|
NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite
540, Washington, DC 20001
Statement of John T. Shannon
State Forester of Arkansas
On Behalf of the National Association of State Foresters
Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources
Subcommittees on
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Forests and Forest Health
National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands
March 14, 2002
SUBJECT
H. R. 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the
Environment Act
INTRODUCTION
On behalf of the National Association of State
Foresters (NASF), I am pleased that Chairman Gilchrest and Chairman
McInnis have asked us to testify on this bill. NASF is a non-profit
organization that represents the directors of the State Forestry
agencies from all fifty states, eight U.S. territories, and the
District of Columbia. The State Foresters manage and protect state
and private forests across the U.S., which together encompass
two-thirds of the nation’s forests.
I am representing NASF in my role as Chairman
of the Forest Health Protection Committee. The spread of harmful
non-native species is an important issue to the State Foresters,
private landowners, and our partners. NASF applauds the efforts
undertaken in this bill to address the pervasive problem of invasive
species on both public and private lands. We support the bill, and
believe that it can be strengthened even more.
In this testimony, I would like to address the
topics you raised in your invitation to testify: (1) the need for
the measure; (2) whether it can become an effective mechanism to
deal with the growing problem of invasive species on public and
private lands; (3) if the proposed funding levels are adequate to
address this problem; and (4) our recommendations on any proposed
changes that could improve this proposal.
NEED
There is clearly a call for measures to
control, mitigate, and eradicate invasive species on forestland and
elsewhere. Invasive species are a growing concern among foresters
and other land managers. Indeed, addressing the spread of exotics
is one of the objectives of
the NASF Forest Health Protection Committee,
and it is of high priority for the Committee this year. We agree
with the inclusion of U.S. Territories and Tribal lands in the
definition of “state” as these lands have specific needs for control
of nonnative invasive species.
EFFECTIVENESS
This bill provides an important mechanism to deal
with the growing problem of invasive species, and we believe it can be
strengthened in several critical ways.
Emphasize Role of State and Local Government
State forestry and other state and local agencies
play key roles in invasive species management. State forestry agencies,
in particular, have longstanding relationships with private landowners
and federal partners, and we can assist in the development of priorities
and selection of grantees. Our technical experts on the ground, who
interact daily with private landowners, have first-hand understanding of
local needs and solid relationships with landowners and local government
officials. This places state forestry agencies in an ideal position to
help ensure that on the ground management stemming from this bill will
be effective in dealing with invasive species when and where they
threaten forested habitats.
Expand
Involvement of Federal Agencies
If we are to successfully tackle the problem of
invasive species, we need to devote resources to those federal lands and
programs where the greatest progress on the ground can be made. Most
importantly, the bill must include the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), specifically the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), as key partners. The USFS, one
of our traditional partners, has an excellent Forest Health Protection
Unit that deals with invasive species issues on forested land. The USFS
is also home to Cooperative Forestry, a vital link between private
landowners and cost share assistance that funds management on private
land. Invasive species remain core management issues for the National
Forest System and Research and Development within the USFS, as well.
Likewise, APHIS, which has a rapid response program in place, has the
capacity to quickly detect and respond to exotic pests that threaten
agricultural crops and natural habitats. In addition to the National
Wildlife Refuge System, there are other lands managed by the Department
of Interior, and also Department of Defense lands, which contain
habitats threatened or affected by invasive nonnative species. It is
essential to identify these federal agencies as partners in this
legislation.
Building upon existing federal programs that deal
with invasive species issues, and encouraging agencies that control
large amounts of public land to participate, will most effectively
address harmful nonnative species across public and private lands. We
need the flexibility to detect and rapidly respond to invasive species
when and where they occur, and limiting the demonstration projects to
wildlife refuges, which is a small geographic subset of federal lands,
may not ensure that our limited federal dollars will be spent in the
most effective and efficient manner.
Keep
Grants Accessible / Keep Administration Simple
The process of applying for, reviewing, and
administering grants must be as simple as possible. If grants are too
demanding, key applicants will not apply for these much needed funds.
Our experience has shown us that some states, especially in the South,
lack adequate staffing and other resources necessary to participate in
the programs identified in this bill. In order to achieve the greatest
good on the ground, the requirements of the bill must provide
accessibility to all partners.
In addition, we believe the Aldo Leopold Native
Heritage Grant Program would be more effective if the requirement for a
federal partner were expanded to allow projects with either state or
federal partners. Quick and aggressive action on state and private
lands could actually prevent the spread of invasive species to federal
lands. The requirement that grants may only be issued for projects with
adjacent federal lands or waters may disqualify important projects.
Broaden
Scope of State Assessments
NASF recommends broadening the State Native Species
Protection Assessment Grant Program to allow and encourage the states to
assess the impacts of invasive species on the broad range of sectors
that contribute to their own states’ economy and the national economy,
rather than just impacts to native habitats. Our experience at both the
state and national level has shown that a broad range of sectors (e.g.,
agriculture, tourism, and transportation) contribute to the propagation
and spread of invasive species. These sectors hold the promise for
innovative and incentive-driven solutions, and these constituents should
be at the table in developing state, regional, and national assessments
and solutions. The preparation of statewide assessments will help
identify strategic regional approaches to priority invasive species.
This will also bring more public support for the investments needed to
tackle invasive species problems over the long run—all of which will
help native habitats. State assessments will be helpful to states and
regions that have not already conducted assessments. However, to
effectively address the protection of natural habitats and processes, a
broader assessment of the risk from invasive nonnative species is
needed, which may include altered habitats such as reservoirs or other
lands and waters that are no longer in a natural condition.
Expand
Definition of Environmental Soundness
Defining ‘environmental soundness’ as only projects
that emphasize non-chemical measures may restrict the control and
eradication of some invasive species, especially plants. It is
important to recognize that, in some cases, chemicals provide the most
effective and environmentally sound technique for control and
eradication.
Recognize Invasive Species are Long Term Problems
Long term programs with ongoing funding are needed
if we are to successfully control, mitigate, and eradicate harmful
nonnative species on public and private lands. The two to four year
limit for grants, along with the 2008 sunset for the Act, do not provide
the levels of continuous public investment that are needed to fully
address these problems. This is due to both the extended survival or
dormancy of seeds and the continuous threat of new species introductions
from overseas.
FUNDING
NASF believes this bill will improve efforts to
take action on the ground in areas where the problems of invasive
species are most prevalent, if we can focus primarily on rapid action.
When management actions are hampered by assessment processes, the
problems associated with invasive species intensify. The successful
management and control of invasive species requires the ability to
quickly and aggressively respond to emerging threats. We would like to
see a greater proportion of funding directed towards the Rapid Response
Program and the Aldo Leopold Grants Program, where on the ground
management happens.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary, NASF believes that this bill provides
an effective mechanism for dealing with the growing problem of invasive
species on public and private lands and waters, and it will be
strengthened through the following recommendations:
·
Emphasize the important role that state and local
government can play in setting priorities and selecting grantees.
·
Expand the involvement of federal agencies within the U.S.
Department of Agriculture that have expertise and programs in invasive
species management to include the USFS and APHIS.
·
Expand the involvement of federal agencies and departments
controlling large acreages of public land, including the Bureau of Land
Management and other land management agencies in the U.S. Department of
Interior, the USFS in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S.
Department of Defense.
·
Keep the requirements for the programs as simple as
possible, which will encourage the participation of states and other key
partners.
·
Broaden the scope of state assessments to include the
impact of invasive nonnative species on states’ economies and altered
lands that are no longer in a natural condition.
·
Expand the definition of ‘environmental soundness’ to
include the use of chemicals where needed to control and eradicate
invasive species.
·
Along with considering reauthorization of the bill in
2008, we encourage you to extend grants beyond the two to four year
limitation currently detailed in the bill.
·
Shift the balance of funding towards on the ground
management, particularly the Rapid Response program. There is value in
being ready to handle outbreaks of invasive species before they occur.
CONCLUSION
NASF looks forward to the opportunity to work with
the Subcommittees and the sponsors to develop and carry out an effective
program to address the spread and control of nonnative species. We
commend representatives Rahall, Gilchrest, and Underwood for your work
on this important legislation. We are willing to work with you to
refine specific language as the bill progresses, and we appreciate the
opportunity to provide testimony and answer your questions today. |
