[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1005, H.R. 1723, H.R. 2707 and H.R. 2766
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND
FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, July 24, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-45
__________
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-530 WASHINGTON : 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800, DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman
JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina Mark Udall, Colorado
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Jeff Flake, Arizona VACANCY
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana VACANCY
Rick Renzi, Arizona Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico ex officio
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 24, 2003.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Acevedo-Vila, Hon. Anibal, a Delegate in Congress from Puerto
Rico, Prepared statement on H.R. 1723...................... 14
Beauprez, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 2766.......................... 4
McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 1005.......................... 16
Prepared statement on H.R. 2707.......................... 30
Pearce, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico, Oral statement on H.R. 2707........... 32
Stenholm, Hon. Charles W., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas, Oral statement on H.R. 2707............ 30
Statement of Witnesses:
Baroch, Hon. Charles J., Mayor, City of Golden, State of
Colorado................................................... 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 2766.......................... 11
Carlson, Tim, Executive Director, Tamarisk Coalition......... 40
Prepared statement on H.R. 2707.......................... 42
Davis, Hon. Don, Commissioner, Rio Blanco, Colorado.......... 20
Prepared statement on H.R. 1005.......................... 21
Davis, Tom W., Manager, Carlsbad Irrigation District......... 50
Prepared statement on H.R. 2707.......................... 52
Estill, Elizabeth, Deputy Chief, Programs, Legislation and
Communications, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Oral statement on H.R. 1723................... 15
Oral statement on H.R. 2707.............................. 33
Oral statement on H.R. 2766.............................. 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 1723, H.R. 2707 and H.R. 2766. 7
Kearney, Chris, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy/
International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior..... 17
Prepared statement on H.R. 1005.......................... 18
Kershaw, John R., President, Imperial Valley Conservation
Research Center Committee, Imperial County, California..... 53
Prepared statement on H.R. 2707.......................... 54
Redifer, John, Ph.D., Department of Social and Behavioral
Science, Mesa State College................................ 46
Prepared statement on H.R. 2707.......................... 48
Sulnick, Bob, Campaign Manager, Alliance for the Rio Grande
Heritage................................................... 56
Prepared statement on H.R. 2707.......................... 57
Tate, James, Science Advisor to the Secretary, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 34
Prepared statement on H.R. 2707.......................... 36
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2766, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE TO EXCHANGE CERTAIN LANDS WITHIN THE ARAPAHO AND ROOSEVELT
NATIONAL FOREST IN THE STATE OF COLORADO; H.R. 1723, TO DESIGNATE
CERTAIN NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
AS COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1005, TO PROVIDE PERMANENT FUNDING FOR THE PAYMENT
IN LIEU OF TAXES PROGRAM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 2707, TO
DIRECT THE SECRETARIES OF THE INTERIOR AND AGRICULTURE, ACTING THROUGH
THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE, TO CARRY OUT A DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM TO ASSESS
POTENTIAL WATER SAVINGS THROUGH CONTROL OF SALT CEDAR AND RUSSIAN OLIVE
ON FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR AND THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE.
----------
Thursday, July 24, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:07 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Scott McInnis,
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McInnis, Rehberg, Renzi, Pearce,
and Mark Udall.
Also present: Representatives Cannon and Beauprez.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SCOTT McINNIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. McInnis. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R.
2766, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Land Exchange Act
of 2003; H.R. 1723, the Caribbean National Forest Act of 2003;
H.R. 1005, PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent Funding
Act; and H.R. 2707, Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control
Demonstration Act.
I would ask unanimous consent that our fellow members could
have permission to sit on the dais. No objection, so ordered.
I have no opening statements at this point, though I may
offer some as we proceed. And Mr. Inslee may have an opening
statement when he comes in at a later point as well.
I would like to move quickly to our first bill. I would
like to explain to our guests, I know a number of you have
traveled a great distance. I appreciate very much you taking
the time to come to the Committee hearing today. I would advise
you that the lack of attendance here is pretty typical. We have
lots of conflicts. On top of that, we are competing with the
House of Representatives, which met until about 2:30 this
morning. So I would guess that there are still some people out
there trying to catch a snooze because we are supposed to work
that kind of night tonight as well.
But, regardless, the important thing here is not so much
what is heard today, although that is important to our members;
it is also what goes in the permanent record. So I do
appreciate your participation.
Mr. McInnis. I would like to introduce our witnesses for
H.R. 2766 on panel one. We have the Honorable Bob Beauprez,
District of Colorado. Bob, thank you so much, and I know that
you didn't get much sleep last night either--Elizabeth Estill--
Elizabeth, thanks. Nice to see you again--Deputy Chief,
Programs, Legislation, and Communications, U.S. Forest Service;
And Charles Baroch, the mayor of the city of Golden, State of
Colorado.
If you would like to take the seats up there.
I remind all members and all people in the audience, if you
have a cell phone, to avoid the wrath of the Chairman, turn it
off or put it on vibrate. Second of all, we do allow our
witnesses and our members 5 minutes. We try to adhere to that
in order to give other people their time that they have
requested as well.
Mr. Beauprez, thank you again for coming, and I am going to
let you proceed. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB BEAUPREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Beauprez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing today. I appear before you today in
support of my bill, H.R. 2766, which authorizes and directs a
small land exchange between my constituents, the city of
Golden, and the United States Forest Service. Before I go any
further, I would like to also thank Congressmen Udall and
Tancredo, who have graciously cosponsored H.R. 2766 with me.
That would be Congressman Mark Udall.
Two of the three land exchange parcels in the bill are in
Mr. Udall's district, and our staffs have worked closely to get
this legislation introduced and expedited forward. The
legislation also has been endorsed by Clear Creek, Park, and
Summit Counties in Colorado, the Continental Divide Trail
Alliance, the city of Black Hawk Public Works Department, and
the Georgetown Loop Railroad, and I would ask, Mr. Chairman,
that their letters of support be included in the record of this
hearing.
Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, water shortages in
Colorado have been no laughing matter the past several years,
and the primary purpose of H.R. 2766 is to enable the city of
Golden to expeditiously acquire a nearly 10-acre parcel of
national forest land that it needs to help complete a small
water storage project near Empire, Colorado. The water storage
reservoir itself and the proposed pipeline leading to the
reservoir are all located entirely on private land, and the
construction of the reservoir was initiated this June.
However, a small 125-foot stretch of the pipeline to
service the reservoir must cross national forest land, and both
the city of Golden and the Forest Service have agreed that it
would be best for all concerned if the city could own the land;
hence, this proposed land exchange of H.R. 2766.
Happily, even though the water needs of the city of Golden
are my primary reason for introducing H.R. 2766, we have been
able to structure this land exchange to also greatly benefit
the Forest Service. Those benefits derive from the fact that in
return for giving up only 9.84 acres of land that mostly
comprise a steep hillside, the Forest Service will acquire up
to 80 acres of forest inholdings near Evergreen, Colorado, that
are near a popular Forest Service trail head in Cub Creek.
In addition, the Forest Service will also receive a 61-acre
donation of surface land from the city that contains part of
the route of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.
So, Mr. Chairman, not only will this be an equal-value
trade of lands, but the Forest Service will gain a significant
donation of land over and above equal value and that donation
will consolidate national forest holdings along one of the
Nation's most popular hiking scenic trails.
Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that in making the 61-
acre donation along the Continental Divide Trail, the city of
Golden is going far beyond what it legally needs to do to have
the land exchange meet standard land exchange requirements. I
commend the city for going the extra mile to help the Forest
Service in its efforts to consolidate its ownership of the
route of the Continental Divide Trail. Donating the land to the
Forest Service in this case will mean that scarce trail
acquisition dollars, which you, Mr. Chairman, and other members
of our Colorado delegation have worked extremely hard to get
appropriated over the years, can be used in other places.
I would also note that the Argentine Pass area, where the
city is donating the land, not only contains the actual route
of the Continental Divide Trail itself, but a popular access
route to get to the trail, as well as one of several routes
used to climb Gray's and Torrey's Peaks, which are perhaps the
most visited 14ers in our entire State.
I want to emphasize to the Committee that enactment of this
legislation is an urgent matter. Although the city of Golden
and other front-range cities appear to have a reprieve this
summer from the extreme drought conditions of the past several
years, completion of the Empire reservoir project is critical
to ensuring that the city has adequate water supplies should
the drought return.
To that end, H.R. 2766 provides that if the proposed land
exchange cannot be completed for any reason, such as hazardous
materials or other title problems with the exchanged land, the
Empire parcel will be sold to the city and the sale proceeds
used to buy other lands for the Forest Service in accordance
with the Sisk Act.
In addition, the bill provides that immediately upon its
enactment, the city can begin laying the pipeline across the
national forest land this fall without further action required
by the Forest Service. As the pipeline will be laid in an
existing irrigation ditch and will cross only 125 feet of
Forest Service land before going entirely onto private land, I
do not think that authority is too much to ask.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for scheduling
the hearing so quickly on this matter. This exchange is a
classic win-win for both the citizens of the city of Golden and
the Forest Service and the public in general.
I would be glad to answer any questions if you have them,
and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beauprez follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Bob Beauprez, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Colorado, on H.R. 2766
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dear Chairman McInnis, Ranking Member Inslee, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I appear before you today in support of my bill, H.R.
2766, which authorizes and directs a small land exchange between my
constituent, the City of Golden, and the U.S. Forest Service.
Before I go any further, I would like to also thank Congressmen
Mark Udall and Tom Tancredo, who have graciously co-sponsored H.R.
2766. Two of the three land exchange parcels in the bill are in Mr.
Udall's district and our staffs have worked closely to get this
legislation introduced and expedited forward. The legislation has also
been endorsed by Clear Creek, Park, and Summit Counties; the
Continental Divide Trail Alliance; the City of Black Hawk Public Works
Department; and the Georgetown Loop Railroad, and I would ask that
their letters of support be included into the record of this hearing.
Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, water shortages in Colorado
have been no laughing matter for the past several years, and the
primary purpose of H.R. 2766 is to enable the City of Golden to
expeditiously acquire a nearly 10-acre parcel of National Forest land
that it needs to help complete a small water storage project near
Empire, Colorado. The water storage reservoir itself and the proposed
pipeline leading to the reservoir are all located entirely on private
land, and construction of the reservoir was initiated in June. However,
a small 125-foot stretch of the pipeline to service the reservoir must
cross National Forest land, and both the City of Golden and the Forest
Service have agreed that it would be best for all concerned if the City
could own that land. Hence, the proposed land exchange of H.R. 2766.
Happily, even though the water needs of the City of Golden are my
primary reason for introducing H.R. 2766, we have been able to
structure this land exchange to also greatly benefit the Forest
Service. Those benefits derive from the fact that in return for giving
up only 9.84 acres of land that mostly comprise a steep hillside, the
Forest Service will acquire up to 80 acres of forest inholdings near
Evergreen, Colorado, that are near a popular Forest Service trailhead
in Cub Creek. In addition, the Forest Service will also receive a 61-
acre donation of surface land from the City that contains part of the
route of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.
So, Mr. Chairman, not only will this be an equal value trade of
lands, but the Forest Service will gain a significant donation of land
over and above equal value--and that donation will consolidate National
Forest holdings along one of the nation's most popular hiking trails.
Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that in making the 61-acre
donation along the Continental Divide Trail, the City of Golden is
going far beyond what it legally needs to do to have the land exchange
meet standard land exchange requirements. I commend the City for going
the extra mile to help the Forest Service in its efforts to consolidate
its ownership of the route of the Continental Divide Trail. Donating
the land to the Forest Service in this case will mean that scarce trail
acquisition dollars, which you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of the
Colorado Congressional delegation have worked extremely hard to get
appropriated over the years, can be used in other places. I would also
note that the Argentine Pass area, where the City is donating the land,
not only contains the actual route of the Continental Divide Trail
itself, but a popular access route to get to the Trail, as well as one
of several routes used to climb Grays and Torreys Peaks, which are
perhaps the most visited ``14ers'' in the state.
I want to emphasize to the Committee that enactment of this
legislation is an urgent matter. Although Golden and other front range
cities appear to have a reprieve this summer from the extreme drought
conditions of the past several years, completion of the Empire
reservoir project is critical to insuring that the city has adequate
water supplies should the drought return. To that end, H.R. 2766
provides that if the proposed land exchange cannot be completed for any
reason, such as hazardous materials or other title problems with the
exchange land, the Empire parcel will be sold to the City, and the sale
proceeds used to buy other lands for the Forest Service in accordance
with the Sisk Act. In addition, the bill provides that immediately upon
its enactment, the City can begin laying the pipeline across the
National Forest land this fall without further action required by the
Forest Service.
As the pipeline will be laid in an existing irrigation ditch, and
will cross only 125 feet of Forest Service land before going entirely
on to private land, I don't think that authority is too much to ask.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for scheduling a
hearing so quickly on this matter, and for working with me, Congressman
Udall, Congressman Tancredo, the non-profit Continental Divide Trail
Alliance, and numerous others to see that it becomes law at the
earliest possible date. This exchange is a classic ``win-win'' for both
the citizens of the City of Golden, the Forest Service, and the public
in general.
I would be happy to answer any questions you and Members of the
Subcommittee might have.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Beauprez. Also, I appreciate
the personal time you have committed to this and sitting with
the Chair and kind of going through the details.
Mr. Beauprez. A pleasure. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. And I want you to know I am still mad at your
mayor in Golden for stealing our city manager out of Rifle.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McInnis. You got a good guy--Mr. Bestor. He does a very
good job, and you have a wonderful community.
Elizabeth, you may proceed, and thank you again for coming.
We appreciate, by the way, the close relationship and
cooperation we have with the Forest Service.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS,
LEGISLATION, AND COMMUNICATIONS, FOREST SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Estill. I really appreciate being here today. I am a
former resident of the city of Golden.
I do appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
Department on H.R. 2766, the Arapaho and Roosevelt National
Forests Land Exchange Act of 2003. As has already been
mentioned, H.R. 2766 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to
exchange to the city of Golden all rights, titles, and
interests in 9.84 acres of Federal land within the Arapaho
National Forest, upon receipt of acceptable title to 140 acres
of non-Federal land. The 140 acres consist of two separate
parcels, including up to about 80 acres near Evergreen,
Colorado, known as Cub Creek, and about 60 acres near Argentine
Pass, Colorado, known as the Argentine Pass. The 60-acre
Argentine Pass property is made up of 15 patented mining
claims. The bill modified the exterior boundary of the Arapaho
National Forest to incorporate the Cub Creek parcel.
The Department supports the goals of H.R. 2766, but we do
have a number of recommended changes, and we would like to work
with the Committee and staff to incorporate some of those.
First, we recommend that if any cash equalization funds are
received, that they be deposited pursuant to Public Law 90-171,
commonly known as the Sisk Act, and, therefore, could be used
for the acquisition of lands for addition to the National
Forest System in the State of Colorado.
Secondly, we note that only the surface estate is being
offered relative to the Argentine Pass parcel. The management
of split estates is often very problematic for the Forest
Service, and we try to avoid that situation if at all possible.
We understand that it is not the sub-surface minerals that are
at issue, but the underground water conveyance tunnel and the
associated access that the city of Golden wishes to protect. We
would like to work with the Committee and the city to develop
language which ensures Golden the continued use and operation
of the tunnel and have both the surface and sub-surface
interests acquired in fee for the Federal estate.
H.R. 2766 indicates Congress' intent that the land exchange
be consummated no later than 120 days after enactment and
authorizes the city of Golden to construct the water pipeline
on the 9.84 acres of Federal land prior to the consummation of
the exchange. We have two concerns regarding that. First, we
are a little concerned that we may not be able to complete the
environmental consultation and clearances required for the
disposal of the Federal property in 120 days. So we would like
to see that moved to about 180 days. And second, we don't
support construction prior to the conveyance of the property to
the city of Golden, for a lot of reasons, including liability.
The Department believes that the proposed 148-acre
acquisition which could result from the exchange would be very
beneficial to the Forest Service and to the public estate.
Specifically, the acquisition would eliminate a forest
inholding; it could reduce the cost of forest boundary
administration; it could increase recreation opportunities; and
certainly it would ensure permanent public access to a portion
of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, as was
previously mentioned.
In conclusion, the Department supports the concept of the
exchange identified in H.R. 2766 and would like to work with
the Committee to see the exchange proceed with mutual benefit.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Estill on H.R. 1723, H.R.
2707, and H.R. 2766 follows:]
Statement of Elizabeth Estill, Deputy Chief, Programs, Legislation and
Communications, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R.
1723, H.R. 2707, and H.R. 2766
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Elizabeth Estill, Deputy
Chief for Programs, Legislation, and Communications, Forest Service. I
am here today to provide the Department's comments on three bills:
H.R. 1723--To designate certain National Forest System lands in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wilderness
Preservation System, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2707--To direct the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture, acting through the Forest Service, to carry out a
demonstration program to assess potential water savings through control
of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive on forests and public lands
administered by the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service.
H.R. 2766--To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange
certain lands within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest in the
State of Colorado.
The Department supports H.R. 1723. The Department supports the
goals of H.R. 2766, but has a number of recommended changes. Further,
the Department supports the goals of H.R. 2707, but has concerns about
roles and requirements, and believes the work can be achieved within
existing authorities. We would like to work with the Committee on the
improvements we recommend to H.R. 2766 and H.R. 2707.
H.R. 1723--Caribbean National Forest Act of 2003
H.R. 1723 designates approximately 10,000 acres of land in the
Caribbean National Forest/Luquillo Experimental Forest in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as the El Toro Wilderness and as a
component of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
The bill provides that designation of the Wilderness shall not be
construed to prevent within the area's boundaries: (1) installation and
maintenance of hydrologic, meteorological, climatological, or
atmospheric data collection and transmission facilities when they are
essential to the scientific research purposes of the Luquillo
Experimental Forest; (2) construction and maintenance of nesting
structures, observation blinds, and population monitoring platforms for
threatened and endangered species; or (3) construction and maintenance
of trails to such facilities as necessary for research purposes and the
recovery of threatened and endangered species.
The Caribbean National Forest encompasses over 28,000 acres of
land, making it the largest block of public land in the Island of
Puerto Rico. The Forest, locally known as El Yunque, is one of the most
popular recreation sites in Puerto Rico and the National Forest System.
Almost a million tourists, from Puerto Rico, the U.S. mainland, and
abroad experience this tropical rain forest environment each year.
It is the only tropical rain forest in the National Forest System
and by far the friendliest and most accessible in the world. It is also
home to the Puerto Rican parrot, one of the 10 most endangered birds in
the world, and nearly 240 species of trees and 120 terrestrial
animals--four of which are also listed as endangered species.
The Department supports H.R. 1723. The 1997 revised Land and
Resource Management Plan for the Caribbean National Forest/Luquillo
Experimental Forest recommended wilderness designation for the 10,000-
acre El Toro area. We believe the designation of the El Toro Wilderness
would contribute to a more diverse wilderness preservation system and
enhance the areas solitude, scenery and pristine qualities. Designation
of the El Toro Wilderness would be significant. It would become the
only tropical forest in the National Forest Wilderness System and the
only wilderness area in Puerto Rico.
H.R. 2707--Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act
H.R. 2707, The Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration
Act, directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture, acting through the Forest Service, to carry out a
demonstration program to assess potential water savings through control
of Salt cedar and Russian olive on forests and public lands under their
jurisdiction.
The Department agrees with the goals of H.R. 2707, which would
provide important information for managing two non-native invasive
species that pose a significant ecological threat in the western United
States. However, the Department has some concerns and would like to
work with the Subcommittee to clarify and improve the bill.
The genus Tamarix (commonly known as Salt cedar) is comprised of
shrubs or trees native to arid, saline regions of Eurasia and Africa.
Since the 1830s, ten species have been introduced into North America as
ornamental plants and for windbreaks. Two species of Salt cedar have
escaped cultivation and rapidly invaded riparian areas of the western
United States. Today, Salt cedar has infested over one million acres in
the western United States, consuming large quantities of water,
intercepting deep water tables and interfering with natural aquatic
systems. It disrupts the structure and stability of native plant
communities and degrades native wildlife habitat.
Russian olive (Elaeagnus augustifolia) is also a native of southern
Europe and Western Asia that was first introduced in the late 1800s as
an ornamental tree and windbreak. Although it is a non-native invasive
species, Russian olive is a popular and hardy plant that is sold
commercially for landscaping purposes. However, as its impact to native
species has become evident, it has been declared a noxious species in
states such as Utah, and sales have been banned in states such as
Colorado. Like Salt cedar, Russian olive is a fast growing plant that
can out-compete native vegetation and tax water reserves.
To manage invasive species, the Forest Service uses existing
authorities to coordinate projects at the Federal, State, and local
levels through its National Forest System, Research and Development,
and State and Private Forestry Deputy Areas. The Forest Service
participates with other Federal agencies in the National Invasive
Species Council (NISC), established by Executive Order 13112. The
Agency also participates in the Federal Interagency Committee for the
Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW) to manage invasive
plants. The NISC and FICMNEW continue to work collaboratively with
local, State, Tribal, and regional interests to expand partnerships and
coordination efforts among all stakeholders.
Section 3 of H.R. 2707 directs the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest
Service, to complete an assessment of current knowledge concerning Salt
cedar and Russian olive invasion. It also calls for at least three
projects to demonstrate and evaluate the most effective methods to
control these invasive species. The bill specifies that no project may
exceed $7,000,000 and that the Federal share of the costs shall be no
more than 65 percent of the total cost. The authorized funding is not
in the President's budget and therefore must be considered within
existing resources. The actions outlined in the bill can be achieved
within existing authorities.
We would like to work with the Subcommittee and the Department of
the Interior to:
LClarify the roles of the Departments and Agency
referenced in the bill,
LSpecify components and requirements of the assessment
report, and
LDevelop criteria for selection of the demonstration
project areas.
I commend the Subcommittee for addressing the ecological problems
posed by these two non-native invasive species. The Subcommittee has
recognized that the invasive species challenge to our Nation is
enormous, and land managers and communities are stretching their
limited resources significantly to address it. Increased understanding
of the impact of these species on the quantity of surface and
groundwater would advance our Nation's ability to address their
ecological consequences.
H.R. 2766--Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Land Exchange Act of
2003
H.R. 2766 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange to the
City of Golden, Colorado all right, title and interest in 9.84 acres of
Federal land within the Arapaho National Forest, upon receipt of
acceptable title to 140 acres of non-Federal land. The 140 acres
consist of two separate parcels, including 80 acres near Evergreen,
Colorado known as Cub Creek and 60 acres near Argentine Pass, Colorado
known as Argentine Pass. The 60-acre Argentine Pass property is made of
15 patented mining claims. The bill modifies the exterior boundary of
the Arapaho National Forest to incorporate the Cub Creek parcel.
The bill requires the exchange values to be equalized. If the non-
Federal parcel market value exceeds the approved market value of the
Federal land, the values may be equalized by reducing the size of the
Cub Creek non-Federal parcel or with a cash equalization payment
without regard to the cash equalization limitation of 43 U.S.C.
1716(b), as amended.
If the Federal land market value exceeds the market value of the
Cub Creek non-Federal parcel, the values shall be equalized by the
Secretary preparing a statement of value for the Argentine Pass non-
Federal parcel and utilizing as much of such contributory value as is
necessary as a credit to equalize value. Argentine Pass lands not
needed to balance the exchange values will be donated to the Forest
Service. In the event the Secretary declines to accept the Argentine
Pass lands for any reason, Golden shall make a cash equalization
payment to the Secretary as necessary to equalize the values of the
Federal land and the Cub Creek parcel. We recommend that any cash
equalization funds received be considered money received and deposited
pursuant to Public Law 90-171 (16 U.S.C. 484 (a)), commonly known as
the ``Sisk Act,'' and may be used, without further appropriation, for
the acquisition of lands for addition to the National Forest System in
the State of Colorado.
Additionally, we note that only the surface estate is being offered
relative to the Argentine Pass parcel. The management of split estates
is problematic. We understand that it is not the minerals at issue but
an underground water conveyance tunnel and associated access that the
City of Golden wishes to protect. We prefer to acquire both surface and
subsurface interests, in fee, and are willing to work with the
Committee and the City to develop language which ensures continued use
and operation of the tunnel.
H.R. 2766 indicates Congress' intent that the land exchange be
consummated no later than 120 days after enactment and authorizes the
City of Golden to construct a water pipeline on the 9.84 acres of
Federal land immediately upon enactment and prior to the consummation
of the exchange. We are concerned that we may not be able to complete
environmental consultation and clearances required for the disposal of
the Federal property in 120 days. We request extending this timeframe
to 180 days. We also do not support construction occurring prior to
conveyance of this property to the City of Golden. At the very least,
we would expect that the City would be required to operate under a
special use permit as long as the property remains in Federal
ownership. Our preference is to delay construction of the pipeline
until the conveyance is completed.
H.R. 2766 directs the City of Golden to pay for any necessary land
surveys and appraisals. Further, the bill authorizes and directs the
Secretary to sell the Federal land to Golden at its appraised value, if
the land exchange cannot be consummated for any reason.
The Department does not object to H.R. 2766 with changes
recommended above.
Public interest could also be served by the Arapaho National Forest
acquisition of the 140 acres of non-Federal land. Specifically, the
acquisition would eliminate a forest inholding, and could: reduce cost
of forest boundary administration: increase recreation opportunities:
and ensure permanent public access to a portion of the Continental
Divide National Scenic Trail. The Department supports the concept of
the exchange identified in H.R. 2766 and would like to work with the
Committee to see this exchange proceed with mutual benefit.
Conclusion
This concludes my statement. We look forward to working with the
Committee on making the suggested modifications as noted above, and I
would be happy to answer your questions.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you very much.
Well, Mayor, I appreciate very much, Mayor Baroch, for you
coming over. It is a wonderful community you are in. You may
proceed.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES J. BAROCH, MAYOR,
CITY OF GOLDEN, STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Baroch. Thank you very much for allowing me to come
before the Committee. My name is Charles Baroch. I am mayor of
the city of Golden. I am here to testify in favor of H.R. 2766
and to request that it be processed into law at the earliest
possible date.
As some of you may be aware, the city of Golden is in the
process of selling approximately 5500 acres of land in Clear
Creek County, known as Beaver Brook property, to the U.S.
Forest Service. The purpose of that sale is twofold; first, to
bring the valuable land into Forest Service ownership for
general public use and enjoyment and to protect a wildlife
habitat, and second, to raise funds to enable Golden to enhance
its water supply and storage system.
As I am sure all of you are aware, Colorado and much of the
West has been experiencing a very severe drought over the past
few years. And even though we have received some relief this
spring, the City feels it is our responsibility to augment our
water supply for future emergencies and future generations. To
achieve that goal, just last month the City Golden broke ground
on the construction of a dam for our new water storage
reservoir in an existing gravel quarry. When completed, the new
reservoir will be able to store in excess of 1500 acre-feet of
water and will increase our existing water storage capacity by
approximately 400 percent. This is approximately a 90-day
supply for the city of Golden in its peak season.
While a new reservoir is being constructed entirely on land
owned by the City, an approximately 125-foot length of pipeline
needed to run the water from the West Clear Creek to the
reservoir needs to cross a small corner of national forest land
along an existing ditch line. And we need to start building
that pipeline this fall.
When we approached the Forest Service about this pipeline,
and after some discussion with them and others, it was agreed
by all concerned that a land exchange would be the best option
to achieve the desired result. The reasoning was the land we
need from the Forest Service is not especially useful to the
public because of its odd configuration and topography, whereas
the land that we can offer the Forest Service in exchange is
highly desired by them for public purposes.
Accordingly, we have developed the land exchange proposal
that is before you today as H.R. 2766. In that exchange the
city of Golden would receive a 9.84-acre delta wing-shaped
parcel of land from the Forest Service and in return would give
the Forest Service up to 80 acres of land which they desire to
acquire in the Cub Creek drainage in Park County, near
Evergreen, Colorado. In addition, we are willing to donate the
surface estate of 61 acres to the Forest Service along the
Continental Divide in Clear Creek and Summit counties. The 61
acres is traversed by the Continental Divide National Scenic
Trail and also includes an access route to the trail.
If for some reason the land exchange cannot be consummated,
H.R. 2766 directs the Forest Service to sell us the 9.84-acre
parcel at full fair market value, and use the proceeds of the
sale to buy other lands of the Agency's choosing in the State
of Colorado.
Finally, the bill authorizes us to construct the pipeline
along the 125 feet of national forest land immediately upon the
bill's enactment. We need that authority in order to complete
the pipeline this fall and begin filling the reservoir this
spring.
Mr. Chairman, we have come to Congress to both expedite
this exchange and because of minor forest boundary changes
needed to enable the Forest Service to acquire land which we
will convey to them near Evergreen. In addition, should the
exchange fall through due to title problems with any lands
involved, it is imperative that Congress direct the land be
sold to us at the earliest date possible. I note the land
exchange as directed by H.R. 2766 has been endorsed by Clear
Creek County, Summit County, and Park County boards of county
commissioners and also by the nonprofit Continental Divide
Trail Alliance, which is interested in seeing the land along
the trail acquired by the Forest Service.
I wish to thank Congressmen Bob Beauprez and Mark Udall for
introducing this legislation, and you, Mr. Chairman, for
scheduling a hearing so quickly. This land exchange is very
important to the city of Golden. We are deeply appreciative of
your efforts to help us augment our municipal water supply.
I will be happy to answer any questions you or other
members of the Subcommittee might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baroch follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Charles J. Baroch, Mayor,
City of Golden, Colorado, on H.R. 2766
Chairman McInnis & Members of the Subcommittee,
My name is Charles J. Baroch and I am the Mayor of the City of
Golden, Colorado. I appear before you today to testify in favor of H.R.
2766, and to request that it be processed into law at the earliest
possible date.
As some of you may be aware, the City of Golden is in the process
of selling approximately 5,500 acres of land, known as the Beaver Brook
property, to the U.S. Forest Service. The purpose of that sale is
twofold. First to bring valuable lands into Forest Service ownership
for general public use and enjoyment, and second to raise funds to
enable our City to enhance its water supply and storage system. As I'm
sure all of you are aware, Colorado has been experiencing a very severe
drought over the past few years, and even though we have received some
relief this year, the City feels it is our responsibility to augment
our water supplies for future emergencies.
To achieve that goal, just last month, the City of Golden broke
ground on construction of a new water storage reservoir in an existing
gravel quarry near the West Fork of Clear Creek, approximately 25 miles
west of Golden. When completed, the new reservoir will be able to store
in excess of 1,800 acre feet of water and will increase our existing
water storage by approximately 400%.
While the new reservoir is being constructed entirely on land owned
by the City, an approximate 125 foot length of the pipeline needed to
run water from West Clear Creek to the reservoir needs to cross a small
corner of National Forest land along an existing ditch line, and we
need to start building the pipeline this fall.
When we approached the Forest Service about this pipeline, and
after some discussion with them and others, it was agreed by all
concerned that a land exchange would be the best option to achieve the
desired result. The reasoning was that the land we need from the Forest
Service is not especially useful to the public because of its odd
configuration, whereas the land that we can offer the Forest Service in
an exchange is highly desired by them for public purposes.
Accordingly, we have developed the land exchange proposal that is
before you today in H.R. 2766. In that exchange, the City of Golden
would receive a 9.84 acre delta-wing shaped parcel of land from the
Forest Service, and in return, we would give the Forest Service up to
80 acres of land which they desire to acquire in the Cub Creek drainage
near Evergreen, Colorado. In addition, we would donate the surface
estate of 61 acres to the Forest Service along the Continental Divide
in Clear Creek and Summit Counties. The 61 acres is traversed by the
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, and also includes an access
route to the Trail.
If for some reason the land exchange cannot be consummated, H.R.
2766 directs the Forest Service to sell us the 9.84 acre parcel at full
fair market value and to use the proceeds of the sale to buy other
lands of the agency's choosing in the State of Colorado.
Finally, the bill authorizes us to construct the pipeline across
the 125 feet of National Forest land immediately upon the bill's
enactment. We need that authority in order to complete the pipeline
this fall and begin filling the reservoir this spring.
Mr. Chairman, we have come to Congress to both expedite this
exchange and because a minor forest boundary change is needed to enable
the Forest Service to acquire the lands we will convey to them near
Evergreen. In addition, should the exchange fall through due to title
problems with any of the lands involved, it is imperative that Congress
direct that the land be sold to us at the earliest date possible.
I note that the land exchange directed by H.R. 2766 has been
endorsed by the Clear Creek County, Summit County and Park County
Boards of County Commissioners, and also by the non-profit Continental
Divide Trail Alliance, which is interested in seeing the land along the
Trail acquired by the Forest Service.
I also wish to thank Congressmen Bob Beauprez and Mark Udall for
introducing this legislation, and you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling a
hearing so quickly. This land exchange is very important to the City of
Golden, and we are deeply appreciative of your efforts to help us
augment our municipal water supply.
That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions you or other members of the Subcommittee might have.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mayor. And again, thank you for
traveling the distance to testify in front of the Committee.
I will open it up for questions. Mr. Rehberg? Mr. Udall?
Mr. Mark Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I wanted to
thank you for holding this hearing. The bills on today's agenda
are quite different, but each is a good measure. I am biased as
a cosponsor of most of them, but I am really appreciative that
the Subcommittee is beginning the process of moving them
forward.
In particular, I want to thank the Chairman for the
expedited treatment that is being given to H.R. 2766, which my
colleague Mr. Beauprez and I introduced just last week. The
bill is very important for our State, very important for the
city of Golden, so it is excellent to have it on today's
agenda. And I am hoping that when we get back from our August
break we can take up some more bills dealing with the
management of national forests in Colorado, such as the bills I
mentioned to you, Mr. Chairman, in my recent letter.
And I want to thank you again for holding the hearing at
this time. I don't have any questions.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Pearce? Any questions? Go ahead. Mr.
Renzi?
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Go ahead.
Mr. Renzi. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful. Thank you. I enjoy
being around all these Coloradans today and am willing to do
whatever it takes to stay in the good graces of my Chairman.
I am just interested in learning something from you,
though, as a freshman here. Did they look at the option of an
easement at all, and how would that play out, rather than--it
seems like you are giving up so much.
Mr. Baroch. Yes, we did look at the option of an easement,
and through the cooperation of the Forest Service, they
recommended the land transfer, or land exchange. With an
easement, you never know what eventually might happen in future
generations. And by taking firm title to the land, then we have
the option of going in and working on the tunnel, the drainage
ditch, the water pipeline as we wish to maintain it, whatever,
expand it if we have to, without having to go through
additional dealings with the National Forest Service. So that
was discussed. We talked about that option, and it was the
agreement of both parties that a land swap was probably the
best approach to take.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Beauprez?
Mr. Beauprez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of
quick questions, if I might. First to Ms. Estill.
You mentioned a couple of things I would like to probe. The
subsurface rights--I understand if you can, you would like to
have them all--my understanding that the City's pipeline
already goes through the Argentine Pass property. And for the
reasons that I think brought us to the point of wanting a sale
as opposed to an easement, it seems to make sense to me for the
City to maintain those subsurface rights. I would like you to
explain exactly why the Forest Service is going to--you are
not--the Forest Service doesn't anticipate any mining or
drilling, certainly, up there for oil or gas?
Ms. Estill. Well, we don't actually know which of the
parcels--we haven't been out on the ground with Golden and
looked at those parcels to see what is there. But generally,
no, we aren't expecting any difficulties with mining of
minerals. It really would be with--we think that Golden's
interest in keeping the subsurface, as you stated, is to be
able to maintain that tunnel. We believe that we could put in
the legislation the ability to maintain that tunnel in the
legislation, and then have the subsurface rights. It just makes
it cleaner for us if we have the subsurface with the surface,
and that is generally what we like to do.
Mr. Beauprez. You are open to working that out?
Ms. Estill. We are certainly open to working that out.
Mr. Beauprez. And I understand, I guess, some of your
concern about the timing of all this. But given the Sisk Act
and the provisions of this bill that if for some reason this
land swap falls apart, the land will be sold to the city of
Golden, you have committed to that, the cash exchange. Why the
delay, then, in allowing them to move forward? Because I am
going to ask the Mayor in just a second what happens if they
don't get to go there pretty quick.
Ms. Estill. Well, absent specific language that exempts the
Forest Service from obtaining clearances and conducting
analysis required by the Endangered Species Act, the National
Historic Preservation Act, and other environmental laws, we
would proceed with applying for just going through all of those
processes in advance of disposing the land. The only probable
or likely sticking point might be, as we exchange out of this
almost-10 acres, it is considered lynx habitat, and we will
have to go through consultation with Fish and Wildlife Service.
And conceivably, that could slow things down without specific
provisions in this legislation.
Mr. Beauprez. Mr. Mayor, what happens if--I know you
explained to me once that time is really critical. What happens
if you can't get going with construction?
Mr. Baroch. Well, if we don't get construction, obviously,
we won't begin filling the reservoir until we have the pipeline
in place. We have excess water during the wintertime out of
Clear Creek that we don't use right now. We could start storing
that water in the wintertime and then in the spring, when the
runoff is so heavy, generally there is excess capacity in Clear
Creek. Therefore, we would like to begin storing that water
immediately.
Mr. Beauprez. Why don't you take just a second and explain
your water situation last summer.
Mr. Baroch. That is a very complicated issue.
Mr. Beauprez. How short did you get?
Mr. Baroch. We had a half of our water supply cut out from
under us under a decree by the Water Court that dropped
priority 5 water down below priority 9, and as a consequence,
we went into severe restrictions during September and October
until November, when we got some additional--
Mr. Beauprez. How severe?
Mr. Baroch. We were down--typically in the summertime, we
run around 7.5 million gallons a day through our system for
watering our lawns and our people. We were down to 2.5 million
gallons a day. So we terminated all outdoor watering. The only
watering you could do was if you saved your water from taking a
shower. Before it warmed up, you could take it out and water
your vegetables or your flower garden. So we were--
Mr. Beauprez. This storage is pretty critical?
Mr. Baroch. This storage is very critical to us.
Mr. Beauprez. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. That concludes our testimony.
Again, I appreciate that.
And, Ms. Estill, I do want to pass on to the U.S. Forest
Service--I am not clear whether those forest firefighters that
we lost yesterday were with the Forest Service or the BLM, but
at any rate, if they were yours, we send on our deepest
condolences. This Committee has been very active in that fire
situation, but those are brave young men and women we have out
there on the front line. So we pass on our condolences.
Ms. Estill. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mark Udall. Mr. Chairman, if I could just--if I might,
Mr. Beauprez mentioned this bill is supported by a number of
local governments and groups, and I would ask that their
letters of support be included in the record of today's
hearing.
Mr. McInnis. Without objection, so ordered. The panel is
excused. Thank you very much.
[NOTE; Letters of support for H.R. 2766 have been retained
in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Rehberg. [Presiding] We now begin the hearing on H.R.
1723, the Caribbean National Forest Wilderness Act of 2003.
Mr. Rehberg. The sponsor of the bill, Resident Commissioner
Acevedo-Vila of Puerto Rico, could not be with us today.
Without objection, his statement will be submitted for the
record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Acevedo-Vila follows:]
Statement of Resident Commissioner Anibal Acevedo-Vila, a Delegate in
Congress from Puerto Rico, on H.R. 1723
Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate you affording the Caribbean
National Forest Wilderness Act of 2003, H.R. 1723, this hearing.
I would also like to thank the Ranking Member of the Committee,
Representative Nick Rahall, who is an original cosponsor of this bill,
for his strong support, in addition to the other members of the
Resources Committee who are cosponsors of this bill.
I am also thankful for the U.S. Forest Service's presence here
today. I have developed a good working relationship with the Forest
Service, both locally in Puerto Rico and in the national office, and I
appreciate Deputy Chief Elizabeth Estill sharing with us the
administration's position on the bill today.
As some of you may know the Caribbean National Forest, the only
tropical rainforest in the national forest system, celebrated its 100th
anniversary earlier this year. Twenty-seven years before this, in 1876,
Spain's King Alfonso XII proclaimed this forest a Crown Reserve, making
this forest, know locally as El Yunque, one of the first forest
reserves in the western hemisphere.
Due to the topography of El Yunque, unsuitable forest composition
for timber, and conservation by the Forest Service, El Yunque, and to a
greater degree the lands to be designated as the El Toro Wilderness in
this bill, maintain the characteristics that they had 100 years ago. El
Yunque contains virtually all of the primary forest in Puerto Rico, and
as such represents a unique cultural and natural heritage for Puerto
Ricans. The Wilderness Act was passed to protect just these types of
lands--where the forest has been affected primarily by the forces of
nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable.
Therefore, I believe that wilderness protection is appropriate and in
line with the history of these lands and the value they contribute to
Puerto Rico.
However, these beliefs are not solely mine. When the Forest Service
revised the management plan for El Yunque, the public widely supported
wilderness designations on the forest. As the population density in
Puerto Rico is among the highest in the nation, large, undeveloped
tracts of land are increasingly rare, while their value to the public
has grown significantly. Public support for wilderness led the forest
plan to nearly double the wilderness recommendation from 5,254 acres to
what is included in this bill, over 10,000 acres. What my bill proposes
to designate as wilderness is identical to that recommendation in the
Caribbean National Forest's revised land and resource management plan,
and would create the first wilderness area in El Yunque. It should also
be noted that there are no competing interests, such as timber harvest,
road construction, or water development, in the lands to be designated
as wilderness.
The El Toro area to be designated as wilderness through this bill
is also essential habitat for the Puerto Rican parrot. One of the ten-
most endangered birds in the world and a Federally listed endangered
species, the parrot requires large, undeveloped tracts of land for its
survival. It is for this reason that the only remaining wild population
of this bird, currently about 25 birds, is confined to El Yunque.
Taking into consideration the management needs of the Puerto Rican
parrot, this legislation permits nesting construction and watching and
monitoring activity to occur in the proposed wilderness area. In
addition to the Puerto Rican parrot, no fewer than eight other
threatened and endangered species call El Yunque home. Many other
species are endemic only to El Yunque, and the forest also provides
respite to dozens of migratory bird species. Protecting the El Toro
area as wilderness will ensure that the habitat of these species
remains undeveloped and well suited for their survival.
Water conservation is another important value of El Yunque. The
forest is comprised of 8 major watersheds that provide water for nearly
800,000 Puerto Ricans. Weather events in El Yunque, such as rainstorms
experienced earlier this year, lead to mudslides often around roads,
that impact water quality for both species and human consumers. Through
wilderness protection, much of this forest will be protected from road
development that can accelerate this type of erosion and water
impairment.
The El Toro area currently has a network of trails that permit an
array of recreational opportunities that will continue under wilderness
designation. Almost one million tourists a year currently visit and use
El Yunque. Local residents and tourists alike hike, swim, climb El Toro
peak--the highest peak in El Yunque, bird watch and otherwise take
advantage of the wild nature of the proposed wilderness area.
I believe that the characteristics and values of the proposed El
Toro Wilderness Area are very much in concert with the intent and
purpose of the Wilderness Act. Solitude, the absence of the imprint of
man, and nationally unique ecological and biological features comprise
El Yunque and the proposed wilderness area. It would be fitting that
the first wilderness designation in El Yunque be El Toro, as it
encompasses the qualities of the forest, and should be protected in
that nature for perpetuity.
Again, I very much appreciate the Chairman's scheduling of this
hearing for this bill and other worthy legislation. I appreciate the
support for this bill that my colleagues have provided, and I encourage
the support of this Subcommittee, and the Resources Committee in
considering and approving this bill.
______
Mr. Rehberg. We will now hear from Panel II on H.R. 1723.
Elizabeth Estill is Deputy Chief of Programs, Legislation, and
Communications at the United States Forest Service. Please go
ahead.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS,
LEGISLATION, AND COMMUNICATIONS, FOREST SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Estill. Thank you for the opportunity to provide USDA's
views on H.R. 1723. The Department supports H.R. 1723, which
designates approximately 10,000 acres of land in the Caribbean
National Forest Luquillo Experimental Forest in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as the El Toro Wilderness and as a
component of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
The Caribbean National Forest encompasses over 28,000 acres
of land, making it the largest block of public land in Puerto
Rico. It is the only tropical rain forest in the National
Forest system and, by far, the friendliest and most accessible
in the world. Almost a million people visit the Caribbean
National Forest each year from Puerto Rico, from the mainland,
and from abroad. It is the home to the Puerto Rican parrot, one
of the ten most endangered birds in the world, and nearly 240
species of trees and 120 terrestrial animals, four of which are
also listed as endangered species.
The 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the
Caribbean National Forest recommended wilderness designation
for the 10,000-acre El Toro area. We believe that the
designation of the El Toro Wilderness will contribute to a more
diverse national wilderness preservation system.
In conclusion, the Department of Agriculture
enthusiastically supports H.R. 1723.
This concludes my testimony. I am willing to answer any
questions.
Mr. Rehberg. Are there any questions from the Committee?
Mr. Udall?
Mr. Mark Udall. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I am moving
slowly since I have already seen you this morning, but--we had
those late votes. I don't have any questions at this time.
Thank you.
Mr. Rehberg. OK. Thank you, Ms. Estill. I might remind the
Committee that if they have any additional questions, the
hearing record will be left open for 10 days and you will have
an opportunity to submit those questions. And Ms. Estill, if
you could respond in writing, we would appreciate that.
Ms. Estill. I would be glad to.
Mr. Rehberg. I'd like to introduce the witnesses for H.R.
1005. On Panel III we have Mr. Chris Kearney, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Policy and International Affairs, Department of the
Interior; and the Honorable Don Davis, Commissioner, Rio
Blanco, Colorado.
Let me remind the witnesses that under the Committee rules
you must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes, but your
entire statement will appear in the record.
I now recognize Mr. Kearney for his statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis on H.R. 1005
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health, on H.R. 1005
At the outset, I want to welcome my good friend, Commissioner Don
Davis, here today. This is the second time in as many years that Don
has come out to preach the gospel of full-funding for PILT. Don, here's
to hoping that the next time you come to Washington, DC the President
will have signed this bill into law and you can talk about something
other than PILT. Welcome Don.
Colleagues, when Congress enacted Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT)
and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, it made both an admission and a
promise. The admission that Congress made was that it would be
fundamentally unfair for the Federal Government to own vast tracks of
land within a county or municipality--land that would otherwise provide
local revenue in the form of property tax to fund roads, schools and
other important social services--and not reimburse the county for those
revenue losses. Remember, the Federal Government's holdings are
generally immune from state and local taxation. And so Congress
affirmatively recognized that many localities would quite literally
whither on the vine without some form of compensation from the Federal
Government.
With that admission in mind, Congress made a promise--to provide
just and reasonable compensation to the local governments whose tax
base is eroded by a large Federal land ownership presence. That promise
was embodied and codified in PILT and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act,
which set out a reimbursement formula under which localities would be
compensated.
Unfortunately, Congress has rarely been willing to fund PILT and
the Refuge Revenue Fund at the levels authorized under these formulas.
You couldn't say that Congress totally broke its promise, but there's
no question we've been fudging--big time. In Fiscal Year 2003, for
example, Congress shortchanged PILT in excess of $100 million, and the
Refuge Revenue Sharing several million more. In the scheme of the
United States Treasury, this may not seem like a big deal.
Representatives of counties and other local governments--including my
good friend Don Davis who's here to testify today--will tell you
otherwise. In times when state and county governments are cash-
starved--and schools and hospitals and social services suffer because
of it--this mammoth shortfall strikes even deeper at rural communities.
Now there are some who say we can't afford permanent full funding
of PILT. I say we can't afford not to. PILT and the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Act fund the nuts-and-bolts programs that keep communities
strong. These dollars go directly to classrooms, to paving the
expansion of the local county road, to keeping cops on the street, and
to funding critical social service programs. This is mom-and-apple pie
stuff, Colleagues, that's being shortchanged because of Congress and
this and previous Administration's historic propensity to fudge on its
word.
H.R. 1005, the PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent Funding
Act, would rectify this inequity by doing just what the title
suggests--fully funding both programs without further appropriation.
The bill solidifies Congress' promise to our friends in local
government in ironclad terms by guaranteeing that appropriated moneys
will always equal the levels authorized by those complicated formulas.
No more partial funding, no more fudging on our word. H.R. 1005
settles the score once and for all for communities and local
governments.
______
STATEMENT OF CHRIS KEARNEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY/
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Kearney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,
members of the Committee. I am pleased to have the opportunity
to testify today on H.R. 1005, a bill that would make the
Bureau of Land Management's Payment In Lieu of Taxes Program
and the Fish and Wildlife Service's Refuge Revenue Sharing
Program mandatory.
A hearing on PILT took place almost a year ago today, on
July 25, 2002, before this Subcommittee, and our position on
this bill remains unchanged. The administration strongly
supports the PILT and RRS programs and views them as high
priorities. But the administration is strongly opposed to 1005
because it would force the Federal Government to either raise
taxes or cut into other programs that are integral to the
President's budget and important for the American public.
Now, the President's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request,
however, demonstrates our clear commitment to the PILT program.
The administration requested $165 million in Fiscal Year 2003
for PILT, and $200 million in 2004--which is an increase of $35
million. Furthermore, while the total amount requested for all
programs by the Department for Fiscal Year 2004 represents an
approximately 3.3 percent increase from the prior year, the
request for PILT is more than 21 percent over last year's
request for this important program, reflecting our continued
commitment and obligation to the PILT program even in the
context of other significant budget priorities.
While we recognize the importance of the program, it should
not be viewed in isolation from other Departmental and Federal
programs that do bring or will bring benefits to the counties
in the future. Examples include funding for rural fire
assistance and our efforts to work with gateway communities to
increase tourism.
This year some counties received slightly reduced PILT
payments to adjust for increased revenue received during the
previous fiscal year under the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act. This act provides payments to
compensate certain counties for declining timber receipts. The
combination of PILT payments and payments under Secure Rural
Schools Act, however, will result in higher overall payments
for the affected counties.
I would also like to note that we continue to engage in
discussions with the National Association of Counties
concerning issues associated with the allocation formula, and
we believe those issues should be addressed before considering
such a significant action as converting them to permanent
payments.
In conclusion, the administration recognizes that these
payments are important to local Governments, sometimes
comprising a significant portion of their operating budgets.
The PILT and RRS monies have been used for critical functions,
such as local search and rescue operations, road maintenance,
law enforcement, schools, and emergency services. These
expenditures often support the activities of people from around
the country who visit or recreate on Federal lands. The
Department looks forward to continuing to work cooperatively
with the communities on these important issues.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kearney follows:]
Statement of Chris Kearney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1005
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1005, a bill that would make the
Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Payments-in-Lieu of Taxes (PILT)
Program and the Fish and Wildlife Service's Refuge Revenue Sharing
(RRS) Program mandatory. A hearing on PILT took place almost a year ago
today on July 25, 2002, before this Subcommittee. Our position on this
bill remains unchanged. The Administration strongly supports the PILT
and RRS programs and views them as high priorities, but the
Administration is strongly opposed to H.R. 1005 because it would force
the Federal Government to either raise taxes or cut into other programs
that are integral to the President's budge and important for the
American people.
Background
The PILT Act (P.L. 94-565) was passed by Congress in 1976 to
provide payments to local governments in counties where certain Federal
lands are located within their boundaries. PILT is based on the concept
that these local governments incur costs associated with maintaining
infrastructure on Federal lands within their boundaries but are unable
to collect taxes on these lands; thus, they need to be compensated for
these losses in tax revenues. The payments are made to local
governments in lieu of tax revenues and to supplement other Federal
land receipts shared with local governments. The amounts available for
payments to local governments require annual appropriation by Congress.
In the past, the BLM has allocated payments according to the formula in
the PILT Act. In recognition of fact that this program is multi-bureau
in nature, beginning in FY 2004, funding and management of PILT will be
administered at the Departmental level. The formula takes into account
the population within an affected unit of local government, the number
of acres of eligible Federal land, and the amount of certain Federal
land payments received by the county in the preceding year. These
payments are other Federal revenues (such as receipts from mineral
leasing, livestock grazing, and timber harvesting) that the Federal
Government transfers to the counties.
The President's FY 2004 budget request demonstrates our commitment
to PILT. The Administration requested $165 million in FY 2003 for PILT,
and $200 million in FY 2004, an increase of $35 million. Furthermore,
while the total amount requested for all programs by the Department for
FY 2004 represents a 3.3% increase from the prior year, the request for
PILT is more than 21% over last year's request for this important
program, reflecting our continued commitment and obligation to the PILT
program even in the context of other significant budget priorities.
While we recognize the importance of the PILT program, it should not be
viewed in isolation from other departmental and Federal programs that
bring or will bring benefits to counties in the future. Examples
include funding provided for rural fire assistance and our efforts to
work with Gateway Communities to increase tourism opportunities.
This year, some counties received slightly reduced PILT payments to
adjust for increased revenue received during the previous fiscal year
under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.
This Act provides payments to compensate certain counties for declining
timber receipts. The combination of PILT payments and payments under
the Secure Rural Schools Act, however, will result in higher overall
payments to affected counties.
The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (RRS) (16 U.S.C. 715s) as amended,
was enacted in 1935. It authorizes payments to be made to offset tax
losses to counties in which U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) fee
and withdrawn public domain lands are located. The original Act
provided for 25 percent of the net receipts from revenues from the sale
or other disposition of products on refuge lands to be paid to
counties. The Act was amended in 1964 to make it more like the payment-
in-lieu of tax program. The new provisions distinguished between
acquired lands that are purchased by the Service and lands that are
withdrawn from the public domain for administration by the Service. For
fee lands, the counties received 3/4 of 1 percent of the adjusted value
of the land or 25 percent of the net receipts, whichever was greater,
with the value of the land to be reappraised every 5 years. They
continued to receive 25 percent of the net receipts collected on the
withdrawn public domain lands in their county.
The Act was amended again in 1978 in order to provide payments that
better reflected market land values to counties with lands administered
by the Service within their boundaries. The method used to determine
the adjusted cost of the land acquired during the depression years of
the 1930's (using agricultural land indices) resulted in continuing low
land values compared to the land prices that existed in 1978. Also,
other lands that were purchased during periods of inflated land values
were found to be overvalued. The Congress decided that the payments did
not adequately reflect current tax values of the property. It also
recognized that national wildlife refuges are established first and
foremost for the protection and enhancement of wildlife and that many
produce little or no income that could be shared with the local county.
In the 1978 amendments, Congress chose to distinguish between lands
acquired in fee and lands withdrawn from the public domain, by
recognizing that the financial impact on counties tends to be greater
when lands are directly withdrawn from the tax rolls, rather than when
the refuge unit is created out of the public domain and has never been
subject to a property tax. The formula adopted then, and still in
effect, allows the Service to pay counties containing lands acquired in
fee the greater of: 75 cents per acre, 3/4 of 1 percent of the fair
market value of that land, or 25 percent of the net receipts collected
from the area. If receipts are insufficient to satisfy these payments,
appropriations are authorized to make up the difference.
Counties can use funds for any government purpose, and pass through
the funds to lesser units of local government within the county that
experience a reduction of real property taxes as a result of the
existence of Service fee lands within their boundaries. Counties with
Service lands that are withdrawn from the public domain continue to
receive 25 percent of the receipts collected from the area and are paid
under the provisions of the PILT Act.
I would like to note that many of the same concerns we have
previously expressed regarding PILT funding hold true for RRS funding
as well. We continue to engage in discussions with the National
Association of Counties concerning issues associated with the
allocation formula and we believe those issues should be addressed
before considering such a significant action as converting these
payments to permanent mandatory payments.
Although the Administration supports the purpose of H.R. 1005, we
must oppose it for the same reasons that we opposed an identical bill
last year in the 107th Congress. We support protections for local
governments against the loss of property tax revenue when private lands
are acquired by a Federal agency. However, the Administration is
opposed to creating a new mandatory spending category to fund these
programs because it would force the Federal Government either to raise
taxes or cut into other programs that are integral to the President's
budget and important to the American public.
Conclusion
The Administration recognizes that these payments are important to
local governments, sometimes comprising a significant portion of their
operating budgets. The PILT and RRS monies have been used for critical
functions such as local search and rescue operations, road maintenance,
law enforcement, schools and emergency services. These expenditures
often support the activities of people from around the country who
visit or recreate on Federal lands. The Department looks forward to
continuing to work cooperatively with the communities on these
important issues.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you or the other members may have.
______
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Kearney.
Mr. Davis?
STATEMENT OF HON. DON DAVIS, COMMISSIONER, RIO BLANCO, COLORADO
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Subcommittee members, it is
an honor to appear before you to present this testimony in
support of H.R. 1005. My name is Don Davis, and I am a county
commissioner from Rio Blanco County, Colorado. I serve as
Chairman of the Public Lands Steering Committee of Colorado
Counties Incorporated, and as president of the Western
Interstate Region of the National Association of Counties.
H.R. 1005, the PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent
Funding Act represents a bipartisan effort to provide an
ongoing, secure source of funding. This legislation, introduced
in the House by Chairman McInnis, would permanently fund these
two programs so critical to public land counties. It is
landmark legislation and should be enacted without delay.
Counties are the general-purpose local government that must
provide public services both for the Federal employees and
their families and for the users of Federal lands. These local
services include law enforcement, search and rescue,
firefighting, health care, solid waste disposal, road and
bridge maintenance, et cetera.
In 1976, Congress enacted, and President Ford signed, the
Payment In Lieu of Taxes Act. Under the 1976 PILT formula,
total payments nationwide averaged about $100 million annually,
depending on the level established each year in the
appropriations process. There was no allowance for inflation.
In 1994 Congress amended the PILT formula at the request of
the National Association of Counties to recognize inflationary
costs. Unfortunately, in the intervening 8 years, no
Presidential budget has requested, nor has any Congress yet
appropriated, the amount authorized under the revised formula.
NACo and CCI with to go on record to applaud the members of
the House of Representatives for requesting a historic $225
million for PILT in Fiscal Year 2004. That was passed just a
few days ago. We thank you for your strong support. However,
though we are grateful for any increased appropriation, we view
incremental increases as stop-gap measures. PILT should not be
seen as just another spending program in the BLM, and it should
not have to compete with worthwhile conservation programs
within the Interior and related agencies.
In Colorado, 56 out of the 63 counties contain Federal
lands. There are a total of 23.6 million entitlement acres of
Federal lands in Colorado. With annual PILT payment in 2002 of
approximately $17.6 million, this works out to about 74 cents
per acre. However, in Rio Blanco County, we have 1.5 million
acres of Federal land and a PILT payment of $272,412, or about
18 cents per acre. In Hinsdale County in the southwestern part
of the State, the situation is even worse. With 676,515 acres
of Federal land, their PILT payment was only $70,770--about 10
cents an acre.
The 676,515 acres of public lands in Hinsdale County
represent 95 percent of the county. There are only about 37,000
acres of private land. Three hundred and five miles of 326
miles of county roads are located on Federal lands. In the
summer months, the population of Hinsdale County swells as much
as 20-fold. The influx of recreation-seeking visitors creates
extreme law enforcement challenges, which carry commensurate
costs. Local property taxes for the 37,000 acres of private
land averages $9.91 per acre, compared to 10 cents.
The National Association of Counties also supports
permanent funding for the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program
through H.R. 1005. Federal Wildlife Refuge acreage is not
automatically PILT-entitled. In fact, if it is acquired by Fish
and Wildlife Services from private owners, it is not covered by
PILT. This program is particularly important in the eastern
States.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Don Davis, Commissioner, Rio Blanco County,
Colorado, on behalf of The National Association of Counties & Colorado
Counties, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Subcommittee members, it is an
honor to appear before you to present this testimony in support of H.R.
1005. My name is Don Davis, and I am a County Commissioner from Rio
Blanco County, Colorado. I serve as Chairman of the Public Lands
Steering Committee of Colorado Counties, Inc., and as President of the
Western Interstate Region of the National Association of Counties
(NACo).
H.R. 1005, the PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent Funding
Act, represents a bi-partisan effort to provide an ongoing secure
source of funding for the counties entitled to payments under the
Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976. This legislation, introduced by
my Congressman, Chairman McInnis, would permanently fund this program
so critical to communities surrounded by Federally managed land.
The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program has a two-fold purpose: (1)
to help compensate counties ``in lieu'' of property taxes for the tax
exempt nature of Federally-owned lands; and (2) to help reimburse
counties for a portion of the costs of local services impacted by the
activities on and visitors to the public lands.
Counties are the general purpose local government that must provide
public services for both Federal employees and their families and for
the users of Federal lands. These local services include law
enforcement, search and rescue, fire fighting, health care, solid waste
disposal, local recreation programs, road and bridge maintenance, etc.
There are more than 1900 counties nationwide that are eligible to
receive PILT.
In 1976, Congress enacted, and President Ford signed, the Payments
in Lieu of Taxes Act. It was sponsored by Rep. Frank Evans of Colorado.
This legislation was based upon a key finding of the Congressional
Public Land Law Review Commission co-chaired by Rep. Wayne Aspinal of
Colorado and Rep. Mo Udall of Arizona. Under the 1976 PILT formula,
total payments nationwide averaged about $100 million annually,
depending upon the level established each year in the appropriation
process. There was no allowance for inflation.
In 1994 Congress amended the PILT formula, at the request of the
National Association of Counties, to recognize inflationary costs.
Unfortunately, in the intervening eight years, no President has asked
for, nor has any Congress appropriated, the full amount authorized
under the revised formula. This lack of secure funding has been
particularly distressing for rural public land counties like Rio Blanco
County and Hinsdale County in Colorado. In the PILT formula there is a
pro rata payment provision to disperse payment when less than full
payment is provided. This provision adversely affects counties with
large holdings of public lands that also have low populations. For
example, one year the payment for Rio Blanco County actually dropped by
$12,000 (about 8%) even though overall payment nationwide increased.
NACo supports an amendment to the statutory formula which would, in
conjunction with permanent full funding, allow the low-population high-
entitlement-acreage counties to realize more of the benefit from PILT.
However, even absent such an adjustment to the formula, this is an
inequity that can largely be corrected by the enactment of H.R. 1005.
In Colorado, 56 out of 63 counties contain Federal lands. There are
a total of 23.6 million ``entitlement'' acres of Federal lands in
Colorado, with annual PILT payment in 2003 of approximately $17.6
million. This works out to about seventy-four cents per acre.
However, in Rio Blanco County with 1.5 million acres of Federal
land, the PILT payment was $272,412, or about eighteen cents per acre.
In Hinsdale County the situation is even worse. With 676,515 acres of
Federal land their PILT payment was only $70,770, about ten cents per
acre.
The 676,515 acres of public lands in Hinsdale County represents 95%
of the county. There are only about 37,000 acres of private land. This
means that 305 miles of the 326 miles of county roads are located on
Federal lands. In summer months, the population of Hinsdale County
swells as much as a twenty-fold. The influx of recreation seeking
visitors creates extreme law enforcement challenges which carry
commensurate costs. In fact, a former Hinsdale County Sheriff was
killed on public lands by a poacher. Local property taxes for the
37,000 acres of private lands averaged $9.91 per acre, compared to the
ten cents per acre averaged for the PILT payment.
In Rio Blanco County we have a similar situation. Approximately 500
miles of the 900 miles of county roads are located on Federal lands.
The county is impacted by extensive natural resource activities on
these Federal lands. We have oil and natural gas production, coal
production, nacholite (or sodium bicarbonate) production, plus
considerable hunting, fishing and recreation activities. Quite frankly,
Rio Blanco County cannot adequately keep up with the demand for local
services. We need your help. Rio Blanco County is also facing the
future development of the world's richest deposit of oil shale. Shell
Oil Company is currently operating a research facility in our county
that looks promising. Development of these critical national resources
requires extensive infrastructure investment at the local level;
particularly if the development is going to be done in a manner which
is sustains important ecological values.
This year, the state and local governments in Colorado, across the
west and in fact across the country, face increased fire fighting costs
due to the high risk of catastrophic forest fires this summer. I am
concerned that Colorado faces a real threat of more future fires from
eco-terrorists. We have suffered previous eco-terrorist attacks in
Eagle County, where a ski lodge was burned, and in Boulder County,
where a new home was burned. When well-meaning mainstream environmental
organizations express concern over efforts to reduce fire risk through
fuel treatment programs outside the wildland urban interface, I fear
that the more radical fringe groups may initiate eco-terrorist
activities to stop programs they oppose. In any event, whenever any of
these fires spread to private lands, suppression becomes a state or
local responsibility, and a costly one, at that.
The National Association of Counties also supports fully funding
the Refuge Revenue Sharing program through H.R. 1005. The acreage in
wildlife refuges managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is not
automatically PILT entitlement acreage. In fact, if it was acquired by
the Fish & Wildlife Service from private owners, it is not covered by
PILT. The Refuge Revenue Sharing program is how local governments are
compensated for this special category of Federally owned tax-exempt
land. This program is particularly important in states outside the west
where most of the wildlife refuges were not carved out of the public
domain but have been acquired by the Federal Government from private
landowners. For example, in FY 2003, counties in the State of Maryland
received over $290,000 in Refuge Revenue Sharing, but only about
$92,000 in PILT. Similarly, Delaware counties received about $126,000
in Refuge Revenue Sharing, but only about $3,000 in PILT.
Some have suggested that PILT does not need to be funded at its
full authorization because many counties receive payments under
programs like the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act (PL 106-393), thus implying that counties are overpaid under
Federal programs. Please remember the facts:
1. LThe National Forests have produced billions of dollars of
revenues to the Federal treasury in recent years. Furthermore, Title II
projects under PL 106-393 will add millions more in badly needed
revenues for Federal forest restoration projects selected
collaboratively by Resource Advisory Committees.
2. LNational forest moneys to counties under PL 106-393 are
dedicated to roads and schools. PILT payments are flexible,
discretionary general funds, needed to pay for the services counties
must provide to visitors of these Federal lands and to the lands
themselves (e.g., public health and safety, search and rescue, solid
waste treatment and disposal). These two programs serve different, but
critical functions, yet both relate directly to tax-exempt Federal
lands.
3. LPL 106-393 Title I and III payments reduce the amount of PILT
payments received by a county. By operation of the PILT formula, when
the Federal Government increases its support for roads and schools, it
reduces its support of the other Federal land-related local services
counties must provide. For example, Crook County, Oregon, saw its PILT
payment drop from $824,141 in FY 2002 to $170,812 in FY 2003! Chelan
County, Washington, received $1,131,714 last year and only $857,298
this year. Tehama County, California, dropped from $324,602 to $81,184.
In rural areas where vast stretches of Federal lands are located, this
is real money that cannot be replaced.
The uniqueness of both the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program
and of natural resource revenue sharing programs must be explicitly
recognized and strictly maintained. PILT must not be confused with the
various revenue sharing programs which are linked to natural resource
development and usually have strings attached as to their use.
NACo believes that Congress was correct to enact PILT and Refuge
Revenue Sharing legislation to compensate counties for the tax-exempt
status of Federal lands and to help defray some of the local costs
associated with activities on these lands. As a county official
actively involved in NACo's efforts to secure equitable funding for
these programs, I urge you to approve H.R. 1005. This bi-partisan
legislation would provide a much needed and secure level of funding of
annual PILT payment to public land counties throughout the country.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
______
Mr. McInnis. [Presiding] Don, I wasn't here. I was out of
the room temporarily when you first came up. Thank you very
much for coming. You have been a terrific participant on these
issues over the years, and I appreciate very much your service
as a commissioner up there. I know you are well-respected in
your area.
Do we have any questions by members of the panel? Go ahead,
Mr. Pearce.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would direct a
question at Mr. Kearney.
My district is about 9 hours to get across it, and that is
at 75 miles an hour. It is very large, it is very rural. One of
our western counties, Catron County, for example, has about
18,000 square miles. New Mexico is 60 percent public lands. The
budgets in our counties with a high percent of public lands are
being decimated. In Catron County alone we have lost 250,000
animal units. That is a tremendous piece of their tax base to
run the functioning of the county.
If you think that the PILT payments should not be fully
funded, what are these counties to do as they continue to be
affected by the Endangered Species--that is taking--your
Department, in a lot of cases, is affecting the tax base
tremendously. Then you have people who are moving into these
areas and voluntarily taking animal units off. Ted Turner has
bought a lot of land in New Mexico and has really taken a lot
of the productive assets off of those lands.
What are these counties to do if we are not to--if you are
going to continue to buy up land from the Federal Government
and continue to erode the tax base, exactly how do you perceive
that these counties can function?
Mr. Kearney. Well, sir, I think those are challenges that
are increasingly growing in your area and elsewhere around the
West, and we are keenly aware of them. We think that there are
a number of programs throughout the Department, a number of
activities throughout the Department that perhaps can be of
assistance in trying to deal with some of those issues, other
than those dollars. And I think that we would be happy to work
with you and your staff on specific problems and challenges you
are facing in those issue areas with respect to how we can best
address them across the board in terms of the different
programs and agencies that we have. There are an enormous
number of agencies and programs that we have that we think can
also try to be helpful with that.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Kearney. The term
``assistance,'' if you give assistance, frankly, these people
just want to make their own living. A lot of the farmers and
ranchers have existed there for generations. On these
allotments and the permits, the grazing permits are being taken
away from them and not renewed. At some point you are not going
to have any ranchers who are willing to take that. And if you
think that there is a mess on public lands today that are
burning without ceasing in the West, if you take the animal
units off, if you take the grazing off, then I think the
environmental damage is going to be extreme, because the field
load buildup is going to do that.
And as you were talking about the programs in the
Department that are affecting the life--and your willingness to
offer assistance, the wolf introduction program is occurring in
Catron County. They got rid of the wolves because they were
decimating the livestock population out there, and now they are
being reintroduced. And not only that, but it is not just
wolves that are being reintroduced. They are taking the problem
wolves from my friend Mr. Renzi's State, the ones that are too
dangerous there, kill too much livestock, do too much damage,
they bring them over and put them in the corner of my State and
then I am not really too appreciative of that because I get to
answer the questions when I go in and talk to my constituents.
And so instead of providing assistance, your agencies are
providing more economic damage to a very, very troubled
economy--to individuals, but also to the counties that are
trying to function with decreasing budgets. Do you--what about
some of the programs that are causing such disarray? I will let
you answer, and that is my last question. Thank you.
Mr. Kearney. Sir, we understand that there are problems and
challenges out there on the land that are affecting ranchers
and grazers and all the issues that you have addressed, and we
are working hard to make sure that we fully appreciate the
impacts of all of the things that are happening on the land and
that we are working with the people on the land to try to deal
with those issues, and stand ready to try to do that and
address them any way that we can.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. Mr. Udall?
Mr. Mark Udall. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will be brief. I
wanted to welcome Commissioner Davis as well, and clarify for
the record that you are from Rio Blanco County.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Mr. Mark Udall. It is always great to have a Coloradan
here.
I just wanted to associate myself with the Chairman's
legislation, and make a remark to the effect that PILT is
especially good because it provides certainty to the counties.
And it doesn't link payments to management decisions, so that
commissioners in whatever county it may be aren't forced to
weigh in on all the portfolio of public lands issues--timber,
mining, wilderness, water projects, anything that has to do
with affecting your revenues.
So if we could get this done, and I want to urge the
administration to be creative in looking at how we pass this
legislation and fund it, then you all could turn your attention
to some of the pressing problems and opportunities you have
instead of every year having to fight for your PILT funding.
So I want to again thank the Chairman for this very
important piece of legislation for westerners, and a number of
easterners as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
I would like to, before I go to Mr. Cannon, just to mention
one thing about the PILT and so on. As you know, Mr. Davis--you
and I have talked on a number of occasions--PILT is but a small
part of the reimbursement if you consider the entire impact to
the area. I have noticed recently that in some of the water
debate that is going on within the borders of our State, that
some have said, well, we are going to pay payment in lieu of
taxes and you ought to be satisfied. Well, that does not
satisfy the mitigation that is required. PILT is just a partial
reimbursement to assist the counties in the impact.
So I would--I am saying this not so much for our people in
attendance today, but for the permanent record. We do not--
despite the fact that PILT has never really been fully funded,
even if it was, even if we got everything we wanted under PILT,
it is only a partial mitigation of the impact that results from
some of these lands, which run all the way from water
diversions to roads, as Mr. Udall said, and some of the
services that are rendered.
With that, Mr. Cannon, you may proceed. And welcome to the
Committee, Mr. Cannon. Also, I want to publicly acknowledge
that Mr. Cannon chairs our Western Caucus Coalition, which is
kind of the voice of the West. And as many of you know, many of
our colleagues here in the east don't really have public lands.
The public lands are in the West, the bulk of the public lands.
So we feel a voice for the Western Caucus is very important.
Mr. Cannon carries out that task very well. I appreciate your
service.
Mr. Cannon, you may proceed.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here as a member of the Resources Committee,
but not of the Subcommittee. I appreciate your allowing me to
be here. I appreciate and thank you for the bill that you have
introduced that is before us today.
Let me begin by associating myself with the remarks of my
good friend, Mr. Udall. We see differently on many issues in
the West, but on this one we see the same thing. Let me just
reiterate a couple of points.
PILT is important because you can't jerk it if you don't
like what counties do. That is very important for our counties
as they make the decisions. Second, Mr. Udall referred to
people in the West appreciating this, but also people in the
east. We often hear this chant that these are all America's
public lands, but America doesn't pay for them. The cost comes
in proximity. There is a huge penalty paid by the counties that
have these public lands within their borders, and they are
not--as the Chairman just indicated, those costs are not
covered by this program.
So first of all, let me thank you, Mr. Davis, for being
here. We appreciate your perspective on this issue. Mr.
Kearney, I have sat on the other side of the--where you are
sitting now, and I know that it is sometimes uncomfortable. But
let me just express for myself, and I think I express this as a
uniform voice for the Western Caucus, we are exceedingly
disappointed in the position of the administration on this
issue. Exceedingly disappointed. We just fought the issue on
the floor in the last few days.
And I am going to give you a chance to respond in just a
moment here, but as I read your testimony, it is not adequate.
We represent, as you look at the map--some people call it the
blue and red map--I call it the red map with blue fringes,
because the bulk of the map is rural counties, and that
represents the electoral base of this President, and we expect,
in this particular case, to have response.
Are you familiar, Mr. Kearney, with the work by my--the
Speaker of my House of Representatives in Utah, Marty Stevens?
He calls it ``Apple--''
Mr. Kearney. Yes, sir. He has been in to brief folks at the
Interior Department, yes, sir.
Mr. Cannon. Do you recall the conclusions from that
presentation, about how Federal lands in western states affects
the funding for schools?
Mr. Kearney. In essence, one of his concerns, as I recall,
was that there has been an increased demand in counties in his
and other States where the increased population has put an
increased demand on education without--
Mr. Cannon. I think you have missed the point. What he has
done here is a gross look at the West versus the East. He has
looked at the percentage of taxes that people pay in western
States, he has looked at the percentage of the budget that
States apply toward education, and what he comes up with is a
yawing gap between what is paid in the West for education and
what is paid in the east. So we are taxed more heavily, we pay
more heavily, and the only difference, adjusting for everything
else, the only difference is the public lands that we have in
the West.
So we get to pay the cost of those public lands in our
higher taxes, in our lower expenditure on children, and you say
to us today that the administration strongly opposes, or is
opposed to H.R. 1005 because it would force the Federal
Government to either raise taxes or cut other programs.
Now, with all due respect, isn't this a matter of adjusting
priorities, not cutting programs? We have cut taxes. This
administration has cut taxes. In the process, we are going to
re-juggle things. Would you mind addressing that issue,
particularly the issue of whether we are going to have to raise
taxes; second, whether we don't have room to fix this program
in place, since our counties have to count on it; and finally,
if it is a priority and we are going to do it anyway, why not
do it the way this bill suggests?
Mr. Kearney. Mr. Cannon, there is no question that this
program and the issues associated with this program and the
demands that it places on the counties are of critical
importance and a challenge that has to be addressed. We are,
within the confines of the budget the President has submitted
and the position of this administration with respect to
mandatory spending being clear, however it is also clear that
we believe strongly in the program, strongly in what it is
trying to do. We have provided, I believe, an unprecedented
increase in this program with respect to past years and,
frankly, within the context of the overall Interior Department
budget. With respect to that, we have gone well above. We are
somewhere on the order of 20 percent over what the rest of the
programs within the administration budget for Interior
received. We are much closer to what Congress is on track to
provide for this program. We are addressing administrative
changes with respect to the money.
Mr. Cannon. But I don't think you are answering the
question that I asked, if you don't mind.
Mr. Kearney. In terms of prioritization, there is no
question that there are a variety of priorities that have got
to be addressed, and this is one of them. And within the
constraints of the budget that the administration has submitted
and the position of this administration, I think we have
demonstrated that it is one of the highest priorities at the
Department of Interior, as well as also recognizing that we do
have other priorities in addition to that in terms of matters
related to homeland security, in terms of fire, in terms of
education--other programs that affect the West and western
counties as well--in the broader budget of the administration.
So it is, we believe, a high priority of the administration
with respect to--within the confines of the budget that we have
and the setting of the priorities.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent for
an additional minute?
Mr. McInnis. Certainly. You may proceed.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. Let me just point out that it is not
a matter of cutting taxes or cutting other programs. In fact,
there are lots of other options. For instance, we have, I
think, already identified by the Interior Department 5 million
acres of surplus lands. We can sell those lands.
Let me just end by saying that we appreciate the priority
that is given the West. We have to do this stuff with homeland
security because we have this huge and untended forest and
other public lands that could go up in vapor overnight and ruin
our environment, kill endangered species, and we have people
that have the animus to do that. So we have to do some of those
things. That is not helping our counties. It is nice that that
is being done, but that is an American obligation by the
American people, and our counties are the folks that are
suffering the disproportionate burden. Because every time you
guys do--or every time the Federal Government, not the Interior
Department--but as the Federal Government creates mandates on
our local police, we have to pay them in our counties, and that
is a huge disproportionate impact on rural counties as compared
with the urban counties.
Let me just tell you plainly. It is the highest priority of
the Western Caucus--that is the 125 or so westerners who are
associated with the caucus, so I can't speak for all of them,
but I am pretty sure that most of them have that view, and the
50 or 60 that are active and regularly involved in the Western
Caucus--to get PILT funded fully up to the level of the
appropriation. And we want to raise that over time.
Secondly, this bill is of major importance. I suspect you
will find that the Western Caucus members are going to focus on
this over this next few months, and we will weigh in again and
again and again until we solve this problem. Solving the
problem is raising the funding and making it permanent.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Mark Udall. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cannon. Certainly. Whatever remains of that minute.
Mr. Mark Udall. Just briefly. I have been listening
intently trying to find a place where I could disagree with my
good friend Mr. Cannon, and I can't. And so I further want to
associate myself with your remarks and let this administration
know that this is a bipartisan effort on the part of western
members of this House, to fully fund PILT and, as the Chairman
has said, make real the promise that has been presented for so
many years to western counties.
Mr. Cannon. I thank the gentleman for that. I am wondering
if we are going to get lightning or something here. This is at
least a historic moment. I thank the gentleman.
Now, I suggest that as you consider this, it is not just
the Western Caucus, but a huge number of people who have a
bipartisan interest. I think I can speak for those people that
I deal with often who are northeastern Republicans, who often
disagree with us on western issues. I don't think you are going
to find a bit of disagreement on this issue. That is, that they
are going to want--they understand that there is a
disproportionate burden, they are my friends and the friends of
other members of the Western Caucus. They are going to want
something to happen here. And we are clear on this point and
want to express that we the greatest clarity that we possibly
can.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do yield back.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Cannon and Mr. Udall.
I would just note, for sensitivity purposes, that in the
statement which is being referred to, the language ``because it
would force the Federal Government to either raise taxes or cut
into other programs,'' what the Federal Government needs to
realize is that they have forced Mr. Davis and his county to
either raise taxes or cut into other programs. So it is really
kind of ironic that the Government comes, takes the land off
the tax rolls, forces the local county to have to subsidize or
raise taxes, and then when it is time for them to pay their
fair share, they say, oh, my gosh, we don't want to have to cut
our programs. It just ain't good.
So to wrap this up, Mr. Davis, do you have anything else? I
know some points have come up that you might want to answer.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, your last remark is very much to
the point. And as you know, in Colorado, county commissioners
don't raise taxes. It takes a vote of the people. And we
recently attempted to do that, because our economy is going the
way of many economies across our Nation. And the people said
no. So we have done all the liposuction on the fat that we can,
and we are now--we are watching the blood flow. And it is very
serious. This is one program that could help us.
That is one point. And another is, it isn't all the West.
Last year I sat here with a lady from North Carolina. There are
many eastern states that have PILT. As a matter of fact, I
think the only one that does not have PILT is Rhode Island.
Mr. Cannon. Would the Chairman yield for just one more
comment.
Mr. McInnis. Yes, sure. Go ahead.
Mr. Cannon. I would ask you, Mr. Kearney, and I know you
have to run this stuff through--your testimony through OMB, but
you may want to take a pencil or yell at those guys and not let
them force you to say things like ``the problem here is raising
taxes or cutting programs.'' That is something that I think you
guys can control in Interior. At least you ought to be yelling
at them if they insist on that kind of language, which is
deeply offensive.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. I know that, at least
as Chairman of the Committee, I have had a number of
discussions with Mr. Renzi on this issue, on this particular
issue. Mr. Renzi, if you wouldn't mind, I would appreciate you
just kind of covering some of that area real quickly.
Mr. Renzi. Yes, thank you. In a matter of saving some time,
I will hold my questions, which were really covered by Mr.
Cannon.
I just want to associate myself with my colleague Mr.
Pearce's comments about the wolf and the way we treat our
neighbors out west. That rare and endangered wolf introduction
program turns out, as we found out recently, and we suspected
early on, that these wolves also have now dog DNA in them. And
so these hybrid wolves that are destroying many of the cattle
in the West, and particularly putting some of our ranchers out
of business, it turns out they contain dog DNA. Not even they
are hybrid wolves.
So I lend myself to the comments of my colleagues as it
relates to wanting to see the PILT program fully funded and,
hopefully, these increases that we are hoping for, I think--did
you mention 21 percent? Hopefully we will see that begin to
grow.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Are there any further questions by the
members? Seeing no further questions, I want to thank the
panel. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. As you know this
is a very high issue of interest, would be a good way to put
it. So thank you again. Appreciate it, and appreciate the
distance you have traveled. We will now call up our witnesses
for H.R. 2707. Ms. Estill and Mr. James Tate, with the
Department of Interior. Mr. Stenholm, thank you for coming. If
you would like to join us at the dais, you are more than
welcome to, or at the table, whatever your choice would be. Go
ahead and be seated. Thank you very much for coming.
Because of the size of the panel, we are going to do the
panel in two sections. We will do the first people that I have
called, and then we will bring up the second panel. We will
withhold questions until we have had both panels make their
presentations.
I am pleased today to have Mr. Stenholm and Mr. Pearce both
come to the Committee for testimony on this. Mr. Stenholm, I
will let you begin with your statement, and then we will move
to Mr. Pearce, and then on to the rest of the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis on H.R. 2707
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, on H.R. 2707
Today the Subcommittee will consider Tamarisk eradication
legislation offered by my friend and Colleague Stevan Pearce, who I
want to personally commend for his hard work and leadership on this
important issue. I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses
today, including my old friend Dr. John Redifer from Colorado, and
working with the Members of this Committee over the coming weeks to get
Tamarisk control legislation enacted into law.
Every year billions of gallons of the West's water--that's right, I
said billions--are sopped up by a tenacious and all-too-prevalent
invasive tree called Tamarisk, or Salt Cedar. If you've been out
kayaking or rafting the Colorado River, or gone fly-fishing on one of
her many tributaries, you've seen this harmless looking tree--it's
seems to be everywhere.
But make no mistake about it--this non-native vegetation is
anything but harmless. Tamarisk is the equivalent of a massive rat hole
on the West's waterways. It is robbing the West blind of its most
cherished commodity--water.
Consider these facts:
When it comes to water in the West, it's not too often that you
find an area on which everyone agrees. But in Tamarisk, it appears that
we finally have a common enemy. Upper basin States, lower basin States,
California, Colorado, environmentalists, fisherman, those who want more
dams, and the ``flat-earthers'' trying drain Lake Powell--all seem to
agree that a massive Federal, state, local and private effort is needed
to yank this unwanted invader from the banks of the West's rivers and
streams.
Congress can't make it rain, but giving land managers the tool to
eradicate Tamarisk isn't a bad days work. It's a big challenge, and it
won't be cheap or easy--we should have no allusion about that. But it
is a no brainer
______
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Stenholm, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Stenholm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and the
members of the Committee for allowing me to testify here this
morning. I commend the Resources Committee for taking such
swift action on this bill that my colleague, Congressman Steve
Pearce, and I have been working on so diligently.
The effects of the salt cedar and Russian olive invasion
can be seen in more than half of the continental United States.
I am glad today's panel includes scientists, individuals
working in the field to control this non-native species, and I
will gladly leave the science on this issue for them to
explain.
I want to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance
of brush control demonstration projects and outline the
benefits of these programs for our communities in western
United States.
I represent the 17th Congressional District in the West
Central part of Texas. As in much of America, drought has
certainly left its mark on West Texas. As a result, salt cedar
proliferated in this area as receding waters left ideal
conditions for growth of this invasive plant. The devastating
results, evident throughout the Upper Colorado River basin,
have become more acute in recent years as the salt cedar
invasion has severely diminished the availability of fresh
water supplies.
Not only is this the largest waste of fresh water in the
West, but salt cedar increases soil salinity and fire
frequency. It develops into monotypic thickets that displace
valuable native plant and tree species, and has virtually no
economic or environmental benefit. To underscore the
devastation this plant causes, I offer this example. The
Colorado River Municipal Water District estimates that the salt
cedar consumed more water in 2002 than the district's largest
municipal customer, a city with more than 100,000 people.
The combined capacity of the district's three reservoirs
fell below 25 percent during 2002, and it became readily
apparent that salt cedar was robbing municipalities of this
precious resource. The district has worked closely with many
Federal, State, and local entities to begin brush control
projects within the Colorado River watershed. In cooperation
with private and public land managers, the Colorado River
Municipal Water District implemented salt cedar control
projects with reasonable success. Further, private land owners
have partnered with the Natural Resources Conservation Service
to employ brush control on their properties, and in some cases
the dormant streams and creeks have again begun to flow where
those brush control projects were put into action.
I am convinced this bill moves in the direction toward real
solutions to the salt cedar and Russian olive invasion. It
outlays the framework for private and public land managers to
cooperate with the Department of Interior, USDA, Army Corps of
Engineers, local soil and water conservation districts, and
State agencies to work together in these demonstration
programs. After all, it will take integrated control and
management practices to significantly deter further spread of
this non-native species.
I believe Congress should play an integral role in the
mitigation of these invasive pests, since much of the invasion
has occurred on Federal lands. More importantly, Congress
cannot ignore the fact that Federal agencies introduced the use
of Russian olive to minimize soil erosion in riparian areas.
Since that introduction, these plants have spread throughout
the United States, and therefore we must take a proactive
approach to restore our public and private lands to healthy
levels.
The fact remains, to minimize the wasteful reductions in
our Nation's water supply, Congress must take immediate action
to implement a control plan for sale cedar. I have worked
closely and tirelessly during my time in Congress to address
the scarce water situation in West Texas. I can attest that
brush control efforts have produced most lasting results in the
17th District. Like most of the United States, West Texas has
been devastated by drought, highlighting the importance of
developing a long-term plan to ensure that communities will
have an adequate supply of drinking water. In the 17th District
of Texas there is virtually nothing of greater daily concern
than the availability of fresh water. And while our demand for
water grows, the supply dwindles. In order to meet projected
water needs, we must develop integrated plans to increase
supplies while reducing demand for water.
I close by saying that, unlike a barrel of oil, it is tough
to put a price on clean, fresh water.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to testify.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Stenholm.
Mr. Pearce?
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE PEARCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
you for your willingness to address this problem by holding
hearings. I would also like to express my appreciation for you
and your staff for working diligently with me to produce this
bill.
Also, thanks to Mr. Stenholm, who has been tireless in
working with me on the bill, and for the hard work that we are
doing to ensure passage of this important measure.
I would also like to thank Mr. Tom Davis, who is on the
panel today. He is the president of the Carlsbad Irrigation
District. He is here to testify. He has long been involved in
salt cedar eradication. His testimony will share valuable
experience and knowledge as we move forward. Mr. Davis is the
one who almost single-handedly tries to balance the water needs
of the southern portion of New Mexico, where the Pecos runs
into Texas.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, salt cedar and Russian olive are
both invasive species that adversely impact the water supply.
They increase soil salinity, they lower the potential water
that soil can hold, and increase the fire frequency. Just a few
weeks ago, in Albuquerque, several hundred homes along the Rio
Grande River burned, forcing about 600 people to be evacuated
from their homes. This fire burned many of the native
cottonwood and willow trees. One of the main culprits being
blamed for the escalation of the fire is the large amount of
underbrush that had collected. Most of that was salt cedar.
Without the buildup of salt cedar, the fire probably would not
have burned as extensively or with the intensity that it did.
One of the problems that is caused by the salt cedar is an
inability to deliver the water to Texas that the Supreme Court
has allocated. As you know, the Supreme Court made compacts
between all of the States to determine the amount of water that
each State gets. In specifically dry years, the upstream States
are put at extreme disadvantage, and then, with the invasion of
species that are sucking the water out of the river, deliveries
are extremely difficult, causing economic chaos as disarray as
well as the inability for communities to have the water which
they deserve and need.
The particularly difficult piece of this whole equation is
that this plant is not native. It is a non-native species that
was imported and is now being used by environmental communities
to establish habitat and to establish the reasons for habitat
being recognized. Salt cedar is widely distributed and is
extensive along riparian areas in the western United States,
particularly along Colorado, Rio Grande, Pecos, the Gila
rivers. Controlling and, hopefully 1 day, completely
eradicating salt cedar and Russian olive is important. As we
eradicate salt cedar, we will increase the flow of water in
streams, springs, and rivers, restore native plants that are
less water-consuming, and improve habitat.
Because of the widespread nature of salt cedar and Russian
olive, there have been many projects to clear these trees and
then to estimate how much water was saved. The increased stream
flows and water restoration estimates vary widely. The high
range is from 69 acre-feet saved per year down to a low of
between 0 to 1.5 acre-feet per year per acre cleared. The last
estimate is based on a study done by the USGS on the Pecos
River in New Mexico.
H.R. 2707 directs the Secretaries of Interior and
Agriculture to implement demonstration projects over large
acreages and time scales in order to monitor the actual saved
water on both surface and ground water. This information will
allow the Secretaries to formulate a comprehensive management
plan, including cost, and distinguish when and where
eradication methods are most effective. Almost everyone can
agree, regardless of what side of the political spectrum they
are on, that controlling salt cedar and Russian olive for water
salvage, riparian restoration, salinity control, fire control,
and habitat restoration is a positive benefit. However, without
the input of good scientific input, this task may well prove to
be impossible. H.R. 2707 will provide the sound scientific
basis needed for our continuing to contribute new, innovative
approaches and solutions.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Stenholm. I look
forward to working with you to make any changes and
improvements to this bill and secure passage so this important
work can move forward. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Pearce.
Ms. Estill?
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS,
LEGISLATION, AND COMMUNICATIONS, FOREST SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Estill. Thank you for the opportunity to provide USDA's
views on H.R. 2707, the Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control
Demonstration Act, which directs the Secretary of Interior and
the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Forest
Service, to carry out a demonstration program to assess
potential water savings through control of salt cedar and
Russian olive on forest and public lands under their
jurisdiction.
One of the greatest threats to the national forest is this
spread of unwanted, invasive species. The Department agrees
completely with the goals of H.R. 2707, which would provide
important information for managing two non-native invasive
species that, as we have heard, pose significant ecological
threats in the western United States. However, the Department
has some concerns and would like to work with the Subcommittee
to clarify and improve the bill.
The genus Tamarix, commonly known as salt cedar, is
comprised of shrubs or trees native to arid saline regions of
Eurasia and Africa. Since the 1830's, ten species have been
introduced into North America as ornamental plants and for
windbreaks. Two species of salt cedar have escaped cultivation
and rapidly invaded riparian areas of the western United
States. Today, salt cedar has infested over 1 million acres in
the western United States, consuming large quantities of water,
intercepting deep water tables, and interfering with natural
aquatic systems. It disrupts the structure and stability of
native plant communities and degrades native wildlife habitat.
Russian olive is also a native of southern Europe and
western Asia that was first introduced in the last 1800's as an
ornamental tree and windbreak. Although it is a non-native
invasive species, Russian olive is also a popular and hardy
plant that is sold commercially for landscaping purposes.
However, as its impact to native species has become evident, it
has been declared a noxious species in some States, and sales
have been banned in others, such as Colorado. Like salt cedar,
Russian olive is a fast-growing plant that can out-compete
native vegetation and tax water reserves.
We would like to work with the Subcommittee and the
Department of Interior to clarify the roles of the departments
and the agency referenced in the bill, to specify components
and requirements of the assessment report, and to develop
criteria for selection of the demonstration project areas.
Land managers in communities are currently stretching their
limited resources to address the ecological problems posed by
these two species. The increased understanding of the impacts
of these species on the quantity of surface and ground water,
as well as the effectiveness of various treatments, would
advance our Nation's ability to avoid or reduce undesired
ecological consequences.
This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Tate?
STATEMENT OF JAMES TATE, SCIENCE ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Tate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. I am Jim Tate, science advisor to the Secretary of
Interior, Gale Norton, and a former resident of Golden,
Colorado. Seems like everybody here is from Colorado.
I want to thank you for providing the Department of
Interior the opportunity to testify on H.R. 2707. The
Department of Interior supports the goals of H.R. 2707 and we
are committed to working with you to ensure the program
established will be both effective and efficient in the control
and management of two of the invasive weeds that are affecting
our Nation's economy and its ecology.
This legislation focuses on two of the dozens of weed
species that plague our public and private lands. These two
groups of weeds--salt cedars, or tamarisk; and olives, both
Russian and autumn--are similar in many ways. They have been
shown to out-compete native vegetation, confound water
management, and cost our economy millions of dollars. And they
are different, in that salt cedar is established on millions of
acres, but olives, by comparison, are just getting a good
foothold.
Studies conducted since the 1950's have shown that dense
tamarisk stands utilize more water on a daily basis than native
cottonwood, willow plant communities. Based on these studies,
estimates have been made that water lost for irrigation,
municipal uses, flood control, and hydropower run between $133
million and $265 million. Irrigation losses alone are as much
as $120 million annually.
But I have to suggest caution in how we say these things
about the use of water by tamarisk, in particular. The use of
water is divided into evapotranspiration--the water that is
utilized by the plant itself--and other effects on water
management, such as percolation of water into the alluvium,
when the water is slowed down by dense stands. Water released
for irrigation purposes from an upstream reservoir may not even
get to their intended destination when tamarisk is blocking the
channel. The effects of tamarisk and olive on other natural
resource values have been documented as well and are equally as
important as the water-management confounding effects.
Currently DOI, the Department of Interior, uses strike
teams to manage invasive plants on Federal lands, both in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, where these teams are being
developed, and modeled after the National Park Service's exotic
plant management teams. In some cases, such as olives, the
resources potentially at risk have been detected early enough
and can be spot-treated to avoid costly control efforts that
might be necessary for tamarisk. This early detection and rapid
response model is receiving increased attention as a means of
preventing the spread and establishment of olives.
But areas with well established species such as salt cedar
require considerably more effort to manage. There, we have
trained and certified specialists that clear areas vital to
wildlife resources, and they use integrated management plans
that involve both mechanical, chemical, and even physical means
of removing the plants. Our National Wildlife Refuge at Bosque
del Apache has served as a demonstration laboratory for the
control and management of tamarisk, and that is a place we have
been doing quite a bit of research.
We do believe some additional research is needed. As
identified in H.R. 2707, more precise information is needed on
the extent of infestations, management options, control
methods, strategies. Most urgently, more information is needed
on areas that would most likely respond to restoration
projects, and this would be needed to help develop an
integrated control and restoration plan--a sort of best
practices plan--that will provide land managers at all levels
of Government with the options available to them for control.
The Department currently promotes partnerships with private
land owners, and there are a number of such programs mentioned
in my written testimony.
Currently, the Departments of Interior and Agricultural are
cooperating in a cross-cut budget for Fiscal Year 2004. This is
an interagency approach to invasive species control. This is a
performance-based cross-cut, where the agencies work together
to identify appropriated money directed to specific invasive
species, such as tamarisk, and to develop common performance
measures for the use of those monies. Under this performance
umbrella, identified new and base funds will be applied in the
Departments of Interior and Agriculture to control and manage
the spread of tamarisk.
As a means of deciding how to spend the Fiscal Year 2004
funds proposed in the President's budget, the Department is
considering a strategy workshop to be held in the West sometime
this fall. The purpose would be to gain stakeholder input for
our roadmap containing common protocols and decision criteria,
best practices for tamarisk-control management.
I will finish up very quickly. I see my time has expired.
The Departmental views on H.R. 2707, we view the
comprehensive assessment called for in Section 3(a) very
positively, and we believe such an approach helps Federal land
managers develop a more coordinated long-term approach.
Section 3(b) would require the Secretaries of Agriculture
and Interior to initiate demonstration projects. We recognize
the importance of carrying out strictly controlled projects
that would provide us with practical control methods; however,
the language in this subsection, when viewed in combination
with Subsection 2(a) and Subsection 3(d), does not make clear
which secretary and how the program would be initiated.
The legislation would authority $25 million for each of
fiscal years 2004 through 2007. We are concerned the bill does
not provide sufficient direction on how the appropriated funds
could be distributed.
And we also have concern about the overall costs of the
program. While the administration's cross-cut budget evidences
our commitment to controlling invasive species, the program
established under this legislation would have to compete with
other priority activities within the context of the President's
budget.
And finally, the Department notes that the actions called
for in H.R. 2707 can be achieved within existing authorities.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tate follows:]
Statement of Dr. James Tate, Science Advisor to the Secretary of the
Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2707
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Jim Tate, Science
Advisor to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton. I want to thank you
for providing the Department of the Interior (Department) the
opportunity to testify before you regarding H.R. 2707, legislation to
promote the control and management of the invasive species saltcedar,
or tamarisk, and Russian olive. The Department supports the goals of
H.R. 2707, and we are committed to working with you to ensure that the
programs it establishes will be both efficiently delivered and
effective.
Let me begin by providing you with some background on this issue,
followed by brief comments on the legislation.
Background
In the late 19th century, importation of several species of the
genus Tamarix, commonly called tamarisk, which now interbreed in the
United States, and Russian olive came just as the Department began
efforts to mediate land speculation and work closely with western
governors and Indian tribes during the turbulent settlement of the
West. The scientific expeditions of John Wesley Powell (which carried
out the Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain region
in 1874) set in motion the still-evolving paradigm that wise
development informed by science provides the best hope for conservation
and future use of our Nation's natural resources.
The Department is one of the Nation's principal conservation
agencies, charged with protecting and providing access to our Nation's
natural and cultural heritage. Today, Departmental authorities provide
for the management and protection of resources in an area of the West
now increasingly under pressure as population densities mushroom and
water resources are increasingly stressed. This region of the country
also has seen the greatest impact from the species addressed in this
legislation.
Scope of the Problem
Russian olive is a hardy, fast-growing tree native to Europe and
western Asia. It was introduced into the United States in the 19th
century and was promoted as windrow and ornamental plantings. It grows
along streams, in fields, and in open areas. It is shade-tolerant, and
it grows well in a variety of soil and moisture conditions. While
Russian olive is primarily found in the West, it also is present in the
Eastern United States.
Tamarisk comprises a suite of several species also imported to the
United States in the 19th century for use as windbreaks and erosion
control plantings. It now covers approximately 1.6 million acres of
riparian lands within all the seventeen western states (as far north as
Montana). The spread of tamarisk, estimated at 50,000 acres per year,
is often supported by its flammability. It rapidly produces dense
biomass and secretes salt on the soil that suppresses native plant seed
germination and seedling growth.
Preliminary studies have shown that dense tamarisk stands utilize
more water on a daily basis than native cottonwood-willow plant
communities. There is more total surface area on the leaves of tamarisk
plants than on cottonwood and native shrubs growing in a given area,
and tamarisk continues to release water through the pores in its leaves
during mid-day, whereas native cottonwoods shut this process down to
conserve water. Tamarisk growing in the streambed can also slow the
water flow, allowing additional time for percolation of the water into
the alluvium. Water released for irrigation purposes from an upstream
reservoir may thus not get to its intended destination when tamarisk is
blocking the channel.
Estimates of the value of water lost--for irrigation and municipal
uses, flood control, and hydropower production--run between $133
million and $265 million. Irrigation losses alone are as much as $120
million annually. See, e.g., Zavaleta, ``Valuing Ecosystem Services
Lost to Tamarix Invasion in the United States,'' in Invasive Species in
a Changing World, ed. Harold A. Mooney and Richard J. Hobbs
(Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2000), 261-300.
The growing abundance of tamarisk along western rivers has led
resource managers to seek to control it in order to: (1) increase the
flow of water in streams that might otherwise be lost to
evapotranspiration and percolation; (2) restore native vegetation along
the banks and floodplains of rivers and shorelines of reservoirs or
lakes; (3) reduce hazardous fuels; and (4) improve wildlife habitat.
As you know, the Department, through the Bureau of Reclamation, has
a significant role in the distribution of water throughout much of the
West and Southwest. Because of its significant impact on water
resources alone, the Department has a strong interest in the control of
tamarisk as part of its management efforts. For this reason, much of
the remainder of my statement will focus on control efforts for this
species.
Current Departmental Tamarisk Management Efforts
Current Departmental programs and activities focus control and
management efforts for tamarisk on areas with resources at risk. Some
areas are so heavily infested that expert ``strike'' teams have been
used to remove the dense vegetation. For example, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) is in the process of establishing such ``strike
teams,'' modeled after the National Park Service's (NPS) Exotic Plant
Management Teams (EPMT), to combat invasive species, including
tamarisk, in the Southwest. Areas vital to wildlife resources are
cleared using mechanical, chemical, and physical means. Comprehensive
conservation plans are used to guide these efforts and to indicate the
areas of highest priority for waterfowl, endangered species, or other
wildlife habitat values. In some cases, resources potentially at risk
from tamarisk incursion are spot-treated early enough to keep the
plants away, thus avoiding costly control efforts. This early detection
and rapid response model is receiving increased attention as a means of
preventing the spread and establishment of tamarisk.
Place-based Research and Testing
Departmental land management operations focus significant funding
for tamarisk control on refuges, national parks and monuments, and
along irrigation canals under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Reclamation. Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge has served as a
demonstration laboratory for control and management of tamarisk,
including research and development of innovative methods for restoring
native riparian vegetation and working with nearby private landowners
and Indian Tribes to implement them. Biomass removal, intermittent
flooding, chemical treatments, and other mechanical methods have all
been tested and measured for effectiveness and efficiency. Cooperating
with researchers from nearby universities and other research
institutions, such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory, scientists
and land managers have also tested methods to reduce the likelihood of
later re-infestation by tamarisk.
Because of our role in the management of Western lands, we
recognize the need for on the ground management of invasive species
like tamarisk. However, we also recognize that there are areas where
our control and restoration efforts will benefit from targeted research
and development projects. More information is needed regarding the
identification of areas or situations that would most likely respond to
vegetative restoration projects once tamarisk removal has begun. Such
information will also assist in the development of an integrated
control and restoration plan--a ``best practices'' plan that will
provide land managers at all levels of government with options for
removal, control, and restoration of lands infested with tamarisk.
Programs to Promote Private Partnerships
Various programs within the Department seek to promote partnerships
with private landowners to address problem species like tamarisk. One
initiative that addresses these issues is the cooperative conservation
component of the challenge cost share programs in the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), NPS and FWS. These programs emphasize building
partnerships for the conservation of natural resources and provide
expanded opportunities for land managers to work with landowners and
others to form creative conservation partnerships. This initiative
recognizes that nature knows no jurisdictional boundaries and that,
through these partnerships, the Department's land managers can work
with landowners and other citizen stewards to tackle invasive species,
reduce erosion along stream banks, or enhance habitat for threatened
and endangered species. Among other things, in FY 2003 we have funded
through this initiative projects that are aimed at the eradication and
control of tamarisk, Russian olive, and other invasive plants, and
reclamation of impacted lands.
Another program is the FWS's Partners for Fish and Wildlife, which
promotes private landowner cost-share projects for habitat restoration,
including funds targeted for control of invasive plants and subsequent
restoration. The Partners Program has worked with private landowners
across the Nation to remove, burn, biologically control, and otherwise
combat invasive plants on thousands of acres of wetlands and upland.
Tamarisk control is a focus of technical and financial assistance in
the Southwest.
The control and management of tamarisk is part of the BLM's
Partners Against Weeds Strategy Plan, BLM's Strategic Plan, and the
National Fire Plan. The Partners Against Weeds program funds
cooperative efforts with landowners to control invasive species. It
also funds cooperative outreach and education projects with schools and
local and county governments. In one important project, the BLM plans
to work with several groups, including Clark County and the communities
of Bunkerville and Mesquite in southern Nevada, to remove tamarisk
along portions of the Virgin River floodplain. As I noted above,
because of its properties, tamarisk poses a potential fire risk to
homes, ranches, farms, and recreational facilities in the wildland-
urban interface.
This project involves mechanical removal of tamarisk in the project
area. The goal of the project is to move away from the tamarisk-fueled,
high intensity fires that are now typical of the area concerned and to
restore native vegetation, such as the relatively inflammable grasses,
sedges, shrub communities, cottonwoods, and willows. Current planning
calls for 95 acres of treatment in FY 2004, with an additional 100
acres per year during the following 7-8 years.
The NPS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Bureau of
Reclamation partner with the Agriculture Research Service and the U.S.
Forest Service, both within the Department of Agriculture, and
university scientists to develop and test biological control agents,
including the beetles used for biological control of tamarisk in the
West, on projects to identify and avoid sites where tamarisk is
naturally dying out, to conduct studies of stream flow management for
vegetation control, and on studies of hybridization to better predict
the potential future spread of tamarisk.
USGS scientists can help identify site potential for water salvage,
revegetation, and wildlife value, and develop protocols and measures
for prioritizing sites for control or revegetation. The USGS also has
partnerships with state and county weed departments, the National
Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), and the Tamarisk Coalition aimed
at mapping currently invaded sites and identifying new invasions.
The Bureau of Reclamation leads, along with USDA's Agricultural
Research Service, the Saltcedar Biological Control Consortium, a task
force comprised of over 40 agencies. The Bureau of Reclamation, in
collaboration with Los Alamos National Laboratory, also develops new
technologies for determining the amount of water lost from the Rio
Grande River due to tamarisk.
Crosscut Budget for Fiscal Year 2004
The Administration is also working toward an interagency approach
to invasive species control. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2004 contains a performance budget crosscut on tamarisk.
Agencies would work together to develop common performance measures.
Under this performance umbrella, new and base funds will be applied in
the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to control and manage the
spread of tamarisk in the Southwest. Within the Department, the BLM
proposes to control 2,750 acres of tamarisk with a $500,000 funding
increase. The Bureau of Reclamation, utilizing $600,000 in new funding,
proposes to control 22,000 acres of tamarisk. The FWS has proposed an
increase of $640,000 for treatment of tamarisk and other species on an
additional 50,000 acres, and the NPS, utilizing $200,000 in base
funding, proposes to treat 1,000 additional acres. A proposed funding
increase of $100,000 will help the Bureau of Indian Affairs control
tamarisk on 4,000 acres. Finally, USGS proposes two additional research
projects in direct support of land management efforts, including the
development of protocols and measures to prioritize sites for control
and revegetation efforts.
In addition, both Interior and Agriculture agencies are working
together with our state and local partners to develop and implement
control technologies as part of an integrated approach to pest and weed
management. New chemical and biological control methods for tamarisk
are being tested under strictly controlled conditions because the
endangered southwest willow flycatcher occupies areas now infested with
tamarisk that were once occupied by stands of native willows and
cottonwoods. The Federal agencies are providing support for a multi-
pronged approach to tamarisk control utilizing prevention, early
detection and rapid response, and other control and management
activities to limit the introduction and spread of tamarisk into new
areas of the Southwest.
Coordinated Tamarisk Control and Revegetation Workshop
As a means of deciding how to spend the FY 2004 funds proposed in
the President's Budget for tamarisk control, the Department is
considering a strategy workshop to be held in the West sometime this
fall. The purpose would be to gain stakeholder input for a roadmap
containing common protocols (decision criteria) and best practices for
tamarisk control and management. The roadmap would provide guidance for
selecting on-the-ground projects and research efforts with the twin
goals of generating increased water supply and restoring ecosystems
through long-term tamarisk control, revegetation, and habitat recovery.
Departmental Views on H.R. 2707
I hope that this overview has provided you with a picture of what
the Department is doing to manage the control of tamarisk and other
harmful exotic species. With the above discussion in mind, let me
briefly turn to H.R. 2707.
The ``Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act''
establishes a two-pronged approach to control of these species. Section
3(a) of the legislation would require the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to complete an
assessment of the extent of infestation by these species in states
where the Bureau of Reclamation operates. The assessment is also to
include past and present assessments and management options to control
these species; the feasibility of reducing water consumption; methods
and challenges in land restoration; and the estimated costs of
destruction, biomass removal, and restoration and maintenance. Finally,
the assessment is to identify long-term funding strategies that could
be implemented by Federal, state, and private land managers.
We view a comprehensive assessment positively, and believe such an
approach helps Federal land managers develop a more coordinated, long-
term approach to addressing the problems associated with these species.
While we agree with the goals of the bill, we have concerns with some
provisions.
Subsection 3(b) of the bill would require that the Secretary
initiate demonstration projects to determine the most effective control
methods, and provides certain criteria that must be included in the
project designs. As noted above, the Department is currently working
with our partners to develop and implement an integrated approach to
management of this species. We recognize the importance of carrying out
strictly controlled projects that will quickly provide us with
practical control methods that can be used by our land managers on the
ground. We note, however, that the language of this subsection,
particularly when viewed in combination with subsection 2(a) and
subsection 3(d), does not make clear which Secretary would initiate the
program. We suggest that this language be clarified.
The legislation would also authorize $25 million for each of fiscal
years 2004 through 2007, though the bill does not provide sufficient
direction on how the appropriated funds are to be distributed. The
Department also has a concern about the overall cost of the programs
created under the proposed legislation. While the Administration's
cross cut budget evidences our commitment to control invasive species
like those addressed here, the program established under this
legislation would have to compete with other priority activities within
the context of the President's Budget. Finally, the Department notes
that the actions called for in H.R. 2707 can be achieved within
existing authorities.
Conclusion
In closing, I want to assure the Committee that the Department is
prepared and committed to identifying, assessing, and acting to curb
the economic and ecological impacts of tamarisk and Russian olive in
the West. We will continue to work with our partners, and we agree with
the intention of H.R. 2707 to more systematically develop a more
effective control strategy. Our goal is to ensure the protection of our
water resources and the restoration of important wildlife habitat.
We share the Committee's concerns and interest in this issue, and
offer to work with the Committee to ensure that any legislation
promotes an efficient and effective control strategy. Mr. Chairman,
this concludes my statement and I am happy to answer any questions that
you might have.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Tate. And I think the field
hearing is very appropriate. It is going to be helpful, but I--
though I would like to have it in Colorado. I understand it is
being in New Mexico, and I think that is also very appropriate.
Let's see. We will go ahead now. I am going to excuse you,
but I would appreciate it if you would stay around just long
enough for questions after the next panel. I will go ahead and
excuse Ms. Estill and Mr. Tate, and would ask the second panel
to come on up. We have Tim Carlson, Dr. Redifer, Mr. Davis, Mr.
Kershaw, Mr. Sulnick.
Mr. Carlson and Dr. Redifer, I hope I beat you to Grand
Junction tomorrow, but I am afraid I probably won't. It is
getting a little warm out there, huh?
Mr. Carlson, why don't we go ahead and start with you. You
may proceed.
And by the way, I want to thank all of you for traveling
this distance to testify. And again, what is very important
here is the words that we get put into the permanent record,
because this issue is a very critical issue that directly
addresses the droughts that we are facing out there in the
West.
Go ahead, Mr. Carlson.
STATEMENT OF TIM CARLSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TAMARISK
COALITION
Mr. Carlson. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
thank you for this opportunity to present testimony before your
Committee on the important issue of salt cedar and Russian
olive control in the West.
My name is Tim Carlson. I am executive director of the
Tamarisk Coalition. The coalition is a nonprofit organization
that represents a wide variety of interests throughout the
Southwest, including land managers, cities and counties,
environmental organizations, water conservation districts,
farmers and ranchers.
The mission of the Tamarisk Coalition is to provide
education on the problem of the non-native invasive plant
tamarisk--it is also known as salt cedar, so any time both
words are used, it really means the same plant. It is also to
help develop long-term management and funding structures to
control its infestation. Although salt cedar is a primary
invasive plant--we call it the poster child of non-native
plants--impacting western rivers, other plants, notably Russian
olive, cohabit with salt cedar and should be part of any river
restoration action.
The legislation introduced by Mr. Pearce includes
significant on-the-ground demonstration projects. I would like
to concentrate on five points that emphasize the importance of
these large-scale demonstrations beyond the obvious benefits of
site-specific salt cedar control and restoration.
First, the demonstrations serve to help answer critical
questions on what will be the true changes that will result
after salt cedar control and restoration takes place; that is,
the changes to water availability, both in the surface and
ground water supplies, changes to water quality, changes to
wildlife habitat, and biodiversity changes. Because these
research activities go beyond single demonstrations at any
single site in any State and will involve many Federal
scientists, we encourage that research efforts that are tied to
these demonstrations be 100 percent Federally funded.
Second, our partners have identified four important issues.
These issues include maintaining respect for existing State
water laws and water rights; respect for private property
rights; respect for existing infrastructure, such as water
storage and delivery systems; and respect for endangered
species. We believe that the large-scale demonstrations will
show that salt cedar control and restoration can be successful
and at the same time be supportive of these issues. In fact,
both water rights and endangered species recovery should be
enhanced under well designed demonstrations. This would be
especially true for the endangered fish species in the Upper
Colorado River.
The third point is demonstrations will not solve the salt
cedar problem. The salt cedar problem is much larger than what
this bill can provide funding for. However, the demonstrations
can be used as an educational and cooperational tool to help
develop the strategies for long-term management and funding for
salt cedar control.
Fourth, the demonstrations can also be used to support
international cooperation on salt cedar control between the
U.S. and Mexico by including at least one border demonstration.
Fifth, the demonstrations can also serve to foster work
experience for youth through existing programs such as Youth
Conservation Corps, AmeriCorps, and related State, Native
American, and local youth programs.
Finally, the question has to be asked, what will the public
gain from these efforts? From a cost standpoint, salt cedar
control and restoration is really low-hanging fruit.
Preliminary cost estimates would indicate that long-term gains
are 5 to 20 times less costly than new storage, water
recycling, conservation, or expensive desalination programs.
Beyond improving the abundance of water, the other
important side benefits of salt cedar control and riparian
restoration are: Water quality will be enhanced; wildlife
habitat will be improved; there will be greater biodiversity
among both plants and animals; and there will be improved
conditions for human enjoyment of the river systems. The value
of the improved viability to the West's rivers is difficult to
measure in terms of dollars, but is considered to be highly
significant.
We believe that this legislation provides an appropriate
level of effort to help gain protection of the West's limited
water resources and riparian habitats from the infestation of
salt cedar and Russian olive. The Tamarisk Coalition encourages
Congress to pass and fund this legislation.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak before this
Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carlson follows:]
Statement of Tim Carlson, Executive Director, Tamarisk Coalition
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present written testimony before
your committee on the important issue of Salt cedar and Russian olive
control in the West.
The mission of the Tamarisk Coalition is to provide education on
the problem of the non-native invasive plant Tamarisk, which is also
known as Salt cedar, and to help develop long-term management and
funding structures to control its infestation. Our goals are the
restoration of native habitat to the West's rivers and streams, and the
preservation of its water resources for beneficial uses.
The proposed legislation, H.R. 2707--Salt Cedar and Russian Olive
Control Demonstration Act, is an extremely important and needed piece
of legislation. While the Salt cedar problem has been identified as a
significant problem for almost 50 years, it has taken the drought of
the past several years to gain widespread acceptance that solving this
problem should be an important component of the West's water management
strategy. H.R. 2707 provides significant on-the-ground demonstration
projects that will help to answer critical questions on potential
changes to water availability, water quality, habitat, and
biodiversity. The legislation also identifies the critical issue of
developing long-term management and funding strategies that could be
implemented by Federal, State, local, and private land managers.
The Tamarisk Coalition believes that this legislation provides an
appropriate level of effort to help gain protection of the West's
limited water resources and riparian habitats from the infestation of
Salt cedar and Russian olive. This written testimony is divided into
three sections that provide a background on the problem, suggested
changes to the legislation, and important issues to consider.
Background
Salt cedar is the primary non-native phreatophyte of concern in the
West and thus has the dubious distinction as the ``poster child'' of
non-native plants impacting the riparian zone of rivers and streams.
Other plants, notably Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), co-habit
with Salt cedar and also deserve attention. Therefore, within the
context of this testimony, whenever the term ``Salt cedar'' is used,
one must also consider Russian olive as the other principal invasive
plant that may be important to control within riparian areas.
Impacts--Salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) is a deciduous shrub/small tree
that was introduced to the western U.S. in the early nineteenth century
from Central Asia and the Mediterranean for use as an ornamental, in
windbreaks, and for erosion control. Salt cedar is well suited to the
hot, arid climates and alkaline soils common in the western U.S., and
has escaped cultivation to displace native vegetation. It gradually
became naturalized along minor streams in the southwest and by the mid-
twentieth century, Salt cedar stands dominated low-elevation (under
6,500 feet) river and stream banks from Mexico to Canada. Salt cedar is
now believed to cover anywhere between 1.0 and 1.5 million acres of
land in the western U.S. and may be as high as 2 million acres
(Zimmerman 1997). The severe impacts on riparian systems that this
infestation causes throughout the West include (Carpenter 1998, DeLoach
1997):
LSalt cedar populations develop into dense thickets, with
as many as 3,000 plants per acre that can rapidly displace all native
vegetation (e.g., cottonwoods and willows).
LAs a phreatophyte, Salt cedar invades riparian areas,
leading to extensive degradation of habitat and loss of biodiversity in
the stream corridor.
LExcess salts drawn from the groundwater by Salt cedar are
excreted through leaf glands and are deposited on the ground with the
leaf litter. This increases soil salinity to levels that kill saline
intolerant willows and other plants and prevents the germination of
many native plants.
LSalt cedar seeds and leaves lack nutrients and are of
little value to wildlife and livestock.
LLeaf litter from Salt cedar tends to increase the
frequency and intensity of wildfires which tend to kill many native
plants but not Salt cedar.
LDense stands on stream banks may gradually cause
narrowing of the channel and an increase in flooding. Channel narrowing
along with Salt cedar-induced stabilization of stream banks, bars, and
islands lead to changes in stream morphology, which can impact habitat
for endangered fish.
LDense stands affect livestock by reducing forage and
prevent access to surface water.
LAesthetic values of the stream corridor are degraded, and
access to streams for recreation (e.g., boating, fishing, hunting, bird
watching) is lost.
While each of these points is important to one or more
constituencies, the single most critical problem is that Salt cedar
uses significantly more water than native vegetation that it displaces.
This non-beneficial user of the West's limited water resources dries up
springs, wetlands, and riparian areas by lowering water tables
(Carpenter 1998, DeLoach 1997, Weeks 1987). As Salt cedar moves into
adjacent upland habitats through the aid of its deep root system, it
consumes even more water as it replaces the native grass/sagebrush/
rabbit brush communities (DeLoach 2002). Zaveta (2000) demonstrates
that a program of Salt cedar control and revegetation would have clear
economic, social, and ecological benefits. The National Invasives
Species Council has identified Salt cedar as one of its primary
targets, most western states have listed it on their noxious weed list,
and Colorado Governor Bill Owens has issued an Executive Order to
control Salt cedar on public lands within ten years.
Water Usage by Different Vegetative Types--Limited evidence
indicates that water usage per leaf area of Salt cedar and the native
cottonwood/willow riparian communities may not be that different.
However, because Salt cedar grows into extreme thickets, the leaf area
per acre may actually be much greater; thus, water consumption would
also be greater on an acre basis (Kolb 2001). Probably the most
insidious aspect of Salt cedar and its consumption of water is that its
much deeper root system (up to 100 feet compared to healthy cottonwoods
and willows stands at 6 feet (Baum 1978, USDI-BOR 1995)) allows Salt
cedar to grow further back from the river and thus can occupy a larger
area and use more water across the floodplain than would be possible by
the native phreatophytes. This is especially significant, because the
adjacent uplands and floodplain typically occupy a cross-sectional area
several times that of the riparian zone. In these areas, less dense
areas of mesic plants can be replaced by Salt cedar resulting in
overall water consumption several times that associated with these
other plants (DeLoach 2002).
From thirteen different studies conducted between 1972 and 2000 on
Salt cedar evapotranspiration rates, the average water use reported is
approximately 5.3 feet per year (Hart 2003). More recent work performed
on the Pecos River in Texas over the last three years indicates water
use by Salt cedar of 7.7 feet per year (Hart 2003). Recent research by
the U.S. Department of Interior on the middle Rio Grande estimates
evapotranspiration rates on the order of 4.3 feet per year (Interior
2003). These studies were performed using different methods of
measurement, at different locations, and for different densities of
infestation. Native cottonwood/willow communities have been estimated
to use approximately one foot less per year than Salt cedar (Weeks,
1987) while the native shallow-rooted upland plant communities of
grasses, sage, etc. principally use only the moisture received by
precipitation. Unpublished research on the Bosque del Apache National
Wildlife Refuge on the middle Rio Grande River in New Mexico indicates
that Russian olive has very similar evapotranspiration rates as Salt
cedar (Bawazir 2003).
Estimates of Non-Beneficial Water Use--The term ``non-beneficial
water use'' is defined as the difference in water consumption
(evapotranspiration) between Salt cedar and the native plants it has
replaced. Estimates on water consumption by Salt cedar vary a great
deal depending on location, maturity, density of infestation, and depth
to groundwater. This will also be true for the cottonwood/willow
community. Using the above information, one can reasonably estimate
that this non-beneficial use of water is approximately 1 foot per year
for Salt cedar in the riparian areas that could support a cottonwood/
willow community and approximately 4 feet per year for the upland areas
that could support a native grasses/sage/rabbit brush type of plant
community. For the West, it is estimated that one-third to two-thirds
of the land currently infested by Salt cedar was formerly occupied by
cottonwood/willow communities and that the remaining percentage of land
would have been occupied by grasses/sage/rabbit brush type of plant
communities. If one takes the estimated infested acreage of 1.0 to 1.5
million acres in the West, the estimated non-beneficial water
consumption is approximately 2.0 to 4.5 million acre-feet per year.
These estimated water losses represent enough water to supply upwards
of 20 million people (Denver Water Board 2002) or the irrigation of
over 1,000,000 acres of land. At a modest infestation rate of only 1%
per year, these losses will increase by two-thirds in the next 50
years. These values obviously represent a great deal of water that is
being consumed beyond what the valuable native plants would have used.
It would be even higher if the areas occupied by other non-native
phreatophytes, such as Russian olive were included.
Costs--Costs for removal vary depending on the expanse of the
infestation, existence of other valuable plant species, and terrain.
For aerial helicopter spraying with herbicide the cost is around $200
to $250 per acre (Hart 2003, Lee 2002). While aerial herbicide spray is
extremely effective in killing Salt cedar, it also kills most other
vegetation types. For mechanical mulching and herbicide application the
cost ranges from $300 to $800 per acre (McDaniel 2000, Taylor 1998,
CWCB 2003). For hand clearing and herbicide application the cost can
range from $1,500 to $5,000 per acre (Tamarisk Coalition 2002).
Terrain, access, presence of other native vegetation, etc. all dictate
which approach to use. No one approach is right for all situations. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends the strategy of Integrated
Pest Management that matches the right methods for each situation.
Additionally, a new bio-control approach that uses a Chinese leaf
beetle is being researched by the U.S. Departments of Interior and
Agriculture and may help further to reduce costs (De Loach 2002).
Removal is only part of the cost. Restoration is the other
component which is necessary to bring back the right native plants and
restore habitat. If the objective is to only kill Salt cedar, other
invasive noxious weeds will likely take their place if restoration is
not part of the effort. Restoration may occur naturally where native
plants are still viable or may require specialized efforts to restore
the riparian lands. In general, costs may range from $50 to $1,500 per
acre.
The Tamarisk Coalition has estimated that the overall cost for
control and restoration could average approximately $250 per acre-foot
of water resources recovered (CWCB 2003). As a reference point, the
cost of purchasing senior water rights in the Denver, Colorado area is
valued at $4,000 to $12,000 per acre-foot (Franscell 2002).
Beyond improving the abundance of water, the other important side
benefits of Salt cedar control and riparian restoration are 1) water
quality will be enhanced, 2) wildlife habitat will be improved, 3)
there will be greater bio-diversity among both plants and animals, and
4) there will be improved conditions for human enjoyment of the river
systems. The value of this improved viability of the West's river
systems is difficult to measure in terms of dollars but is considered
to be highly significant.
Suggested Changes to H.R. 2707
The Tamarisk Coalition offers for consideration the following three
suggested changes to the H.R. 2707--Salt Cedar and Russian Olive
Control Demonstration Act:
1. LPage 3, Line 21: Add the following sentence: ``The Secretary
shall also identify at least one international demonstration project
between the U.S. and Mexico.'' This addition is important because Salt
cedar infestations do not recognize political boundaries, and eventual
control will require cooperation between both governments and will aid
in meeting international agreements for water delivery.
2. LPage 4, Line 20: Change sentence to read: ``The Federal share
of the costs of any demonstration activity funded under this program
shall be no more than 65 percent of the total cost. Research activities
associated with demonstrations shall be 100% Federal share.'' This
change is important because critical research issues on water
availability, water quality, habitat, and bio-diversity benefit the
entire West and are not solely a local issue. Additionally, this type
of research will be a collaborative effort between Federal scientists
and numerous universities throughout the West that are not project
specific.
3. LPage 5, Line 10: Add the following sentence: ``For
demonstration projects, the Secretary is encouraged to award
procurement contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements under this
section to entities that include Youth Conservation Corps, AmeriCorps,
or related partnerships with State, Native American, local or non-
profit youth organizations, or small or disadvantaged businesses where
appropriate.'' This change would reinforce the use of youth programs
for performing many of the labor-intensive activities associated with
control and restoration.
Important Issues
Tamarisk Coalition partners have raised four issues that are
important to consider in the overall control of Salt cedar and
restoration in the West. They are:
1. LWater Rights--The control of Salt cedar should improve both
groundwater and surface water supplies in the future. This is not the
creation of new water but rather the prevention of a non-beneficial use
of water and, therefore, no new water rights should be implied. Respect
for existing state water law and water rights are important to
maintain.
2. LProperty Rights--While private property owners are some of the
strongest supporters of this legislation, it is important to
acknowledge that private property rights must be respected.
3. LExisting Infrastructure--The rivers of the West are highly
impacted by man to improve their capability to store and supply water
(e.g., dams, irrigation systems) for beneficial use. Existing
infrastructure is important for the continuation of these uses and Salt
cedar control and restoration should respect these conditions.
4. LEndangered Species--Protection of endangered species have been
viewed in the past as a potential obstacle to Salt cedar control. This
is not the case. The Final Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) does provide management
approaches that will allow staged removal of Salt cedar and restoration
to occur. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
also recognizes the impacts Salt cedar has had on river structure and
its subsequent impact on fish breeding opportunities. The Endangered
Fish Recovery Program is working directly with the Tamarisk Coalition
to develop compatible Salt cedar control and restoration strategies
that will enhance fish recovery.
The value of well designed demonstration projects authorized under
H.R. 2707 is that these projects will help to demonstrate that Salt
cedar control and restoration can be successful while maintaining
respect for water rights, property rights, existing infrastructure, and
endangered species.
The Tamarisk Coalition encourages Congress to pass and fund this
legislation to help preserve the limited water resources of the West
and to help restore riparian habitat. Thank you for this opportunity to
present testimony before your committee.
References
Baum, B. R. 1978. The Genus Tamarix. Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, Jerusalem. 209 pp.
Bawazir, A.S., New Mexico State University, Personal communication,
April 2003.
Carpenter, A. 1998. Element Stewardship Abstract for Tamarix
ramosissima Lebedour, Tamarix pentandra Pallas, Tamarix
chinensis Loureiro, and Tamarix parviflora De Candolle. The
Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
CWCB 2003, Colorado Water Conservation Board, ``Impact of Tamarisk
Infestation on the Water Resources of Colorado'', May 30, 2003,
prepared by the Tamarisk Coalition.
DeLoach, J. 1997. Effects of Biological Control of Saltcedar (Tamarix
ramosissima) on Endangered Species: Biological Assessment. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Temple, Texas.
DeLoach, J., R Carruthers, J. Lovich, T. Dudley, and S. Smith, 2002.
``Ecological Interactions in the Biological Control of
Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the United States: Toward a New
Understanding''--Revised.
Denver Water Board, 2002. ``Denver Water Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report 2001''.
Franscell, R., Denver Post, Drought years plumb the depths of water
rights, Conflicts inevitable in self-policing system based on
prior claims, September 10, 2002.
Hart, C.R., Texas A&M, Personal communication on the Pecos River
Ecosystem Project. March 2003.
Kolb, Thomas E. 2001 ``Water Use of Tamarisk and Native Riparian
Trees.'' Proceedings of the Tamarisk Symposium, September 26--
27, 2001, Grand Junction, Colorado.
Lee, B., Northstar Helicopter. Personal communication, August 2002
McDaniel, K.C., and Taylor, J.P. Saltcedar Recovery After Herbicide-
burn and Mechanical Clearing Practices, New Mexico State
University and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000
Tamarisk Coalition, 2002. ``National Fish and Wildlife Foundation--
Pulling Together Initiative Final Report on Tamarisk control in
the Upper Colorado River'', Project # 2001-0028-006.
Taylor, J.P., and McDaniel, K.C. Restoration of Saltcedar (Tamarix
sp.)--Infested Floodplains on the Bosque del Apache National
Wildlife Refuge. Weed Technology, 1998, Volume 12:345-352
Weeks, E., H. Weaver, G. Campbell and B. Tanner, 1987. Water use by
saltcedar and by replacement vegetation in the Pecos River
floodplain between Acme and Artesia, New Mexico. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
USDI-BOR 1995. ``Vegetation Management Study: Lower Colorado River,
Phase II.'' U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Lower Colorado River, Draft Report, Boulder City, Nevada.
U.S. Department of Interior personal communications, 2003
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, ``Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
(Emidonax traillii extimus) Final recovery Plan'', August 2002.
Zavaleta, E., 2000. ``Chapter 12--Valuing Ecosystem Services Lost to
Tamarix in the United States; Invasive Species in a Changing
World'', Mooney, H. A. and R.J. Hobbs (eds.) Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Zimmerman, J. 1997. Ecology and Distribution of Tamarix chinensis Lour
and T. parviflora D.C., Tamariccea. Southwest Exotic Plant
Mapping Program, U.S. Geological Survey.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Carlson.
Dr. Redifer?
STATEMENT OF JOHN REDIFER, Ph.D., DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, MESA STATE COLLEGE
Mr. Redifer. Good morning. My name is John Redifer. I am an
associate professor of political science at Mesa State College
and vice president of the Tamarisk Coalition. I am also a past
chair of the Mesa County Democratic Party, and have worked
closely with Representative McInnis and his staff on the
bipartisan issue of tamarisk control for the past several
years.
I would like to thank Chairman McInnis for inviting me to
testify today. The congressman has never turned down the
numerous requests from me to visit my classes at Mesa State,
and I am grateful for this opportunity to return the favor.
I would also like to thank Congressman McInnis as well as
Congressman Pearce, Senators Domenici and Campbell for the
leadership that they have provided in our efforts to control
tamarisk.
The recent drought and the water-stealing capacity of
tamarisk have heightened the need to finally bring this
invasive species under control. In the event that we have
forgotten, the drought ravishing the American West has reminded
our communities of just how precious and scarce water is in our
part of the world. At the same time, record drought conditions
have forced policymakers to more fully grasp the importance of
maximizing the availability of this scarce commodity.
Eradicating the pervasive presence of tamarisk along our rivers
and streams should be a central component of our region's
broader push to increase the availability of water.
And so I want to applaud Congressmen Pearce, McInnis, and
other sponsors of legislation for introducing the Salt Cedar
and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act. The demonstration
projects identified in H.R. 2707 and the rest of the funding it
provides for eradicating tamarisk are a great start to
addressing the problem. However, the benefits of this bill are
likely to erode over time if Congress fails to ensure that
affected river basins infested with tamarisk have in place an
adequately funded long-term management strategy that will not
only eradicate existing tamarisk but will revegetate the
infested areas and monitor them for any signs of reinfestation
over time. We already know how to kill tamarisk, but this tree
is extremely resilient and will quickly return if we don't have
in place the means and the methods to ensure its total and
complete demise.
As currently written, H.R. 2707 acknowledges the importance
of long-term management and funding strategies, but more could
be done in the bill to assure that stakeholders at the Federal,
State, and local levels establish and fund systematic tamarisk
control programs. The lack of a systematic multi-stakeholder
management and funding strategy is the single greatest hurdle
that must be overcome if tamarisk is to be controlled over the
long term. The National Invasive Species Council agrees that
these two factors are the primary impediments to the control of
not only tamarisk, but most invasive species. Without a long-
term management and monitoring regime, Federal, State, and
local authorities will spend millions of dollars chopping down
these water-thirsty trees in the near term, only to see
tamarisk reassert their control over the West's waterways in
the long run.
I would encourage this Committee to look at H.R. 695,
sponsored by Congressman McInnis, for a way to allocate
resources for the development of a process model that can
assist each river basin as it constructs funding and management
strategies. This will make an already strong piece of
legislation substantially stronger and more responsive to the
challenges that tamarisk pose over the long run.
While I have no preconceived notions on what such a
strategy will ultimately look like, I would like to describe a
few general principles that any long-term tamarisk strategy
should embody.
First and foremost, the strategy must adequately address
all three phases of tamarisk control, to include eradication,
revegetation, and monitoring.
Second, the strategy must develop and be supported by a
coalition of Federal, State, local, and private land managers
responsible for implementing it. The war against tamarisk will
be won in the trenches, and those that will fight it there must
believe that the strategy employed will work. This is best
achieved if the stakeholders are implementing a strategy that
they have developed.
Third, the strategy should be developed river basin-by-
river basin, State-by-State. While the process for developing a
strategy may be the same, the strategy itself may differ based
on the unique characteristics and political relationships
between stakeholders in each river basin.
Fourth, the process for developing strategies should be
facilitated by an honest broker--someone the stakeholders do
not perceive as trying to force a solution and will allow them
to dominate either the implementation of the plan or the
funding allocated to it.
Fifth, the strategy must address how resources, money,
equipment, and personnel will be pooled to systematically
eradicate, revegetate, and monitor the effort to control
tamarisk. An effective strategy may require public land
managers to dedicate resources under their immediate control to
efforts outside their political jurisdictions.
Sixth, the strategy must provide a voluntary, non-coercive
means for encouraging local property holders to provide access
to their land for the purpose of conducting operations related
to controlling tamarisk.
Finally, the strategy must include an educational component
designed to create public awareness of the problem and the need
to remedy it. Creating public awareness of tamarisk and the
benefits associated with its control will be critical to the
provision of an adequate funding source. We cannot expect the
Federal Government to fund the entire cost of controlling
tamarisk. Obviously, the Feds should be responsible for their
fair share of the costs, but State and local Governments will
have to provide the rest. We must be able to demonstrate to
citizens that the benefits of tamarisk control far exceed its
costs, and that this effort will be completed in a specific
timeframe after which funding will no longer be required. Under
these conditions, citizens have demonstrated time and again
their willingness to support Government programs.
If we can develop a process that is successful in producing
a long-term strategy and funding source, the ramifications will
far exceed the problem itself. We will have a process model
that can then be exported to deal with the tamarisk problem in
other river basins and even other invasive species.
If properly amended to ensure funding for the development
of a process model, H.R. 2707 will have the potential to help
solve the vast array of problems requiring multi-stakeholder
cooperation. Without this systematic multi-stakeholder
approach, we will continue to address the problem of tamarisk
control in a piecemeal fashion that will most assuredly kill a
lot of trees only to see them grow back again.
This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Redifer follows:]
Statement of Dr. John Redifer, Associate Professor of Political
Science, Mesa State College, and Vice President, The Tamarisk
Coalition, on H.R. 2707
Good morning, my name is Dr. John Redifer. I am an Associate
Professor of Political Science at Mesa State College and Vice-President
of the Tamarisk Coalition. I am also a past chair of the Mesa County
Democratic Party and have worked closely with Rep. McInnis and his
staff on the bipartisan issue of tamarisk control for the past two
years.
I would like to thank Chairman McInnis for inviting me to testify
today. The congressman has never turned down the numerous requests from
me to visit my classes at Mesa State and I am grateful for this
opportunity to return the favor. I would also like to thank Congressman
McInnis as well as Congressman Pearce and Senators Domenici and
Campbell for the leadership they have provided in our efforts to
control tamarisk.
The recent drought and the ``water stealing'' capacity of tamarisk
have heightened the need to finally bring this invasive species under
control. In the event that we had forgotten, the drought ravishing the
American West has reminded our communities of just how precious and
scarce water is in our part of the world. At the same time, record
drought conditions have forced policy makers to more fully grasp the
importance of maximizing the availability of this scarce commodity.
Eradicating the pervasive presence of tamarisk along our rivers and
streams should be a central component of our region's broader push to
increase the availability of water. And so I want to applaud
Congressmen Pearce, McInnis and the other sponsors of this legislation
for introducing the Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration
Act. The demonstration projects identified in H.R. 2707 and the rest of
the funding it provides for eradicating tamarisk are a great start to
addressing the problem. However, the benefits of this bill will likely
erode over time if Congress fails to ensure that affected river basins
infested with tamarisk have in place an adequately funded long term
management strategy that will not only eradicate existing tamarisk, but
will revegetate the infested areas and monitor them for any signs of
re-infestation over time. We already know how to kill tamarisk, but
this tree is extremely resilient and will quickly return if we don't
have in place the means and the methods to ensure its total and
complete demise.
As currently written H.R. 2707 acknowledges the importance of long
term management and funding strategies, but more could be done in the
bill to ensure that stakeholders at the Federal, state and local levels
establish and fund systematic tamarisk control programs. The lack of a
systematic, multi-stakeholder management and funding strategy is the
single greatest hurdle that must be overcome if tamarisk is to be
controlled over the long term. The President's National Invasive
Species Council agrees that these two factors are the primary
impediments to the control of not only tamarisk but most invasive
species. Without a long term management and monitoring regime, Federal,
state and local authorities will spend millions of dollars chopping
down these water-thirsty trees in the near term only to see tamarisk
re-assert their control over the West's waterways in the long run. I
would encourage this committee to look at H.R. 695 sponsored by
Congressman McInnis for a way to allocate resources for the development
of a ``process model'' that can assist each river basin as it
constructs their funding and management strategies. This will make an
already strong piece of legislation substantially stronger, and more
responsive to the challenges that tamarisk pose over the long run.
While I have no pre-conceived notions of what such a strategy will
ultimately look like, I would like to describe a few general principles
that any long-term tamarisk strategy should embody. First and foremost,
the strategy must adequately address all three phases of tamarisk
control to include eradication, revegetation and monitoring. Second,
the strategy must be developed and supported by a coalition of Federal,
state, local and private land managers responsible for implementing it.
The war against tamarisk will be won in the trenches. And those who
will fight it there must believe that the strategy employed will work.
This is best achieved if the stakeholders are implementing a strategy
that they have developed. Third, the strategy should be developed river
basin by river basin, state by state. While the process for developing
a strategy may be the same, the strategy itself may differ based on the
unique characteristics and political relationships between stakeholders
in each river basin.
Fourth, the process for developing a strategy should be facilitated
by an ``honest broker'', someone that the stakeholders do not perceive
as trying to force a solution that will allow them to dominate either
the implementation of the plan or the funding allocated to it.
Fifth, the strategy must address how resources; money, equipment
and personnel will be pooled to systematically eradicate, revegetate
and monitor the effort to control tamarisk. An effective strategy may
require public land managers to dedicate resources under their
immediate control to efforts outside their political boundaries.
Sixth, the strategy must provide a voluntary, non-coercive means
for encouraging local property holders to provide access to their land
for the purpose of conducting operations related to controlling
tamarisk. Many property owners are understandably suspicious of even
the most beneficial government action and a means must be developed to
abate those fears. We know that tamarisk does not respect either
property boundaries or any other artificial jurisdictional
distinctions. Success against tamarisk will only come if affected land
owners of every type are equally committed to its eradication.
Accordingly, a successful tamarisk suppression program will need to
include non-threatening mechanisms that encourage the cooperation of
private land owners.
Finally, the strategy must include an educational component
designed to create public awareness of the problem, and the need to
remedy it. Creating public awareness of tamarisk and the benefits
associated with its control will be critical for the provision of an
adequate funding source. We cannot expect the Federal Government to
fund the entire cost of controlling tamarisk. Obviously, the feds
should be responsible for their fair share of the costs but state and
local governments will have to provide the rest. We must be able to
demonstrate to citizens that the benefits of controlling tamarisk far
exceed its costs and that this effort will be completed in a specific
time frame after which funding will no longer be required. Under these
conditions citizens have demonstrated time and again their willingness
to support government programs.
If we can develop a process that is successful in producing a long-
term strategy and funding source to control tamarisk the positive
ramifications will far exceed the problem itself. We will have a
process model that can then be exported to deal with the tamarisk
problem in other river basins and even other invasive species. If
properly amended to ensure funding for the development of a ``process
model'', then, H.R. 2707 will have the potential to help solve a vast
array of problems requiring multi-stakeholder cooperation. Without this
systematic, multi-stakeholder approach, we will continue to address the
problem of tamarisk control in a piecemeal fashion that will most
assuredly kill a lot of trees only to see them grow back again.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions the committee may have.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Davis?
STATEMENT OF TOM W. DAVIS, MANAGER,
CARLSBAD IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, Committee members, I consider this
an opportunity to give you my thoughts on this particular piece
of legislation.
I am Tom Davis. I manage Carlsbad Irrigation District, and
prior to that I worked for 16 years with the U.S. Forest
Service in various capacities throughout the Southwest and the
State of Texas.
I want to thank Congressman Pearce for his work in bringing
this bill to this stage. I agree with what the testifier just
said--a lot of the salt cedar work that has been done in the
past has been very piecemeal, and it has been done by some of
us that haven't been capable or had the funding to conduct it
in such a fashion to really pinpoint all the complexities in
the results of the control and the need to revegetate, and our
ability to guarantee revegetation has been lacking.
I have had quite a bit of experience the last 15 years in
managing salt cedar, but my experience has been limited to the
Pecos basin in New Mexico. Pecos basin in New Mexico is
considerably different even from the Rio Grande basin in New
Mexico, or the Salt River basin in Arizona, or the Wichita
River basin in Oklahoma.
So the advantage to this particular piece of legislation is
that we look on a broad scale, globally, at salt cedar
infestations in a wide range of different biological
conditions, and we are able to get at permanently, once and for
all settle the issue of not only how do we kill salt cedar--I
think we are getting on top of that issue--but how do we
reestablish native vegetation, how do we mitigate for some of
the benefits that salt cedar serves, in some cases.
I support the goals of H.R. 2707. In particular, what we
are doing here is establishing demonstrations, like stated,
globally, before we go out and attempt to spend money on large-
scale projects that would invariably make some mistakes. These
demonstration projects will be able to look at all the what-if
situations, determine ways to mitigate for those situations
prior to making large-scale mistakes that will invariably
damage the ecosystems for a long period of time. Most of salt
cedar occur in Southwestern United States and, as you know,
Nature is not as forgiving out there as it is maybe back here
in the East or in the central area of the United States. When
rainfall regimes are below 25 inches, it is very difficult to
mitigate for a mistake made. It takes years to do that.
So this demonstration project is so critical that we look
at can and can't be done in various ecosystems, various
rainfall belts, and I think it is critical that we do this,
particularly the--my experience, and I am president of a
nonprofit corporation that was established in 1992 to do this
very thing. We looked at 5,000 acres of salt cedar, or which
3,800 acres of that was total, 100 percent canopy cover of salt
cedar. We did post studies there of--wildlife studies with New
Mexico State University, we established monitoring wells, and
with the help of Congressman Skeen, a former colleague of this
body, we were able to fund this demonstration project. And we
struggled for years.
Killing the salt cedar wasn't as difficult as
reestablishing vegetation. We found that to be very difficult.
We also found, just as the previous witness testified, salt
cedar is very resilient. Not only is it difficult to kill, but
it is going to come back. Once conditions are favorable again,
the seeds are out there by the billions and it is going to come
back. So it continually calls for follow-up action to prevent
reinfestation. Reinfestation can be controlled somewhat if you
get a good established native vegetation in place, which is
difficult to do often in our Southwestern regions because of
very few years, or favorable years, to reestablishing
vegetation. And in looking at this bill, that is one of the
main things that is called for in 3(a), is looking at how to
not only control the salt cedar, but also look at how to
establish revegetation of native vegetation. That is a
difficult process, we have found in the past.
Although salt cedar is an exotic species, I am convinced
that it may be here to stay, and we may have to figure out a
way to keep it in control as much as possible and encourage our
native vegetation as much as possible. But it is going to be
very difficult in the long term to totally eradicate salt
cedar. I think our greatest challenge is how to successfully
and economically reestablish the native vegetation and how to
prevent salt cedar from reestablishing in areas that we
previously controlled it. And I believe that this bill will--
the implementation of these demonstration projects will get at
that very thing.
I understand that this demonstration, this bill will
provide for multiple projects to be conducted in a variety of
river systems throughout the western United States. And the
importance of this, I believe, is that these demonstrations
will be conducted by non-biased professionals, representatives
of State and Federal agencies, universities, national
laboratories, private contractors. And I think that is what has
been needed for a number of years, is to really have a look at
this thing by people that really aren't biased one way or the
other. Salt cedar control has been sold, I think, as a silver
bullet to our water problems in the Southwest in a lot of
cases, and I do believe that each salt cedar plant is a small
pump that is evapotranspirating water into the atmosphere. But
I think that we need to really get at the heart of this issue
of water savings and how much water replacement vegetation
uses. And this bill will provide for that opportunity with
these demonstration projects.
I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for going over my time, but I
will be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
Statement of Tom W. Davis, Manager, Carlsbad Irrigation District,
Carlsbad, New Mexico, on H.R. 2707
I am Tom W. Davis. Since 1987 I have been the Manager of the
Carlsbad Irrigation District. For the sixteen years prior to my current
employment, I was employed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service. During the past fifteen years I have had extensive experience
in control and/or management of salt cedar (tamarisk spp.) in the Pecos
Basin in New Mexico using chemical and mechanical methods.
In recent years, driven primarily by drought conditions and water
demands throughout the western United States, a tremendous amount of
interest has been generated in salvaging water by eradicating salt
cedar and to a lesser extent, Russian olive. This movement has been
promoted by some as the ``Silver Bullet'' to increasing flowing water
and restoring native riparian vegetation in our rivers. It is all too
easy to over-simplify the complex nature of river systems and over-
promote the possible benefits of salt cedar removal while overlooking
the possible unintended negative impacts of such actions or any
environmental virtues salt cedar might provide.
However, salt cedar and Russian olive control is not a new concept
along the Pecos River. In 1946 Royce Tipton, a hydrologist working with
the National Water Planning Board, convinced both the states of New
Mexico and Texas to sign the Pecos River Compact appropriating the
waters of the Pecos River between the two states. The primary
underpinning of this allocation of the flows of the Pecos was the
perceived water salvage potential resulting from the eradication of
non-native phreatophytes (salt cedar).
Public Law 88-594, 78 Stat. 942 was signed on September 12, 1964
authorizing the Secretary of Interior to carry out a continuing program
to reduce non-beneficial consumptive use of water in the Pecos River
Basin in New Mexico and Texas. The Bureau of Reclamation was charged
with the responsibility of implementing this project. Eventually,
36,000 acres in New Mexico and about 17,000 acres in Texas were
mechanically cleared in the Pecos River Flood Plain. The areas
originally cleared are maintained as cleared today.
G. E. Welder, a hydro-geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey,
completed and published in 1988 the results of a ten-year study
attempting to quantify any additional base flows in a specific reach of
the Pecos River resulting from eradication of 20,000 acres of salt
cedar from that particular reach of the river flood plain. This study
was not able to specifically quantify any increases in river base
flows, but indicated that evapotransportation (ET) had been reduced by
removing salt cedar from the flood plain vegetation. The study could
only speculate as to the fate of any salvaged water made possible by a
reduction in ET.
However, in today's environment of increased demands on our river
systems, we are obligated to investigate every option to maintain river
flows. This legislation provides the opportunity to establish several
demonstration projects. These projects will take another look at
determining the merits of salt cedar removal, and monitor, measure and
track any salvaged water and increased river flows. Using today's
technology we must not only attempt to quantify actual water salvaged
by reducing ET, but we must be certain of the environmental impacts,
monetary costs and effectiveness associated with the different methods
of salt cedar and Russian olive control. Also, we must mitigate the
unintended consequences of removal of these species and prove reliable
methods of re-establishing native vegetation. We must determine how to
replace the virtues of salt cedar after its removal, such as stream
bank stabilization and nesting sites for birds.
These demonstration projects must be conducted in a variety of
river systems throughout the western United States by non-biased
professionals, representatives of Federal and state agencies,
universities, national laboratories and private contractors. The
knowledge gained from these demonstrations will be critical in
conducting proper future management of our riparian ecosystems and
stabilizing river flows.
This legislation provides for all of these elements and more. I
request that you vote in support of this bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this bill.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Kershaw?
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. KERSHAW, PRESIDENT, IMPERIAL VALLEY
CONSERVATION RESEARCH CENTER COMMITTEE, IMPERIAL COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Kershaw. Mr. Chairman, I am going to summarize my
prepared remarks in the interests of time.
I am John R. Kershaw, a resident of Brawley, California, in
Imperial County, where I have been engaged in farming and
ranching and agricultural business enterprise for over 40
years. I also serve as president of the nonprofit Imperial
Valley Conservation Research Center Committee, a unique
partnership between agricultural community and the Brawley
Research Station.
I am here today on behalf of the Imperial County Board of
Supervisors, chaired by Mr. Joe Maruca, and also from Mr.
Stephen Birdsall, who is our ag commissioner, and also he is
the one who is spearheading our area's tamarisk control
efforts. Mr. Birdsall's office also coordinates a weed
management coalition involving his office, Imperial Irrigation
District, the California Department of Food and Agriculture,
University of California Extension, and the USDA APHIS Agency.
This group has targeted tamarisk as a major invasive species
for strong controls.
Salt cedar has had a substantial presence in this entire
region for many years.
Diversified farming and ranching is a cornerstone to the
region's economic base, where you must use innovative
approaches to address the increasing demand for a diminishing
water supply. As the Members of Congress are aware, Imperial
County is experiencing tremendous pressures to reduce its use
of Colorado River water, and is engaged in ongoing negotiations
dealing with the interests of other areas in their search for
additional water supplies.
We feel that by controlling the incredible water thievery
of the salt cedar population in the region, and replacing this
aggressive invasive plant species with the native plant
communities that once flourished therein, the availability of
Colorado River water could be increased, along with the
restoration of habitats conducive to wildlife.
And of course, the general taxpaying would also benefit
significantly from the control of salt cedar through expanded
water availability at relatively low cost, versus other means
that are being explored in the search for more abundant water
resources.
We believe the control of salt cedar can have a relatively
fast benefit ratio to augment existing strained water supplies.
This water savings no doubt would be significant and should
provide a more reasonable and less costly timetable for
developing other water resources.
Imperial County Agricultural Commissioner's office and the
Brawley Research Station have been building data for some time
on ways in which to control salt cedar and the benefits from
such an accomplishment.
We know that extensive tests by USDA-ARS have shown the
Chinese leaf beetle to be a selective feeder of the species of
salt cedar. An APHIS scientist based at the Brawley Research
Station has been researching new bio control agents and is
excited about the Fish and Wildlife Service opening up the
Northern tier above the 37th parallel for bio control releases.
He is anxious to begin testing these agents so selections can
be made as to the correct strain.
This same APHIS scientist is also studying the effects of
replacing salt cedar with native vegetation on non-target
organisms, seeking to determine any collateral defects in data
that shows costs and benefits. We feel this is an important
area to research as serious salt cedar remediation gets under
way--what will be the impacts of the control efforts on non-
targets?
The Imperial County ag commissioner's office has been
seeking resources to complete a survey and data collection of
salt cedar sites identified with GPS coordinates. Target areas
are desert springs and oases and riparian areas. The goal is to
evaluate these sites for control and restoration projects and
determine the best combination of control and restoration
methods for the chosen sites, and implement those methods.
On behalf of Imperial County, I want to state support for
H.R. 2707. We are grateful to its authors, including
Representative Duncan Hunter. Having served as a Member of
Congress for 20 years prior to being redistricted fully to the
San Luis area, Mr. Hunter has a strong familiarity with our
County, its economic base, and reliance on the Colorado River
with an acute awareness of the needs to conserve and protect
our precious water resource.
We would endorse the Tamarisk Coalition's concern for
restricting the Federal support for demonstration projects
provided in H.R. 2707 to 65 percent, and we request that the
Committee amend the language of H.R. 2707 so that the Federal
share of the cost of any activity funded under this program
shall be 100 percent of the total cost.
I want to assure the USDA and Department of Interior that
the facilities of Brawley Research Station are available to
deal with the salt cedar problem, and I am certain the same can
be said of the facilities of the ag commissioner's office.
Lastly, I thank the members of this Committee for the
opportunity to appear before you, and hopefully, this hearing
will lead to the enactment of a demonstration program to assess
potential savings through control of salt cedar and Russian
olive invasive species.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kershaw follows:]
Statement of John R. Kershaw, Imperial County, California, on H.R. 2707
Mr. Chairman, I am John R. Kershaw, a resident of Brawley,
California in Imperial County, where I have been engaged in farming and
ranching and agricultural business enterprise for over 40 years. I
serve as President of the Imperial Valley Conservation Research Center
Committee, a unique collaborative partnership between the agricultural
community and the Brawley Research Station where there is always a
lively agenda dealing with the invasive species spectrum, ever-evolving
exotic crop pests and disease, bio controls, salinity/drainage trials,
and water management including remediation and reuse. The Brawley
Station has been lauded since its inception in 1951 for an impressive
registry of accomplishment dealing with diversified agriculture and
water-related research.
I bring you greetings from the Imperial County Board of
Supervisors, chaired by Mr. Joe Maruca, and also from Mr. Stephen
Birdsall, who is spearheading our area's tamarisk control efforts. Mr.
Birdsall's office also coordinates a Weed Management coalition
involving his office, the Imperial Irrigation District, the California
Department of Food & Agriculture, the University of California
Extension, and the USDA-APHIS agency. This group has targeted tamarisk
as a major invasive species for strong management controls.
Imperial County is a hub of the Southwestern desert region whose
borders merge compatibly with the great Yuma and Palo Verde Valleys to
the East and Northeast, the tremendous Coachella Valley and Inland
Empire Counties to the North and Northwest, and the renowned San Diego
County complex to the West. Also, we have a strong cooperative
relationship, especially in agricultural matters, with our significant
Baja California neighbor to the South.
Salt Cedar has had a substantial presence in this entire region for
many years.
Diversified farming and ranching is a cornerstone to the region's
economic base where we must use innovative approaches to address the
increasing demand for a diminishing water supply. As the Members of
Congress are aware, Imperial County is experiencing tremendous
pressures to reduce its use of Colorado River water and is engaged in
ongoing negotiations dealing with the interests of other areas in their
search for additional water supplies.
We feel that by controlling the incredible water thievery of the
Salt Cedar populations in the region and replacing this aggressive
invasive plant species with the native plant communities that once
flourished therein, the availability of Colorado River water could be
increased along with the restoration of habitats conducive to wildlife.
The public would benefit from the greater recreational aspects of these
habitats along with a more suitable riparian environmental scenario.
The general taxpaying public would also benefit significantly from
the control of Salt Cedar through expanded water availability at
relatively low costs versus other means that are being explored in the
search for more abundant water resources. I am informed by the
International Center for Water Technology at Fresno, CA, that access to
useable water is developing into the greatest challenge of this
century. We absolutely must develop and deploy new technologies that
maximize the effectiveness of water use for urban, environmental, and
agricultural application.
As premier and affluent as America is versus most nations, we rank
63rd in the quantity of water among all countries. It is estimated that
our water availability per person will drop by one-third in the next 20
years.
Rick Weiss, a news reporter, recently penned an article about how
the dwindling of clean, fresh water is forcing scientists to go to such
extremes as seismic and core-drilling technologies in search for rivers
and lakes said to lie far beneath the surface of the earth--aquifers
that contain ``fossil'' water as much as a million years old.
That's promising but this kind of water development no doubt will
be very costly; as will be the desalination of salt water and other
means to find greater supplies. It is reliably estimated that some
supplemental water supplies can take 20 years or longer to develop and
finance.
We believe the control of Salt Cedar can have a much faster benefit
ratio to augment existing strained water supplies. This water savings
no doubt would be significant and might provide a more reasonable and
less costly timetable for developing other water resources.
The Imperial County Agricultural Commissioner's Office and the
Brawley Research Station have been building data for some time on ways
in which to control Salt Cedar and the benefits from such an
accomplishment.
We know that extensive tests by the USDA-ARS have shown a leaf
beetle, Diorehabda elongate, to be a selective feeder of a species of
Salt Cedar. An APHIS scientist at the Brawley Research Station has been
researching new bio control agents and is excited about the Fish &
Wildlife Service opening up the Northern tier above the 37th parallel
for bio control releases. He is anxious to begin testing these agents
so selections can be made as to the correct strain.
This same APHIS scientist is also studying the effects of replacing
Salt Cedar with native vegetation on non-target organisms, seeking to
determine any collateral defects and data that shows costs and
benefits. We feel this is an important area to research as serious Salt
Cedar remediation gets underway--what will be the impacts of the
control efforts on non-targets?
As mentioned earlier, systematically reducing the abundance of Salt
Cedar would allow the presently depressed native plant communities of
western riparian areas to recover and also encourage wildlife
populations to increase, including several species that are declining,
are threatened or endangered.
One such bird is the endangered Southwestern subspecies of the
Willow Flycatcher. While this bird utilizes the Salt Cedar for habitat,
the Salt Cedar also displaces other native plants which harbor insects
important to the Flycatcher's diet.
The Imperial County Agricultural Commissioner's Office has been
seeking resources to complete a survey and data collection of Salt
Cedar sites identified with GPS coordinates. Target areas are desert
springs/oasis and riparian areas. The goal is to evaluate these sites
for control/restoration projects and determine the best combination of
control and restoration methods for the chosen sites and implement
those methods. This would include: biological, herbicides, cutting
followed by herbicide treatment on stumps, mechanical removal by
cutting or bulldozing, flooding, burning. Additionally, partial cutting
would be followed by burning and competition by supporting regrowth of
native plants. Mr. Birdsall's plan would involve monitoring to assess
the project's success.
I am refraining from referencing much of the diagnostics relative
to tamarisk including the estimated water-extortion of this facultative
phreatophyte owing to the belief that representatives of the Forest
Service and Department of Interior or others at today's hearing will
provide these insights and explanations.
However, we feel our region is victimized by the incessant
expansion of this plant species. Its naturalization along the Colorado
River and our important farming and ranching areas contributes to
increased salinity of surface soil that renders it inhospitable to
native plant species, lowers surface water tables, and uses more water
than the native habitats it displaces.
On behalf of Imperial County, I want to state support for H.R.
2707. We are grateful to its authors, including Representative Duncan
Hunter. Having served as our Member of Congress for 20 years prior to
being redistricted fully to the San Diego area, Mr. Hunter has a strong
familiarity with our county, its economic base, and reliance on the
Colorado River with an acute awareness of the need to conserve and
protect our precious water resources.
We would endorse the Tamarisk Coalition's concern for restricting
the Federal support for demonstration projects provided for in H.R.
2707 to 65 percent. We believe the need to deal such an obvious
depleter of a precious resource would be justification for the Federal
treasury to support these projects in the totality of their expenses.
Therefore, we request that the Committee amend the language of H.R.
2707 so that the Federal share of the costs of any activity funded
under this program shall be 100 percent of the total cost. Our need to
deal with the Salt Cedar problem is among the greatest of any area but
our economic condition is among the poorest of many areas, especially
in the State of California.
Further, I thank the Members of this Committee for the opportunity
to appear before you and hopefully this hearing will lead to the
enactment of a demonstration program to assess potential savings
through control of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive invasive species.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Kershaw. I might mention that
Mr. Hunter has been very helpful with the Committee on this
particular issue. As you know now, of course, he chairs the
Defense Committee. I am trying to get him to send a few
military weapons. Maybe we could wipe the whole thing out. But
they are a little more destructive than we probably want at
this point, to deploy. But anyway, I do want you to know Mr.
Hunter has been very helpful to the Committee.
Mr. Sulnick, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF BOB SULNICK, CAMPAIGN MANAGER,
ALLIANCE FOR THE RIO GRANDE HERITAGE
Mr. Sulnick. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify.
My name is Robert Sulnick. I am the campaign manager for
the Alliance for the Rio Grande Heritage. Our organization
spans a distance between southern Colorado throughout New
Mexico and into Texas. Our members include Amigos Bravos,
Audubon, Defenders of Wildlife, Forest Guardians, Land and
Water Fund of the Rockies, New Mexico PIRG, Rio Grande
Restoration, Rio Grande/Rio Bravo basin Coalition, San Luis
Valley Ecosystem Council, Southwest Environmental Center, the
Sierra Club, and World Wildlife Fund. Alliance members have
worked on salt cedar-Russian olive removal throughout the Rio
Grande basin, including Presidio, Texas, Soccoro, New Mexico,
Alamosa, Colorado, and the Albuquerque Reach of the Rio Grande
watershed.
Last year, in the New Mexico State legislature, the
alliance worked with the New Mexico State Association of Soil
and Water Conservation Districts to secure a $5 million
appropriation for salt cedar control and reestablishment of
native vegetation and habitat.
The alliance enthusiastically supports H.R. 2707. The
approach of undertaking demonstration projects to evaluate the
most effective for salt cedar-Russian olive removal is endorsed
by the alliance. In our experience, it is particularly
important to learn when and how to use targeted aerial spraying
and when not to use aerial spraying, particularly in cases
where native species or valuable pasture are present. We also,
in addition to supporting mechanical spraying, support a pilot
project involving the use of goats.
We are particularly pleased with H.R. 2707's attention to
monitoring. In our experience, few resources have been provided
for long-term monitoring of salt cedar-Russian olive removal
projects. Without monitoring, it is impossible to establish a
viable approach to solving these problems.
Revegetation with native plants, in our view, is essential
if these kinds of projects are to succeed. Absent revegetation
and habitat restoration, it has been our experience that
invasive species simply return and removal is ineffective.
Finally, the projects to be funded by H.R. 2707 are worth
undertaking even if they do not salvage one acre-foot of usable
water. Although we would expect and desire a measurable
increase in the availability of water to address water shortage
problems, in our experience, because of the connection between
surface water and groundwater, it is possible that expected
gains from eradication will, in some instances, remain in the
groundwater system. If such is the case, the resulting
elevation of water tables and the benefits to both agriculture
and wildlife are well worth undertaking the demonstration
projects presented by this legislation.
As a New Mexican, I would particularly like to thank Mr.
Pearce for introducing this legislation and Congresswoman
Wilson and Congressman Udall for cosponsoring. I would also
like to acknowledge the leadership of Senators Domenici and
Bingaman in this effort. We wholeheartedly and enthusiastically
support the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would also like to mention that I was married in Golden,
Colorado, so I feel some relationship to the Coloradans on the
Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sulnick follows:]
Statement of Bob Sulnick on behalf of Steve Harris, Chair,
Alliance for Rio Grande Heritage, on H.R. 2707
Mr. Chairman, The Alliance for Rio Grande Heritage and its member
groups have, over the past seven years, devoted their private resources
to the problem of restoring the ecological health and integrity of the
Rio Grande in Southern Colorado, New Mexico and West Texas. The Rio
Grande problem is a difficult one stemming, as it does, from a century
and a half of intensive development and control of land and water
resources. Today, we are left with a river transformed by flood control
and water diversion projects, a river that occupies only a portion of
its historic floodplain and that retains a scant fraction of its
natural water flows.
One of the most vexing manifestations of the Rio Grande problem is
the dominance of the river's ecosystem by non-native plants. The
fertility of the Rio Grande basin, its ability to produce healthy crops
and healthy wildlife has been sacrificed to persistent non-native
species, like salt cedar.
In speaking with local people in places like Presidio, Texas,
Socorro, New Mexico and Alamosa, Colorado, we hear deep concern about
the loss of land productivity from the invasion of salt cedar and a
desire to reclaim the ecological and economic benefits of a healthy
agro-ecological system, supported by a restored and healthy river.
In the Rio Grande, producers and environmentalists have come
together to attempt to address the salt cedar problem. Last year, the
Alliance and the state Association of Soil and Water Conservation
Districts successfully lobbied a $5 million appropriation from the New
Mexico Legislature for salt cedar control and reestablishment of native
vegetative associations. Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge and
Santa Ana Pueblo, to cite just two projects in the Middle Rio Grande,
that are of the scale contemplated in the present legislation, have
become model projects. They are indeed inspiring a growing regional
effort to restore the Rio Grande.
We are very pleased that the 108th Congress, with its consideration
of H.R. 2707, is addressing this problem, which plagues not only our
locality but so much of the West.
In deliberating this bill, we hope the Resources Committee will
consider a few reflections from our own experiences:
LThe projects to be funded by H.R. 2707 are worth
undertaking, even if they do not salvage one acre-foot of useable
water. Although we would desire a measurable increase in the
availability of water to address the West's water shortages, neither
Congress nor restoration practitioners should succumb to unreasonable
expectations about the amount of water to be produced.
The connection between surface water and groundwater is quite
complex. In our experience, most of the expected gains from eradicating
water-consuming non-native plants have remained in the groundwater
system, and are not added directly to the useable supplies. What we can
be sure of is that the water saved will remain on the landscape,
elevating water tables and adding modest amounts to the surface water
system. We maintain that the benefits of improved wildlife habitat,
restoration of native associations and of land productivity are reason
enough to undertake the projects contemplated by H.R. 2707.
LLand restoration resulting from this measure is not apt
to be truly successful without attention to restoring some measure of
the underlying hydrologic regime. In many cases, it is the loss of
seasonal floods in the streams that has most contributed to the
dominance of these non-native trees. Projects that fail to address the
need of native species for periodic inundation of floodplains have been
least successful in terms of self-maintenance of the desirable species
and the regrowth of the target species.
LAn appropriate portion of the project funding must be
devoted to monitoring, not just the water salvage benefit, but the
success in restoring the desirable plant associations. We all want to
maximize the number of acres restored using the limited funds
available. In our experience, there is a tremendous temptation to
devote almost no resources to long-term monitoring of the success of
these projects, especially the succession of vegetative associations
that follow the treatments. We urge this Committee, in its findings to
the Congress, to recommend for appropriate monitoring regimes.
LTreatments selected for elimination of invasive species
will vary from location to location. We have observed a tendency to
over-rely upon aerial herbicide applications because initial per acre
costs are lowest. However these treatment methods are not appropriate
in a number of cases where native species, valuable pasture or open
water is present on the project site. Project proponents should be
advised to carefully assess the conditions of individual site and avoid
reliance on an expedient, ``one size fits all'' approach.
Salt Cedar, Russian Olive and other persistent invaders have indeed
become a scourge on the West. We have made most progress in reclaiming
afflicted lands where we recognize that underlying ecological factors
have contributed to our problem, have corrected these conditions and
provided hydrologic and soil conditions which will favor the desirable
native vegetation over the invasives.
Thank you.
______
Mr. McInnis. Well, we have a lot in common--not in regards
to your marriage, but--
Let me--I would like to begin some of the questioning here
very quickly.
Mr. Kershaw, one point that I thought maybe you could go
into a little more detail, but briefly, for me--you talked
about that you were successful in killing the tamarisk, if I am
correct. Or maybe it was Mr.--I am sorry, Mr. Davis. I am
confused. I apologize, Mr. Kershaw.
You talked about being able to kill the stuff, but it is
the revegetation or something else that was difficult. Go
through that again very briefly. What--does it poison the soil,
or what is happening for getting something else to replace it?
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, in our particular demonstration
project, we looked at specifically two ways to kill salt
cedar--one, mechanically, by root-plying with bulldozers. Keep
in mind, this salt cedar was 100 percent canopy-covered and was
probably 12 to 15 feet high. Stem diameter was probably on the
average of 4 inches. We used aerial application of Arsenal,
which is a new herbicide that has only been on the market
about, let's see now, about 20 years. In fact, I think we were
the first ones in the Carlsbad Irrigation District to use
Arsenal as early as 1991--1990, I think, is the first time I
used Arsenal to control salt cedar.
Both of those methods are very effective in controlling
salt cedar. They have different cost regimes. But I think we
know how to kill salt cedar. I think an aerial application of
Arsenal with water at the rate of about 15, 18 gallons an acre
really gets a good coverage on all the growth tips of the
plants and you get a pretty good kill. Root-plying also is
effective, maybe a little more effective as far as percent-
kill. It is a little more devastating to the ecology because
you churn up a lot of ground, a lot of bare ground is exposed.
However, that results in a better seed bed.
Now, in the cases we looked at, both the aerial application
and the mechanical, in both of those we had equal problems in
getting native vegetation reestablished. We spent a significant
amount of time and money going back over areas to try to
reestablish native vegetation. We had a difficult time doing
that. And what we ended up with was an environment out there
that was not too conducive to wildlife or to soil stability.
I hope these demonstration projects really focus in on
that, because oftentimes we ended up with areas that were
fairly destructive. And I blame our situation, difficulty of
reestablishing native vegetation, primarily just due to
rainfall. I have noticed areas on the Rio Grande where they
could actually irrigate. They could dike and irrigate the
reestablished native vegetation, whether it is reseeded or pole
plantings, they were fairly successful. In our case, we weren't
able to do that. We were dependent strictly on what nature
provided.
Mr. McInnis. The rainfall is the key, you think?
Mr. Davis. I think it is the rainfall.
Mr. McInnis. All right.
Dr. Redifer, real briefly. I think you suggested you felt
there were some modifications to the bill that might improve
it. Could you just summarize that for me?
Mr. Redifer. I would have liked to see that the bill
specifically provide funding for development of a process model
that would help in the multi-stakeholder approach toward
building a long-term management solution. Without that, our
efforts to control tamarisk and Russian olive aren't going
anywhere. And so I see this bill as providing an opportunity to
kind of provide a boost to this process, some seed money,
perhaps, to help show that in one river district or several, we
can develop that kind of management strategy, demonstrate that
we can effectively control the problem from there. Then you
have something you can export. You can send it to other river
basins, the process itself. The strategy will look different,
as I said in my testimony, depending on the makeup of the river
basin and the people playing--the stakeholders involved. But
the process could be the same.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you.
And Mr. Carlson, real briefly, since I am running out of
time, tell me about the rate of speed of the tamarisk and the
growth and the tenacity of the plant itself.
Mr. Carlson. If I understand your question right--
Mr. McInnis. For example, let me tell you--on the way to
Moab, the Moab canyon there, all the tamarisk that is right
along the Colorado River, is that all one root? How long--is it
like an Aspen tree?
Mr. Carlson. A lot of it could be from the same original
plant. They have extensive root systems that--some literature
would indicate that it goes down to 100 feet in depth, then out
to the side over 50 feet. When a plant lays down, if there is
moist soil, it will re-sprout from those shoots.
What you saw on the Colorado River going through Moab, that
all occurred from the 1984 flood. Remember, that was a time
period when Lake Powell was about ready to overtop the dam. And
that sent a lot of seed source from, really, Colorado into Utah
and in the large wetlands area down there infested nearly 1,000
acres of land down through there. When it gets a chance, it
will spread rapidly.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you.
And Mr. Pearce, I might remind you, if you have a question,
we also have Ms. Estill and Mr. Tate in the audience who would
be happy to answer any questions you might have as well.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mostly want to make
a comment that dovetails with Mr. Sulnick's comment about the
over-concern with seeing immediate flows at the end of a
stream.
In drilling oil wells, you have to--you drill down into the
ground, and to keep the drill bit effective, you have to
circulate the cuttings back out of the hole, the same as if you
got a hand drill, you are drilling into a piece of wood or
metal, you occasionally pull it out and you just blow the
cuttings out, and that allows your bit to be effective. In
drilling oil wells, you circulate fluid.
When we go into fields that have been produced for a long
time, you find that a certain hydrostatic pressure is needed at
the bottom of the hole. Otherwise, your fluid comes down and
goes out into the hole if you don't have a hydrostatic pressure
against the hole to cause the fluid to take the path of least
resistance.
I suspect what we are finding when we do get rid of the
invasive species is that what we are going to do is recharge
the aquifers around our streams. I suspect that the streams'
aquifers, that invisible piece underneath and on the sides that
give hydrostatic push so that the water moves down the stream
rather than soaking out into the aquifer around it, I suspect
that we are going to have to recharge those. And I think that
we can get very, very concerned, overly concerned with seeing
flows at the end of a stream, right now, today. I think we
probably have decades of overuse and over-exhaustion of these
river systems.
And so we are pretty committed to it because, I mean, you
can just look down some of the small streams and rivers into
Mexico and there is no way that the vegetation couldn't be
soaking up a tremendous amount of the water. But if we think
that we are going to have a solution that is immediately
evident at the end of the day, I think we would be chasing that
a little bit hard.
But we are pretty committed to it, and we appreciate all
the testimony here today. I think that a lot of valid points
have been made. We have noted some of the concerns and some of
the requests for changes in the bill, and I have been talking
with my staff as we go along to see what we can do with those.
I think all the comments are well-made.
And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present
the bill today.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Pearce--your
hard work is appreciated by many of your neighbors.
With that, that concludes the hearing today. Once again, I
want to thank all the witnesses for making a personal effort to
be available today. The Committee--
Do you have a request?
Mr. Pearce. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of letters
that I would like to have unanimous consent to insert into the
record. Those were letters of support from Pueblo, Santa Ana,
and also the Texas Department of Agriculture, that were sent in
to Congressman Udall from my State. And with your permission,
we would like to insert those into the record.
Mr. McInnis. So ordered.
[NOTE: Letters of support for H.R. 2707 have been retained
in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. McInnis. The Committee now stands in adjournment.
[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-