Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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