STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH A. CHORNESKY, Ph. D.

Director of Stewardship for

The Nature Conservancy

Concerning

S. 910, THE NOXIOUS WEED COORDINATION

AND PLANT PROTECTION ACT

Before the Subcommittee on Forestry and Rural Revitalization of the

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

May 18, 1999

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony for the record on S. 910, the Noxious Weed Coordination and Plant Protection Act. In particular, I want to thank the Chairman for introducing the legislation and holding this hearing. These actions have brought much needed attention to the important issue of invasive weeds which threaten both the economic livelihood of our nation's farmers and ranchers and the heritage of native species and natural communities.

The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The Conservancy has more than 1 million individual members and over 1,500 corporate associates. We currently have programs in all 50 states and in 17 nations. To date our organization has protected more than 10.5 million acres in the 50 states and Canada, and has helped local partner organizations preserve millions of acres overseas. The Conservancy owns more than 1,600 preserves -- the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world. The Conservancy's conservation programs are characterized by sound science and strong partnerships with public and private landowners. We are dedicated to achieving tangible and lasting conservation results in all of the many locations at which we work.

INVASIVE WEED PROBLEM

The harmful impacts of invasive weeds on the economy and the environment have been amply documented. Conservative estimates are that they exact a price of hundreds of millions of dollars each year in losses and control costs. Invasive weeds raise crop production costs and cause post-harvest losses. They clog U.S. waterways and impair the forage quality of rangelands for grazing. A growing area of our federal lands is now infested with invasive weeds, diminishing their natural resource, wilderness, and other values.

Such invasive weeds listed as noxious under state and federal law represent only some of the invasive alien plants with which the Conservancy is concerned. Noxious weeds are also taking a great toll on our nation's biological heritage by displacing native species and sometimes even degrading fundamental aspects of ecosystems. The Conservancy's close connection with the land makes us acutely aware of the national scope and severity of this problem. Our stewards in virtually every state report significant problems with noxious weeds. The majority identify non-native weeds as one of their top management concerns.

For example, along western waterways such as in our Hassayampa Preserve in Arizona, the salt cedar tree is rapidly replacing native forests. Chinese tallow trees are similarly invading wetlands along the Gulf coast like at our Mad Island Marsh Preserve in Texas, forcing out native plants and fundamentally altering these ecosystems. Along the Snake River, cheatgrass, a grass that burns easily, has transformed the natural burn cycle, excluding many native species. At our Blowing Rocks and Torchwood Hammock Preserves in South Florida, Brazilian pepper and Australian pine are spreading through endangered communities of pine rocklands and mangroves. The list could go on and on of the numerous invading species playing out similar scenarios across the country. We recognize that our experience is just the tip of a much larger iceberg of economically and environmentally damaging weeds.

THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Conservancy applauds the Committee's willingness to deal with these pressing issues through new legislation. While the federal government is doing what it can with existing resources and legal authorities, noxious weeds are nevertheless spreading and causing ever greater harm. We would like to see an intensified and more comprehensive national effort that better matches the problems at hand.

The proposed Noxious Weed Coordination and Plant Protection Act moves significantly in the right direction by seeking to streamline, clarify, and strengthen existing authorities that deal with invasive weeds and biological control. We have a few comments to offer about specific provisions of the legislation and the fight against invasive weeds in general.

COMMENTS ON S. 910

1. Increased Role for State Action

The Nature Conservancy shares the view represented by S. 910 that the federal government should play a critical role in the fight against noxious weeds because of the legitimate concern that both our international trading partners and industry have for uniform national treatment of the problem. Nevertheless, we think public sector action in this arena could be even more effective that it has been to date. The current structure of federal/state responsibilities for preventing the spread of noxious weeds has been essentially replicated in S. 910.

Controlling noxious weeds requires in the first instance effective interdiction efforts at ports of entry and prevention of their transport across state lines. But, effective control is also a function of local land use and pest abatement efforts. States and localities often have the most at stake in preventing the spread of noxious weeds and are the most willing and able to implement effective measures.

We recommend amending the bill by expressly allowing states to take actions to fight invasive weeds when such actions would restrict the spread of weeds within a state more effectively than under an existing federal regulation. Such an amendment need not disrupt relations with our trading partners or our obligations under international trade treaties. Federal regulation and quarantines would still set the floor of protection against the domestic or international movement of weeds or plant pests. State action would not interfere with this regulation; it would only strengthen eradication efforts within a particular state.

Moreover, this model of shared federal/state responsibility is not novel in the environmental regulatory arena. States can impose requirements on industry more stringent than those allowed under federal law under both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, to cite only two examples. Under the current statutory scheme, individual states may impose requirements on the interstate movement of invasive weeds, even if the requirements are different than those in adjoining states, so long as the federal government has not regulated the subject weed. Consequently, our recommendation is consistent with the current thrust of regulation of invasive weeds, but enables state action even where the federal government has acted. Our recommendation is also consistent with other examples of regulation in the environmental arena.

2. Full Support for Executive Order

The recent Executive Order represents a significant step forward by the government to coordinate the complex and piecemeal framework of federal and state laws governing noxious weeds. We believe this effort should be fully supported by the Congress.

Full support for the Executive Order can mean one of two things. First, the Executive Order could be codified as written. We are particularly concerned that S. 910 omits section 2 of the Executive Order which, among other things, imposes standards on federal agencies to prevent the spread and control of invasive weeds.

Another option would be to delete the Executive Order from the bill and give the coordination process set forth in the Order a chance to develop through implementation. The Order could be revisited in later years and theoretically codified and adjusted should it be determined that it needs modification.

3. Priority Setting

Setting priorities well will be critical for making national efforts against invasive weeds effective and efficient. Otherwise even great resources could easily be expended to little effect on the plethora of lower-priority issues and species. Risk - both economic and environmental - should be a key part of priority-setting. Assessments of economic risk and political pressure have historically tended to drive priorities about noxious weeds. We would like to see environmental considerations - specifically the potential to harm native species and ecosystems - to have equal standing in setting priorities for federal action. In some cases, a single species may cause great economic and environmental harm - like leafy spurge which both degrades the forage quality of rangelands and displaces native species. However, certain non-native weeds - such as garlic mustard, a forest invader in the eastern U.S. - only pose a great threat to U.S. ecosystems and thus lack an economic constituency promoting federal action. Few such species are currently listed as federal noxious weeds.

The work of the Invasive Species Council will be critical in responding to the need for more information about the risks posed by invasive weeds. We recommend that the Committee add a section to Title III which directs the Secretary to develop a system for prioritizing activities taken under the Act according to the risk posed by invasive weeds to economic, natural area, and other environmental values, based on the information developed by the Council.

4. Standards for Use of Biological Control Organisms

We appreciate the Committee's effort to address this area of growing importance and complexity. Although biological control may, for some alien pests (especially widespread ones), be an approach that should be explored, it should not be the only method promoted or developed. The historical track record shows that biological control is only successful in a relatively small proportion of cases. Moreover, the approach poses risks - specifically that the biological control agent will attack valued native species in addition to the target pest. The current regulatory system lacks adequate rigor in how it evaluates such risks before a biological control agent is released into the environment.

In addition, past releases of biological control agents have rarely been accompanied by sufficient follow-up. Consequently, adequate information has not been collected to date to enable officials to evaluate the impacts of biological control organisms on agriculture and natural lands.

More stringent, science-based, standards need to be developed and implemented that give greater weight to potential impacts on native plants and animals, including those lacking economic value. We recommend that section 102(d)(1) be amended to allow publication of approved organisms only when scientific evidence shows that the biological control organism is unlikely to cause significant harm to agriculture and natural lands other than those that are the target of the organisms. Additionally, we recommend the inclusion of a requirement for post-release monitoring for effectiveness against the pest and for unintended impacts on native species as part of any biological control release.

5. Increased Funding

S. 910 contains sufficiently broad authority to more accurately define the scope of the effort necessary to successfully combat both the economic and environmental harm caused by noxious weeds. However, giving USDA a chance to successfully satisfy this broader mandate will require Congress to make greater financial resources available for this purpose than have been available in the past. In particular, USDA needs greater expertise in scientific disciplines to more fully address the environmental impact of invasive weeds.

CONCLUSION

The Nature Conservancy wishes to express again its gratitude to Senator Craig for introducing S. 910 and holding this hearing. We look forward to working with the Senator and this Committee to enact this important environmental legislation into law.