|
|
| |
|
|
Ms. Brenda M. Waters Testimony
In my comments today, I want to emphasize three major points regarding how and why the weed management program, as outlined in this bill, has proven to be effective and essential to the management of public and private lands. First, the critical role of locally affected private citizens and other stakeholders within a cooperative weed management area (CWMA); second, the essential strategic and integrated management plan for coordinating and implementing management of invasive and noxious weeds across multi-jurisdictional boundaries and their steering committees that mirror the land ownership within a CWMA; and third, the proven accountability for the funds that include a matching investment of time and money by involved private and agency partners within a CWMA. It is my privilege to work with the dedicated landowners and land managers across our state. I am constantly amazed by their commitment to accomplish what can seem to be an overwhelming task with very little funds. Often, I have posed the question to CWMAs in Idaho and to other states across the nation, “What is your biggest challenge for fully implementing an integrated weed management plan?” Resoundingly, they respond that securing stable sustainable funds is the most difficult challenge. Current expenditures for weed management from all sources in Idaho are approximately $7 to $10 million, which is estimated to be about one-fourth of what is needed to really contain this ecological wildfire. This legislation contains important definitions and limitations that are essential to successful implementation. For example, the definition of a noxious weed in S144 Noxious Weed Control Act of 2003 is the meaning given the term in section 403 of the Plant Protection Act, which states, “…any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources ….” It is important that this definition is used, rather than using the definition in the Federal Noxious Weed Act. The Federal Noxious Weed Act definition is too restrictive with the statement, “… new to or not widely prevalent in the United States …” and therefore does not address those weeds that have expanded on our public and private lands. Additionally, this definition excludes those species that are of great benefit to humans, including potatoes, apples, wheat, and grasses utilized for rehabilitation purposes. We recognize that CWMAs must be able to control the non-native invasive weeds that are threatening our agricultural production, including the nursery trade, seed producers, ranchers, other livestock producers, and the viability of our natural areas. Another important limitation is the use of these funds for terrestrial and riparian weeds only. Funds from this legislation will not be allowed to be utilized to control or eradicate animals, pests, or submerged or floating noxious aquatic weeds. Treating submerged or floating weeds would dilute the intent of this legislation to the point where the control of terrestrial and riparian weeds would be difficult to measure. Aquatic weed control costs are extremely costly and should be funded utilizing funds through the Army Corp of Engineers and the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act. Nearly eight million of Idaho’s 52.9 million acres are overrun with destructive terrestrial and riparian weeds costing Idahoans nearly $300 million in out-of-pocket costs and lost production that includes diminished wildlife habitat and watershed protection. All landowners, private, county, state, federal and tribal, are impacted by invasive weeds that invade all land types, including urban areas, forestland, rangeland, wetland, and agricultural land. Idaho’s land, as you may know, is nearly 63.1 percent federally owned. The federal government, as the largest landowner in Idaho as in many other states, has a large role to play in implementing successful strategies to stop the spread of weeds and mitigate the impact to lands that are already infested with these invaders. We recognize that in order for Idaho and other states to be successful
in protecting the lands that have not been invaded, we must work together
to prevent and stop the spread of weeds that are presently threatening
our state’s environment and economic viability. Our commitment
to work together to accomplish this task, along with the assistance and
support of local officials, the State Legislature, Governor Dirk Kempthorne,
Senator Craig and the Idaho Delegation, and most importantly, private
landowners, has allowed Idaho to successfully and effectively implement
the model outlined in S144 by providing assistance to eligible weed management
entities or CWMAs. Private landowners are the critical element to the
success and continuity of CWMAs. Participation and buy-in of private
landowners into the CWMA is the key to fully implementing an integrated
weed management plan. Without the participation of private landowners,
a CWMA may be formed but will never quite accomplish its goals. They
are the glue that keeps the CWMA together when agency land managers move
to another position. Private landowners have the largest stake in this
grassroots battle, for they live on the land. This legislation, when passed and funded, will direct funding through state administration to CWMA partnerships and foster integrated weed management in a watershed or geographic area, rather than on a land ownership or administrative basis. The process of organizing and empowering CWMAs to implement a plan has proven to be a success in Idaho. We are gratified and honored that ISDA’s effective and efficient process for providing funding to CWMAs throughout Idaho and its bordering states has been adopted as the blueprint in this piece of legislation. State agencies, such as ISDA, provide greater continuity and connection with local officials such as County Commissioners. Additionally, state agencies and counties are statutorily responsible for weed control under most state weed laws and thus are comfortable working together. Idaho has implemented an application, reporting, and review process for the Weed Cost Share Grant Program to assist in the fulfillment of the statewide Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious Weeds. Applications are received annually and funds are distributed based on recommendations from an outside review committee. The review committee is made up of representatives from the IWCC, IWCA, and the Idaho Association of Weed Control Superintendents. These coordinating groups provide general guidance and recommendations to ISDA based on the goals of the statewide Strategic Plan for determining how funds should be allocated. The review committee also assists ISDA in establishing the general criteria for CWMAs to receive funds and determining how much of the funds should be held at the state level and allocated to applied invasive weed research and statewide or regional public awareness and outreach efforts. During 2003, ISDA provided over $1.3 million in cost share grants to eligible CWMAs to supplement local resources in implementing annual operating plans with an emphasis focusing on private lands and private landowner involvement. CWMAs reported an overall statewide nonfederal match ratio of nearly three to one for the 2003 season. Idaho’s Weed Cost Share Program emphasizes the accountability of CWMAs for public funds by requiring submission of quarterly reporting with appropriate and proper documentation of how funds are expended by each CWMA. Additionally, ISDA performs annual financial and project reviews in the field on approximately 25 percent of the funds distributed. This reporting and review process, along with the diversity of interests on local CWMA steering committees that include private landowners, offers ISDA, the state legislature, and federal partners a high level of confidence that the cost share grant program funds are used with integrity and for the intended purposes. Since 1998, the number of CWMAs has grown steadily, along with their capability to work cooperatively and effectively. During the 2003 field season, CWMAs accomplished an amazing amount of work, including the treatment of more than 110,000 acres of weed-infested lands, and more importantly, involved an expanding number of landowners and managers. We have many success stories in Idaho. For example, Lemhi CWMA, Utah & Idaho CWMA, Upper Snake River CWMA, and the Lower Weiser River CWMA utilize sheep and goats as part of their management plan to reduce Leafy Spurge. These grazing animals have demonstrated management success where canopy cover of Leafy Spurge has been decreased by 75 to 90 percent, and seed production potential has been greatly decreased. Many of these areas utilize bio-control insects and herbicide treatments in conjunction with grazing, which has proven even more successful. In some areas of the Utah &Idaho CWMA, Leafy Spurge is considered to be under control, and reseeding of previously infested sites has occurred. In other areas where cattle grazing had been eliminated by total noxious weed infestation, grass species are recovering to a point where cattle grazing can again be considered. I encourage you to visit the ISDA website at www.agri.idaho.gov/animal/CostShare.htm to view the successful on-the-ground actions that were accomplished by Idaho CWMAs. Success has not just been demonstrated in Idaho. CWMAs have spread across the United States. CWMAs have proven so successful that the concept is being widely adopted throughout the western United States and potentially by other nations such as Canada. They have proven to be successful in coordination, cooperation, noxious weed management, and effective leveraging of outside funding. The reason this is accomplished is because CWMAs activate entire communities. In-kind contributions provided by private citizens are a significant and important aspect of CWMA project completions. Success of CWMAs is due to elimination of jurisdictional boundaries and proves the old axiom of “Many hands make light work.” The Gerlach, Nevada, CWMA is an extremely rural and agricultural CWMA. It is organized and led by local ranchers who took on Spotted Knapweed and Tamarisk (Salt Cedar) with a $20,000 grant through the Nevada Department of Agriculture (NDA). The only funding currently available to the Nevada CWMA is federal funds allocated by the NDA and appropriated through federal agency programs. In California, the contributions of CWMAs to weed control efforts have been tremendous. An example is the Santa Barbara County, California, CWMA which has received valuable support from, and greatly increased the communication with, the local agricultural community, watershed restoration groups, and conservationists. This CWMA was formed in 2001 with $58,900 from SB1740. That money has been used to clear 50 tons of Arundo from a city park, and 45 tons of Pampas Grass from around an organic farm and a local park, to treat 200 acres of rangeland and roadside for Yellow Starthistle, to start a Santa Cruz Island noxious weed project, to start a brochure on invasive ornamentals and alternatives for the Central Coast of California, to map the range of Yellow Starthistle in the county, and to educate over 300 county citizens –ranchers, landscape architects, land managers, road workers, public agency staff, pest control workers, and others – about identification, biology, and control of noxious weeds. That $58,900 essentially served as seed money toward $169,188 in grant funds from the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation Pulling Together Initiative, Private Stewardship Grant Program (USFW), Partners for Fish & Wildlife (USFW), Southern California Watershed Recovery Project, and the Santa Barbara County Coastal Resource Enhancement Fund. New Mexico does not have county weed supervisors. Instead, they rely totally on CWMAs, which are voluntary in nature. Currently, the New Mexico Department of Agriculture reports that their biggest problem with keeping these programs viable is a secure funding source. New Mexico has continued to increase the amount of noxious weed funding they get from grant sources since the beginning of their weed program in 1998. Still, grant funding is very hit-or-miss, and reliance on this as the principal source of funds compromises the ability to do long-term planning required for weed management. They, like other states, do not envision using the Noxious Weed Control Act as a replacement for grant and state funding, but plan to use it as a stabilizing force in the operations of CWMAs. The Center for Invasive Plant Management (CIPM) provides small grants to CWMAs on an annual basis. The CIPM 2002 CWMA Grants Program reported the following, “Public concern about the harmful effects of uncontrolled weeds continues to increase. One result is the rapidly increasing number of cooperative weed management areas in the western Unites States as more communities of landowners join with state and federal partners to battle invasive plants and protect remaining healthy ecosystems”; and, “Site-specific weed management and community outreach together with low overhead make this … an effective and efficient approach”; and finally, “An analysis of the CWMAs we awarded grants to in 2002 indicated that long-term funding was a common need.” Local CWMA partners believe that they can and will win the battle against the more than eight million weed-infested acres in our state alone, but the one challenge that they cannot overcome by themselves is providing stable, secure, and consistent funding. The passage and appropriate funding of this piece of legislation is the key to accomplishing their weed management plans and stopping the spread of these economically and environmentally detrimental invasive weeds. On behalf of all weed fighters including ISDA, IWCC, IWCA, IISC, WWCC, NAWMA, INWAC, WSWS, AND WSSA, I urge the enactment and funding of this important bipartisan legislation. Thank you for your time and consideration. |