith used to
ranch. He ranched to the west. We actually even leased some of
his permit.
Mr. Hefley. I see. Thank you very much for being here. We
appreciate your testimony.
The Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The following additional information was submitted for the
record:]
1. Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation;
2. Letter from the Colorado Department of Agriculture;
3. Letter from the Florida Farm Bureau Federation;
4. Letter from the Montana Department of Agriculture;
5. Letter from the Weed Science Society of America; and
6. Letter from the Wyoming Department of Agriculture.
Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation
The American Farm Bureau Federation is the largest general farm
organization in the United States, representing the interests of more
than five million member families in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Our
members produce virtually every commodity produced in the United
States. We submit this statement for the hearing record.
Harmful noxious weeds pose an extremely serious problem for
agriculture. It was estimated in 1994 the impacts from noxious weeds
were over $13 billion per year. A Cornell University study completed
last year estimated invasive plants and animals cost the American
people $137 billion every year.
A 1996 Bureau of Land Management report estimates that invasive
plants infest over 100 million acres across the United States. It
mentions that every year they spread across another three million
acres--an area twice the size of Delaware. It says that up to 4,600
acres of additional federal lands in the Western United States are
negatively impacted by harmful plants per day.
Harmful noxious weeds also cause significant environmental damage.
These plants rapidly spread over large land areas, and there are no
natural barriers to prevent their spread. One study estimates that
invasive plants and animals have contributed to 35 to 46 percent of all
species being listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Harmful plants also may dramatically alter the ecology of an area.
For example, cheatgrass in the western United States has increased fire
risks twenty fold.
The list of harmful plants and the damage they cause increases
every year. It is a national problem that causes significant damage.
And needs to be addressed at the national level.
Prevention and control of harmful weeds are very important to Farm
Bureau and our members. Farm Bureau supports an aggressive effort at
both the federal and state levels to control or eradicate these
devastating plant species. The recently released management plan
entitled ``Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge'' indicates a
commitment of the many federal agencies having some responsibilities on
this issue to coordinate their efforts to more effectively combat these
species.
H.R. 1462 recognizes that efficient use of funds and effective
control of noxious weeds requires coordination of all levels of
government. The bill would allocate federal funds to the states through
recommendations from a federal advisory committee, and the states would
distribute the funds to local entities upon selection of local
projects. The federal share would be up to 50 percent of the total cost
of a project.
We believe the process contained in the bill provides proper
coordination among the different levels of government. States and local
entities should take a leadership role in controlling harmful weeds in
their area. The role of the federal government should be to recognize
that control work should be done at the state level, and to coordinate
and support these efforts. H.R. 1462 incorporates these roles.
While we generally support the purpose of the bill and the
procedures employed in the bill to carry out that purpose, we offer a
few suggestions for improving the bill.
The plants should be referred to as ``noxious weeds'' instead of
``nonnative weeds.'' The term ``noxious weeds'' has an established
meaning and there is a list of noxious weeds which the agencies can
refer to. ``Nonnative weeds'' has no such established meaning. Calling
them ``harmful nonnative weeds'' does not resolve the problem, because
``harm'' is a relative term and the bill does not specify the type of
``harm'' being described. Terminology should be consistent throughout,
and ``noxious weeds'' offers the best understanding of what is covered
under the bill.
The term ``weed management entities'' needs clarification. This is
an important concept in the bill because these entities are the
ultimate recipients of the federal funds that the bill would
distribute. Because of the way in which the bill is structured--with
funds being distributed through the states--we suggest that there be
some element of local government involved in a weed management entity,
or at the very least some recognized coordinated resource management or
watershed management group. To be effective, control of noxious weeds
needs to occur at the widest appropriate geographical level to prevent
their return or their spread. Furthermore, noxious weeds need to be
controlled across property lines in order to achieve the same result. A
concern that we have with the current undefined ``weed management
entity'' is that money will be awarded for projects that are less than
encompassing, and the problem sought to be resolved would reappear a
short time later. Noxious weed control efforts must be coordinated
among affected landowners in order to be effective.
Section 7(d)(4) of the bill provides that a weed management entity
may undertake a project on public or private lands with the consent of
the landowner ``other than land that is used for production of an
agricultural commodity.'' Does this mean that no such projects may be
undertaken on those lands, or does it mean that no consent is required
before entering those lands? Section 9 of the bill'requiring landowner
consent for any actions taken on his property--would suggest the former
interpretation. We would very strongly object to an interpretation that
would allow entry onto agricultural lands without having the consent of
the landowner, and we could not support a bill that would allow entry
without consent. As written, this section of the bill is ambiguous. The
bill needs to be amended to eliminate this ambiguity.
The bill restricts eligible projects to a single state. For reasons
set forth in (2) above, we do not believe worthy projects should be
rejected solely on the basis that is crosses state lines. We believe
that states should be encouraged to jointly address weed problems that
are common to them, and joint projects that might receive funding from
two or more states, assuming they all deem it worth of funding under
this Act, would foster that cooperation. Because weeds do not stop at
state lines, funding for weed control projects should not stop at state
lines either.
We look forward to working with the committee to craft a bill that
will provide some relief to the massive noxious weed problem that faces
farmers and ranchers across the country.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3181.021