It’s great to be out west, in the golden glory of fall. Jim Tate, the Secretary’s Science Advisor hoped to be here for two reasons - he loves Colorado more than any other spot in the US and he is very excited about leading a departmental initiative on invasive species with tamarisk as its first focus. In every policy forum, Jim pushes the Secretary’s commitment to stakeholder involvement in setting priorities for delivering the best science to land and water managers both inside Interior and outside with our partners.

I am Gordon Brown, DOI Coordinator for Invasive Species. I work for Jim and provide the bureaus a connection point in the Secretary’s office; I also sit with the staff of the National Invasive Species Council. If you’re ever in DC, I hope you’ll stop by and visit our new offices at 1201 Eye St, NW - just far enough from Main Interior to avoid some of the politics.

I’m not a scientist, though I once studied Mountain Gorillas in Rwanda and Zaire, and then worked on desert perennials and their reproductive strategies in Argentina. But that was during the 70’s...we all know that was an unreal time in American history, so I’m beginning to doubt whether it ever happened. One thing is for sure, though, studying baboon behavior surely prepared me for working in the bureaucracy in DC!

Jim’s talk would have emphasized the research priorities for Interior. I’m not going to discuss lidar or other methods to estimate transpiration losses over stands of tamarisk; nor am I going to invoke economics theories of quasi-option value that basically seem to council "look before you leap" into uncertainty [introduce Joe Lewis, FS]. While I’ll mention some research questions, I’d like to focus more on the policy issues relating tamarisk research to on-the-ground action especially in the light of proposed legislation and the new invasive species crosscut budget.

In my talk, I’d like to highlight how the Invasive Species Council and its Advisory Committee are interacting to set some priorities for invasive species management. Then, I’ll turn to the Department’s plans for tamarisk as one of its ongoing crosscutting focus areas for budget development and action on the ground. Last, I’ll cover the plans we’re undertaking for guiding the increased funding for tamarisk in FY 04.

The National Invasive Species Council (NISC or Council) began with an Executive Order (13112). The Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) is a non-federal group including at least one member here today (George Beck, Steve Dewey). Together, the Council and the Advisory Committee provide increased coordination and leadership for policy and budget development across agencies of the federal government. Working closely with state, tribal, and local concerns are priorities for both. At ISAC meetings, state and tribal, wildlife and plant pest protection, emerging disease, and other aspects are discussed and consensus priorities are agreed upon for communication to the Council for action or implementation.

You may recall that Governor Kempthorne served on the first Advisory Committee - he made sure that federal actions, including proposed legislation, reflected the accomplishments and capabilities of the states.

The Council then vets new approaches with its other task force and staff-level committees on invasive species. By interacting with the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the FICMNEW (Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds), the Council leverages new policy ideas such as the recently released Early Detection and Rapid Response Guidelines and draft Ranking Criteria for Invasive Species Projects in Natural Areas. These committee efforts join non-federal and federal professionals under the auspices of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee, created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This allows joint stakeholder meetings that might otherwise be prevented by administrative procedures and FACA requirements for broad inclusion of interested parties.

Policy is not the only area of joint interagency and non-federal cooperation. By leveraging the expertise of the Advisory Committee itself and its ability to call for expert advice, consensus priorities for focus have been developed each of the last two years for a crosscut performance budget, sanctioned by the Office of Management and Budget. The President’s Budget contained tamarisk increases totaling $2.34 million in Interior for several bureaus in FY 04: US Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. The National Park Service contributed base funding to the initiative, as did Forest Service in USDA. {note: DOI increase $8.99 mill on base of $34.33 for FY 04}

Now, $2.34 million is not going to save the Bosque or eradicate tamarisk in a significant part of its range, even at the edge of its current distribution in North Dakota. But the point is that OMB has taken note of the performance-based approach and this year wants us to analyze our base budgets to see how much we’re spending on prevention versus control and management versus research versus early detection and rapid response. They have said that even in this tight budget climate, performance in these crosscut budget areas of invasive species is especially important to the President’s plans for leveraging federal expenditures and multiplying performance benefits in partnerships.

The Department already encourages partnership research and joint action on and off of federal lands. US Geological Survey and the Bureau of Reclamation have developed an extensive network of research projects over the years. On the action and partnership side, the Secretary’s Conservation Initiative funds a variety of cost-share projects, many of which include invasive species control and subsequent habitat restoration. These are in addition to BLM’s PAWS program, and the Coastal America and Partners for Fish and Wildlife projects in the Fish and Wildlife Service. National Park Service and new National Wildlife Refuge System exotic plant management teams conduct rapid response efforts mostly on Service lands. Even though we estimate current spending in FY 04 will reach $43 million for invasive species, the partnership programs may be adding another $30 to $40 million in projects involving weeds and re-vegetation efforts with private landowners.

Recently, the Congress began discussion of a new authorization for tamarisk assessment and demonstration projects in the southwest. The Administration is watching this development closely and in Interior, we are already working across bureaus to better coordinate our activities. We expect the Secretary will soon outline our plans for an upcoming meeting to craft a joint roadmap for future research and on-the-ground tamarisk control and subsequent restoration.

By late winter, we plan to develop guidance with the bureaus that received FY 04 tamarisk funding increases. The goal is to concentrate our efforts in the areas where we can not only achieve our performance goals to meet our mission, but also provide strategic support for Interior efforts that complement actions by state, tribal, local, NGO, and private partners. In other words, a program the Secretary can say reflects a unified, strategic approach.

Jim would have emphasized some of the research priorities he is promoting in DOI, especially at the USGS and BOR. He is very concerned that assertions about tamarisk be backed up with the best scientific data. In the interest of time, I’ll propose some questions, and I hope you’ll provide some answers. Please catch up to me later and I’ll gladly compile a list of publications for Jim and the Secretary who I might add has asked several of these questions of Jim!

For example, where is the peer-reviewed study that documents tamarisk’s direct role in increasing soil salinity? Is the water salvage assertion defensible at all scales? That is, does native vegetation in riparian zones (cottonwoods and willows) at similar stem densities and age classes transpire less water in numerous cases from around the southwest? What about over time - do we have data to support that over the long-term the difference in transpiration rates is sustained? If flooding were to be restored in some riparian areas, are there data to support the incremental advantage to native vegetation regeneration versus the over-bank flooding potential of spreading millions more tamarisk seeds, possibly to locations recently cleared by intensive management efforts? Have data been accumulated which allow different areas infested with tamarisk to be characterized for the likelihood of successful eradication and restoration? Surely, not all riparian or up-slope sites are equal? Have data been published to suggest a way of setting time sequence priorities for eradication and restoration such that "simpler" or "more likely to succeed" sites can be located on maps and actually numbered for sequential treatment and monitoring? Have studies explained how the southwest riparian zones smothered in tamarisk compare with the fynbos of South Africa’s cape province - there they see immediate water flow after removal of woody and bushy invaders from Australia and our own southwest US - what’s going on here that masks the easy measurement of available water once large areas of tamarisk are cleared for a significant period of time? Finally, if you can point to a protocol for blending large site efforts with small site efforts in a spatial and time pattern that leads to the least cost and greatest chance for success, then more power to you, it would be Nobel Prize time, I guess.

Now I would like to shift to the policy side a bit, and perhaps repeat some ideas so that I’ll get some good questions from the floor. Over the last thirty years, we have made significant gains in both scientific knowledge about tamarisk and its economic impacts. Now we need to marry the two approaches to highlight where we should focus. Following are some questions that could shape the guidance discussions and are ones I hope you may help answer in the upcoming days:

1. Should we concentrate a very large portion of our spending on the Rio Grande and Pecos River systems where we have not only spent significant sums in the past, but where we have accumulated much data on water salvage, irrigation enhancements, restoration techniques, mixed ownership cooperation, and new control efforts in relation to endangered species conservation?

2. Should we concentrate on eradicating new satellite populations at the edge of the range for tamarisk, and work back in towards the center? Should we do both and split the funds? Will this satisfy the Congress at a time when water shortages are so severe in the southwest; will we as scientists and managers point out the data to support our case either way?

3. Can we catalog (or have we already cataloged) the specific drainages where we know the soils and hydrology so well that we can assure the best chance of native vegetation recovery (or restoration) and therefore limit the costs of recurring treatment over the long haul? Is that an important criterion for targeting funding?

4. Should we, in Interior, concentrate our limited funding on areas closest to our own DOI land ownerships or on the areas where our trust responsibilities for water transport and endangered species conservation are most at risk? Or where they are currently showing the greatest success? Are those the same?

5. Many believe we have sufficient research under our belts and now it’s just a matter of putting the money in the stovepipes and the bureaus and agencies will do the right thing. Others believe any new funds should be passed through to state and local efforts keeping the federal program at roughly the same level of funding and activity. Is one approach correct, how can we reward the better choice with sustained or increased funding? Through what measures and assessment techniques should we determine the correct mix of approaches?

6. Is there a method of assessment that can fairly set multiple focus areas and then adaptively monitor and manage the inevitable reallocations that will be called for by new analysis and joint planning among diverse constituencies over time?

7. If our mutual goal is to build a sustainable program for the next 10 to 20 years (or longer), then how sensitive should our models be to the cost of water and the demographic shifts underway in the arid west? Are we all willing to work for increased water salvage as a goal even if it cannot be proven with surface flows easily seen in places recently devoid of flowing water? Or, is restoration of habitat for wildlife and other uses a sufficient and sustainable goal?

8. What should be the measure or measures of success for such a sustained program - should they change over time? In other words, if 30% reductions of tamarisk can be achieved in a particular watershed, should the water salvage issue be pushed to the forefront? Or would it be best to hold to the same suite of measures over the entire term of the program?

9. Finally, at least for me (you can have the last word), what is the tradeoff in biological contribution to wildlife and water conservation of focusing control and restoration efforts at higher elevations, away from the riparian areas? If native or exotic grasses could be restored to those areas would we achieve sooner a measurable increase in water available for downstream uses by all?

I know many of you will have much to say on these and other topics over the next few days. I hope to listen carefully to your approaches and relay those messages to the political leadership in Washington, DC. Finally, I want to assure you that the Secretary and her Science Advisor are committed to join the best science with an aggressive program of cost-sharing to leverage limited dollars. An initiative on tamarisk is ripe now that the Council has forged interagency and advisory committee connections and budget increases have made it into the President’s crosscut budget on invasive species. I hope we can craft a venture in the coming months that will attract the attention of the Congress and Governors and at the same time reflect the best traditions of science and conservation practice.

Thanks and I’d be glad to try to answer any questions.

Return to the Schedule and links to the 2003 Tamarisk Symposium