[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MORMON CRICKET INFESTATION IN THE GREAT BASIN OF THE UNITED STATES
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
July 19, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-51
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-963 WASHINGTON : 2002
________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Samoa
George Radanovich, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Chris Cannon, Utah Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Hilda L. Solis, California
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 19, 2001.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bennett, Hon. Robert, a United States Senator from the State
of Utah.................................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah, Prepared statement of....................... 40
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 4
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 5
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 6
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Anderson, Hon. Michael, Mayor, Oak City, Utah................ 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Dunkle, Dr. Richard, Deputy Administrator for Plant
Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC............................................. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Hatfield, Nina Rose, Acting Director, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Johnson, Darrell, Rancher, Tooele County, State of Utah...... 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Peterson, Carey, Commissioner, Utah Department of Agriculture
and Food, State of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.............. 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON MORMON CRICKET INFESTATION IN THE GREAT BASIN OF
THE UNITED STATES
----------
Thursday, July 19, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joel Hefley,
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Hefley. The Committee will come to order.
As you just heard, we have a vote on now. I would like to
forego the opening statement at this point and let Mr. Hansen
go because he has some other commitments, and I am not sure he
will be able to get back to this.
Mr. Hansen, if you would like to do that, we will try to
get--I hesitate to use the expression ``get you out of the
way.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hefley. But we will get you out of the way, and then we
will suspend and go vote and come back.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate
this opportunity because I have some other commitments, and
this is a very important piece of legislation. I don't think
the people in the East recognize the problems we have out in
the West at this particular time. You know, years ago when the
pioneers first came to the valley, they proposed the same, wipe
them out, these crickets that we have in front of us.
Fortunately, the people then were very conservative, and worked
a lot harder and knew what they were supposed to do. But my
friend Mr. Johnson here tells me they are finally resurrecting
their calling, and they are doing a little better out in his
area in Skull Valley. I think that is very important because,
you see, the Mormon cricket is kind of an ugly thing.
Mr. Chairman, I know there are going to be a lot of facts
and statistics brought out today regarding what they are doing,
but let me make the point that probably has been made, and that
is the analogy between this and payment in lieu of taxes.
The Federal Government owns a big share of Utah. They have
the Forest Service. They have the BLM. They have reclamation.
They have Indian tribes. They have military reservations. And
years ago, they said, look, if we are going to live out there,
we have got to pay our share, and our share for living there is
so much money. So they came up with payment in lieu of taxes.
Folks sitting here from Nevada and Colorado and Utah agree, if
you are going to live there, you have got to pay your share.
People come out and they use that ground and they recreate on
it, they start fires, they litter, and if they break a leg, our
people have to pick them up. But here in our counties, here
they are sitting there with a minor, minor tax base. But the
Federal Government hasn't been paying their share. Instead of
paying that 25 cents an acre that they are supposed to pay,
they just kind of ignored it. We have authorized it, and
somehow we can't get the money appropriated.
Well, I have an analogy here where we have got our people
in the State, Director of Agriculture Cary Peterson is with us
and Mr. Wallentine from the Farm Bureau with us, we have
ranchers with us and other people, mayors with us who are going
to testify. But I am talking more about Federal people here.
Your share on this one is these crickets come up right next to
our State and our private property, and leave the Federal area
and come over and ruin everything we have got, as well as what
you have got. So it just seems to me that it is only fair that
the Feds pay their share on this one, also. It is part of their
problem. They helped create it. Someone has got to move in and
take care of this. We could wipe out agriculture in some of our
areas if we are not up to taking care of this particular issue.
Up in the northern end of the State, I was talking to a
rancher up there, and he said they were even eating the stucco
off of his house. It is like one of these movies that you see
where these things come in and they just take over an entire
area and you can't do much about it. So it is a problem of
strain. It is a problem of predators, whatever you can use to
take care of this thing.
I really appreciate, Mr. Chairman, you holding this
meeting. I think it is something that many of our Eastern
friends don't realize. The enormity of it, the problems that we
have are things they don't consider, and I would hope that we
can take care of some of these things to stop this invasion,
which I guess is the worst we have had in a while, in 60, 70
years. It is a very serious problem, and it is going to require
something to wipe this out in this part of the century.
Now, we sit in these hearings. We hear it from Florida. We
hear it from the Midwest. We hear it from other areas. Everyone
has got a problem and we react. It is about time we react to
our friends out in the Western areas of the States that many of
us sitting here are living in.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I would ask
unanimous consent that my written statement, whatever it says,
be put in the record.
Mr. Hefley. Without objection, and, Mr. Hansen, one thing
you left out. I understand they taste like chicken.
Is that true?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. If you would like to eat one, there is a live
one back here, and you can report to the full Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable James V. Hansen, Chairman, Committee on
Resources
I am very pleased that Mr. Hefley has agreed to hold this oversight
hearing on behalf of the farmers and ranchers in Utah and throughout
the Great Basin states that are dealing with the devastating outbreaks
of Mormon Crickets and Grasshoppers. This outbreak, now under
Declaration of Emergency by the Governor of Utah, is considered to be
the worst in over 60 years, spreading to over 1.5 million acres in Utah
alone. These insects, who breed undisturbed and untreated on the vast
tracts of BLM and Forest Service land and then spread to neighboring
state and private land, are devouring the crops and rangeland to the
tune of what is expected to be at least $25 million dollars worth of
damage. I believe where the federal government owns land it has an
obligation to take care of it and to ensure that it does not have a
negative impact upon its neighbor's land. I understand that we will
hear today from our State Agriculture Commissioner Cary Peterson, Mayor
Anderson of Oak City, and Darrell Johnson, a fifth generation rancher
from Rush Valley regarding the very real impact of these infestations.
I am pleased to have them here and look forward to hearing their
testimony. I know timely and adequate funding has been a continual
issue of concern for us as we have tried to fight these crickets over
the last couple of years and I remain committed to working with the
appropriate committees and the Departments of Agriculture and Interior
to secure funding.
______
Mr. Hefley. The Committee will stand in recess while we go
vote, and we will come right back.
[Recess.]
Mr. Hefley. The Committee will come back to order.
I have just been reminded that this is the first in a
series of seven hearings on biblical pestilence. We are
starting with crickets. We are going to do frogs for my friend
down here, and we are going to work through the seven.
We want to welcome everybody to the oversight hearing. We
do have a number of witnesses today, so I will try to keep my
opening remarks brief.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Hefley. We are going to focus on an incredible and
disastrous infestation of Mormon crickets and other destructive
grasshoppers that have literally taken over many parts of the
West this year. Mormon crickets have long been part of the
Great Basin area and have been a nuisance to agriculture-
related activities for much of that time. As the crickets'
natural population cycle has fluctuated, so has their impact.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has historically
been responsible for conducting a number of activities like
insect population surveys, implementing cooperative programs,
preparing cost-share agreements, and obtaining sufficient
pesticides and pesticide delivery equipment to control insect
outbreaks on public lands.
Until 1994, treatment of Mormon crickets was a line item in
the agriculture appropriations bill through which APHIS
received funding. However, because the grasshopper infestations
were less severe during the early 1990's, appropriations were
reduced and the program was no longer funded. Someone must have
told the grasshoppers that the appropriations were stopped
because they have reached epidemic proportions in the last few
years as the money to control them has been eliminated.
We are meeting today to learn more about this problem and
to learn what steps need to be taken to assure that this type
of infestation is not allowed to occur next year and in years
to come.
I want to thank Chairman Hansen for bringing this issue to
the Committee's attention and for pushing for this hearing
today.
I also would like to thank all the witnesses for coming
today, especially those who had long distances to travel, and I
look forward to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Joel Hefley, Chairman, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands
Good morning everyone and welcome to the oversight hearing. We have
many witnesses testifying today so my opening remarks will be brief.
The hearing today will focus on the incredible and disastrous
infestation of Mormon crickets and other destructive grasshoppers that
have literally taken over many parts of the west this year.
Mormon crickets have long been a part of the Great Basin area and
have been a nuisance to agriculturally related activities for much of
that time. As the crickets'' natural population cycle has fluctuated,
so has their impact. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) has historically been responsible for conducting a number of
activities like insect population surveys, implementing cooperative
programs, preparing cost-share agreements, and obtaining sufficient
pesticides and pesticide delivery equipment to control insect outbreaks
on Public Lands.
Until 1994, treatment of Mormon crickets was a line item in the
Agriculture Appropriations bill through which APHIS received funding.
However, because the grasshopper infestations were less severe during
the early 1990's, appropriations were reduced and the program was no
longer funded. Someone must have told the grasshoppers that the
appropriations were stopped because they have reached epidemic
proportions the last few years as the money to control them has been
eliminated.
We are meeting today to learn more about this problem and to learn
what steps need to be taken to ensure that this type of infestation is
not allowed to occur next year or in years to come.
I want to thank Chairman Hansen for bringing this issue to the
Committee's attention and for being here with us today. I would also
like to thank all of our witnesses for coming today as well, especially
those who had long distances to travel and I look forward to their
testimony.
______
Mr. Hefley. At this time, I would like to ask unanimous
consent that Senator Bennett be permitted to sit on the dais
following his statement if he would like to. Without objection,
so ordered.
Now I yield to our ranking member, Mrs. Christensen.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be
brief today so that we can hear the testimony regarding the
serious problem that is plaguing many of our Western States.
For those who live in urban areas or whose livelihood is
not dependent on agriculture or ranching, it is easy to
underestimate the threat posed by pests like the Mormon
cricket. However, for Western farmers and ranchers, this and
other species of grasshoppers can be a devastating problem.
Mormon crickets feed on more than 400 species of plants and can
destroy millions of acres of crops during a serious
infestation. Such destruction can bankrupt farmers and destroy
rangeland used for cattle grazing. Clearly, given the amount of
federally owned land in the West, any strategy to combat these
pests must involve cooperation between the public and the
private land managers. In addition, Federal funding allocated
to address this problem must be adequate.
I want to also welcome those who have come to testify
today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Gibbons, did you have a statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Representing the 2nd Congressional District of Nevada,
which is 99.8 percent of the State, an area of about 110,000
square miles directly adjacent to the State of Utah, this
infestation of Mormon crickets affects Nevada as well. And we
have it all across the northern part of Nevada, from north of
Reno and the Red Rock area in Washoe County all the way through
Elko and Elko County, which abuts up to Utah.
The State of Nevada, of course, relies heavily on the
Federal Government inasmuch as that 90 percent of the State of
Nevada is federally managed. In addition to that, the State
director of the Bureau of Land Management indicated to me in a
conversation that the amount of money that he has to address
this problem is about $66,000. Now, $66,000, Mr. Chairman, is
woefully inadequate to cover 110,000 square miles of area.
Many times we have heard over the course of our discussions
in this Committee the sensitivity that this Committee has to
species of animals that roam freely in the West, including the
wild horse, in addition to cattle grazing and crop farming that
we have also become acutely aware of the impact.
But when you look at the ecosystem for a lot of wild
species of animals that we pride ourselves in and treasure,
this insect is going to have a devastating impact on those
animals.
What frightens me on the far end of the spectrum, Mr.
Chairman, is the fact that we don't want to go to the extreme
of making this insect an endangered insect species. But we do
need to get it under control. As you will be able to tell from
some of these photographs here, it not only is a nuisance but
it is a danger--a danger to the ecosystem for a lot of our
wildlife, a lot of our farm production and ranch production in
the State of Nevada. We depend, as I said earlier, that the
Federal Government have--on the resources. The State of Nevada
depends on the Federal Government as well for programs and
assistance to address this, and we certainly hope that this
Committee and the members of this Committee will see to it that
we handle this in the same fashion as we would a crisis of the
magnitude that affects other areas of this country, whether it
is a hurricane in the Southeast affecting farmers in the
Southeast or fires that we have out West, or in the South this
year due to drought systems.
This insect is creating a serious problem, and I would hope
that this Committee and the people who are going to address
this issue understand the fact that we are seriously interested
in finding a solution, and maybe we can direct our Federal
Government to providing the necessary resources to help out.
I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Any other Committee member who has a statement
they would like to make?
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. I recognize the seriousness of the problem,
and I appreciate the statement of the gentleman from Nevada,
Mr. Gibbons.
Before I came here, Mr. Chairman, I was a school teacher,
and I always teach a unit on American Indians. And American
Indians, when their food source ran low, would eat
grasshoppers. I don't know if they were Mormon crickets, but I
guess maybe if they were out in that region--and we found out
that crickets and grasshoppers ounce for ounce have 10 times
the amount of protein as beef. While not recommending a new
change in agriculture for a food source--and they don't taste
very good, either, so that probably wouldn't catch on. But I
hope we can find out from this hearing that there are things
that we can do in a reasonable way to protect the livelihood of
people in the West and manage this ecosystem with some
appropriateness and scientific understanding of how it all
works.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Senator Bennett will be our first panel.
Senator, we had a discussion with Congressman Hansen before you
arrived as to whether or not they taste like chicken. Maybe you
can help clear that up for us in light of what Mr. Gilchrest
has just suggested that you do out there, that you raise them
as a crop rather than try to get rid of them.
Senator Bennett?
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT BENNETT, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
cannot from personal experience give you any testimony with
respect to the taste or nutrients of--
Mr. Hefley. Well, what good are you then?
[Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. I can share with you a story that came
from one of my colleagues, and I hope this will demonstrate
that I am of some value.
We were debating an issue and I shall not disclose which
issue it was, but one of my colleagues, Senator Lauch
Faircloth, from North Carolina, who is very well known for his
somewhat salty vocabulary, described this particular bill. He
says, ``It is just like a June bug.'' He says, ``When you are
driving down the street on a motorcycle and your mouth is open
and the June bug flies in your mouth, you just swallow it and
keep on going. But if you take that sucker home and put it in a
Mason jar and look at it for a couple of weeks, there is no way
in the world you can get it down.''
Now, he was talking about a particular bill, which he said
that the more we looked at it, the uglier it became. But I
think that particular metaphor would apply to someone who would
be attempting to make a meal out of Mormon crickets. They are
about the size of my thumb. They are not small insects. And
they climb up stocks of wheat--yes, you have one there, good.
They climb up stocks of wheat, bite off the head, which causes
the wheat to fall, and thus makes it a little more efficient in
the way they can devastate crops than just staying there and
eating them themselves. They can go through in a true carpet of
devastation and wipe out crops with incredible and frightening
efficiency.
I appreciate your holding the hearing this morning to talk
about this because it is a crisis that the people of Utah are
facing, and it has significant implications for large portions
of the State.
I would like to thank right up front Mayor Anderson of Oak
City and Darrell Johnson of Rush Valley and Utah's Commissioner
of Agriculture, Cary Peterson, who will be appearing on
subsequent panels. I want to thank them for coming all the way
to Washington to share their experiences. Maybe one of them
could tell you what a cricket would taste like, but I wouldn't
put a lot of money on that.
Right now, the numbers, which you may already have seen but
that I will repeat for emphasis, 1.5 million acres of land in
18 of Utah's 29 counties are being impacted by this year's
infestation of crickets, and most of the impact is a severe
one. It is estimated this is the worst infestation since the
1940's, and damage to crops and property will reach $25
million.
Thousands upon thousands of acres of crops in the past year
have been decimated by these insects. They are capable of
consuming 38 pounds of vegetation each over their life span. So
as you look at that little plastic-encased bug, you can
understand how efficient they are in terms of destroying
things.
Not only are they physically destructive to crops, they
have a psychological impact on the people of Utah. Children are
afraid to go out and play in areas where there are crickets.
People are concerned about health and safety, and the Utah
Department of Transportation has been requested to determine if
the crickets and grasshoppers are creating traffic problems on
the roads.
Now, we have reached the stage in this year in the life
cycle of these insects where they have begun to lay eggs, and
at this point, it seems all we can do is hope for a very long
cold winter that kills most of the eggs in the ground. We can
also hope for that because it would be a good thing for the
Olympics. But we like to get two benefits from one effect.
Now, there is something that Federal land management
agencies can do to prepare for next year besides pray for snow.
In the past, a lack of funding has been blamed, and rightly so,
for limiting the control efforts of APHIS, BLM, and the U.S.
Forest Service. This last Tuesday, I was able to convince my
fellow Senators to appropriate $4 million for APHIS to combat
this problem next year in Utah and other affected areas, so we
hope the funding problem will go away.
I would like the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM, for whom
I have great respect and with whom my office has a wonderful
working relationship, to understand my expectations for next
year going along with the money that has been appropriated to
fulfill those expectations. I believe that some of the land
management agencies were caught flat-footed and not prepared
for what was coming. So I would hope that we would look not
only to solve the problem this year but be prepared to deal
with what looks as if it will come next year.
I am disappointed that there are threats of lawsuits by
some groups headquartered outside of the State of Utah who have
no real understanding of the impact of this, and I would hope
that those lawsuits would, in fact, not materialize.
So, in summary, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the BLM and
the Forest Service should begin as soon as possible to lay down
any necessary environmental documentation, have the required
public participation necessary to establish control measures
against the crickets and the grasshoppers. We cannot have a
repeat of 2001. I consider that simply unacceptable, which is
why I pushed for the appropriation that has now been
established.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Committee for
holding the hearings and for your interest in this issue,
which, while admittedly is parochial, is nonetheless very
severe.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bennett follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Robert F. Bennett, a U.S. Senator from the
State of Utah
Good Morning. I thank the Chairman for holding this critically
important hearing today on the current crisis the people of Utah are
facing from the infestation of Mormon crickets and grasshoppers
throughout significant portions of the state. I appreciate the
committee giving me the opportunity to speak on this issue. I also
would like to thank Mayor Anderson of Oak City and his wife , Darrell
Johnson of Rush Valley, and Utah's Commissioner of Food and Agriculture
Cary Peterson for traveling to Washington to share their experiences
and insights with the Congress on this grave situation.
Approximately 1.5 million acres of land in 18 counties are being
impacted by this year's infestation of crickets and grasshoppers, most
of them severely. It is estimated that this will be the worst
infestation since the 1940's and damage to crops and property will
reach $25 million. Thousands upon thousands of acres of crops and
pasture have been decimated by these two inch long insects which are
capable of consuming 38 pounds of vegetation over their limited life
span. Not only are the crickets physically destructive they are also
having a psychological impact on the residents of Utah. Children are
afraid to go out and play and people are concerned about public health
and safety. The Utah Department of Transportation has even been
requested to determine if the crickets and grasshoppers are creating a
problem on the roads.
Unfortunately, we are reaching the stage in the life cycle of these
insects when they have begun to lay their eggs. At this point, it seems
all we can do is to pray for a very long cold winter that will
hopefully kill most of the eggs in the ground. There is, however,
something the federal land management agencies can do to prepare for
next year. In past years, a lack of funding has been blamed, and
rightly so, for limiting the control efforts of APHIS, BLM, and the
USFS. This past Tuesday, I secured $4 million for APHIS to combat this
problem next year in Utah and other affected states. I fully expect
that this money will be released to APHIS in a timely manner so that it
will be able to prepare for spring and summer 2002 during autumn and
winter 2001. Additionally, I would like the USFS and the BLM, whom I
have great respect for and a very solid working relationship with, to
understand my expectations for next year. I believe Utah's land
management agencies were caught flat-footed this year. I am greatly
disappointed with their response to threatened lawsuits by some of
Utah's out-of-touch environmental groups. I believe the BLM and USFS
should begin as soon as practicable any environmental documentation and
the required public participation necessary to take appropriate control
measures against crickets and grasshoppers. We cannot have a repeat of
2001, it is simply unacceptable.
Again, I thank the chairman and Committee on Resources for holding
today's hearings.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Senator.
Senator, on the issue in Colorado, where I life, we don't
have the Mormon crickets. We do on a cyclical basis have
plagues of grasshoppers, and they sometimes come--it almost
looks like a thunderstorm cloud moving across the land. And
when they have eaten everything green that they can find, you
will find them eating fenceposts, which sounds outrageous. It
is hard to imagine. But we find that.
How would you compare this infestation to what I have just
described?
Senator Bennett. The Mormon crickets have historically had
the capacity to do that, but they don't fly. They come down
over the land like a black carpet, devastating everything in
its way in the manner that you described.
Now, I have not heard of any eating fenceposts, but they
are voracious eaters, and anything that is in their way is
problematical. And, of course, the reason they are named Mormon
crickets is because this particular pest threatened the
survival of the first Mormon pioneers when they came into the
valley, and they were immune at that time to any kind of
available human intervention. The Mormon pioneers beat them
with shovels, dug trenches and filled the trenches with water,
and pushed them into the water to drown them. When they felt
the field was gone and nothing could be saved, they set fire to
the field in an effort to eradicate the crickets.
None of these things worked. The only reason they were
saved is because the California gull, which is the Utah State
bird, interestingly, so named as the Utah State bird because of
this experience, the California gulls showed up in massive
numbers, harking to the comment you made about almost darkening
the sky, and settled on the fields. The pioneers thought, okay,
we are done for for good because whatever grain the crickets
don't eat, the gulls will. And then they discovered that the
gulls were not eating grain, they were eating crickets. And the
gulls would gorge themselves on crickets, fly to the shores of
the Great Salt Lake, regurgitate everything they had eaten, fly
back, and feast on the crickets again. It took about 2 weeks of
this kind of massive non-human intervention to rid the Salt
Lake Valley of crickets and literally save the lives of those
early pioneers.
So that is why they are called Mormon crickets because it
was the Mormons who had the first real experience with them.
What we need obviously now are more sea gulls, but in the
absence of that, we will take the money.
Mr. Hefley. Do they still have the sea gulls coming in to
do this?
Senator Bennett. The sea gull is a protected bird in Utah.
As I say, it is the State bird. And it is illegal for you to
shoot a sea gull in Utah. But, no, we do not have the herds of
sea gulls. There are still sea gulls around Great Salt Lake,
around other water bodies, but given the rise of cities and
other population centers, the flocks of sea gulls are not as
huge as they once were.
Mr. Hefley. Mrs. Christensen?
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any
questions of the Senator. I just want to welcome you. It is
always great to have one of our colleagues from the other side
of the Capitol here.
And as I said in my opening statement, given the amount of
federally owned land in Utah, we agree that the Federal
Government should make sure that the funding is adequate to
assist in this problem that has been so devastating to the
ranchers and farmers.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
concern, and thank you for your welcome.
Mr. Hefley. Does the Committee have any additional
questions? Mr. Gilchrest?
Mr. Gilchrest. Senator, you just relayed to us a
fascinating story, especially about the gulls showing up. I
would assume that this Mormon cricket is indigenous to that
area of the West, has been around for eons of time. But I also
assume that the gull that showed up in that historical story
you relayed to us is also indigenous to that region of the
West. I ask the question because I live on the Eastern Shore of
Maryland. If you go back less than 20 years, we didn't have any
osprey, and we basically didn't have any bald eagles. We also
lost the Baltimore oriole--it just never showed up anymore
because it lost its habitat--and a number of other near-
tropical birds.
Certainly what we have done in the last decade or two was
to re-establish their habitat. Now we have not swarms of
osprey, but wherever you go, you can see osprey. The bald eagle
population has just mushroomed in the area, and the Baltimore
orioles are coming back and so on.
Now, I recognize that it is important for us to establish
appropriations to deal with this issue as fast as we can. Is
there any understanding or perspective or movement to bring
back that natural gull population? And if you did, could it
come back in any numbers to be effective to this cricket?
Senator Bennett. I am going beyond my area of expertise,
but what understanding I have of it, the gulls are around the
Great Salt Lake, which is a body of salt water. And the
original infestation of crickets that I have described that the
gulls intervened on and saved the lives of the early Mormon
pioneers took place in the Salt Lake Valley, which is
relatively close to the Great Salt Lake and the gull's natural
habitat. The infestation of crickets that we are talking about
now is in other places, so that we can't really enlist the
gulls.
Yes, the population of sea gulls in Utah is still quite
large. Many a motorist complains a little about finding a
reminder of the presence of sea gulls overhead on his car in
the morning. But we do what we can to see to it that that
habitat is preserved.
As I say, the experience is part of our State lore, and the
California gull is the Utah State bird and is honored and
protected. So we don't take lightly the question of hanging
onto the habitat for the gull.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Senator.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Further questions? Yes?
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, Senator, this is more of a comment
than a question. I have eaten grasshoppers, but they were
chocolate-covered. So if you do try a Mormon cricket, I suggest
really premium chocolate.
Senator Bennett. It would take quite a quantity to tempt
me.
Ms. McCollum. But Minnesota, where I come from, even though
I am from the Twin Cities area, we are not a very large State.
We are very, very interdependent on mining, our Twin Cities
industries, and our farming industry. And I served on the
Resources Agricultural Finance Committee for a while, and we
dealt with many infestations for our wheat farmers in the North
Dakota-Minnesota Red River Valley. And I hope that we can come
up with a multifaceted solution, one to take care of your
short-term needs now, but also one that will address long-term
environmental sustainability needs in the future.
I learn something new every day being on this Committee,
Mr. Chair, and I look forward to learning more how to help my
fellow States, and that research will in turn help my State in
the future.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. We would invite you
to come to Utah and get a flavor of the environmental efforts
that are going on out there. Many times we don't get credit for
it outside our own borders among people who don't understand
the unique circumstance that we face.
Mr. Hefley. Senator Bennett, thank you for your testimony,
and before you arrived, we did make it permissible for you to
sit at the dais if you would like to. If you have time, we
would be glad for you to participate in the hearing. If you
don't have time, we thank you for coming over.
Senator Bennett. Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman,
and normally I would accept your invitation. I now have to go
make a quorum in order to confirm some of President Bush's
nominees. That is our principal role in the minority these
days, to make a quorum.
Mr. Hefley. You better get over there and do that, then.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hefley. The second panel will be composed of Nina Rose
Hatfield, who is Acting Director of the Bureau of Land
Management for the Department of Interior; Dr. Richard Dunkle,
Deputy Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service for the USDA; Mr. Cary Peterson, Commissioner, Utah
Department of Agriculture and Food, the State of Utah; the
Honorable Michael Anderson, who is the mayor of Oak City, Utah;
and Darrell Johnson, who is a rancher, Tooele County, State of
Utah.
And, Commissioner, I understand you would like to show us a
video to start with. Is that correct?
Mr. Peterson. Yes.
[Videotape played.]
Mr. Peterson. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, these are
news clips from national news networks who came to look at the
crickets in our State this year. Not only U.S. news companies
but the BBC and a German news company were very interested in
the cricket population, as was the New York Times.
Mr. Johnson. I would like to say we live about 60 miles
from Salt Lake, and we had a news crew come out, do a video
filming, and they were sending the tape to Germany because of
the interest that was created on some of our national networks.
Mr. Hefley. Boy, that truly is a plague.
Ms. Hatfield, would you like to begin?
STATEMENT OF NINA ROSE HATFIELD, ACTING DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF
LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Ms. Hatfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today on the subject of Mormon crickets and grasshoppers and
their effects on the public land. The Bureau of Land Management
certainly looks forward to working with the Committee on this
important issue.
BLM recognizes that the widespread outbreak of rangeland
grasshoppers can affect millions of acres. This year in Nevada,
we estimate that about 62,000 acres have been infested, while
Utah estimates that last year over 1.5 million acres of land
were infested.
In addition to denuding the land of grasses, forage, and
shrubs, the crickets and grasshoppers can graze rangelands or
fire rehabilitation projects all the way to the ground. This
precludes the use of the land by other animals, endangers the
success of our new rehabilitation projects, and paves the way
for additional invasive species.
I have a couple of pictures here that will demonstrate the
size of some of the infestation. This particular picture was
taken in Idaho, and then here is an example of how the
grasshoppers and crickets can actually eat the vegetation all
the way to the ground.
Now, while we are certainly concerned about the impact of
the Mormon crickets and grasshoppers on the public lands
themselves, we are equally troubled by the fact that the
crickets and the grasshoppers do traverse the public lands and
impact privately owned croplands and lawns. We have the mayor
of Oak City here, but these are some photographs taken in Oak
City where you can see the heavy infestation of the crickets
right on the shrubs and around the homes in Oak City.
Now, over the last 15 years, BLM has worked with our
partners, including the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, or APHIS, to control both Mormon crickets and
grasshoppers. And our partnership with APHIS is certainly
critical to the Federal approach to try to control the cricket
and grasshopper infestation.
Our recent emphasis has been on treating public lands that
are adjacent to private croplands or rangelands so that we
might be a better neighbor. Last year, Congress appropriated a
supplemental $1.5 million to BLM to address this project. And
over the last 2 years, we have spent about $685,000 in planning
and surveying and trying to respond to emergency outbreaks. But
certainly, as has been noted earlier, to be effective these
control treatments require timeliness. Treating too late in the
life cycle is certainly not biologically effective. And so we
on the Federal side have to be proactive in completing early
egg counts, preparing the environmental assessments that are
necessary before we do the treatments, and doing the treatments
themselves.
In BLM, we are continuing to look at new products and new
ways of using the products to assure a timely and affordable
way of controlling the Mormon cricket and grasshopper. We
certainly look forward to working with both our public and
private partners and this Committee to try to bring this
infestation into a level that can be considered to be
controlled.
Mr. Chairman, that would conclude my opening remarks, and
we would be glad to answer any questions. And I believe you
have my prepared remarks for the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hatfield follows:]
Statement of Nina Rose Hatfield, Acting Director, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate having the
opportunity to appear before you on the subject of Mormon crickets and
grasshoppers and their effects on public lands. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) welcomes Congressional interest on this issue and we
look forward to working with the Committee's members on this important
subject.
Mormon crickets and grasshoppers are members of the Class Insecta,
Order Orthoptera, which contains several hundred species, although only
about 35 species are perennial pests. As we have seen this year, Mormon
crickets and grasshoppers have the potential for sudden and explosive
population increases, which can be so extreme that all vegetation is
consumed. The economic effects of extreme infestations affect us all,
whether we live on a farm or ranch, in the suburbs, or in the city.
Severe infestations threaten the productivity of rangelands, wildlife
habitat, and adjacent agricultural land. When outbreaks occur they can
also pose health hazards to both humans and grazing animals.
Consider the following effects of Mormon crickets and grasshoppers
on various regions of the country:
LThe Nevada Department of Agriculture is preparing to make
an ``Emergency Declaration'' as a result of the Mormon cricket
infestation. The state will be using Carbaryl bait as needed to keep
these insects away from private residences and off of public roads and
highways, as a matter of private property protection and public safety.
It estimates that 62,000 acres are infested, including over 17,000
acres of BLM-managed lands.
LThe Utah Department of Agriculture estimated that in the
year 2000, there were over 1.5 million acres of public and private
lands infested with Mormon crickets and grasshoppers. During 2001, in
Oak City, children have been afraid to go outside because infestations
of Mormon crickets have numbered as high as 400-500 in some locations,
such as on garage walls and crawling up the sides of homes and across
lawns. Some Mormon crickets have died in the city's water supply,
thereby making it a health and safety concern to local residents,
because of pathogens that these insects can carry. As a result of the
severity and impacts of these pests, Governor Leavitt has recently
declared the Mormon cricket infestation to be an Agricultural
Emergency-the third in the past three years.
LThus far during 2001, the Utah Department of Agriculture
estimates that grasshoppers in Utah have infested an estimated 600,000
acres across 24 counties. Grasshoppers have also grazed several of
BLM's fire rehabilitation project sites to the point where they are
unusable by ranchers. BLM is considering replanting these fire
rehabilitation projects. The cost of doing so is estimated at $50.00
per acre.
A few examples that illustrate the harmful impacts of Mormon
cricket and grasshopper infestations on public lands include:
LEconomic effects: Mormon crickets and grasshoppers can
diminish yields by 25 to 40 percent on range and croplands. The Utah
Department of Agriculture also estimates that as of June, 2001, the
agricultural losses from Mormon crickets and grasshoppers in Utah have
been estimated at over $25 million.
LNative plant communities: Mormon crickets, grasshoppers,
and drought often cause additional stress to native plant communities.
Noxious weeds may increase in numbers because of the competitive
advantage they are given due to the preferential grazing of native
plants by these pests.
LWildlife habitat: Even while functioning as a prey base
for some species such as sea gulls, large infestations of Mormon
crickets and grasshoppers can have a dramatic impact on the plants that
grazing animals eat. These pests can devastate the habitat of wildlife
species including rabbits, deer, elk, and wild horses.
LEcosystem function: Where the local impacts of the Mormon
cricket and grasshopper infestations are large, the stage is set for
invasive plants such as cheatgrass or knapweeds to increase their hold
on the ecosystem.
To be fully successful in the fight against Mormon crickets and
grasshoppers, any effort must bring together a complex group of
stakeholders that includes government agencies, private landowners, and
industry. BLM has a very good working relationship with State
Departments of Agriculture and our sister federal agencies such as the
Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service.
To cite several examples of such cooperation:
LIn the BLM Carson City and Winnemucca Field Offices,
personnel are processing Pesticide Use Proposals that would allow
treatment by private citizens of Mormon cricket bands on public lands
adjacent to private lands at risk.
LThe BLM's Spokane, Washington District has cooperated
with APHIS, on successfully detecting and controlling Mormon cricket
egg beds, resulting in a significant reduction in the cricket
population.
In an effort to combat the spread of Mormon crickets and
grasshoppers on BLM and adjacent private lands, the BLM spent over
$685,000 during 1999 and 2000 for planning, surveying and responding to
emergency outbreaks.
Available resources for this effort in 2001 have been directed
toward the following two areas:
LEarly Detection - In Nevada and Idaho, BLM has joined
with State Departments of Agriculture and APHIS in preseason
inventories.
LControl Treatments - BLM has supplied the products
necessary for treatment, where and when environmental constraints have
been met in Idaho, Nevada and Utah.
The BLM is working with other federal, state, local, and tribal
governments and with private landowners to help treat and, when
possible, manage serious infestations of Mormon crickets and
grasshoppers. Future generations of Americans deserve to inherit
ecologically healthy and productive public lands, not vast landscapes
denuded and infested with Mormon crickets and grasshoppers that make
the public and private lands unfit for people, livestock, and wildlife.
We must be committed to developing partnerships to address the
infestation of Mormon crickets and grasshoppers so that the spread of
these pests can be prevented or controlled. For that reason, we welcome
the increasing awareness and understanding of this problem by
legislators at the national level.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Dr. Dunkle?
STATEMENT OF RICHARD DUNKLE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR PLANT
PROTECTION AND QUARANTINE, ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION
SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
ACCOMPANIED BY CHRISTOPHER PYRON, DEPUTY REGIONAL FORESTER,
INTERMOUNTAIN REGION, U.S. FOREST SERVICE
Mr. Dunkle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dr. Richard
Dunkle, and I am the Deputy Administrator for Plant Protection
and Quarantine of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service with the United States Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I want to
thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the
United States Department of Agriculture, focusing on the
history of the activities that USDA has conducted for Mormon
crickets and other grasshoppers in the Great Basin, and also
our efforts to combat current and future grasshopper and Mormon
cricket outbreaks in this area. Accompanying me today is Mr.
Christopher Pyron, Deputy Regional Forester for the
Intermountain Region of the Forest Service as well.
Grasshoppers and Mormon crickets have caused widespread
devastation throughout the Great Basin. Although several other
statements have included these figures, let me do so again. In
Utah alone, Mormon crickets and grasshoppers have infested more
tan 1.5 million acres and an estimated $25 million in crop
damage may occur. In fact, Mormon crickets can feed on more
than 400 species of plants, and a single Mormon cricket can
consume an amount of rangeland forage equal to 38 pounds of dry
weight per acre.
Throughout the Western United States, there is excellent
cooperation between the USDA, other Federal agencies, State
agencies, local governments, and private landowners in
combating Mormon cricket and grasshopper outbreaks. This year,
stressed financial resources have been used to their fullest
extent. The ominous fact is that each female Mormon cricket can
lay about 86 eggs in the round and, if natural conditions favor
hatching next spring when treatment would be most effective,
the Mormon cricket outbreaks in 2002 could be even more
widespread, severe, and destructive.
During the mid-1980's, USDA's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, which we call APHIS, took a lead role in
monitoring and suppressing grasshoppers and Mormon crickets. In
1986, Congress, in response to destructive grasshopper
outbreaks, appropriated $18 million to APHIS for a grasshopper
suppression program. In addition, Congress created no-year
funding for continued grasshopper suppression programs by
stipulating that $16 million remain available until expended.
This funding mechanism provided APHIS with immediate access to
resources for suppressing economically significant grasshopper
populations. From 1987 through 1992, Congress appropriated $5
million annually for the no-year grasshopper reserve fund.
As the lead Federal agency, APHIS conducted population
surveys, implemented cooperative programs with States and other
cooperating organizations, prepared cost-share agreements and
escrow accounts, recruited and trained seasonal staff, and
obtained sufficient equipment and materials, such as vehicles,
pesticides, and pesticide storage facilities. In addition,
APHIS provided the essential environmental assessment
documentation for the suppression program.
In 1990, APHIS received an emergency supplemental
appropriation of $6.8 million to cooperate with States and
individuals to suppress grasshoppers on CRP--Conservation
Reserve Program--and other lands. The grasshopper populations
during this time were kept under control, so the no-year
grasshopper reserve exceeded $16 million in 1993.
Since 1994, no new appropriations have been provided for
the grasshopper and Mormon cricket program. Since then, all
grasshopper-related activities, including survey and
suppression, have been funded from the accumulated no-year
reserve, which was exhausted in fiscal year 1999, and
additional funds from the appropriated reserve for
contingencies.
In an attempt to conserve the use of funds, APHIS has
conducted only crop protection activities since 1995. The goal
of crop protection programs is to protect high-value crops by
treating strips of Federal rangelands where these lands border
the crop. Such programs provide short-term, immediate
suppression of grasshopper populations migrating from Federal
lands onto cropland. Crop protection programs do not include
any long-term rangeland management. However, since 1999, only
the APHIS contingency fund, which must also cover other
emergencies in APHIS, has been available to cover grasshopper
and Mormon cricket suppression.
For example, in fiscal year 2000, the agency, using APHIS'
contingency funds, prepared to conduct traditional surveys and
earmarked funds for grasshopper and Mormon cricket suppression.
However, the populations were not as high as projected, and
most of the suppression dollars were returned to the
contingency fund.
In fiscal year 2001, APHIS has taken $300,000 from this
fund to carry out grasshopper and Mormon cricket surveys and
other program planning activities. However, due to other high-
priority needs, no additional APHIS money will be available for
grasshopper and Mormon cricket suppression. Accordingly,
funding for suppression on public lands to protect rangeland
will require resources from the responsible Federal land
management agencies, such as BLM, Forest Service, and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The new Plant Protection Act requires the Secretary of
Agriculture to pay 100 percent of the cost of grasshopper or
Mormon cricket control on Federal lands to protect rangeland
out of funds specifically appropriated for grasshopper control
or transferred from the Department of the Interior under
section 417 of the act. Our current policy is that all program
costs, including surveys, site-specific environment
assessments, and treatments, will be paid by the Federal land
management agency. As a result, Federal land management
agencies will be required to do the site-specific project level
work, including environmental assessments that would tier to
the programmatic EIS currently being prepared by APHIS. I
should note that current Forest Service policy requires that
the Forest Service personnel participate in the development of
all pesticide-use plans and direct those activities on National
Forest System lands.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I will be
happy to take any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dunkle follows:]
Statement of Dr. Richard Dunkle, Deputy Administrator for Plant
Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) on the history of the activities that USDA has conducted for
Mormon crickets and other grasshoppers in the Great Basin, and our
efforts to combat current and future grasshopper and Mormon cricket
outbreaks in this area. Accompanying me today is Christopher Pyron,
Deputy Regional Forester for the Intermountain Region of the Forest
Service.
Grasshoppers and Mormon crickets have caused widespread devastation
throughout the Great Basin. In Utah alone, Mormon crickets and
grasshoppers have infested more than 1.5 million acres and an estimated
$25 million in crop damage may occur. In fact, Mormon crickets can feed
on more than 400 species of plants, and a single Mormon cricket can
consume an amount of rangeland forage equal to 38 pounds dry weight per
acre.
Throughout the western United States, there is excellent
cooperation between USDA, other Federal agencies, State agencies, local
governments, and private landowners in combating Mormon cricket and
grasshopper outbreaks. This year, stressed financial resources have
been used to their fullest extent. The ominous fact is that each female
Mormon cricket can lay about 86 eggs in the ground, and, if natural
conditions favor hatching next spring when treatment would be most
effective, the Mormon cricket outbreaks in 2002 could be even more
widespread, severe, and destructive.
During the mid-1980's, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) took a lead role in monitoring and suppressing
grasshoppers and Mormon crickets. In 1986, Congress, in response to
destructive grasshopper outbreaks, appropriated $18 million to APHIS
for a grasshopper suppression program. In addition, Congress created
no-year funding for continued grasshopper suppression programs by
stipulating that $16 million remain available until expended. This
funding mechanism provided APHIS with immediate access to resources for
suppressing economically significant grasshopper populations. From
1987-1992, Congress appropriated $5 million annually for the no-year
grasshopper reserve fund.
As the lead Federal agency, APHIS conducted population surveys,
implemented cooperative programs with States and other cooperating
organizations, prepared cost-share agreements and escrow accounts,
recruited and trained seasonal staff, and obtained sufficient equipment
and materials, such as vehicles, pesticides, and pesticide storage
facilities. In addition, APHIS provided the essential environmental
assessment documentation for the suppression program.
In 1990, APHIS received an emergency supplemental appropriation of
$6.8 million to cooperate with States and individuals to suppress
grasshoppers on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and other lands. The
grasshopper populations during this time were kept under control, so
the no-year grasshopper reserve exceeded $16.5 million in 1993.
Since 1994, no new appropriations have been provided for the
grasshopper and Mormon cricket program. Since then, all grasshopper
related activities, including survey and suppression, have been funded
from the accumulated no-year reserve, which was exhausted in fiscal
year 1999, and additional funds from the appropriated reserve for
contingencies.
In an attempt to conserve the use of funds, APHIS has conducted
only crop protection activities since 1995. The goal of crop protection
programs is to protect high-value crops by treating strips of Federal
range lands where these lands border the crop. Such programs provide
short-term, immediate suppression of grasshopper populations migrating
from Federal lands onto cropland. Crop protection programs do not
include any long-term rangeland management. However, since 1999, only
the APHIS contingency fund, which must also cover other emergencies in
APHIS, has been available to cover grasshopper and Mormon cricket
suppression.
For example, in fiscal year 2000, the Agency, using APHIS''
contingency funds, prepared to conduct traditional surveys and
earmarked funds for grasshopper and Mormon cricket suppression
programs. However, the populations were not as high as projected and
most of the suppression dollars were returned to APHIS'' contingency
fund at the end of the fiscal year.
In fiscal year 2001, APHIS has taken $300,000 from the contingency
fund to carry out grasshopper and Mormon cricket surveys and other
program planning activities. However, due to other high priority needs,
no additional APHIS money will be available for grasshopper and Mormon
cricket suppression. Accordingly, funding for suppression on public
lands to protect rangeland will require resources from the responsible
Federal land management agencies, such as the Bureau of Land
Management, Forest Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Plant Protection Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to
pay 100 percent of the cost of grasshopper or Mormon cricket control on
Federal lands to protect rangeland out of funds specifically
appropriated for grasshopper control or transferred from the Department
of the Interior under section 417 of the Act. Current APHIS policy is
that all program costs, including surveys, site specific environmental
assessments, and treatments, will be paid by the Federal land
management agency. As a result, Federal land management agencies, such
as the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management and
USDA's Forest Service, would be required to do site specific project
level work, including environmental assessments that would tier to the
programmatic EIS currently being prepared by APHIS. I should note that
current Forest Service policy requires that Forest Service personnel
participate in the development of all pesticide-use plans and direct
those activities on National Forest System lands.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to take any questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much. Let me just ask a real
quick question. Does a grasshopper plague and a cricket plague
tend to go together?
Mr. Dunkle. From what I understand, normally when we have
Mormon cricket outbreaks, oftentimes there are also grasshopper
outbreaks. And the weather conditions seem to favor both.
Mr. Hefley. I see.
Mr. Peterson?
STATEMENT OF CARY G. PETERSON, COMMISSIONER, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD, STATE OF UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee, for the opportunity to discuss this issue with you.
I am Cary Peterson, Utah's Commissioner of Agriculture and
Food. My family and I have been in the livestock and farming
business all of our lives, into the fourth generation.
I am here on behalf of the people of Utah to request that
Congress appropriately fund USDA APHIS and their insect control
program. That program exhausted its funds in 1999, and as a
result, there is very little or ineffective program in effect
today to take care of the millions of Mormon crickets and
grasshoppers from migrating from their hatching grounds,
primarily on Federal grounds, onto private croplands and
populated areas.
Public health and safety is now threatened, as subsequent
speakers will talk about. Governor Mike Leavitt formed a
subcabinet task force made up of our department, Health,
Environment, and Transparency to investigate the human health
and safety risks of this infestation.
The infestation triggered an emergency declaration June 4th
of 2001 by our Governor. Following that action, with the
authority of Utah law, I activated a Decision and Action
Committee comprised of Federal, State, local, and private
interests to address the infestation.
I draw your attention today, members of the Committee, to
U.S. Code, Title 7, Section 148f paragraph (d). It established
a framework for the transfer of funds to the U.S. Secretary of
Agriculture for Mormon cricket and grasshopper control.
According to the provisions of the act, requested by the
affected State, I quote, ``...the Secretary of Agriculture
shall immediately treat Federal, State or private lands that
are infested by grasshoppers or Mormon crickets at levels of
economic infestation...'' And that is a level of eight or more
per square yard. I have included the text of the entire section
of that code for your information.
Currently, there are more than 1.5 million acres infested
with crickets and grasshoppers in the State of Utah. That
represents 2,400 square miles, and that is more than the size
of the State of Delaware. Estimated crop damage this year will
exceed $25 million.
Without a consistent and systematic approach to the
problem, we cannot control this. I draw your attention to the
large photographs that we have here and that are in the
Committee room. In many areas, there are acres upon acres, mile
upon mile, where the density is more than 40 or 50 crickets per
square yard.
The State Department of Transportation of the State of Utah
acknowledges that this is a safety health hazard on our
highways.
The insects also destroy valuable forage which is available
for wildlife and our livestock operations in the State of Utah.
The State Legislature of Utah has allocated additional
funds to control State and private land infestations. However,
three out of every four acres in Utah are federally owned and
managed. Most of the infestation is on Federal lands or the
hatching occurs. As the lands dry up after the spring, the
migration is to the croplands, to the private lands, and to our
communities.
Our State's Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee
heard powerful testimony just 2 weeks ago regarding the human
health and safety issues of the types of infestations we are
seeing, as well as the economic losses. The Committee asked our
attorney general to look at recouping some of the costs in
actions against the U.S. Government. That is not our preferred
choice.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend the following to Congress: that
funds for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's APHIS and their
insect control program be appropriated at the level of $8.7
million for 2002. Action was taken in the Senate this week that
would give that agency $4 million. I think that is a one-time
contingency fund. Of that $8.7 million, $3.7 million would be
an ongoing base for infrastructure and operating expenses, and
$5 million would go into a no-year fund for emergencies in
Western States for APHIS to do immediate insect assessment and
control and for the completion of the environmental
assessments. The age-old adage that an ounce of prevention is
worth not a pound but a ton of cure. If we take care of these
infestations at the hatching beds, we prevent that $25 million
of devastating economic impact.
I thank you very much for this opportunity and would be
pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
Statement of Cary G. Peterson, Utah Commissioner of Agriculture and
Food
Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee Mr.
Chairman.
I am Cary Peterson, the State of Utah's Commissioner of Agriculture
and Food.
My family and I have been in the cattle business all our lives, and
I am a former Utah legislator.
I am here on behalf of the people of Utah to request that Congress
appropriately fund USDA APHIS's insect control program.
That program exhausted its funds in 1999, and as a result there is
no program in place to prevent the millions of Mormon crickets and
grasshoppers from migrating from their hatching grounds on federal land
onto valuable croplands and into populated areas.
Public heath and safety are now threatened, as the previous
witnesses have explained. Utah Governor Michael Leavitt formed a
subcabinet-level Task Force of State Health, Environment and
Transportation Departments to investigate the health and human safety
risks of this infestation.
The need for your help is great.
The infestation triggered a declaration of Agricultural Emergency
on June 4th, 2001, by Governor Leavitt. Following that action--and with
the authority of Utah law--(4-35-3 UCA) I activated a Decision and
Action Committee comprised of federal, state, local, and private
interests to address the infestation.
I draw your attention to U.S. Code, Title 7, Section 148f paragraph
(d). It establishes a framework for the transfer of funds to the U.S.
Secretary of Agriculture for Mormon cricket and grasshopper control.
According to a provision of that act; after receiving a request by
an affected state,
``...the Secretary of Agriculture shall immediately treat
Federal, State or private lands that are infested by
grasshoppers or Mormon crickets at levels of economic
infestation...''
I have included the text of that entire section in the packet I
gave you.
We've had crickets and grasshopper infestations in the past, but
not to this extreme.
Currently there are more than 1.5 million acres infested with
crickets and grasshoppers. That represents nearly 2,400 square miles.
That's larger than the state of Deleware. We estimate that crop damage
this year will approach $25 million in Utah alone.
Without consistent and systematic treatment, the problem cannot be
controlled.
I draw your attention to these large photographs we have here. At
times our highways are thick with crickets, posing a traction problem
for vehicles. In many areas there are acre-upon-acre--mile-upon-mile--
where there are 40 to 50 crickets or grasshoppers per square yard.
Our State Department of Transportation acknowledges the potential
safety hazard associated with the high number of crickets and
grasshoppers on our roads.
The insects also destroy valuable forage used by wildlife as well
as livestock.
The Utah Legislature has allocated additional funding to our
department for insect control on State and private lands. But 3 out of
every 4 acres in Utah are federally owned. And most of the insects
hatch on federal land.
Our State's Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee heard
powerful testimony recently regarding the health and human safety
aspects of the infestations, as well as the economic losses.
The committee instructed our Attorney General's office to
investigate any legal action against the USDA to recoup losses caused
by the insects.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend the following: That congress fund the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service's insect control program (APHIS) at $8.7 million for fiscal
year 2002. Of that figure, $3.7 million would be an on-going base for
infrastructure and annual operating expenses. And $5 million would go
into a ``no-year'' fund for emergencies for Western states.
I also seek $100,000 from fiscal year 2001 funds for each of the
Utah offices of the BLM, USFS and USDA-AHPHIS. These funds would be
used immediately for insect assessment and control as well as for the
completion of environmental assessments. The old adage, ``an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure'' fits well here.
For every dollar we spend in prevention, we save American tax
payers many times that amount in federal disaster payments to farmers
and ranchers.
I would like to conclude by playing a video-tape of the crickets in
our state. This video was taken by news crews for the NBC Today Show
and for ABC's World News Tonight programs.
Since our outbreak several weeks ago, we have received world-wide
attention. Including; The BBC in London, England; GMTV in London,
England; The German News Service; German Televison; as well as the New
York Times.
Public awareness of this issue is very high in Utah, and we look to
you for leadership in finding a solution.
Thank you for your time.
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Attachments:
LUSDA-APHIS Grasshopper Infestation Acreage
LUSDA-APHIS Mormon Cricket Infestation Acreage
LState of Utah Synopsis of insect infestation year 1997-
2000
LU.S. Code Title 7 Sec. 148f
______
[Attachments to Mr. Peterson's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3963.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3963.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3963.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3963.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3963.009
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Commissioner.
Mayor Anderson?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. ANDERSON, MAYOR, OAK CITY, UTAH
Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Michael
J. Anderson. I am the mayor of the town of Oak City. Our
population is roughly 750 people. We are located in western
Millard County. I am employed at the Intermountain Power Plant,
and I am also a dairyman by virtue of our family business. I
appreciate you holding this meeting on our behalf.
Cricket and grasshopper damage in our area is hitting us
economically and physically. To quote one of our citizens from
town, she says, ``Mormon crickets in Millard County have not
only gotten into our town, but also into our houses and into
our lives.'' They are severely impacting our everyday living
and our quality of life. In our town, our children won't even
dare go outside or sleep in their rooms for fear of the big,
black creatures that are outside in the flowerbeds and the
gardens and sidewalks, on the eaves of their house.
The situation also illustrated by the pictures before you,
one of those pictures that BLM has showed you, those trees that
they are climbing on comes from the houses on the outskirts of
our town. You can see it looks like a beehive.
Our children and others have been so mentally traumatized
by these creatures that they dominate almost everything we try
to do. Nearby forest campgrounds are no place of refuge. They
are all over the trees, the campgrounds, the roads. They are
totally devastated. You have the spit, the feces from it, and
everything else that comes with those creatures are all over
the tables.
We recently had a religious girls camp up there, about 400
individuals, and it turned into a real nightmare for them. The
leaders of the campground ended up crying, going into the
trailers and crying, so they could go back out and be leaders
over the girls. But they did stick it out, and we have to
commend them for that.
For the first time, crickets and grasshoppers have become a
public health threat. Just like us, many Western States border
or are adjacent to Federal lands. We have had crickets in
Forest Service lands in our area for years, but this is the
first time that they have ever come into the town, and they
come into town in waves, as you heard the testimony today. They
just cover and eat everything ahead of them. They force people
on the south and east ends of town to even go as far as burning
their shade and fruit trees. Those trees that are in the
pictures were burned in an effort for these people to try and
keep these things from crossing into their property.
We have also got a creek down the south side of town, which
you would think would slow them down. But they just climb up
the willows until their sheer weight bends the willows down,
and they crawl over each other and cross this water and
continue into town.
Our town recently finished a drinking water system upgrade
with sealed collection boxes on nearby Forest Service land.
After the upgrade, our water superintendent and I inspected the
water collection boxes at the spring head. To our amazement, we
found handfuls of dead and rotting crickets inside the
collection boxes. Our townspeople were very concerned when they
heard this, as you can imagine, without knowing what diseases
these creatures carry or, who knows, what we are exposed to. It
kind of leaves us hanging out there. This newly discovered
public health threat has prompted our Governor to appoint a
task force to find out and help develop a remedy for this. You
can imagine how our citizens feel about the Federal Government
not doing anything at all on this land to prevent these things
from infesting our town.
Our water storage tanks have also been vented, and we are
using the smallest screens possible. There is also a
chlorination house, and all have been penetrated by the
creatures. They climb up on the tanks in the afternoons to
catch the last rays of sun, and if you look at our water tanks,
it looks just like those trees in those pictures that you have
before you.
Unless they are controlled in the adjacent Forest Service
land where their egg-laying and hatching beds are, we have
found nothing that can keep these creatures out of our
facilities. As I said, our watershed is on Forest Service land,
and under current Forest Service policy, there can be no insect
control within 500 feet of the springs. Without control on the
Forest Service land above that point--which was not done this
year--how can we assure the safety and reliability of our water
system when crickets and grasshoppers infest the hillsides and
valleys of our watershed? We really have no alternative water
source.
Officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture APHIS
report that several Western States are experiencing heavy
cricket and grasshopper damage this year, with the heaviest
Utah infestation in over 60 years. Also, according to the Utah
Department of Agriculture and Food, with the heavy egg-lay now
underway, the prospect looms for an even heavier devastation
next year, with these repulsive crickets and grasshoppers
laying eggs right in our town. Only a severe winter would
reduce the numbers by killing some of the eggs.
The State of Utah is doing all it can by cost-sharing with
private agriculture landowners on bait and aerial spray where
it can be legally used, but no assistance has been available
within the borders of our town. As we contemplated next year's
invasion, with eggs laid right at our doorsteps, we feel like
the little Dutch boy. We are holding our finger in the dike
while the dike is overflowing all around our head. It seems
kind of pointless.
We are here to appeal to this Committee to urge the
Congress to provide the means for public land agencies to be
better neighbors and use the proven, effective methods to
control crickets and grasshoppers on Forest Service and BLM
land.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Michael J. Anderson, Mayor, Oak City,
Millard County, Utah
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Michael J. Anderson. I am the Mayor of Oak City, a town
of approximately 850 residents in western Millard County, Utah. I am
employed at the Intermountain Power Plant and I am also a Dairyman.
Thank you for holding this hearing. Cricket and grasshopper damage
in our area is hitting us hard economically and physically. To quote a
statement from one of our citizens, ``Mormon crickets in Millard County
have not only gotten into our town, but into our houses and into our
lives''. They are severely impacting our everyday living and our
quality of life. In our town our children don't even dare to go outside
or sleep in their own rooms for fear of the big, black creatures they
see all over their lawns, sidewalks, flowerbeds and gardens. The
situation illustrated by the pictures before you and attached to my
written statement, brings to mind biblical plagues. Our children and
others have been so mentally traumatized by these creatures that they
dominate almost everything we try to do. Nearby Forest service
campgrounds are no place of refuge either. Campground tables and
restrooms are covered with crickets, cricket feces and saliva from the
crickets. A recent church girls camp became a miserable experience for
400 local girls due to the crickets.(Show crickets)
For the first time, crickets and grasshoppers have become a public
health threat. Just like us, many western towns are surrounded by or
are adjacent to federal lands. We have had crickets in Forest Service
lands in our area for years, but this is the first year they have
descended on our town in unbelievable waves, taking every almost living
thing in their path, forcing people on the south and east sides of town
to burn their shade and fruit trees in an unsuccessful effort to keep
the creatures out of their homes and yards. A creek near town should
have stopped them, but they just go up the willows until their weight
bends them down and they cross over each other and move on into town.
Our town recently finished a drinking water system upgrade with
sealed collection boxes in a nearby canyon on Forest Service land.
After the upgrade, our Water Superintendent and I inspected the water
collection boxes at the spring head. To our amazement we found handfuls
of dead and rotting crickets in the water inside the collection boxes.
Our townspeople are very concerned. What diseases do these creatures
carry? What are our citizens exposed to? This newly discovered public
health threat has prompted our Governor to appoint a task force to find
out, and to help develop a remedy. Imagine how our citizens feel about
the federal government's failure to control crickets on adjacent public
lands!
Our water storage tanks have to be vented and we are using the
smallest screens possible. There is also a chlorination house. All have
been penetrated by the creatures. Unless they can be controlled on the
adjacent Forest Service land where their egg-laying and hatching beds
are, we have found nothing that can keep these creatures out of these
facilities. As I said, our watershed is on Forest Service land. And
under current Forest Service policy, there can be no insect control
within 500 feet of the springs. Without control on the Forest Service
land above that point (which was not done this year) how can we assure
the safety and reliability of our water supply when crickets and
grasshoppers infest the hillsides and valleys of our watershed ? We
really have no alternative to these water sources.
Officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture APHIS report that
several western states are experiencing heavy cricket and grasshopper
damage this year, with the heaviest Utah infestation of crickets in at
least 60 years. According to the Utah Department of Agriculture and
Food, with the heavy egg-lay now underway, the prospect looms of an
even heavier devastation next year, with these repulsive crickets and
grasshoppers laying eggs right in our town. Only a very severe winter
would reduce the numbers by killing some of the eggs.
The State of Utah is doing all it can by cost-sharing with private
agriculture landowners on bait and aerial spray where it can be legally
used but no such assistance has been available within the borders of
our town. As we contemplate next year's invasion, with eggs laid right
on our doorsteps, we feel like the little Dutch boy holding his finger
in the dike while the dike is overflowing. Without control on adjacent
public land, it is a losing battle. We are here to appeal to this
committee to urge the congress to provide the means for public land
agencies to be better neighbors and use the proven, effective methods
to control crickets and grasshopper on Forest Service and BLM land.
Thank you for your consideration of our request
Attachments:
1. LPhotographs of typical cricket infestation in Oak City, Utah
2. LWritten statement by Mrs. Janet Lindquist, Oak City, Utah
resident
3. LWritten statement by Bruce Lovell, former Oak City Mayor and
Millard County Commissioner
______
The attachments to Mr. Anderson's statement follow:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3963.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3963.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3963.003
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Darrell Johnson, the rancher.
STATEMENT OF DARRELL JOHNSON, RANCHER, RUSH VALLEY, TOOELE
COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. I am Darrell Johnson. Along with my wife Carol, I
own and operate the Johnson Ranch in Rush Valley, Tooele
County, Utah. My sons, Ed and Brian, and their wives and my
parents, who were the former owners, also have a significant
interest in our nearly 7,000 acres of all private, deeded, and
leased ranch land. We are cow-calf operators, running about 250
head of cows year-round. Ours is a ranch with a pioneer family
heritage running back to 1856 when Luke S. Johnson was the
first settler in our valley, after having arrived in Utah with
the earliest Mormon pioneers. His dugout for a home on 40 acres
of land has been developed by succeeding generations into a
ranch that I am proud to say was recognized last year as the
Region 6 National Stewardship Award winner from the National
Cattlemens Association.
The private grazing land on our ranch is very productive
after years of chaining and burning brush and seeding with
carefully selected grasses that on some areas now produce over
1,4000 pounds of forage per acre. We have abundant wildlife on
our land, and we have a large spring that provides irrigation
for about 1,500 acres in our community. We are continually
working to improve our place for future generations.
I say all of this to help you understand how devastating
the cricket and grasshopper infestation is to my operation and
those of neighboring ranchers and farmers. For several years,
we have had damage from crickets and grasshoppers in our area
and in much of Utah, but our most severe damage began last
year. In my area, private land owners are mostly surrounded on
several sides by Forest Service and BLM land. Last year,
crickets moved from Federal land in Skull Valley over Johnson
Pass to about 2,000 acres of our deeded grazing land, which we
use for summer feed. After the damage on that land, they laid
eggs there and on other nearby Federal land where they hatched
and brought us this year's terrible infestation, the worst I
have ever seen.
I started trying to control the crickets on my land this
April, locating the most dense concentrations and circling them
with approved bait. It soon became futile. The crickets, now
being followed by grasshoppers, ate our alfalfa to the ground
and virtually every leaf off the crested wheat grass. There was
no way I or my neighbors could stop them. The crickets do their
damage and move on in literal waves to another area and again
take almost everything in their path, followed now by
grasshoppers from adjacent public land.
Our best estimate at this time is that these insects have
destroyed at least 75 percent of our forage. So if we are to
stay in business, our only choice is to buy hate to replace
this feed. To be conservative, I am going to say that my total
loss of private forage will be 60 percent of my normal yields.
That converts to at least $15,000 in hay that I will have to
buy this year that I would not have purchased in any normal
year.
Even worse, last year I put down seed on about 370 acres of
deeded rangeland that would have been a high producer of feed
this coming year. The crickets have eaten all those plants
right into the dirt. If those seedlings don't recover, it will
cost nearly $13,000 to seed it again, not counting the fact
that I will have to wait another 2 years for any meaningful
production on that area. I have attached a partial list of
cricket damage in an adjacent area prepared by the Grantee
Spring Water Company.
Mr. Chairman, my story is repeated again and again on Utah
farms and ranches. We in the West know we must contend with
drought, variable markets, and a heavy layer of government
regulations. But this insect infestation, coming in large
measure from uncontrolled or inadequately controlled
populations on adjacent public land, is an element that we
alone cannot overcome. We appreciate the efforts of our Utah
Department of Agriculture and Food to reduce cricket
populations on State-owned land and some cost-share money for
bait or spray on private land. But, again, an army of insects,
hatched and grown to traveling size on public land, is more tan
we can deal with unless Federal land managers can control them
before they move onto our land. So I add my voice of that to
others who are appealing to Congress to give our neighboring
public land managers the tools to be good neighbors.
I would just like to add that we have received some help
from the sea gull population. They were a little late in
coming, but for about 3 weeks we have had huge flocks of sea
gulls in there. We are about 35 miles from the Great Salt Lake,
and they are starting to do their share. We need a lot more of
them.
I thank you for listening. We hope that you can help. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Statement of Darrell Johnson, Rush Valley, Utah
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Darrell Johnson. Along with my wife
Carol, I own and operate the Johnson Ranch in Rush Valley, Tooele
County, Utah. My sons Ed and Brian and their wives and my parents, who
were the former owners, also have a significant interest in our nearly
7,000 acres of all-private, deeded and leased ranch land. We are cow-
calf operators, running about 250 cows year-round. Ours is a ranch with
a pioneer family heritage running back to 1856 when Luke S. Johnson was
the first settler in our valley, after having arrived in Utah with the
earliest Mormon pioneers. His dugout for a home on 40 acres of land has
been developed by succeeding generations into a ranch that I'm proud to
say was recognized last year as the Region 6 National Stewardship Award
winner from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
The private grazing land on our ranch is very productive after
years of chaining and burning brush and seeding with carefully selected
grasses that on some areas now produce over 1,400 pounds of forage per
acre. We have abundant wildlife on our land and we have a large spring
that provides irrigation for about 1,500 acres in our community. We are
continually working to improve our place for future generations.
I say all this to help you understand how devastating the cricket
and grasshopper infestation is to my operation and those of my
neighboring ranchers and farmers. For several years we have had damage
from crickets and grasshoppers in our area and in much of Utah, but our
most severe damage began last year. In my area private land owners are
mostly surrounded on several sides by Forest Service and BLM land. Last
year crickets moved from federal land in Skull Valley over Johnson Pass
to about 2,000 acres of our deeded grazing land, which we use for
summer feed. After the damage on that land, they laid eggs there and on
other nearby federal land where they hatched and brought us this year's
terrible infestation; the worst I've ever seen.
I started trying to control the crickets on my land this April,
locating the most dense concentrations and circling them with approved
bait. It soon became futile. The crickets, now being followed by
grasshoppers, ate our alfalfa to the ground and virtually every leaf
off the crested wheat grass. There was no way I, or my neighbors, could
stop them. The crickets do their damage and move on in literal waves to
another area and again take almost everything in their path, followed
now by grasshoppers from adjacent public land.
Our best estimate at this time is that these insects have destroyed
at least 75 percent of our forage. So if we are to stay in business,
our only choice is to buy hay to replace this feed. To be conservative,
I am going to say that my total loss of private forage will be 60
percent of my normal yields. That converts to at least $15,000 in hay
that I will have to buy this year that I would not have purchased in
any normal year.
Even worse, last year I put down new seed on about 370 acres of
deeded range land that would have been a high producer of feed this
coming year. The crickets have eaten all those plants into the dirt. If
those seedlings don't recover, it will cost nearly $13,000 to seed it
again, not counting the fact that I'll have about two years to wait for
any meaningful production on that area. I have attached a partial list
of cricket damage in an adjacent area prepared by the Grantee Spring
Water Company.
Mr. Chairman, my story is repeated again and again on Utah's farms
and ranches. We in the West know we must contend with drought, variable
markets and a heavy layer of government regulations. But this insect
infestation, coming in large measure from uncontrolled or inadequately-
controlled populations on adjacent public land, is an element that we
alone cannot overcome. We appreciate the efforts of our Utah Department
of Agriculture & Food to reduce cricket populations on state-owned land
and some cost-share money for bait or spray on private land. But again,
an army of insects, hatched and grown to traveling size on public land
is more than we can deal with unless federal land managers can control
them before they move onto our land. So I add my voice to that of
others who are appealing to congress to give our neighboring public
land managers the tools to be good neighbors.
Thank you for listening. We hope you can help.
______
[An attachment to Mr. Johnson's statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3963.004
Mr. Hefley. Boy, you are an outstanding group of witnesses,
and you certainly paint the picture for us, and it is a very
bleak and ugly and sad picture that you paint, particularly if
you are trying to make a living on the land, as our last
witness is.
Let me ask you, are there some crickets every year and some
grasshoppers every year, but in a cyclical fashion you have
these plagues every so many years, depending on the weather and
so forth? Is that the way it works?
Mr. Peterson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. There will always be
crickets and grasshoppers in abundance for the wildlife and the
other species that prey upon them--sage grouse, the gulls, and
others. And following this kind of an infestation and that kind
of feed for predators, we get an increase of fox, we get an
increase of coyotes, we get an increase of moles and other
rodents that will do well on these kind of insect populations.
And so we get another plague following this because of the
abundance of feed that these predators have that prey upon the
crickets and grasshoppers. But there are always pockets of
those. We haven't seen this type of infestation and the
excessive migration that we are seeing this year.
Mr. Hefley. You do have other predators, though, besides
the sea gulls who do feed on them? They just can't keep up with
it?
Mr. Peterson. That is right.
Mr. Hefley. Yes, yes. Is there anything that can really
control the problem? It is a little hard for me to tell from--
there are a lot of things you are doing, but is there anything
that can really control the problem? Mr. Dunkle?
Mr. Dunkle. Yes, I think there is. Our environmental impact
statement that we are preparing now will lay out all of the
primary mitigations.
First of all, it is very important, as Mr. Peterson has
stated, that we do the proper surveys, because we do egg mass
surveys in the fall and then we do similar surveys in the
spring. And the purpose is to locate these pockets and then to
try to guesstimate the potential size of the population that we
are going to deal with next year and where this population will
begin to migrate, and to try to keep that within a manageable
limit.
And then there are certain chemical alternatives, the
newest one now being a compound called Demolin, which is an
environmentally friendly compound. It does not eradicate these
populations, but it does significantly lower them so that there
is minimal effect on wildlife, on other predators, and so
forth.
So we do have the control tactics, we do have the surveying
methods, and then when we are looking at management on public
lands, the other Federal agencies have additional management
options that they will use on rangeland and so forth that will
tier into this whole program.
Mr. Hefley. Do you have environmental extremist groups--I
think Senator Bennett mentioned that there are threats of
lawsuits, but do you have environmental extremist groups
throwing their bodies in front of the sprayers or whatever they
do, trying to keep you from doing anything? Or is most
everybody in agreement something needs to be done?
Ms. Hatfield. Mr. Chairman, at least in BLM's case, we have
been challenged about the use of some of these substances in
Idaho. And at least there we are not using the Demolin until
APHIS can complete their EIS and we can tier off of their
environmental impact statement. But certainly there has been
some concern by some groups about the impact of the use of some
of these insecticides on other animals in the system.
But, for the most part, we are using Demolin in other
States, and we are also using some other insecticides that have
proved to be useful and helpful in the control of the pests.
But it is a balance, and we do have to do the environmental
reviews before we can take care of the problem.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, may I add that one of the
members of the environmental group made a comment to the local
paper that farmers out there should know better than to be
farming next to BLM land. My family was there before there was
a BLM in 1856, and I am the fifth generation that has been
there. It isn't, you know, by choice that we would choose not
to farm there. It is because that is where the resources are to
be able to farm and do what we do.
Mr. Hefley. You know, Mr. Johnson, that does show the
complete lack of understanding that some of these groups and
some of these people have. When they opened up the West, they
opened it up for homesteading, and the BLM land was the land
that was left over, land that no one wanted because it didn't
have the resources to do a productive farming operation on. So
what do you do? I mean, if you pick the productive land, that
is what is left over. It just shows a complete lack of
understanding.
Mr. Gibbons?
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, as
we have heard today, this is a dramatic and a desperate problem
for many people, whether you are a rancher, farmer, or
apparently a person inside a community, in a city, and a home
and a family.
My question is either to the Department of Agriculture or
the Department of Interior: How long is your EIS going to take
before you can address this problem?
Mr. Dunkle. We have been working on our EIS. We are going
to be publishing it as a proposal in August, receive public
comment through September. We are hoping to have our
environmental impact statement completed by the 1st of January
of 2002 at the latest.
Mr. Gibbons. And then how long after that would you be able
to address the problem? As I heard from your testimony, once
the cricket lays eggs in the soil, you do these surveys in the
fall and the spring and determine what the outbreak is going to
be. What type of action can you take once the infestation of
this magnitude covers such a large area--1.5 million acres in
Utah, 65,000 in Nevada and growing? How many dollars is it
going to take? How many man-hours? What is the magnitude of the
problem you face at that point?
Mr. Dunkle. First of all, I think our goal is to focus on
timely survey to locate these populations and these pockets of
critters and to predict where they will go and how big these
migrations will be so that we can time our treatments to
prevent the massive outbreaks that you are seeing pictures of
here today. And if we can get this back down to a manageable
program, then the magnitudes that we have been working with in
the past from some of the testimony I gave earlier in regard to
the no-year fund and so forth, it is about a $5 to $8 million a
year program. And this keeps it overall under pretty good--I am
talking Federal funds now, but keeping this under a very good
management protocol throughout the Western United States.
Mr. Gibbons. So you are talking of annual funding of about
$8 million, which hasn't been funded since 1994.
Mr. Dunkle. That is correct.
Mr. Gibbons. Is it the obligation of the Federal Government
to address this infestation on private property as well as
public property?
Mr. Dunkle. You know, as has come out, there is a
relationship between private and public lands when it comes to
managing this population holistically. What we try to do is
focus on tactics that minimize the impact of these crickets and
grasshoppers onto private lands. The migrations, the
populations build up predominantly on public sector property,
and then they boil out and they migrate into private properties
and so forth. And so the tactics that we do on the Federal
sector have a direct benefit to managing these populations on
the private sector.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, Dr. Dunkle, let me say that I have read
Mr. Peterson's testimony, and he cites the U.S. Code in here,
Title 7, Section 148f, paragraph (d), which establishes the
framework for funding for fighting the Mormon cricket. And
obviously it quotes, ``...the Secretary of Agriculture shall
immediately treat Federal, State or private lands that are
infested by grasshoppers or Mormon crickets at levels of
economic infestation...'' So obviously the law has been created
to require you to address the problem on Mr. Johnson's ranch as
well as the BLM. So it is not just simply--or public land,
excuse me, Federal land. So it is not just the benefit flowing
over to those private lands. It requires the U.S. Government to
address the infestation on private lands.
That, I would hope, is the direction that you also consider
your responsibility to be in as well.
Mr. Dunkle. I have to make a point in regard to that
particular piece of testimony, because I think it now conflicts
with the new Plant Protection Act. And I may need some of my
staff to confirm this, but the way the Plant Protection Act now
reads, when all of the authorities of the USDA APHIS were
consolidated, I think the only authority that we have is to
focus on public rangeland. And so what our tactic has been over
the past years, in particular since 1994, has been to treat
public rangeland in strips that adjoin private sector to keep
these migrations from moving over into the private sector.
Mr. Gibbons. Would you mind providing this Committee with a
legal assessment with regard to the combination of your
responsibilities with regard to Section 148f, Title 7 of the
U.S. Code for this Committee?
Mr. Dunkle. Yes, sir. I would be glad to.
Mr. Gibbons. Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, it appears that
we have a dual-fold funding responsibility here. One, of
course, is the economic damage that has taken place due to the
current and existing infestations that we haven't been able to
address, causing substantial economic harm to many of these
individuals, much as would a flood, a fire, or any other
natural disaster. So that is part of it.
But we also have this ongoing requirement and
responsibility to adequately fund the effect of addressing this
infestation funding in years at the $8 million level. I
certainly hope that we can convince our colleagues to join us
in this effort. I look forward to working with the Committee.
I want to thank the members of this panel for taking time
out of their busy lives. Many of you have had to travel a long
way, and I know you seem to think that there are only three of
us up here that you are talking to. But we hear you and the
record will adequately reflect your comments and your concerns,
and we will do our utmost to convince and work with our other
colleagues on the seriousness of this issue.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Peterson?
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment to the
Congressman's point?
Mr. Hefley. Sure.
Mr. Peterson. Weather would be the best help we could have
to break this cycle for next year.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Peterson, we are very powerful here in
Congress, but we are not that powerful.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Peterson. If you would regulate or legislate the
weather to break that pattern and then after that, when find
and locate those very intense hatching beds, if we can do the
control work while they are in the nymph stage in those heavy
infested areas, we can control this extreme migration that we
have seen. Absent that ability, both financially and with the
environmental threats--you touch them and we will take you to
court--we have lived with that kind of threat. Not so much the
laying down in front of the spray truck, but the threat of
going to court if you carry out the EA. And I think we have to
be above and beyond that for the reasons that you have heard.
The Bureau of Land Management and APHIS have been
tremendous partners in this effort this year. I recognize that
and thank them for that.
Mr. Gibbons. My question would be on these eggs, Mr.
Peterson, that we talk about, where the eggs were laid. Not
always are they on public land. They are oftentimes on private
land and have come over from public land to infest private
land. So the combination of trying to address this issue must
also--and that is the point I was trying to make--must also
include addressing the infestations that are in that nymph
stage on private lands; otherwise, we are never going to get a
hold of this issue.
Mr. Peterson. Exactly.
Mr. Hefley. We will, however, tell Chairman Hansen that you
would like us to do something about the weather, and he tells
us he is all-powerful. So I think maybe we can get something
done.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. You know, I was going to say that we only have
three people up here, but we are the smartest three because we
know we can't legislate and get the result that we would want.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that my opening
statement be included in the record.
Mr. Hefley. Without objection.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Utah
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to examine
solutions to the worst infestation of Mormon crickets experienced by
Utah in 60 years. The devastation caused by the crickets has worried
many of my constituents and has caused financial hardships to others.
IN the 1980's, Congress was effective in addressing this problem. This
year, however, the Federal Government has been slow to act.
This problem cannot be controlled by the people of Utah because the
crickets hatch on federal lands and then they hop to farmland. Last
year over 590,000 acres in Utah were infested with cricket population
in excess of eight insects per square yard, and 24 of Utah's 29
counties were affected. In addition to destroying crops these insects
contaminate local water supplies once they die.
The infestation of crickets is predictable based on regional
climate. This February's edition of The Utah Farm Bureau News issued a
warning of the upcoming infestation of crickets, predicting possible
the worst in 60 years. Due to the string of mild winters in the past
few years, the catastrophic infestation we are experiencing was
predicted months in advance. The prediction parallels the reality
facing farmers and residents of Utah as they deal with the nearly 2
million acres currently infested by the crickets. This predictability
should allow us to solve the problem before it reaches crisis
proportions.
These pests are most easily controlled during the early stages of
their life cycle. This year, in an attempt to thwart the destruction of
the crickets, officials at the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food
distributed a limited amount of bait used to control the infestation.
However, this bait was in short supply compared to the large population
of crickets.
Since the crickets come from federal land, the federal government
must be a partner in controlling them. This hearing will help to begin
the process of finding solutions to alleviate the problems associated
with the Mormon crickets. I would especially like to thank Booth
Wallentine for the work he has done to bring this issue before this
body. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
______
Mr. Cannon. And I would like to thank our great folks from
Utah for coming out, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Anderson, and
Commissioner Peterson, our Commissioner of Agriculture. He has
done an incredible job over the last several years in the State
of Utah. We appreciate your being here. And also Mr. Dunkle and
my dear friend, Nina Rose Hatfield, who has been through the
battles with me in the ancient past--not too ancient. You are
much younger than--
Ms. Hatfield. I was going to say, not too ancient, sir.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cannon. I take it, Ms. Hatfield, that you support the
APHIS request for $8.7 million?
Ms. Hatfield. Well, we certainly think that the memorandum
of understanding that we have with APHIS makes a workable
system and one that really makes sense for the Federal partners
in that they have an environmental impact statement that we can
tier off of so it is less expensive for us to do the
environmental planning that we need to do. And at the same
time, they have the expertise to actually have the people doing
the surveying and doing the treatment, and that allows, I
think, a reasonable system in terms of delivering, in terms of
trying to deal with this infestation. And certainly the cog in
the wheel here needs to be that they have adequate funding to
carry out their part of the overall system.
I think the BLM, you know, feels that we have money to
support, but they actually are the leaders in terms of carrying
out the program, and they need to be adequately funded.
Mr. Cannon. In the case of Mr. Johnson, he has spent
$15,000, $20,000, something like that, $15,000 just in
incremental hay costs. Is there any Federal pocket out there
that is responsible to compensate him for the damage that
resulted from our failures at the Federal level?
Ms. Hatfield. If there is, I am unaware of it, sir, but I
will certainly be glad to look at it, unless it would be
something like the Tort Claims Act, and I don't think this--I
think this would be a difficulty under that act.
Mr. Cannon. I might just point out that the Federal
Government has immunity from lawsuits, and so we actually have
a Committee that deals with both immigration and claims--odd
combination. That is, when American citizens are hurt and have
a claim, there is a way legislatively to solve that problem.
And that ought to be considered since this is such a widespread
and painful problem there.
We talked earlier about litigation over these issues, and
you mentioned, Mr. Dunkle, that there is some litigation in
Idaho. Are you aware of the Utah Environmental Congress lawsuit
to halt spraying on Forest Service lands in the Uintah Basin--
the Uintah National Forest, that is?
Mr. Dunkle. I am personally not aware of it.
Mr. Pyron. I am Chris Pyron, the Deputy Regional Forester
from Utah, and my understanding of the situation is that we
were told that if we tried to go forward with a categorical
exclusion so we could take suppression actions on Forest
Service lands, that we would be challenged in court. We checked
with our office of general counsel, and they confirmed that we
were on shaky ground on using the categorical exclusion. That
is why we were not able to treat Forest Service grounds in the
Uintah National Forest this year.
We have corrected that problem for next year. We have set
aside money to make sure that we could do the appropriate
environmental analysis, and we will have that in place to
compare it to the APHIS EIS.
Mr. Cannon. And would you describe what a categorical
exclusion means?
Mr. Pyron. A categorical exclusion provides for not having
to go through certain documentation in support of the
management decision that you would have to do if you did an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In
fact, it just cuts down the time that it takes to process the
action by quite a bit. When we discovered that we would have to
go through an EA, an environmental analysis, we simply did not
have time to get that process completed before the window had
expired for treating the Mormon cricket or grasshopper this
year.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you very much for that.
Could I just ask, Dr. Dunkle, could you explain--Mr.
Peterson mentioned the nymph stage. When are these beasts
vulnerable, and what happens if you don't do it in a timely
fashion?
Mr. Dunkle. I think the most vulnerable period of their
life cycle is when the eggs are hatching and when these insects
are in their early stages of development, the nymphal stage,
when they are probably about an inch or less.
Mr. Cannon. And above that, are they just less resistant--I
am sorry, more resistant to the chemicals?
Mr. Dunkle. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. So then you have to have chickens or sea gulls
or something like that.
Mr. Dunkle. Right, right. And so they are very vulnerable
when they are very young and when there is not all that much
forage out and so forth, so the treatments are much more
effective.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
What is the life cycle? I don't know if we have talked
about that. Both the life cycle of the infestation when it
comes like this, and the life cycle of the individual critter.
Does it live for a month or a week or--
Mr. Dunkle. As I understand it--and I have some of my staff
here in case I drift into areas that I shouldn't be talking
about. But my general understanding is that the eggs hatch in
the early spring and the insect can pretty much stay alive
through late summer, early fall. And so what they are doing is
they are rapidly eating forage and growing and they are
developing their capacity for egg laying and reproduction. Then
as they consumer the forage, then they begin to really lay
their eggs again and start the life cycle over. So it is sort
of a one-generation-per-year thing. This is pretty much I think
what happens.
Mr. Hefley. About a month or a month and a half or
something would be an individual's life span probably, is that
correct?
Mr. Dunkle. Well, they are coming out in March and April.
Mr. Hefley. So a lot more than that.
Mr. Dunkle. Those in that jar emerged in March and April,
and so they are still--
Mr. Hefley. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. From my observation, we had crickets hatching
in late March, the last 2 weeks in March. It was a rather warm
spring, a warm winter, and they were hatching in March. And we
still have the large adult crickets which are laying eggs now
this last week in July. The first crickets that we saw last
year came up from Skull Valley off of the Federal land in the
first week of July. They were large and that is when they
started laying their eggs. They were gone, basically starting
to die, by the first week in August. And it seemed like the
later in the life stage, they eat less. It was in April and May
as they were sub-adults, that they were really devastating on
our rangeland as new growth was coming on. That is when we saw
the most damage from the crickets, was quite early on in their
life cycle.
Mr. Hefley. Well, I think you have been a wonderful group
of witnesses, and I think you have been very, very convincing
to this Committee. And I think the weight of this Committee
will be thrown behind doing whatever we can to get you some
help to not only get this under control but to make sure that
it doesn't happen again.
You notice that the three of us here are Westerners, and
don't take it that the rest of the Committee doesn't have an
interest or won't pay attention to it, because we will see that
they certainly do. But we do have as Westerners oftentimes
trouble getting the representatives from the East to understand
some of our special problems that we have in the West that are
very different from the East, and there is where you get 8
inches of rainfall a year compared to 100 inches in some places
in the East. They don't understand some of these things, and it
is hard to get us to do it. And I am wondering, Jim, if we
should release a breeding population of these things here on
the East Coast so that they would understand.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hefley. Do you think at all that would help the
situation? If you don't get the money, you would like to do it,
I am sure. You don't have to answer that.
Jim, did you have a comment?
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, that was going to be my
suggestion as a way of introducing and educating some of our
members on the Committee who aren't familiar with Western
heritage issues. Just take this bottle right here and, oh,
maybe five or six in each one of their offices would give them
a quick understanding of just the problems we are dealing with.
Mr. Hefley. Well, it is a very unique kind of special
problem that we have in certain areas of the West, and,
unfortunately, we have great populations of things like the
Mormon crickets in the West. We don't have great populations of
Representatives to Congress from the West. Most of them are up
and down the East Coast and in California. So it is a little
difficult to convince them. But you have presented a very
graphic, fact-based picture of what the situation is. I think I
have a much better understanding--I would guess all of us do--
of the problem you are facing, and we will do what we can to be
helpful.
Your trip I hope has not been in vain. At least it has not
been with this Committee, and we will see what we can do to be
helpful.
Yes, sir, Commissioner?
Mr. Peterson. Could I answer, I think it was Congressman
Cannon's question, about what kind of help is there for a
devastated rancher. The Governor declared this a disaster in
our State, and then with documentation of those losses through
the Farm Service Agency Committees in our county, then claims
could come forward for disaster relief through the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. And I think Secretary Veneman has
some resources that could in small part compensate for that
damage.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to sit with the
Commissioner after this session and chat about what those
possibilities are.
Mr. Hefley. Okay. Panel, do you have any other comments
before we close?
[No response.]
Mr. Hefley. Well, then, thank you very, very much for being
here. You have been very helpful.
The Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-