|
Assessment of Invasive Species in Oregon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Article Content
 |
| Executive Summary |
|
Prepared for the Oregon Invasive Species Council February 2010 by:
Creative Resource Strategies, LLC
Salem, Oregon
Executive Summary
The Oregon Invasive Species Council (OISC) initiated an effort in 2009 to conduct a statewide management assessment of invasive species in Oregon to provide a big picture framework for existing management plans; identify areas where legislation is needed to fill gaps in statutory authority; suggest priority policy issues; identify areas where there is overlap or redundancy in addressing invasive species; enable people to better understand the legal framework; enable financial supporters of invasive species projects to allocate dollars to highest priority areas for combating invasive species; and to fill gaps in management, and define roles and responsibilities for managing invasive species.
The Council contracted with Creative Resource Strategies, LLC, to develop and implement the assessment and report to the Council on its findings. The project included a review of existing authorities; role, and responsibilities; development of a survey instrument; and analysis of data, followed by recommendations to enhance Oregon’s ability to respond to invasive species issues.
Oregon expended an estimated $26,362,404 on invasive species-related activities in 2008. Analyses were conducted to determine the source of funds for invasive species as well as who ultimately expended those funds, and for what invasive species activities.
Federal agencies are the largest funder for invasive species activities in Oregon ($16,668,890), followed by state agencies ($5,169,971), local governments ($3,494,453), nonprofit organizations ($497,596), industry and out-of-state entities as well as public and private foundations ($327,835), academic institutions ($165,660), and tribal governments ($38,000).
Of the $6,849,756 disbursed from all entities in Oregon for invasive species activities in 2008, federal agencies disburse the most—$4,334,890, followed by state agencies ($1,748,174), industry and private foundations ($408,616), local governments ($320,076), and tribes ($38,000).
Federal agencies spent a total of $17,156,390 on invasive species in 2008 ($3,823,000 on salaries and benefits, $8,998,500 on operations, and $4,334,890, which they disbursed to other entities). They received a total of $487,500 from other federal entities, thus their total investment in invasive species in Oregon in 2008 was $16,668,890.
State agencies spent a total of $8,292,899 on invasive species in 2008 ($3,906,631 for salaries and benefits, $2,638,094 for operations, and $1,748,174, which they disbursed to other entities). They received a total of $3,122,928 from other entities, thus their total investment in invasive species in Oregon in 2008 was $5,169,971.
State agencies received a total of $3,122,928 from other agencies (primarily federal—Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, and USDA-APHIS Plant Health, Plant Protection and Quarantine) to supplement invasive species activities.
Local governments spent a total of $4,717,854 on invasive species activities in 2008 ($3,083,160 for salaries and benefits, $1,634,694 for operations, and $320,076, which they disbursed to other entities). They received a total of $1,543,477 from other entities, thus, their total investment in invasive species in Oregon in 2008 was $3,494,453.
Nonprofit organizations spent a total of $1,581,613 on invasive species activities in 2008 ($607,378 for salaries and benefits and $974,235 for operations). They did not report any disbursements. They received a total of $1,084,017 from other entities, thus their total investment in invasive species activities in Oregon in 2008 was $497,596.
Academic institutions spent a total of $1,136,972 on invasive species activities in 2008 ($944,381 for salaries and benefits and $192,591 for operations). They did not report any disbursements. They received a total of $971,313 from other entities, thus their total investment in invasive species activities in Oregon in 2008 was $165,659.
Industry, entities outside the state of Oregon, commissions, and private and public foundations contributed $327,835 to invasive species activities in 2008.
How are funds being spent?
Federal agencies spent a total of 45% of their invasive species funds on management and control, followed by 10% on policy work, 9% on prevention, 8% on monitoring/surveillance, coordination, and EDRR, 5% on outreach and education, and 2% on both effectiveness monitoring and research.
State agencies spent a total of 63% of their invasive species funds on management and control, followed by 18% on monitoring and surveillance, 5% on outreach and education, 4% on coordination, 3% on EDRR, 2% on effectiveness monitoring, policy work, and prevention, and 1% on fundraising. The two primary state agencies that allocate funds to local governments and organizations are OWEB and ODA.
Local entities spent a total of 64% of their invasive species funds on management and control, followed by 7% on outreach and education, 6% on monitoring and surveillance, 5% each on coordination and EDRR, 4% each on effectiveness monitoring and prevention, 2% each on policy work and other activities, and 1% each on fundraising and research.
Nonprofit organizations spent a total of 49% of their invasive species funds on management and control, followed by 9% on monitoring and surveillance,8% each on outreach and education and coordination, 7% on EDRR, 4% each on fundraising and research, 3% on policy work, effectiveness monitoring and other activities, and 2% on prevention.
Of the $1,136,972 academic institutions spent on invasive species activities in 2008, they spent a total of 44% on research, 21% on outreach and education, 17% on EDRR, 8% on fundraising, 3% each on policy work, coordination, and other activities, 1% on effectiveness monitoring, and less than 1% on management and control, prevention, and monitoring and surveillance.
Entities in Oregon reported spending an estimated $27,012,408 on invasive species activities in 2008. A total of 50% of funding was spent on management and control, followed by 10% on monitoring and surveillance, 6% on outreach and education, prevention, policy work, EDRR, and coordination, 3% each on effectiveness monitoring and research, and 1% on fundraising and other activities.
Outreach and education activities comprised 7% of funds expended in 2008 for invasive species activities. A total of 37% of all funds expended for outreach and education activities in 2008 were expended for nonformal education, followed by printed materials (16%), formal education (13%), training (13%), database management (6%), Internet information (6%), other (5%), audio visual materials (3%), and news (1%).
The majority (51%) of statewide management assessment survey respondents ranked the adequacy of Oregon’s invasive species regulations and laws as good, followed by fair, poor, and excellent. A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis was conducted to identify critical policy needs. Addressing shortcomings identified in the weaknesses and threats categories should be a high priority for Oregon in the 2011 legislative session.
Two surveys were conducted to determine the needs and wants of invasive species database users as well as the attributes of existing databases. It was determined that there are two potential successful approaches to reduce the ratio of the cost of database management to the benefits users receive from using invasive species databases. Short-term: develop minimum standards for the most commonly used databases and develop tools that allow people to query across databases to record and extract information; long-term: analyze the specifics of each of the most commonly used databases, and make recommendations to pool resources and potentially reduce the number of databases while increasing the utility of those in existence. The OISC database subcommittee is pursuing both approaches.
The most common method to evaluate program effectiveness in 2008 was outcome-based performance objectives (27%), followed by effectiveness monitoring (20%) and met the requirements of a contract (20%), compliance monitoring (14%), and conduct opinion surveys (6%).
Survey respondents ranked management methods and prevention methods as the highest priorities for research and development. Biology/ecology, risk assessments, detection methods, and economics were the second tier of priorities, with almost equal rankings achieved when the most important and second most important categories were added. Post-treatment evaluation was ranked the least important.
The greatest obstacle to effective implementation of invasive species programs was funding. A total of 38% of respondents ranked funding as the most important or second most important obstacle, compared to a total of 14% of survey respondents, who ranked public awareness as the most important or second most important obstacle.
A total of 58% of survey respondents indicated they participate in an EDRR network; however, it is unclear what constitutes an EDRR network. Survey respondents identified numerous basin, local, county, regional, and state EDRR networks—many more than those identified by The Nature Conservancy. These results indicate the need for Oregon to develop a set of best management practices and minimum standards for EDRR networks to ensure consistent use and application of these networks statewide.
There was no evidence found to support the theory that there are conflicting actions promoted by agencies that contribute to invasive species establishment; however, evidence was found that indicates there are opportunities for collaboration among agencies not being realized and that there are significant gaps relative to planning outcomes.
The report concludes with one key recommendation—development of a top-down/bottom-up strategic plan for Oregon that aligns with the Oregon Conservation Strategy and other federal, regional, state, and local plans—and 30 additional recommendations:
• Expenditures for recommended invasive species activities need to be clearly identified and align with the highest priorities for the State of Oregon so that a commitment can be obtained to carry out these actions.
• Agencies and entities responsible for development of plans at all levels need to ensure there is alignment and linkages across those plans, and the cost to implement those plans should be clear.
• Measurable invasive species performance measures need to be developed to assess the state’s success in adequately protecting Oregon. Effectiveness monitoring should be used, where appropriate, to evaluate the cost-benefits to Oregon’s expenditures on invasive species.
Prevention
• Oregon should strongly support the role of the federal government in invasive species prevention efforts. The federal government is uniqely positioned to protect the country from invasive species introduction through the development of biosecurity measures. Regulating all importation, setting ballast water discharge standards, regulating Internet sales, and other measures by the federal government will allow states to then use their limited resources to focus on management and control of existing invasives. Shutting down vectors and pathways will lessen introductions of invasive species to Oregon.
Monitoring/Surveillance/EDRR
• Each county needs an established funded weed district and program so that there are adequate monitoring/surveillance activities to detect invasive species introduction early.
• Move the state toward the development and use of a few shared databases to track and manage invasive species to make efficient use of resources and enhance sharing of information.
• Oregon needs to fund programs that provide for experienced/trained individuals to survey for invasive species. A comprehensive statewide EDRR network that includes standards and protocols supported by best management practices will help to detect and eradicate new invasions of invasive species.
coordination
• Develop one comprehensive invasive species list/plan that spans all taxa and identifies the highest priorities for funding and management activities and identifies the costs associated with plan implementation.
• Streamline the management agreement process and ensure there are linkages across different levels of policy and planning.
• The National Invasive Species Council should serve to coordinate national invasive species efforts and assist states in identifying and addressing regional issues.
• Develop an invasive species strategic plan for the Pacific Northwest to identify high priority regional issues. In addition, encourage the use of the West Coast Governors Agreement on Ocean Health as a vehicle for facilitating regional consistency, coordinating actions, and promoting federal support for invasive species management goals and programs.
Outreach and education
• Better coordinate amongst all natural resource agencies (locally, statewide, regionally, and where appropriate, nationally) programs and messages that address invasive species instead of developing stand-alone campaigns and agency-focused outreach. For example, all advertising and outreach relative to invasive species issues should have similar branding. Dedicated funding toward coordinated, priority messages about high priority invasive species issues (versus agency-specific or taxa-specific) will help to create an informed public that contributes to lessening the spread of invasive species.
• Take advantage of opportunities to protect Oregon by looking beyond Oregon’s borders and partnering with neighboring states (e.g., firewood outreach campaign).
Policy
• Review existing authorities every two years to propose proactive legislation to protect Oregon. Policy development should focus on proactive, horizontal, policies that target prevention—recognized as the most cost-efficient and effective way to deal with invasive species.
Research
• Focus future research needs on the development of management and control and prevention methods.
Effectiveness monitoring
• More resources need to be directed into effectiveness monitoring, while more cost-effective methods for management and control need to be implemented. Some of this streamlining can be achieved by replacing the current voluntary grant-based funding process with direct funding aimed at high priority projects and programs.
• Opportunities exist to examine more closely the requirements of grant programs for invasive species funding to require effectiveness monitoring as a critical adaptive management function to ensure appropriate design and selection of projects.
Funding
• Oregon needs to develop an alternative system for funding invasive species issues. A medium-term expenditure framework, or a similar system that helps decision makers balance what is affordable in the aggregate against the policy decision of the state, would allow for the development of a consistent and realistic resource framework. This type of approach requires consistent strategic coordination among all entities with authority for invasive species activities in Oregon.
• A long-term sustainable source of funding for base county invasive species programs needs to be established. Current grant-only programs should be reviewed to determine if another method of allocation would best protect intended habitats for these grants programs—watersheds and agricultural areas.
• Replace the existing patchy network of federal funding from one or more agencies with base federal funding for each state to address high priority invasive species issues.
• Develop an initiative to add to the existing state gas tax and implement a modest fee on commercial shipping vessels calling up on our ports to create a source of funding to support invasive species management efforts, supplement the Invasive Species Control Account, and support ballast water management, and hull-fouling prevention activities.
• Explore opportunities to redirect existing funds to fund high-priority invasive species programs in the state—not through expensive and time-consuming grant programs, but through direct funding to initiatives designated as the highest priorities.
• Oregon needs a $5 million emergency fund, and sustainable funding for invasive species. Oregon needs to take a critical next step to statutorily protect the $5 million emergency fund.
• Oregon needs to better balance its three-legged stool for invasive species funding to ensure contributions of government, industry, and private funding contribute to a shared responsibility and commitment.
• Many natural resource-related federal programs currently funded by federal agencies are affected by invasive species. Oregon should support expansion of these federal government programs to allow these programs to expend funds for invasive species.
• States are creating emergency funds to respond to invasive species emergencies, similar to wildfires. Oregon should promote and support this model at the national level so that a national invasive species emergency fund exists.
• An implementation plan for the Oregon Conservation Strategy should be developed. Natural resource funding should be pooled and funneled to the highest priorities to implement the strategy and its six key conservation areas.
Management/control
• Review existing state statues and authorities to determine if there are opportunities for agencies to share responsibilities for invasive species management (i.e., create more horizontal policies).
• Agencies need adequate ongoing training to ensure staff understands existing authorities and regulations.
• Proactive horizontal policies need to be developed to share the burden all natural resources agencies must carry to protect native fish and wildlife habitats and water quality. In particular, existing policy shortcomings, identified in the SWOT analysis of this report, should be addressed immediately.
|
|
|
| Background |
|
Invasive species pose enormous economic and ecological threats to the State of Oregon. Invasive species—defined by Oregon statute as nonnative organisms that cause economic or environmental harm and are capable of spreading to new areas of the state—cost Oregon taxpayers millions of dollars in lost revenue each year, and threaten the continued survival of native birds, fish, and wildlife.
Numerous agencies, academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, landowners, and other entities play a major role in preventing new invasions and stopping the spread of existing ones. However, lack of strategic coordination and efficient methods to share information, gaps in authority for some areas of invasive species management, poor state and federal budget climates that have reduced funding for many invasive species programs in recent years, and misalignment between policy priorities and sources of funding are creating increasing challenges that threaten Oregon’s economy, environment, and the quality of life of its citizenry.
In June of 2008, the Oregon Invasive Species Council hosted the first statewide summit on invasive species in Oregon. One outcome of the summit was an expressed need to conduct a statewide management assessment of invasive species in Oregon to:
• Provide a big picture framework for existing management plans, such as the Noxious Weed Strategic Plan and the Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan;
• Identify areas where legislation is needed to fill gaps in statutory authority for the effective management of invasive species;
• Suggest priority policy issues that state agencies should consider when developing new policies and management plans;
• Identify areas where there is overlap or redundancy in addressing invasive species;
• Enable invasive species managers, landowners, and other stakeholders to increase coordination, plan projects strategically, and better understand the legal framework;
• Enable financial supporters of invasive species projects to allocate dollars to highest priority areas for combating invasive species and to fill gaps in management;
• Point out what is working in various parts of Oregon so that successful efforts can be replicated elsewhere;
• Define roles and responsibilities for managing invasive species; and
• Allow the Oregon Invasive Species Council to better focus its efforts, fill regulatory and management gaps, and better fulfill its mission in Oregon.
Specifically, the assessment was designed to summarize existing statewide policies and practices and evaluate the effectiveness of these by assessing the following issues:
• Authorities, roles and responsibilities related to early detection/rapid response (EDRR), prevention, control/management/restoration, information management, public outreach and partnership efforts, interagency efforts/leadership
• collaboration;
• Where are there challenges to policy enforcement?
• Are there conflicting actions that are being promoted by agencies that can contribute to invasive species establishment or conflict with prevention measures by other agencies?
• Are there opportunities for collaboration among agencies that are not being realized?
• Are there between-agency agreements that are in place?
• Are there plans drafted and funded that address invasives?
• Are there gaps, redundancies or conflicting plans?
• What is the status of funding in the state for invasive species?
In addition, the assessment was designed to summarize the roles, responsibilities, authorities and activities of organizations, local agencies, and groups that significantly contribute (or could significantly contribute) to the on-the-ground control of invasive species, and evaluate the effectiveness of local activities by addressing the following issues:
• How are local groups and agencies addressing EDRR, containment, and education/outreach?
• Are there opportunities for collaboration among groups that are not being realized?
• Are there between-group agreements that are in place?
• Are there plans drafted and funded that address invasives?
• What types of invasive species are addressed (e.g., plants, animals, pathogens, both aquatic (marine and/or fresh water) and terrestrial)?
• Are there gaps, redundancies or conflicts among the activities of these groups?
• What data are available and how are they managed: maps, databases?
|
|
|
| Methodology |
|
To answer the questions asked by the Oregon Invasive Species Council relative to management of invasive species in Oregon, the project was subdivided into three phases.
Phase 1 included a literature review of international, national, regional, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to invasive species.
Phase 2 included the development of a survey instrument to obtain information from federal, state, tribal, and local governments, nonprofit organizations and academic institutions. This survey was followed by numerous one-on-one contacts with individual entities to clarify information provided via the survey and obtain additional information. The survey instrument was designed to:
• Obtain updated contact information for organizations working on invasive species issues in Oregon;
• Determine the invasive species taxa and species entities worked on in 2008;
• Determine the laws and policies that guide invasive species activities in Oregon;
• Understand the perceptions people have of the efficacy of Oregon’s invasive species regulations and laws;
• Determine the extent to which entities use management plans to guide their invasive species activities;
• Describe the cooperative partnerships that exist among entities managing invasive species in Oregon;
• Describe how much entities in Oregon expend on different types of invasive species activities;
• Determine the source of funding for invasive species activities in Oregon;
• Characterize the methodologies entities use to assess the effectiveness of invasive species activities;
• Determine the extent to which entities participate in EDRR networks;
• Document the perceptions of barriers to implementing invasive species programs; and
• Document the perceptions for the highest priority areas for invasive species research and development.
Phase 3 included data analysis to answer, to the degree possible, the questions posed by the Oregon Invasive Species Council.
|
|
|
| Survey respondents |
|
A total of 297 individuals representing 234 entities in Oregon were contacted during the summer of 2009 and asked to complete the statewide assessment survey (Appendix A). Numerous entities within each county were asked to complete the survey (e.g., watershed council, cooperative weed management area, weed department, soil and water conservation district, university extension) to assess the extent of invasive species activities. In many instances (e.g., Clatsop County Soil and Water Conservation District), one county program deferred to another to complete the survey on behalf of the county.
A total of 95 individuals completed all of the survey, and an additional 34 individuals provided partial responses to the survey. Table 1 is a listing of those entities that completed the survey.
The geographic representation of survey respondents ranged from sub-basin to the Pacific Northwest. Local entities ranged from watershed councils, municipalities, and counties (Figure 1), to agencies and organizations with responsibilities for larger expanses of land, such as Wallowa Canyonlands Partnership, The Nature Conservancy, and US Forest Service.
|
|
|
| Authorities, roles, and responsibilities |
|
Authorities, roles, and responsibilities relating to invasive species efforts in Oregon exist at the federal, state, tribal, and local government levels. The ability of Oregon to protect itself from invasive species is directly related to how effectively agencies implement these authorities—individually as well as collectively—at the international, national, regional, state, and local levels. Appendix B is a list of federal, state, tribal, county, city, or local laws/policies that provide authority to engage in or guide invasive species activities.
International
There is a global recognition that increased commerce is a key vector or pathway for the movement and introduction of invasive species worldwide. That recognition has spawned numerous international agreements and codes of conduct (Appendix B) to lessen invasive species introductions.
There are at least 12 international codes of conduct or guidelines relating to invasive species, ranging from principles for prevention, introduction, and mitigation of impacts from alien species, to guidelines for introduction of threatened and endangered species.
A total of 10 international conventions exist, ranging from plant protection and international trade in endangered species, to biological diversity, climate change, and migratory species.
Six international organization agreements exist, ranging from protection of marine environments to management and conservation of forests.
Federal
The following federal entities have regulatory responsibility for invasive species in Oregon:
U.S. Department of Agriculture—involved in prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring, restoration, research and development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative activities.
• Agricultural Research Service—provides scientific and technical support for Agriculture and other federal agencies focusing on detection technology for ports of entry; systematics for rapid identification of invading species; and pesticide application technology. Also develops biologically based controls and helps monitor target pests of integrated pest management programs.
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service—through its agriculture quarantine inspection and regulatory enforcement programs at 172 U.S. ports of entry, conducts preclearance activities, risk analysis and permit decisions, treatment efforts, detection surveys, and eradication efforts to prevent the introduction of foreign pests (e.g., insects, plant and animal diseases, mollusks, mites, and invasive plants) that would threaten U.S. agricultural production and natural ecosystems. Cooperates with federal and state agencies and nongovernmental organizations to detect, contain, and eradicate infestations of quarantined foreign pests before they become well established and spread.
• Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service—funds integrated projects and competitively based research relevant to improving public understanding of invasive species; funds research on cost-effective management, environmentally safe control of invasive species using biological, chemical, cultural, and mechanical practices and supports invasive species management to maximize effective and economical pest control and exclusion. Also provides linkages to address invasive species problems with local, state, and regional stakeholders.
• Economic Research Service—develops decision-making tools for comparing the consequences of invasive plant species with possible control costs. Considers both direct and indirect human costs of ecosystem disruptions and costs and potential adverse consequences of alternative weed treatments.
• Farm Service Agency—requires all of its program participants to control weeds (including noxious weeds), insects, pests, and other undesirable species on enrolled lands.
• Forest Service—manages 191 million acres of federal lands for many purposes, including protection from invasive weeds, and is Agriculture’s lead agency for nuisance weed control. Conducts research on invasive plant species, including ecological studies to support restoration of sites after treatment of exotic weeds and control of invasive plants. Seeks to control and mitigate the impact of invasive species, such as the Asian longhorned beetle, gypsy moth, hemlock woolly, and browntail moth. Conducts disease research. Works closely with state agencies, private landowners, and tribal governments through its regulatory and enforcement programs to prevent and control invasive species and provides funding and technical assistance through its state and private forestry programs.
• Natural Resources Conservation Service—provides technical assistance to cooperating landowners on managing invasive species that inhabit lands used for agricultural production—has a significant program for range management and restoration, which includes an invasive species control element. Maintains a database that includes extensive information on invasive plant species and operates plant materials centers that promote the use of native species for soil erosion control.
U.S. Department of Commerce—involved in prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring, restoration, research and development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative activities.
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—funds research, education and outreach, and control activities primarily through the National Sea Grant Program, with some activities funded through the National Ocean Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. Efforts focus on marine systems and the Great Lakes. Research efforts include monitoring the impacts of invasive species on coastal and other ecosystems, developing control and mitigation options, and preventing new introductions by, among other things, developing new technologies for ballast water management. Performs economic evaluations of the costs of aquatic invasive species and conducts control programs to eradicate and prevent their spread. Has regulatory authority to prevent the introduction of invasive species that may affect marine sanctuaries; endangered or threatened species; coastal areas; and essential fish habitats.
U.S. Department of Defense—involved in prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring, restoration, research and development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative activities. Engages in management and control of invasive species: (1) prevents the entry of invasive species in the United States, (2) controls invasive species on Defense installations, and (3) restores Defense lands using native plants. Developed and implemented the Navy’s ballast water management policy and set discharge standards for vessel ballast water to address the environmental effects of invasive species in ballast water. Other efforts include partnerships to prevent the spread of invasive plants, and maintain a noxious and nuisance plant management information system.
• Army Corps of Engineers—supports aquatic plant control, which primarily involves invasive species in non-Corps waters. Spends several million dollars annually on removal of aquatic growth, predominantly for invasive species, and supports zebra mussel research efforts.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security—involved in guarding against terrorism, securing U.S. border, enforcing immigration laws, improving readiness for , response to, and recovery from disasters, and maturing and unifying the department.
• U.S. Coast Guard—responsible for developing and implementing a ballast water management program to minimize the likelihood that invasive species can be transported to the United States in the ballast water of long-distance ocean vessels.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—involved in prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring, restoration, research and development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative activities. Deals with invasive species in three general areas—(1) reducing the risk of transporting non-native plants, animals and microbial species into the United States via ballast water and biofouling pathways, (2) regulating pesticides that may be used to control invasive species, and (3) conducting research on the ecological impacts of invasive species.
Department of the Interior—involved in prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring, restoration, research and development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative activities.
• Bureau of Indian Affairs—helps support the management of invasive species on Indian lands through exotic weed eradication and other programs.
• Bureau of Land Management—focuses primarily on controlling invasive plants on the 264 million acres it manages, primarily in western states and Alaska. Initiated strategy to prevent and control the spread of noxious weeds on public lands by using biological, chemical, and physical treatment for invasive plants.
• Bureau of Reclamation—focuses on invasive species infestation of water systems, including reservoirs, rivers, thousands of miles of distribution canals, rights-of-way, wetlands, and recreational areas. Invasive species of concern include zebra mussels, Chinese mitten crabs, hydrilla, water hyacinth, purple loosestrife, saltcedar and leafy spurge. These species can obstruct water flow, hinder access for maintenance and recreation, cause structural damage, and negatively affect water system operations, water quality, wildlife habitat, and public use.
• Fish and Wildlife Service—protects and conserves fish and wildlife resources; controls invasive plants and animals, such as feral pigs, melaleuca, salt cedar, purple loosestrife, in the 93-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System; works with private landowners to implement on-the-ground restoration projects that eradicate and control and manage invasive species; regulates imports of injurious wildlife; evaluates imported animals to determine injurious status; conducts activities to prevent, control and monitor aquatic nuisance species that threaten native species and the aquatic ecosystems; and provides cost-share grants to implement approved state aquatic nuisance species management plans.
• Geological Survey—focuses on researching factors influencing the invasion by invasive species and the effects of invasive species on ecosystem processes, native species, and landscape dynamics, especially on Department of the Interior land; facilitates documentation, dissemination and integration of invasive species information; focuses on small number of highly invasive species, with emphasis on the Great Lakes and eastern waterways and wetlands, riparian ecosystems, and Hawaii, as well as invasive plants on western rangelands. Also, manages the national Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database and several regional databases.
• Minerals Management Service—routinely conducts ecological monitoring projects to measure potential or actual impacts of outer continental shelf oil and gas development on marine, coastal, and human lives. Invasive species level taxonomic identifications conducted during these monitoring efforts provide useful information for documenting occurrences and geographic extensions of marine invasive species in near-shore and offshore waters.
• National Park Service—about 190 of the 300 National Park Service units have identified exotic species as a significant resource management concern in their management plans. When managing invasive species, relies on an integrated pest management approach that permits the use of biological and other types of controls. Some parks have programs to address specific invasive species. In addition, a number of parks work collaboratively with neighbors or other groups to manage invasive species.
National Science Foundation—involved in research and development; and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative activities. Funds basic and applied research on invasive species, including their roles in population and ecological processes, their relationship to biological conservation activities, and their role as a disturbance agent in the ecosystem.
Smithsonian Institution—involved in prevention, detection, control (management), monitoring, research and development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative activities. Research addresses the pattern, impact, and management of invasive species. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center programs measure the pattern of transfer, invasion, and effects of invasive species on coastal marine and estuarine systems. Conducts specific projects to test methods to reduce the risk of species transfer in ship ballast water. In cooperation with Coast Guard, established the National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse to measure the changing patterns of ballast water delivery, manages vessels arriving in U.S. ports, and synthesizes national data on patterns and impacts of alien species in coastal ecosystems.
U.S. Department of State—involved in the following invasive species activities: information management; and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative activities. Engages in negotiations, international treaty activities, and cooperative intergovernmental efforts to address invasive species issues.
U.S. Department of Transportation—involved in prevention, research and development, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative activities.
• Federal Highway Administration—focuses primarily on vegetation management, including developing guidelines for combating roadside invasive species.
U.S. Department of the Treasury—involved in prevention, detection, information management, and education, outreach, partnerships, and cooperative activities. The U.S. Customs Service has a major operational role in preventing or restricting the entry of imported merchandise and its containers that could potentially be or are infested with invasive species. Customs personnel inspect passengers, baggage, and cargo at U.S. ports of entry to enforce or cooperate, as appropriate, in enforcing regulations/procedures of other federal agencies. Customs selectively inspects incoming passengers, baggage, and cargo based on risk management criteria, such as country-of-origin and other factors.
One other federal entity, the Bonneville Power Administration (within the U.S. Department of Energy), operates an electricity transmission system in Oregon, and provides funding to Oregon entities for invasive species activities.
Regional
• Invasive Plant Final Environmental Impact Statement— (2005) Comprehensive U.S. Forest Service document assessing the environmental impacts of invasive plants, with detailed strategies and objectives, implementation and prevention guidelines, management framework, inventory and monitoring procedures, plant maps, and overall standards and guidelines to control and minimize invasive species and their impacts.
• Pacific Northwest Region, Non-Native Invasive Plants Program coordinates guiding policies and procedures for use in preventing and controlling invasive weed infestations, and recovering ecosystems. The PNW Region Noxious Weed Policy and Strategic Plan 1999 and Order to Implement Weed-Free Feed in the Pacific Northwest(2009) provide detailed strategies and implementation policy geared towards controlling noxious weed invasions.
• Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States—Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (2007)
Numerous regional organizations exist to provide more comprehensive approaches to significant invasive species issues (Appendix A) and bridge gaps that may exist between federal, regional, state, and local levels. For example, the Pacific Ballast Water Group participates in the development of ballast water management along the West Coast of the United States, and includes federal and state agency representatives, environmental groups, shipping industry representatives, and others. The Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species attempts to span geopolitical lines to limit the introduction, spread, and effects of aquatic nuisance species in the western United States. And the Western Governor’s Association Undesirable Aquatic and Terrestrial Species program created Resolution 05-11 to develop and coordinate strategies and support functions to control and prevent the spread and introduction of undesirable species, support the use of Integrated Pest Management concepts, encourage broad-based partnerships, and to seek support for the USDA- Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
|
|
|
| Authorities, roles, and responsibilities - State |
|
Four state agencies are the primary state regulatory authority agencies for invasive species activities in Oregon—the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ).
• The ODEQ, through Chapter 340, protects the waters of the state from aquatic nuisance species by establishing procedures for the proper reporting and management of ballast water discharges, including vessel inspections, compliance verification, and enforcement authorities.
• The ODA, through Chapter 603 and its Plant Division, works to exclude, detect, and control or eradicate serious insect pests and plant diseases; to enhance the agricultural value of nursery stock, Christmas trees, seeds and other agricultural products for export through pest and disease inspection and certification; and to oversee statewide noxious weed control efforts.
• The ODOF, through Chapter 629, allows for planned activities to manage forest insects and diseases on private lands.
• The ODFW, through Chapter 635, regulates specific non-native wildlife species use. Species listed are classified into one of three groups: prohibited, controlled, or noncontrolled. The Oregon State Police Fish and Wildlife Division ensures compliance with the laws and regulations that protect and enhance the long-term health and equitable utilization of Oregon’s fish and wildlife resources.
In addition, numerous other state entities have responsibilities ancillary/supporting roles to the primary agency roles. For example:
• Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board – ORS 541.351 to 541.403 — awards grants for watershed restoration.
• Healthy Streams Partnership – ORS 541.407—integrates private sector energy, resources and knowledge with the public sector to improve the health and function of aquatic systems and enhance beneficial uses of water.
• Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team – ORS 541.409— reviews implementation of the Oregon Plan and other programs and serves as an independent scientific review panel to state agencies;
• Oregon State University – ORS 561.362, ORS 452.625—provides outreach and education on agricultural-related issues and coordinates agricultural extension service activities related to watersheds, and carries out 452.620.
• Soil and Water Conservation Commission – ORS 561.395—provides for coordination between Oregon’s Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the Department.
• State Weed Board – ORS 569.600—guides statewide noxious weed control priorities and awards noxious weed control lottery funds.
• State Board of Agriculture – ORS 561.372—advises the State Department of Agriculture regarding the implementation, administration and enforcement of department programs and the development of department policies designed to positively affect the agricultural industry in this state.
• New Crops Development Board – ORS 561.700—identifies, endorses and promotes worthy new and alternative crops for Oregon, and acts as a clearinghouse for new ideas and resources in the development of new crops.
• Oregon Department of Human Services – ORS 452.300 — public health vector control.
• State Board of Higher Education – ORS 567.035—acting through the Oregon agricultural experiment station, takes the action necessary to eradicate and control algae and detrimental weeds and grasses which are found growing in the waters, lakes and streams of this state.
• Oregon Invasive Species Council—ORS 570.750–570.810—conducts a coordinated and comprehensive effort to keep invasive species out of Oregon and to eliminate, reduce, or mitigate the impacts of invasive species already established in Oregon.
• Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University—ORS 352.068—assists state and federal agencies in research and mitigation of nonindigenous aquatic species.
|
|
|
| Authorities, roles, and responsibilities- Local |
|
Local governments in Oregon use a variety of local laws, policies, and ordinances to conduct invasive species activities in their jurisdictions. The following is a sample of the approaches used:
• The City of Portland Resolution # 36360 describes a 10-year goal to reduce noxious weeds on its lands through the containment, control, and eradication of invasive plant species and the establishment of native plant communities.
• As part of the City of Portland Integrated Pest Management Strategy, Metro Title 3 notes that all landscaping plans must comply with the native plant requirements outlined in the Willamette Greenway Plan.
• The Port of Portland’s Vegetation Management Plan provides information about invasive species control methods used by the Port on mitigation sites and natural areas. This document includes background and purpose, invasive plant species profiles, herbicide profiles, methods and equipment, Best Management Practices, and site maps. Although the focus of the plan is the proper use of herbicides, the Port also uses mechanical and biological means to control invasive species on mitigation sites and natural areas.
• Soil and Water Conservation Districts—The West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District has developed a 5-year invasive species strategic work plan. The plan includes inventory, assessment, coordination, education and outreach, funding, and control and restoration components. Many SWCDs have these types of work plans.
• Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation Department—Weed species management is prioritized through four species lists (active management, opportunistic management, watch list, and wish list).
• City of Eugene—Integrated Pest Management Policy (2009)—document describes the City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Division's program and the operation procedures used.
• City of Salem—The City of Salem Plant List is based on the Portland Plant List. Non-Native Plant List—The invasive non-native plant section is a listing of plants which the City of Salem considers undesirable for use in all landscaping situations within the City limits and plants which are prohibited from use by Oregon State law (OAR 603-52-1200(4)). Salem also provides a noxious weed list and nuisance plant list.
• Wallowa County Weed-Free Forage Inspection Program—a voluntary inspection program is designed to assure that forage and straw sold with proper inspection identification meets minimum standards designed to limit the spread of noxious weeds. Buyers are provided assurance that forage and straw, inspected through this program, meet these minimum standards.
• Baker County Noxious Weed Policy requires landowners and managers within the county to follow state laws regarding noxious weed control.
• Coos County Weed Advisory Board provides oversight and management to the Noxious Weed Control District, including maintenance of a noxious weeds list and management priorities development of weed education and control programs, and identification and monitoring of weed problem areas with support from the Coos County Interim Noxious Weed Advisory Committee and approval by the Coos County Board of Commissioners.
• In 2005 the Columbia Invasive Weed Control Partnership was formed and approved by the County Commissioners. The Columbia Soil and Water Conservation District was named the lead agency in this partnership.
• Deschutes County Weed Board prioritizes and classifies noxious weeds found within the Weed Control District on an extensive Noxious Weed List with detailed photos, characteristics, and growth patterns for easy identification.
• Harney County Weed Advisory Board is governed by a county Ordinance #2008-61 that sets policy and procedure for the control and eradication of noxious weeds within Harney County, including appointment of the Board and Weed Inspector, designation of the Weed Control District, maintenance of a Noxious Weeds List, and regulations for enforcement within the County.
• Hood River County Weed & Pest Division prioritizes noxious weeds found within the Weed Control District as detailed in the Top Noxious Weeds and Plants List.
• Hood River Watershed Action Plan was developed with a coordinated effort of local irrigation and water districts, landowners, businesses, citizens, tribal government and local, state, and federal agencies. The plan outlines strategies and cooperative projects targeted at improving water quality and fish populations in the Hood River sub-basin of the Columbia River.
• Jefferson County Weed Control Enforcement—Ordinance O-37-03—details authority to establish weed control districts, administration and duties, classification of weeds, regulations for enforcement and penalties for non-compliance.
• Klamath County Code 401.500 through 560—details authority to establish weed control districts, administration and duties, and regulations for enforcement and penalties for non-compliance. The Klamath County Weed Control Program also maintains a Noxious Weed List.
• Lane County Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species—Lane County maintains a Noxious Weed List and, as governed by Lane County Code 15.500, the Public Works department uses guiding policies and procedures concerning the use of herbicides for roadside vegetation management found in the Last Resort Policy (Ordinance No. 12-03). The Policy Implementation Final Report details methods for noxious weed control, management, and eradication and comprehensive lists of threatening plant species.
• Malheur County Weed Inspector's Office and the Malheur County Weed Advisory Board advise the court on policy and facilitate in the control and eradication of noxious weeds in Malheur County. A Weed Ordinance specifies the procedures for the control of weeds identified as noxious by the Malheur County Court, establishes the Weed Control District, appointment of the Weed Advisory Board and Weed Inspector, and also specifies the Noxious Weed List.
• Marion County Weed District—County Ordinance 1225 establishes an active Weed Control District and authority to work with private landowners to assist them in controlling noxious weeds on their lands, a Noxious Weeds List, and the Weed District Advisory Committee.
• Sherman County Weed District—responsible for preventing the establishment and spread of noxious weeds in accordance with county, state, and federal weed laws, and to encourage and assist in organization of noxious weed control and education programs and cooperate with governmental and private agencies and individuals in developing weed control measures and projecting long-term effects on the economic well being of Sherman County.
• Wallowa County Integrated Weed Management Plan—provides a written strategy to inform and guide weed management activities for the Wallowa County Weed Control District including detailed maps, establishment of the Weed Board and associated procedures, Wallowa County Noxious Weed Policy, Planning Goals, Control Methods, and Noxious Weed Tables.
• Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District—maintains several watershed assessment and sub-basin plans affecting the Buck Hollow, Pine Hollow, White River, Fifteenmile, Dalles Area, Mosier, and Bakeoven watersheds.
|
|
|
| Authorities, roles, and responsibilities- Oregon Counties |
|
Figure 2 is a map of Oregon showing counties with weed districts, counties with weed programs and weed boards, one county with a weed program and weed district, and one county with a weed district.
During the 2009 legislative session, the Oregon Invasive Species Council expressed strong support for legislation that would provide base funding for each county in Oregon, so that adequate resources would be available to effectively implement weed programs across the state. Senate Bill 629 would have mandated that the Oregon Department of Agriculture establish a program for issuing grants to counties for noxious weed control, and would have allocated lottery funds to carry out the grant program. This legislation did not pass because of the current economic environment, delaying Oregon’s ability to strategically address noxious weed issues across the state.
Pursuant to ORS 569.360, counties have the ability to create active weed control districts. Creation of a weed control district gives the county the authority to work with private landowners to assist them in controlling noxious weeds on their lands and addressing other high priority weed issues. In addition, creation of a weed control district allows for the hiring of a weed inspector to look for and enforce control within the district and allows a tax to be levied. All of these actions create a vehicle for weed control activities in a district.
Counties, such as Wheeler County, which have no weed district (in an oasis of counties with weed districts), subject adjacent counties and the state to increased risks because an established program does not exist to survey for noxious weeds, nor work with landowners to eradicate infestations immediately upon early detection. Neighboring counties occasionally use their resources to identify and respond to infestations in Wheeler County.
In 2006, the Oregon Department of Agriculture conducted a survey of counties to assess the extent of weed control programs/districts in the state (Appendix C). A total of 20 counties reported they had established weed control districts per ORS.570 (Figure 2)—this number remained the same during the development of this report. The following results of this 2006 survey fill gaps in understanding from counties that did not respond to the statewide management assessment survey:
• Of these 20 counties with established weed control districts, 17 hired full-time staff, and three hired part-time staff to supervise their weed control program.
• A total of 21 counties reported having an active weed board, and all acknowledged partnerships with a variety of federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and academic institutions (Figure X). The broad distribution of partnerships is directly related to funding sources, policy and laws, and similar strategic noxious weed-related initiatives. All counties reported their cooperative partnerships included education, while 75% included weed treatment and surveys, 71% included finance, and 64% including monitoring.
• Of the 20 counties with weed control districts, almost half (41%) of the districts are managed under the County Road Department. The remaining districts operate through CWMA’s, weed control departments, county courts, SWCD’s, and other entities.
|
|
|
| Summary |
|
The data presented in this section of the report will help people understand the complex legal framework that exists relative to invasive species, and helps to identify gaps that need to be addressed.
Both regulatory and non-regulatory strategic efforts are needed to successfully manage invasive species. Entities throughout Oregon, either through authority, influence, or interest, can contribute to Oregon’s fight against invasive species. The following are some suggestions to enhance the regulatory and non-regulatory roles for entities contributing to invasive species activities:
Federal
• Prevention—The most significant role the federal government can play is prevention. Adoption of biosecurity measures—pre-border preparedness, border protection and post-border management and control—to protect the states from the negative effects associated with invasive species, will allow states to then use their limited resources to focus on management and control of existing invasives. The federal government can also play a lead role in preventing the import of harmful species by regulating all importation, including Internet sales. Ballast water discharge standards should set the highest standards for protection of the nation’s waters.
• Funding—Many natural resource-related federal programs currently funded by federal agencies are affected by invasive species. The federal government should expand the scope of these programs to allow these programs to expend funds for invasive species.
• Funding—Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Forces and their respective plans should be funded.
• Funding—States are creating emergency funds to respond to invasive species emergencies, similar to wildfires. This model should be replicated at the national level so that a national invasive species emergency fund exists.
• Coordination—The National Invasive Species Council should serve to coordinate national invasive species efforts and assist states in identifying and addressing regional issues.
Oregon
• Funding—State leadership needs to acknowledge its role in protecting the state from invasive species by creating a sustainable funding mechanism tied to pathways and vectors. The federal government cannot and should not be responsible for funding all or the majority of invasive species programs in the states.
• Funding—The siloed approach to funding state agency programs results in a patchwork of unreliable funding with minimal effectiveness monitoring, jeopardizes sound invasive species programs every two years, and pits one agency against another for diminishing state resources. An implementation plan for the Oregon Conservation Strategy should be developed, and natural resource funds should be pooled and funneled to the highest priorities to implement the strategy and its six key conservation areas.
• Funding—A long-term sustainable source of funding for base county invasive species programs needs to be established, and current grant-only programs should be reviewed to determine if another method of allocation would best protect intended habitats for these grants programs—watersheds and agricultural areas.
• Coordination—Coordination needs to be strategic and at the highest levels of government.
• Outreach and education—State leadership should acknowledge the unique perspectives its citizenry shares relative to healthy native fish and wildlife and their habitats, and better coordinate amongst all natural resource agencies programs that address invasive species that include strong outreach components.
• Legislation—Review existing authorities every two years to propose proactive legislation to protect Oregon.
The Pacific Northwest Region
• Coordination—Opportunities exist to work more closely with neighboring states to share resources and develop a region-based approach to identify and implement actions to address invasive species issues. Development of a strategic plan for the Pacific Northwest would help identify high priority regional issues.
Local governments
• Each county needs an established funded weed district and program so that there are adequate monitoring/surveillance activities to detect invasive species introduction early.
|
|
|
| Plans drafted and funded that address invasives |
|
Statutory authorities for invasive species activities cannot be reviewed in a vacuum. In addition to the legal authorities, roles, and responsibilities that exist, entities responsible for or interested in conducting invasive species activities in Oregon have developed a number of plans, reports, and protocols that support their statutory authorities and obligations as well as provide direction to those responsible for on-the-ground implementation.
Figure 3. Percent of organizations that responded they have a management plan that includes invasive species strategies/action items.
Federal
• BLM—The National Partners Against Weeds Strategy (PAWS); OR/WA BLM also has a Noxious Weed Strategy for Oregon/Washington; each district has a Resource Management Plan which includes invasive species management where appropriate. There are a number of sub-plans, which also include more site-specific strategies for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), Wilderness Areas, etc. Under the District RMPs there are programmatic District Environmental Assessments (EAs) which describe specific weed management strategies/practices for each district.
• NOAA—2008–2012 National Invasive Species Management Plan (jointly with 13 federal agencies).
• US Forest Service AREMP—Field protocols prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species (e.g., New Zealand mud snails) and terrestrial plant diseases (e.g., sudden oak death syndrome).
• US Forest Service—National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management 2004, R6 Business Plan 1.4.1 Invasives 2009.
• USDA-APHIS—Safeguarding America report (2000); National Invasive Species Council.
• USFWS—Pacific Region: Fisheries Program Strategic Plan—under revision currently; Multiple national species management plans (e.g., New Zealand mudsnails).
Regional
• Noxious Weed Management Plans For National Forests - Pacific Northwest Region R6.
• Noxious Weed Policy & Strategic Plan (1999).
• Pacific Northwest Weed Management Handbook (Idaho, Oregon, Washington).
• Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants - Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (2004).
• Columbia River Interagency Invasive Species Response Plan: Zebra Mussels and Other Dreissenid Species (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington, NOAA, USFWS, CRITFC).
State
• ODOT divides the state into 15 maintenance districts. Each district develops annual IPM plans that include noxious weed control.
• Oregon Conservation Strategy (2/06), Oregon Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan (2001), Feral Swine Action Plan for Oregon (2007), Native Fish Conservation Policy (2002).
• Oregon Dept. of Agriculture Plant Health Emergency Response Plan, 2006.
• Oregon Noxious Weed Strategic Plan (2001).
• Oregon Spartina Response Plan (2003), Program Project Plans, “A” and “T” Weed Plans.
• South Slough NERR Management Plan.
• Upper Watershed Restoration Action Plan.
• State Emergency Management Plan Annex G, Appendix B, Plant Health Emergency Response Plan Version 1.0, 2006.
• Aquatic Vegetation in Irrigation Canals: A Guide to Integrated Management (1999).
• Guide to Developing Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plans in Oregon (1999).
• Managing Aquatic Invasive Species Risks from Shipping Transport Pathways: A report prepared by The Oregon Task Force on the Shipping Transport of Aquatic Invasive Species for the 2009 Oregon State Legislature (2008).
• Noxious Weed Control Policy and Classification System 2009 (2009).
Local (note: this list is not comprehensive, but represents many different types of plans in existence)
• City of Eugene—Wild Iris Ridge Management Plan (2008), Whilamut Natural Area Management Plan (2005), Gudu-kut Natural Area Management Plan (2003), Mariposa Woodland Management Plan (2008), numerous wetland mitigation improvement plans (1997–2009), Ridgeline Area Open Space Vision Plan (2007).
• City of Portland—Watershed Management Plan (2005), Invasive Plant Management Strategy (2008), Invasive Species Resolution Urban Forestry Action Plan (2007), Parks Vision 2020 Plan (1999), Bull Run Habitat Conservation Plan (2007).
• Columbia Invasive Weed Management Plan (2008).
• Columbia Slough Sediment Program Watershed Action Plan (2003).
• CWMAs—all six have management plans.
• East Multnomah County SWCD Strategic Plan (2008); Fiscal year work plans; Individual work plans; management plans of the 4-County CWMA, Columbia Gorge CWMA, Sandy River Basin Integrated Management Plan.
• Jordan Valley CWMA Strategic Plan (2008).
• Lincoln County SWCD—Survey/monitor and treat knotweed (Fallopia species) and are surveying and monitoring (early detection) other species to develop a treatment/control plan.
• Natural Resources Management Plan (2002), Tualatin Hills Nature Park Natural Resources Maintenance Management Plan (2005), various other park Natural Resources Maintenance Management Plans (2007–2009).
• NNWC Management & Action Plan (2002).
• North Coast Weed Management Area Plan (2007).
• North Fork John Day Cooperative Weed Management Area Strategic Plan (2009).
• Northwest Weed Management Partnership (2009).
• Seven Basins Strategic Plan (2009), Seven Basins Watershed Action Plan (2006).
• Sherman County SWCD Work Plan (2009), Sherman County Area Watershed Council Action Plan (2008).
• Siuslaw Watershed Council Strategic and Action Plan (2008).
• Tualatin River Watershed Council Strategic Action Plan (2008).
• West Multnomah SWCD Invasive Plant Species Strategic Work Plan (5-Year Plan).
• McDonald-Dunn Forest Plan: Invasive Species Management Plan.
• An Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan for Blue Lake, Fairview, Oregon (2004).
• Noxious Weed Plan: Baker County (2002).
• Oregon Invasive Species Action Plan (2005).
Nonprofit
• Audubon Society of Portland—Portland Watershed Management Plan (2007).
• Oregon Council of Trout Unlimited—2004 5-year plan.
• The Nature Conservancy of Oregon—Oregon Strategic Business Implementation Plan (July 1, 2009–June 30, 2011).
• Three Rivers Land Conservancy—Management and/or restoration plans for some properties.
• Wallowa Resources—Wallowa County Integrated Weed Management Plan.
University
• Reed Canyon Restoration Strategy, 1998.
• National Sea Grant Strategic Plan, 2009-2013
http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/inhouse/documents/Sea_Grant_National_Strategic_Plan_2009-2013.pdf.
Table 2 is a list of national, regional, and state invasive species-related management/strategic plans. The majority of these plans were developed without a cost implementation component. As a result, many are underfunded. (Table 2 in pdf format)
|
|
|
| Challenges to policy development, implementation, and enforcement |
|
To analyze the challenges to invasive species policy development, implementation, and enforcement in Oregon requires an analysis of the different types of policy—substantive and administrative policy, horizontal and vertical policy, and reactive and proactive.
Administrative policy is developed by an agency to make its systems and procedures more efficient.
Substantive invasive species policy, on the other hand, is concerned with legislation, programs, and practices that govern the work conducted on invaders in Oregon, and is usually vertical in nature—it is developed by agencies that have statutory authority for management of a species. The State Weed Board, established by ORS 569.600, has the authority to identify weeds growing in Oregon that represent the greatest public menace and establish those weeds as the top priority for action by weed control programs. This statute is a good example of a vertical substantive policy. It serves as a “step-down policy” from the federal Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act and the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, both of which address the need to control and eradicate noxious weeds. Establishing the State Weed Board and authorizing it to identify priority weeds for eradication at the local level reinforces the statutory authority for management and control of noxious weeds by both the Oregon Department of Agriculture and the State Weed Board.
Horizontal policy making, on the other hand, is policy developed by two or more organizations, each of which has the ability or mandate to deal with only one dimension of an invasive species problem. An example of horizontal policy making in Oregon is the many laws that govern timber and forest products to protect Oregon’s forest resources from disease pests. For example, the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s Chapter 603, Division 52 Pest and Disease Control policy regulates imported timber products. The Oregon Department of Forestry’s Chapter 629, Division 51 Forest Insect and Disease Management regulates introduced forest pests. Both laws seek to protect the health of Oregon’s forests, and each identify the important niche both agencies play to realize the policy goals.
Torjmann also characterized policy as reactive and proactive. Reactive policy is usually in response to a crisis. An example of that is legislation passed in the 2009 Oregon legislative session that makes it illegal to knowingly allow feral swine to roam on private land. The legislation was developed to prevent the spread of feral swine, one of the top 100 global worst invasive species.
Proactive policy, on the other hand, is introduced through deliberate choice. An example of proactive policy is the legislative bill introduced in 2009 to expand Oregon’s Adopt-A-Highway program from litter only to invasive weeds. This legislation was introduced by individuals who wanted to expand the awareness of roadside invasive species and receive credit for their manual labor efforts.
A key element of any policy process is an analysis of cost. Torjmann noted, “The design of any policy initiative—whether related to income security or other area—must be costed to establish how much is required to support the proposed plan.” It is in this arena—articulating the cost of existing management and strategic plans—that Oregon has fallen short (see recommendations).
Policy and planning structures are complex and non-linear. A linear, systematic approach to invasive species policy and planning would ideally be a pyramid approach—one that begins with high level strategic policy and planning at the international level, ultimately cascading through national, regional, and state policy to local ordinances (Figure 4). Although the examples in Figure 4 seem to be linear, they are, in fact, a complex interaction of documents, policies, agreements, plans, and other activities, some of which are intertwined, and some of which are stand-alone in nature. Also, the role that entities play can differ depending on the potential solutions.
For example, a major vector for the spread of non-native, invasive insects and diseases is firewood. The National Association of State Foresters have articulated the cooperative role federal and state agencies can play to minimize the spread of firewood-carrying insects and diseases, using a combination of national and state policy, certifications, guidelines, and outreach.
Traditionally, policy making at the government level has been reflective of the siloed statutory nature of individual government agencies and their respective mandates, thus policy has generally been of a vertical nature. But because of the increasing complexity of natural resource issues and the shared mandates and interests that span federal, state, and local governments, horizontal policy making is becoming increasingly common. One outcome of horizontal policy making is the increasing reliance on interagency agreements to achieve desired outcomes. However, the lack of strategic coordination to define the highest priorities among entities that develop the management plans that ultimately fund the agreements result in lost opportunities to articulate the state’s highest priorities.
|
|
|
| Oregon's invasive species policies and plans are they effective? |
|
The majority (51%) of statewide management assessment survey respondents ranked the adequacy of Oregon’s invasive species regulations and laws (Figure 5) as good, followed by fair (33%), poor (13%) and excellent (3%). Several noted that Oregon would not have received the good or excellent rating it was given had it not been for the 2009 Oregon legislative session. During that session, Oregon adopted 11 new pieces of legislation aimed at protecting the state from invasive species (Appendix D). For example, the state adopted legislation that created a $350,000 Invasive Species Control Account to respond to early detections as well as making it illegal for anyone to purchase a feral swine hunt. Despite these significant advances, there is additional legal and policy work as well as agency protocols to be developed on an ongoing basis to protect Oregon from the ever-changing environment that results in new introductions of invasive species on a regular basis.
Figure 5. Ratings of the adequacy of State of Oregon invasive species regulations and laws (N=91).
Another example of an additional need is legislation to protect the Invasive Species Control Account, an emergency fund that will allow the State of Oregon to respond quickly to a new invasive species infestation. Failure to protect this account for its said purpose could jeopardize its existence. In addition, a mechanism is needed to replenish the account as funds are expended.
Figure 6 represents an analysis of Oregon’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats relative to effective invasive species policy implementation, and is largely a result of information provided by respondents to the statewide management assessment survey (Appendix E).
Figure 6. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to Oregon’s invasive species regulations.
|
|
|
| Inter-agency partnerships |
|
Survey respondents were asked to characterize the nature of their partnership with other entities—monitoring/surveillance, EDRR, prevention, management/control, outreach/education, research, effectiveness monitoring, coordination, fundraising, and policy—and entity (Appendix F). The most common type of inter-agency partnership was for outreach/education (324) purposes, followed by monitoring/surveillance (315), management/control (306), EDRR (297), coordination (250), prevention (241), research (164), effectiveness monitoring (151), policy (94), and fundraising (86).
The most common types of partnerships were between local governments and all other entities (N=905), followed by partnerships between state governments and all other entities (N=499), nonprofit organizations and all other entities (N=303), federal agencies and all other entities (N=253), academic institutions and all other entities (N=184), and tribal governments and all other entities (N=9) (Table 3).
|
|
|
| Appendices |
|
Appendices in pdf format will be available soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|