Download Invasive Weeds - Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

INVASIVE TERRESTRIAL WEEDS--WHAT TO DO/ IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE--A WHITE
PAPER SUBMITTED TO THE IAFWA WILDLIFE POLICY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
Q. Why should State Directors engage in the invasive terrestrial weeds arena?
1. Overall Problem
™ To meet established objectives set for wildlife habitat and population growth, you
need to address the invasive weed situation in your state.
™ Reduction of biodiversity, effects on native plants (forage, escape cover, water
availability, territorial space), reduction of recreational value.
2. Economic Implications
™ $100 billion annually--US total cost, impacts to agriculture exceed $5 billion per year
for control. Florida alone spends $90 million per year to control aquatic invasive plants
for wildlife and recreation.
™ Weed expansion will continue on private lands.
3. There is a need to engage-What mandates does the wildlife agency have?
™ Wildlife agencies are interested in the management of wildlife, if the agency doesn’t
lead no one will volunteer to do it for us.
™ At the root of the authority to undertake leadership in invasive species management is
the fact that wildlife constitutes a Public Trust. The state wildlife agency has
responsibility to manage those resources for the Public Good.
4. Resource Availability
™ Farm Bill conservation programs (EQIP, WHIP, CRP, etc.), grants (NFWF, CREES
National Research Initiative), partnerships, federal legislation (S 144, 50 pieces in
existence today on the Hill), weed management initiatives (at local/state levels).
™ The resources exist right now to deal with the problem, will we act?
5. Opportunities to create coalitions
™ State Directors providing leadership is key.
™ Who is leading the effort on invasive weeds in your state? In the majority of instances
there is LITTLE to NO coordination in this arena.
6. What’s in it for me, the state Director?
™ Meeting my agencies mandates. Will raise the focus on wildlife, increase wildlife
habitat and populations.
™ Economic enhancements-hunting and viewing recreation.
™ Public relations opportunities (with constituents, Governor, state legislature, etc.).
7. Recommendations/Actions to take
™ Take lead in the state via development of coalition/collaborative meeting with partners
on the issue of “How best to deal with invasive terrestrial weeds?” State Directors
providing leadership is key.
™ Suggested process:
*Establish an IAFWA DC Coordinator.
*Appoint a state wildlife agency coordinator.
*Coordination between DC and state reps to design process for a coalition
approach to solve the problem.
*Conduct the meeting, seek answer to question: “What does success look
like when conducting the “war on weeds” for wildlife, commodities, etc.?”
Create win-win situations.
1
The Problem
Not all alien species cause harm.¹ Non-native species provide food, fiber, health, and recreation.
Horticulture, for example, provides numerous wild and cultivated species of ornamental plants as
amenities around the world. Exploration for new species and their uses in new locations underpins much
of man’s understanding of the planet. Breeding new strains of wild and cultivated species, often far
removed from countries of origin, has become a fine art and provided a rapidly expanding world
population with many of the basic needs for life.
However, invasive alien species (IAS) are reducing the economic productivity and the ecological integrity
of our nation’s lands and waters. The rate of introduction of such species rose markedly in the last
century as world travel increased and modes of transportation proliferated. The costs to society are
growing also, with harm to native fish and wildlife and their habitats, renewable natural resources,
agriculture, and a wide array of human activities and needs, including health. Threat to ecosystem health
in the U.S. is particularly acute because the U.S. boasts more biomes than any other country and more
relatively intact ecosystems than most temperate countries.
While US total costs exceed $100 billion annually, roughly the cost of the first year of the Iraq war on
terrorism, economic impacts to agriculture exceed $5 billion per year for noxious weed control alone.
Fisheries, waterways, and utilities have spent $3.1 billion over the last ten years to control IAS,
highlighted by efforts to control the spread of zebra mussels and water hyacinth, for example. Florida
spends over $90 million per year to control aquatic invasive plants for wildlife and recreation users;
roughly twice the yearly investment by the entire Department of the Interior on invasive species.
Indirect costs in losses to crop and rangeland productivity are estimated at $7.4 billion per year. Direct
reductions of native populations and indirect harm caused by altered habitats are increasingly diminishing
the ability of future generations to sustain conventional or newly-developed uses of marine, forest, and
cropland resources and to conserve natural ecosystems and associated ecosystem services.
As IAS diminish and, in some cases, cause the extinction of native flora and fauna, the number of species
on earth decreases. This worldwide homogenization and reduced biodiversity impoverishes the planet as
a whole and limits mankind’s future development of new crops and medicines for sustained growth and
prosperity. Scientists have yet to put a price tag on the losses to be incurred by future generations if
worldwide genetic diversity is reduced by IAS.
Conservation experts have tracked IAS plant infestations and found that they cover 100 million acres in
the United States (200 times the area of the Everglades ecosystem) and are spreading at the rate of up to
14 percent per year- an area twice the size of Delaware. Aquatic species spread unseen through
waterways and can expand in range explosively. Technical reviews estimate that between 35 and 46
percent of endangered and threatened species in the United States have been listed because of harm
from IAS.
No place on earth is immune to threats from IAS. The problem is global. As people speed from country to
country, opening new routes for commerce and pleasure, biological stowaways and new products for
trade spread far beyond their native ranges. Epidemiologists have noted the proliferation of disease
vectors and the increased speed with which new organisms spread- witness the rapid spread westward
of West Nile virus. Countless crows and jays have died and older Americans are increasingly at risk of
life-threatening harm by such viral invaders.
Agreement is widespread on the need to combat the harm caused by these non-native invaders. Private
landowners and public land managers concur that weeds need to be killed, aquatic nuisance species
curtailed if not eliminated, and other biological invaders ranging from mammals to bacterial pathogens
eradicated or controlled to restore native ecosystem functions and processes. Congress increasingly
hears calls from diverse constituencies that action must accelerate to forego spiraling future societal
costs. Participants in local community-based weed management areas are linked in purpose and a sense
2
of urgency with national organizations ranging from the Cattlemen’s Beef Association to The Wilderness
Society.
_____________________________
¹
“Alien species” means, with respect to a particular ecosystem, any species or other viable biological
material that is not a native species in that ecosystem. “Invasive alien species” means an alien species that does or
could harm the economy, ecology, or human health of the United States if introduced.
Impacts to Fish and Game - A Growing Concern
Hawaii - Miconia Miconia calvescens (Melastomataceae), a South American tree, threatens the ecological
integrity of the Hawaiian native forest. According to Dr. Ray Fosberg of the Smithsonian Institution,
miconia is "the one plant that could really destroy the Hawaiian forest."
Northern Plains - Leafy spurge has devastated land values across the northern tier states as impacts to
cattle pastures. In one example of personal economic impact, the 3,200 acre Brooks Ranch, in Ward
County, North Dakota, sold at $40 an acre after a heavy infestation of leafy spurge; down from full market
value at $125 an acre. Even with maintenance by chemical and biological control, costs to lost production
are matched by increased overhead costs for chemicals and treatment equipment.
Montana - Spotted Knapweed has put wildlife at risk, infesting over 4 million acres and driving 6 native
plants to “rare” status in Glacier National Park. Bunchgrass forage critical to elk survival has been
reduced by 97.8 percent.
Florida - Melaleuca siphons off valuable water resources in added transpiration and hydrilla clogs
waterways and canals. Melaleuca’s paper-bark skin is highly flammable and it has spread so widely that
the famed “river of grass” is imperiled.
New York - Purple loosestrife reduced wildlife use by establishing vast monocultures in New York
National Wildlife Refuges until biological control beetles were released and reduced densities so that
waterfowl and other birds could utilize wetland resources.
Maryland/Virginia - The Northern Snakehead is now possibly established in Potomac River waters. This
example of “charismatic mega-fauna” devours other fish species and can survive on land in moist
conditions for seven months, or lumber across land to a new aquatic home in ponds and streams.
The west -- Tamarisk or saltcedar covers almost 2 million acres; in some places birds have utilized its
highly dissected leaves as cover for nesting, but its transpiration rate and ability to grow from riparian
zones up the bench to much higher ground has resulted in replacement of valuable grasses and other
drought-tolerant shrubs and forbs, increasing wildfire danger and posing increased risk to families living in
the wildland-urban interface.
Authorities for State Wildlife Agencies in Invasive Species Management
Why should State Wildlife Agencies take a leading role in issues involving invasive weeds? In most
instances State Agriculture Departments are charged with the responsibilities for vegetative and weed
management in their state’s. Wouldn’t the Wildlife Agency be overstepping its bounds to attack this issue
and exert leadership in the response to invasive weeds? This is a key question for the States to answer
individually and collectively (IAFWA) if the State wildlife agencies are to decide to move forward in the
arena of invasive species planning and management. Under what authority do State Wildlife Agencies
undertake leadership?
The answers to the question about State Wildlife Agency authority must be approached from both a broad
and a specific perspective. The principal reason for our interest has to be for the management of wildlife,
not from the perspective of the management of weeds.
3
At the root of the authority to undertake leadership in invasive species management is the fact that
Wildlife constitutes a Public Trust. The wildlife resources of our Nation do not belong to the Sovereign,
rather the Sovereign has a responsibility to manage those resources for the Public Good. These
Sovereign responsibilities are vested in the States unless specifically reserved to the Federal
Government by the Constitution or by affirmative Federal Statute. The Constitution does not reserve the
responsibility for wildlife unto itself.
There are Federal Statutes that reserve some responsibilities unto the Federal Government (i.e.
Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, Marine Mammals, and Interstate Fisheries and Oceanic wildlife
resources within the Exclusive Economic Zone), however these responsibilities are concurrent with and
do not obviate the responsibilities of the States. There are several examples:
™ the Endangered Species Act recognizes (in Section 6) the authorities and the responsibilities
of the States to concurrently manage these wildlife Migratory Bird Management relies upon
the actions of the States to meet Treaty Requirements,
™ State Wildlife Grants (Threats being identified and potential connection to Species of
Greatest Concern)
™ Farm Bill Conservation programs
™ Lip Program
™ The National Invasive Species Act
™ Memoranda of Understandings with Federal Land and Water Management Agencies
™ Resolutions of Governors Associations and National Governor’s Association (WGA Policy
Resolution 04-12)
Further, the Federal Government has recognized the role and authority of the State Wildlife Agencies
through specific programs that provide assistance to the States and recognizes their leadership role in
management of wildlife resources. The Wildlife Restoration Act, Sport Fish Restoration Act, and State
Wildlife Grants programs all recognize the States as the implementers of wildlife management in the
United States, not as subdivisions of the Federal Government but as the primary entity for management
of these public trust assets within their states.
While some may wish to debate the primacy of the State’s authorities for wildlife within their borders, few
would debate the necessity of maintaining the constituent elements for habitat quality as a principal
mechanism for managing wildlife resources. State Wildlife Agencies, as the affirmed authority in each
State (remember that each state passed assent legislation to Wildlife Restoration and Sport fish
Restoration that identifies the State Wildlife Agency as the authority for wildlife in that State), must have
an interest in maintaining the quality of habitat necessary to conserve wildlife resources as public trust
assets. Invasive and Noxious weeds present a clear threat to the constituent elements of habitat quality.
Hence, as public trust asset managers, we are also entrusted with advocating for habitat maintenance
and improvement.
State Agriculture agencies certainly have authority for vegetative resources within their states. Our public
trust interest in wildlife habitat does not replace their authority. However, the focus of the interest of
Agriculture will be upon agricultural resources. The effects of Invasive weeds on wildlands and wildlife
habitat will not emerge as a priority for those organizations. If invasive weeds that threaten wildlife habitat
are to be uniformly addressed, then leadership from the authority for wildlife within the state is essential –
no one will volunteer to do it for us (and that includes Agriculture).
Providing Leadership in the Invasive Terrestrial Weeds Arena
Today, state wildlife management agencies are among those rare governmental organizations that enjoy
broad public support and are widely esteemed by all facets of society.
4
At this point in history, the greatest threats to populations of native birds, animals, and fish do not come
from over-zealous hunters or even the urbanization of America. No, at this point in time, the greatest
single threat to wildlife of all kinds and sizes is the spread of exotic species, especially invasive plants.
Although there has been some hyperbole around the invasive species issue, there is no question that the
impact of these non-native invaders on native plant communities (otherwise known as wildlife habitat) has
been significant. The statistics are both impressive and daunting. Millions upon millions of acres of
private and public lands have been compromised, some areas turned into biological waste lands, not
suitable for even the most coarse or loathsome of wildlife species. The problem with invasive species is
so great that it defies sensible description. Who can really visualize seven million acres in the eastern
states are currently covered in kudzu; how do you understand the consequences of 25 million acres
dominated by star thistle in California alone; what can anyone possibly do about the fire hazard caused
by over 100 million acres of cheat grass that infests western rangelands? The scope and scale of the
problem can only be described as mammoth.
Mammoth yes, but not insurmountable and certainly not futile. It is axiomatic in the war on weeds to say
“one person can make a difference.” Stories about the diligent field crew that finds and pulls a vagrant
patch of knapweed or stiltgrass abound. What is less often spoken about is the role of leadership in this
war.
Invasive plants are an insult to the land and a burden to the wildlife that depend on the bounty produced
by and the safety provided by native plant communities. Invasive species reduce the capacity of the land
to sustain populations of desirable wildlife species. Weeds are a clear and present threat to the
resources that you are directly responsible for and as such are a danger to your resource, your
constituents and the heritage of outdoorsmanship in your State.
The invasive species problem is an opportunity of a scale not seen by professional wildlife managers
since the early 20th century. A hundred years ago the ideas of wildlife protection and “conservation” were
new and, in some corners, controversial. Today, the science of wildlife conservation and active
management has resulted in a sea change in the state of native North American wildlife and (perhaps
more importantly) the way the American public thinks about its wildlife resources. We face an opportunity
equally as great and equally as serious. Are we ready to take on this challenge? We look to our leaders,
at the state level , the Directors, to engage in this fight. A lot rides on the decision they make. It is our
hope that they see the importance of the need to win this one for the resource and the constituents that
utilize those wildlife species in the future.
5