[APWG] Fw: [ficmnew] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE INVASIVES PROVISION IN THE TRANSPORTATION BILL
Jil_Swearingen at nps.gov
Jil_Swearingen at nps.gov
Tue Jun 21 08:24:53 CDT 2005
----- Forwarded by Jil Swearingen/NCR/NPS on 06/21/2005 09:21 AM -----
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Brown [mailto:kpbrown at ifas.ufl.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:54 AM
To: Cc: GChavarria at defenders.org
Subject: Fwd: [ficmnew] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE INVASIVES PROVISION IN THE
TRANSPORTATION BILL
Thank you, Gabriela - excellent job!
Karen Brown, Editor, Wildland Weeds magazine
Florida and Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Councils
www.fleppc.org
www.se-eppc.org
From: "GChavarria" <GChavarria at defenders.org>
To: "ficmnew" <ficmnew at mail.afpmb.org>
FYI, if you can please help distribute,
Gabriela Chavarria, Vice President for Conservation Policy, Defenders
of Wildlife.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE INVASIVES PROVISION IN THE TRANSPORTATION
The seed industry and private property rights interest groups have
been circulating misinformation regarding Subtitle F, Section 1601, §
166 Control of invasive plant species and establishment of native
species. We believe Congress should have all the facts on the
invasives provision as they continue this important debate.
MYTH: It calls for regulation, restriction and prohibition of pets,
game animals, fish, domestic livestock, plant life (including
gardens) and aquatic species. Those pushing this are using as their
litmus test a species presence in North America prior to European
settlement or 1492. Their agenda: Native equals good. Nonnative
equals bad.
TRUTH:
Section 166 refers exclusively to non-native VEGETATION only; no
animals or fish.
Section 166 refers exclusively to publicly owned rights-of-way; NOT
private property.
Section 166 does NOT regulate, restrict or prohibit the use of ANY
non-native species. The provision requires absolutely NOTHING, but
simply allows state DOTs to control harmful invasive plant species
within rights-of-way IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO.
MYTH: The definition of Invasive Species is fraught with problems:
The term 'invasive plant species' means a nonindigenous species, the
introduction of which causes, or is likely to cause, economic or
environmental harm or harm to human health. Likely and environmental
harm are subjective and are used to mean anything that wasn't present
in North America in 1492. History shows that Invasive Species are
whatever environmentalists say they are.
TRUTH: The definition was established in 1994, by 16 federal
agencies; not environmentalists.[1] The definition was written to
foster cooperation among landowners who were battling troublesome
weeds, and has nothing to do with European settlement. In fact, an
estimated 80% of species introduced since 1492 would NOT even fit
this definition.[2] Under this definition, a plant species would
only be considered “invasive” if it is both nonindigenous AND a
threat to human health, the economy or the environment. As written,
the definition would allow states to set priorities, allocate monies
and make management decisions; not environmentalists nor the federal
government.
TRUTH: The Federal government is currently spending over $1Billion
annually on Invasive Species, most of it on questionable research,
publications, meetings, grants, partnerships, bureaucracy-building,
etc.
ALSO TRUTH: Indeed, invasive species are expensive, and we are ALL
paying the price. Costs to private landowners and small businesses
far exceed those for state and federal agencies. Invasive species
are responsible for an estimated $120 billion a year in economic
losses. Losses related to invasive plants alone total $34.6 billion
annually; including $24 billion in crop losses, $1 billion in lost
grazing forage and $1.5 billion just to control weeds in lawns,
gardens and golf courses.[3]
MYTH: Section 166 calls for control of nonnative (invasive) species
and the establishment of native species with no specific
consideration of utility -- erosion control, expense, aesthetics,
etc. According to Section 166: Native = good. Nonnative = bad.
TRUTH: According to Section 166, nonindigenous species are only
troublesome if they “cause economic or environmental harm or harm to
human health.” For example, European cheatgrass has spread
throughout Idaho and Utah, choking out natural shrubs on over 12
million acres and increasing risk of fire. Prior to cheatgrass,
fires occurred every 60 – 110 years. Now they occur every 3 – 5
years. European purple loosestrife is spreading across the U.S. at
a rate of 284, 171 acres per year and costs $45 million per year in
control costs and forage losses.[4]
MYTH: Section 166 calls for plant inventories ... statewide. This is
a federally-financed inducement to turn up threatened/endangered
species and species of concern. It is an open invitation for costly
and project-crippling litigation. Gas tax dollars will fund
environmental organizations, as they will be the ones conducting the
inventories.
TRUTH: Section 166 does NOT require statewide inventories. IF a
transportation agency so chooses, they may “participate in statewide
inventories of invasive plant species and desirable plant species.”
Doing so would not invoke the Endangered Species Act or invite
litigation. With 12 million acres of land contained within public
rights-of-way, transportation agencies can provide valuable
information about the land they manage. An inventory would simply
allow officials to prioritize use of scarce funding, and concentrate
efforts on those plant species that are causing the most harm.
MYTH: Section 166 entails regional habitat conservation and
mitigation. Habitat is the buzzword for ESA action. It is also
common sense that areas adjacent to high-speed highways should be
designed to discourage dangerous animal crossings, bird flight, etc.
"Regional habitat conservation" has nothing to do with building or
improving highways.
TRUTH: Section 166 says, “regional native PLANT habitat conservation
and mitigation;” and has nothing to do with the Endangered Species
Act. In some states, roadsides are the only places where native
plants can still be found. For instance, Iowa has lost 98% of its
native prairie. The 600,000 acres of roadsides provide more of the
remaining prairie than all the state, county and city parks combined.
[5] Many state DOTs (WI, MO, MN, OK, and CA) consider corridors
useful in protecting the last remaining remnants of plant communities
like grasslands and savannas. When remnants still occur on publicly
owned lands such as rights-of-way, the minor cost of weed control
enables the DOT to protect the state’s natural heritage and invest in
the future.
MYTH: Section 166 provides for "training." Training assumes that
State highway personnel are ignorant of their own domain and need
Invasive Species instruction from environmentalist organizations and
radicals within the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Training
is a catch-all term that siphons highway dollars for Invasive Species
brochures, meetings, partnerships, and the building of Invasive
Species bureaucracies. "Training" is a funding machine for
environmental organizations.
TRUTH: Transportation professionals are not ignorant, because they
are highly trained. The science, technology and practices used by
the transportation sector are constantly improving. Transportation
professionals receive regular training in everything from advances in
safety and engineering to new road salts and improved striping paint.
The training included in Section 166 would be created and conducted
by transportation agencies; NOT environmental organizations. No
environmental organizations would profit financially from Section
166.
[1] In 1994, the Federal Interagency Committee for Management of
Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW) created an MOU containing the
definition used in Section 166.
[2] Flora of North America North of Mexico. Stuckey, Ronald L. and
Theodore M. Barkley. 1993. Oxford University Press, New York.
[3] Update on the Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with
Alien-Invasive Species in the United States. Pimentel, David, Rodolfo
Zuniga and Doug Morrison. Ecological Economics 52 (2005) 273-288.
[4] ibid.
[5] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rdsduse/rd_use17.htm
More information about the APWG
mailing list