    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     H.R. 3994, ``FEDERAL LANDS INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL, PREVENTION, AND
      MANAGEMENT ACT''; AND H.R. 4751, TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO
     PUBLIC LAW 110-229 TO REFLECT THE RENAMING OF THE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
         JAPANESE AMERICAN EXCLUSION MEMORIAL, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

    =======================================================================

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   before the

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS

                          AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                            Wednesday, July 9, 2014

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 113-80

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                  _______________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
         88-697 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2015

    _________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
          Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
         Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                           DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
                PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member

    Don Young, AK                        Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
    Louie Gohmert, TX                    Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
    Rob Bishop, UT                       Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Rush Holt, NJ
    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
    Paul C. Broun, GA                    Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    John Fleming, LA                     Jim Costa, CA
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Glenn Thompson, PA                       CNMI
    Cynthia M. Lummis, WY                Niki Tsongas, MA
    Dan Benishek, MI                     Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
    Jeff Duncan, SC                      Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  Tony Cardenas, CA
    Paul A. Gosar, AZ                    Jared Huffman, CA
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 Raul Ruiz, CA
    Steve Southerland, II, FL            Carol Shea-Porter, NH
    Bill Flores, TX                      Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
    Jon Runyan, NJ                       Joe Garcia, FL
    Markwayne Mullin, OK                 Matt Cartwright, PA
    Steve Daines, MT                     Katherine M. Clark, MA
    Kevin Cramer, ND                     Vacancy
    Doug LaMalfa, CA
    Jason T. Smith, MO
    Vance M. McAllister, LA
    Bradley Byrne, AL

                           Todd Young, Chief of Staff
                    Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
                     Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
                    David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
                                     ------

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

                            ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
                RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member

    Don Young, AK                        Niki Tsongas, MA
    Louie Gohmert, TX                    Rush Holt, NJ
    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    Paul C. Broun, GA                    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Tom McClintock, CA                       CNMI
    Cynthia M. Lummis, WY                Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 Carol Shea-Porter, NH
    Steve Daines, MT                     Joe Garcia, FL
    Kevin Cramer, ND                     Matt Cartwright, PA
    Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Jared Huffman, CA
    Jason T. Smith, MO                   Vacancy
    Vance M. McAllister, LA              Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio
    Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio

                                        (II)

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Wednesday, July 9, 2014..........................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Kilmer, Hon. Derek, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Washington........................................     2
            Prepared statement of....................................     3

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Beck, George, Healthy Habitats Coalition, Fort Collins,
          Colorado...................................................    15
            Prepared statement of....................................    16
        Wagner, Mary, Associate Chief, U.S. Forest Service,
          Department of Agriculture..................................     9
            Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Williams, Lori, Executive Director, National Invasive Species
          Council, Department of the Interior........................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     6

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
        National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), July 8, 2014,
          Letter submitted for the record in support of H.R. 4751....    52
        Representatives of the powersports industry and off-highway
          vehicle enthusiasts, July 7, 2014, Letter submitted for the
          record in support of H.R. 3994.............................    53

     LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3994, TO IMPROVE THE CONTROL AND
     MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE SPECIES THAT THREATEN AND HARM FEDERAL
     LANDS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
      AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
       ``FEDERAL LANDS INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL, PREVENTION, AND
    MANAGEMENT ACT''; AND H.R. 4751, TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
    TO PUBLIC LAW 110-229 TO REFLECT THE RENAMING OF THE BAINBRIDGE
      ISLAND JAPANESE AMERICAN EXCLUSION MEMORIAL, AND FOR OTHER
                                PURPOSES

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, July 9, 2014

                         U.S. House of Representatives

            Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
    room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bishop, Gohmert, McClintock,
    Lummis, Daines, LaMalfa; Grijalva, Bordallo, and Garcia.
        Mr. Bishop. All right, the hearing will come to order. I
    apologize for being late. Whenever Raul gets here before I do,
    there is something that has really, really gone wrong here.
        The Chair notes the presence of a quorum. The Subcommittee
    on Public Lands is meeting to hear testimony on two bills.
    Under the rules, the opening statements are limited to the
    Chairman and the Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous
    consent to include any other Members' opening statements in the
    hearing record, if submitted to the clerk by the close of
    business today.
        I also ask unanimous consent that Members that are not on
    the full committee or the subcommittee be allowed to sit at the
    dais and take part in the proceedings.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Bishop. And hearing no objections, we are--or so
    ordered.
        There are two bills we are going to hear. We are actually
    going to hear Mr. Kilmer's bill first. I am going to save any
    kind of comments I have on my bill to a later time. So I will
    yield to Mr. Grijalva.
        If you want to do it the same way, fine. If you want to
    talk now, you want to talk later, we will give you that option,
    as well.
        Mr. Grijalva. Let me, Mr. Chairman, just, if no objection,
    file my extensive comments on your legislation for the record.
    And pleased to see Mr. Kilmer's very necessary reminder of a
    sad legacy in our history. And, with that, yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. OK, thank you. With that, we appreciate those
    who have joined us today. We are going to deal with Mr.
    Kilmer's bill first, which is H.R. 4751, to rename Bainbridge
    Island Japanese American Exclusion Memorial.
        Mr. Kilmer, we welcome you here.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. We will recognize you for 5 minutes to discuss
    your legislation.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEREK KILMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
    Grijalva, for providing me the opportunity to testify today in
    support of House Resolution 4751. I thank the other members of
    the subcommittee for being here today.
        And this bill is legislation that will make technical
    corrections to legislation that passed into law in 2008 by the
    110th Congress. The 2008 law included the site now known as the
    Bainbridge Island Japanese American Exclusion Memorial, which
    is located in the district that I represent, as a unit of a
    National Historic Site.
        The memorial was established to recognize that, in the wake
    of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Bainbridge Island was the first
    place in the country where Japanese Americans were forcibly
    removed from their homes in response to concerns about the
    security of U.S. Navy facilities in the Puget Sound, where the
    270 Japanese-Americans were forced to leave their homes, their
    neighbors, their friends, and their community to travel great
    distances in order to be held in internment camps. These
    individuals committed no crime, yet were deprived of their
    rights, simply because of who they were.
        While this is a dark chapter in our Nation's history, we
    have an obligation to ensure that future generations remember
    what took place here, so that these mistakes are not repeated.
        While the Park Service manages three sites related to
    Japanese-American incarceration, the Bainbridge Island Japanese
    American Exclusion Memorial is the only site administered by
    the Park Service that commemorates the forcible removal of
    Japanese-Americans.
        In April of this year, the Bainbridge Island City Council
    and the Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park and Recreational
    District, which jointly owned the memorial, officially renamed
    it the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Exclusion Memorial.
    In order to eliminate any confusion, and ensure that the
    official name of the site is formally recognized, H.R. 4751
    would update the law to reflect the renaming of the Bainbridge
    Island Japanese American Exclusion Memorial.
        Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that
    Bainbridge Island's Japanese-American community recently lost
    one of their great leaders, Dr. Frank Kitamoto, who dedicated
    much of his life to educating others about the experience of
    Japanese-Americans during World War II. He played an
    instrumental role in advocating for the installation of the
    memorial.
        Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, for
    inviting me to speak on behalf of this bill, and I am more than
    happy to stand for any questions, if you have them.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kilmer follows:]
       Prepared Statement of the Hon. Derek Kilmer, a Representative in
      Congress from the State of Washington on H.R. 4751, a bill to make
    technical corrections to Public Law 110-229 to reflect the renaming of
     the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Memorial to Bainbridge Island
         Japanese American Exclusion Memorial, and for other purposes.
        Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for
    providing me with the opportunity to testify today in support of H.R.
    4751. I thank the other members of the subcommittee for being here
    today.
        H.R. 4751 is legislation that will make technical corrections to
    legislation passed into law in 2008 by the 110th Congress. The 2008 law
    included the site now known as the Bainbridge Island Japanese American
    Exclusion Memorial, which is located in the district that I represent,
    as a unit of the Minidoka National Historic Site.
        The memorial was established to recognize that, in the wake of the
    attack on Pearl Harbor, Bainbridge Island was the first place in the
    country where Japanese Americans were forcibly removed from their
    homes. At that time, given concerns about the security of U.S. Navy
    facilities in the Puget Sound, more than 270 Japanese Americans were
    forced to leave their homes, their neighbors, and their friends to
    travel great distances in order to stay in internment camps. These
    individuals committed no crime, yet were deprived of their rights
    simply because of who they were. While this is a dark chapter in our
    Nation's history, we have an obligation to ensure that future
    generations remember what took place here so that those mistakes are
    not repeated.
        While the Park Service manages three sites related to Japanese
    American incarceration, this is the only memorial administered by the
    Park Service that commemorates the forcible removal of Japanese
    Americans.
        In April of this year, the Bainbridge Island City Council and the
    Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park and Recreational District, which
    jointly own the memorial, officially renamed it the ``Bainbridge Island
    Japanese American Exclusion Memorial.'' In order to eliminate any
    confusion and ensure that the official name of the site is formally
    recognized, H.R. 4751, would update the law to reflect the renaming of
    the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Exclusion Memorial.
        Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention that Bainbridge
    Island's Japanese American community recently lost one of their great
    leaders, Dr. Frank Kitamoto, who dedicated much of his life to
    educating others about the experience of Japanese Americans during
    World War II. Dr. Kitamoto played an instrumental role in advocating
    for the installation of the memorial.
        Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for inviting
    me to speak on behalf of H.R. 4751.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        I understand from the agencies that you have submitted
    written comments, that you do not have oral comments on this
    bill. Is that correct?
        Ms. Williams. Yes. The Department of the Interior submitted
    a statement in support of the bill, and we don't have further
    comments to support it.
        Mr. Bishop. All right. Then we will turn to the committee
    and see if there are any questions.
        Mr. Grijalva, do you have any questions for this bill?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Bishop. Ms. Bordallo, do you have questions for this
    bill?
        Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
        Mr. Bishop. OK.
        Ms. Bordallo. This is 3994, right?
        Mr. Bishop. No.
        Ms. Bordallo. No?
        Mr. Bishop. 4751.
        Ms. Bordallo. Then I do not have any questions, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Bishop. We are letting you off too easy here on this
    one. I don't have any questions for you, either.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. I think we are all looking forward to
    supporting the bill that you have.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks very much. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. With that, we appreciate it. You know, if you
    would like to stay with us for the rest of the day, you would
    be welcome to.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Bishop. No one has ever taken me up on that offer,
    but----
        Mr. Kilmer. I will join them. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Bishop. You are new. I thought I could get away with
    that.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Bishop. All right, appreciate you with that. With that
    we will turn to the next bill, which is H.R. 3994, dealing with
    invasive species. And this is, once again, where I am pleased
    to be able to introduce this particular bill, as we have a
    unique problem in the United States with invasive species that
    spill over not only on public lands, but they also go on
    private lands and state lands, threatening their status and
    health, as well.
        And we obviously need to do something better. Even though
    we appropriate substantial funds for eradication, the status
    quo simply is not working. And that we also have to be
    realistic that there is not an unlimited supply of where we are
    going to go, it has to be thinking outside the box in some
    particular way.
        And I know you actually put yourself on the record. Is
    there anything you wanted to add, as well, just verbally?
        Mr. Grijalva. No.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. With that, we will turn to the witnesses
    who are up here. I appreciate you coming before us. We will,
    first of all, turn to Lori Williams, who is representing the
    Interior Department. Then we will go over to Ms. Mary Wagner
    from the Forest Service and, finally, Dr. George Beck. And we
    will ask for your testimony in that order. Your written
    testimony is in the record, is already included, and we will
    add any kind of oral testimony. We just ask you to maintain it
    within the 5-minute limits that are in front of you.
        Ms. Williams, we will turn to you first.

       STATEMENT OF LORI WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
          INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Ms. Williams. Thank you so much. I am Lori Williams. I am
    Executive Director of the National Invasive Species Council.
    That council provides coordination and planning and policy
    support for the over 13 Federal departments and agencies on
    invasive species issues, and we also support a 30-member, non-
    Federal advisory committee, which, at one time, George Beck was
    the chairman of. So, greetings to George, and thank him for all
    his help.
        First, I just want to thank Chairman Bishop and the Ranking
    Member for the opportunity to provide our statement, and for
    the attention you brought to this issue. It is an extremely
    serious issue; it has huge impacts across the landscape. And,
    as you said, invasive species do not discriminate. They go on
    private, public lands and waters. And we are very, very
    appreciative of the attention brought to this challenging
    issue.
        That being said, the Department of the Interior does have
    some concerns about H.R. 3994, as drafted, and I am just going
    to summarize those briefly today and make some major points,
    and I would be glad if my statement, with some more particular
    concerns, will be in the record.
        First, a little bit about the Department, which is actively
    engaged in preventing, controlling, and managing invasive
    species to avoid and minimize significant harm that they cause
    to our Nation's resources, including Federal lands managed by
    the Department's bureau. Every bureau within the Department has
    a responsibility for managing invasive species. Relative to
    this legislation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs supports tribal
    government efforts to control invasive species, the Bureau of
    Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service all have
    programs focused on managing this problem. So you can see how
    widespread it is throughout our country.
        These bureaus also partner with states, tribes, and the
    private sector to support efforts to prevent and control
    invasive species. By addressing invasive species through
    coordination, partnerships, and collaborative actions, the
    Department works to leverage limited resources to counter the
    impacts of invasive species across the landscape.
        Given the complexity and scope of invasive species impacts,
    the Department supports a comprehensive approach that includes
    prevention, early detection, rapid response, control,
    coordination, research, and restoration. One method just
    doesn't fit all of the various species.
        So, in our view, H.R. 3994 would directly impact all of the
    agencies I just mentioned, and perhaps more within the
    Department, and their programs to deal with invasive species.
    The President's Fiscal Year 2014 budget included an increase of
    about $23 million to support invasive species activities. These
    and other programs were described in more detail in a statement
    submitted by the Department for the subcommittee at your
    oversight hearing on invasive species on May 16, 2013. So I
    won't go into a lot of detail on the programs, and I'll just
    make a few comments about the bill.
        It does appear that H.R. 3994, from our reading, could
    reduce flexibility from Federal program and land managers to
    craft solutions to their site-specific problems. It could also
    require costly and possibly redundant analyses and reports and
    administrative agreements, while at the same time capping the
    administrative funding that could be spent, and would likely
    result in less funding going to prevention, education, and
    research factors that we believe, in addition to control and
    management, are critical to successfully addressing invasive
    species issues.
        For example, a number of provisions in the bill would
    reduce flexibility to address invasive species, both at the
    programmatic level and for Federal land managers. The 5-percent
    net reduction of invasive species, although a worthy goal
    required by Section 3(b), may not accomplish the intended goal
    of reducing the overall harm caused by invasive species, as it
    may preclude agencies from prioritizing actions to address the
    most harmful species, given the limited resources, and those
    new challenges we can't anticipate.
        In addition, Subsection 5(a) focuses on the cost of
    control, rather than the effectiveness of control, protection
    of human health and safety, and protection of native species,
    all of which we believe need to be considered when choosing a
    control method. This may limit options for land managers to
    craft their solutions to invasive species that vary so much by
    site, conditions, and climate.
        Moreover, departmental control programs and projects are
    often carried out already in conjunction with state, tribal,
    and local partners, by focusing solely on cost and net
    reduction, rather than on the overall effectiveness of the
    effort in a region. These provisions could unintentionally
    reduce Federal agency options to find innovative control
    methods and ways to work with our partners.
        So, in summary, as I am running out of time, these are just
    some of the major concerns we have with the way the bill is
    drafted. However, we very much appreciate the attention brought
    to this issue, the oversight hearing that you held, and want to
    continue to focus to work with you to limit and reduce the very
    severe problems caused by invasive species to our resources.
        Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Lori Williams, Executive Director, National
              Invasive Species Council, Department of the Interior

       H.R. 3994, ``The Federal Invasive Species Prevention, Control and
                                Management Act''

        Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, for the
    opportunity to provide the Department of the Interior's (Department)
    views on H.R. 3994, The Federal Invasive Species Prevention, Control
    and Management Act, introduced on February 5, 2014. While the
    Department supports the intent of the legislation to improve the
    management and control of invasive species on the lands and waters that
    it manages, as discussed below, we have concerns with the bill as
    introduced.
                                  introduction
        The Department of the Interior (Department) is actively engaged
    with preventing, controlling and managing invasive species to avoid and
    minimize the significant harm invasive species cause to our Nation's
    natural resources, including the Federal lands managed by the
    Department's bureaus. Every bureau within the Department has a
    responsibility for managing invasive species. Relative to this
    legislation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) supports tribal
    government efforts to control invasive species; the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM), the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Park Service (NPS) also have
    programs focused on management of aquatic and terrestrial invasive
    species that infest water systems and lands they manage.
        These bureaus also partner with states, tribes and the private
    sector to support efforts to prevent and control invasive species. By
    addressing invasive species through coordination, partnerships, and
    collaborative actions, the Department works to leverage limited
    resources to counter the impacts of invasive species across the
    landscape. Given the complexity and scope of invasive species impacts,
    the Department supports a comprehensive approach that includes
    prevention, early detection and rapid response, control, coordination,
    research and restoration--as the most effective way to protect our
    lands and waters from invasive species.
        H.R. 3994 would directly impact the invasive species programs of
    the BIA, BLM, BOR, NPS and FWS, and could indirectly affect other
    agencies' invasive species activities. The President's fiscal year 2014
    Budget for the Department included an increase of about $23 million to
    support these high priority programs, which were described in more
    detail in a statement submitted by the Department for the
    subcommittee's oversight hearing on invasive species on May 16, 2013.
                             comments on h.r. 3994
        As indicated at the beginning of this statement, the Department has
    concerns with the legislation. As written, it appears that H.R. 3994
    would reduce the flexibility of Federal program and land managers to
    craft solutions to their site specific problems; require costly and
    redundant analyses, reports and administrative agreements--while
    capping administrative funding; and would likely result in less funding
    going to prevention, education, and research, factors that are critical
    to successfully addressing invasive species issues.
        For example, a number of provisions in the bill would reduce
    flexibility to address invasive species both at the programmatic level
    and for Federal land managers. The 5-percent net reduction of invasive
    species required under Section 3(b) may not accomplish the goal of
    reducing the overall harm caused by invasive species, as it may
    preclude agencies from prioritizing actions to address the most harmful
    species and new challenges. In addition, Subsection 5(a) of the bill
    focuses on the cost of control rather than the effectiveness of
    control, protection of human health and safety, and protection of
    native species. This may limit options available to land managers who
    need to have a full range of treatment options available to control
    invasive species, which will vary by site, conditions and climate.
        Moreover, Departmental control programs and projects are often
    carried out in conjunction with state, tribal, and local partners. By
    focusing solely on cost and net reduction rather than overall
    effectiveness, these provisions could unintentionally reduce Federal
    agency options to find innovative, effective, and collaborative
    solutions to invasive species management. Coordination across
    jurisdictions is critical to invasive species prevention and control.
        As noted above, the bill also requires a number additional plans,
    analyses, reports, and agreements that are unnecessary or redundant,
    while at the same time capping administrative costs. These include a
    comparative economic assessment to be completed for each site specific
    control program, required by section 5(b), which we believe would be
    administratively burdensome; and a memorandum of understanding,
    required by section 6(a), to be developed with each cooperating
    partner. Department land management agencies currently have a number of
    existing cooperative agreements, contracts, or other arrangements with
    their partners that might have to be recreated to meet this
    requirement. The cost and time required to satisfy these provisions
    could delay or disrupt successful ongoing collaborative programs.
        H.R. 3994 would reduce funding for critical invasive species
    prevention, outreach and education, inventory and research programs. As
    written, H.R. 3994 does not appear to account for costs associated with
    documenting the presence and abundance of invasive species (inventory),
    tracing the relative success of treatments, or reporting the results in
    a standardized way so that progress and methods can be tracked and
    evaluated. Section 4 of the legislation would also restrict spending
    for investigations, outreach, and education. Public outreach and
    education have proven to be an effective tool in reducing new
    introductions; and research is needed to develop novel control methods
    or identify unknown impacts of invasive species that may need priority
    attention. The Department also opposes the administrative cost cap as
    it would diminish the effectiveness of invasive species programs.
    Oversight and program management are essential parts of invasive
    species activities and are included as administrative costs of the
    program.
        In addition, by focusing primarily on control and management, the
    bill could also divert funding from addressing harmful invasive species
    that cannot be controlled through on the ground management, but may be
    addressed through pathway interdiction and other means. Research has
    shown that the most cost effective and efficient approach to managing
    invasive species is to prevent their establishment in the first place;
    second, to detect infestations early and respond with rapid response to
    achieve eradication; and then manage infestations through control
    activities. By primarily focusing on control and management, the bill
    may reduce efforts to address species that cannot be managed by on the
    ground control efforts--but may be addressed through pathway
    interdiction or other means, including aquatic species such as zebra
    and quagga mussels and Asian carp. It will also constrain the existing
    ability of land management agencies to adaptively manage invasive
    species control efforts around prevention, research, restoration, and
    partnership goals.
        Finally, the Department is also concerned that the environmental,
    cultural, and other impacts of invasive species control activities
    would not be adequately considered given the bill's broad categorical
    exclusion for many invasive species control efforts from environmental
    analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The
    Department does not support such an expansive categorical exclusion,
    which would both eliminate an important opportunity for public
    involvement in land management decisions and ignore existing regulatory
    authority to conduct programmatic NEPA reviews. The categorical
    exclusion could also be detrimental to tribal interests if used without
    tribal consultation.
                                   conclusion
        The Department appreciates that H.R. 3994 provides additional
    recognition of the importance of controlling invasive species on
    Federal lands managed by its bureaus. However, the Department is
    concerned that the bill is unnecessarily restrictive and could
    unintentionally undermine important invasive species partnerships and
    programs. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
    this legislation. I would be happy to answer any questions.

     Comments on H.R. 4751, a bill to make technical corrections to Public
     Law 110-229 to reflect the renaming of the Bainbridge Island Japanese
      American Memorial to Bainbridge Island Japanese American Exclusion
                        Memorial, and for other purposes
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
    the Department of the Interior on H.R. 4751, to make technical
    corrections to Public Law 110-229 to reflect the renaming of the
    Bainbridge Island Japanese American Memorial to Bainbridge Island
    Japanese American Exclusion Memorial.

        The Department supports enactment of H.R. 4751.

        H.R. 4751 would update the law enacted in 2008 (Section 313 of
    Public Law 110-229) that included the Bainbridge Island Japanese
    American Memorial within the boundary of Minidoka National Historic
    Site. This 8-acre memorial was built on land owned jointly by the city
    of Bainbridge Island and the Bainbridge Island Park and Recreation
    District and is administered by the National Park Service in
    partnership with municipal and non-profit entities. The City Council
    and the Park and Recreation District recently renamed the memorial,
    adding the word ``Exclusion'' to its title. Passage of H.R. 4751 would
    ensure that there is consistency between the official name of the
    memorial and the memorial that the National Park Service is authorized
    to administer under Public Law 110-229. There will be only nominal cost
    associated with this legislation.
        We believe it was appropriate for the local authorities to add the
    word ``Exclusion'' to the memorial's name. Less than 4 months after the
    bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Americans living on Bainbridge
    Island, due to the island's close proximity to U.S. Navy facilities in
    Puget Sound, were the first 276 people of over 100,000 to be
    ``excluded'' under Executive Order 9066. The signs that were posted on
    Bainbridge Island that alerted the Japanese Americans that they had 6
    days' notice to prepare for departure for an unknown length of time
    clearly stated that Bainbridge Island was ``Civilian Exclusion Area No.
    1.'' Ultimately, exclusion orders would forcibly remove Japanese
    Americans from their homes in Alaska, the western halves of Oregon and
    Washington, the entire state of California, and the southern portion of
    Arizona. Nearly two-thirds of those incarcerated were American
    citizens.
        The National Park Service presently manages three other sites that
    interpret Japanese American incarceration: Manzanar National Historic
    Site in California, Minidoka National Historic Site in Idaho (not
    including the Bainbridge Island memorial, in Washington), and the Tule
    Lake unit of World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument in
    California. These sites were once the physical location of the Japanese
    American incarceration camps. The Bainbridge Island Japanese American
    Exclusion Memorial tells a related, but different, story. Bainbridge
    Island was not an incarceration camp; it was the very first place where
    Japanese Americans were taken from their homes, excluded from the
    mainstream population, and sent to incarceration camps. The Bainbridge
    Island memorial commemorates this history. It is not just a memorial to
    the Japanese Americans who lived on Bainbridge Island, as the original
    name implies; it is a memorial to all Japanese Americans who were
    ``excluded'' from the general population during the war, and unjustly
    denied their liberty and property.

        Mr. Chairman, that concludes the Department's testimony on H.R.
    4751.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. All right, Ms. Wagner, we will turn
    to you. We will take her extra--she went over 40 seconds; we
    will take it off of your number.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Bishop. From the Forest Service, please, you are
    recognized.

    STATEMENT OF MARY WAGNER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Ms. Wagner. Good morning, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
    Grijalva, members of the committee. In reference to the written
    statement, I am just going to offer a few points this morning
    on H.R. 3994, and the importance of invasive species
    management.
        So, first, I want to start with an appreciation for your
    work to craft a bill that addresses this important topic, and
    appreciate the work of the committee to address concerns that
    we have previously identified. I want to applaud your
    recognition that this issue is of great import to the Nation.
        USDA supports the goals and the use of collaborative
    partnerships set out in the Federal Lands Invasive Species
    Control, Prevention, and Management Act. Our written statement
    details the efforts of USDA agencies committed to the
    prevention, detection, control, management, and eradication of
    invasive species, and to restoring the structure and function
    of terrestrial and aquatic systems on all lands.
        We work to provide research, protection, technical, and
    financial assistance, partnerships, and treatment to reduce the
    impacts of invasive species. The Forest Service works
    extensively at local, county, state, tribal, and Federal
    levels, as well as with private stakeholders and non-
    governmental organizations to proactively implement invasive
    species management approaches across the broader landscape.
        Through an all-lands approach, the Forest Service provides
    a wide range of technical and financial assistance to help
    manage invasive species. The wide-ranging authorities of the
    Forest Service allow us to work with partners to combat
    invasive species across all lands, public and private. We also
    develop methods, tools, and approaches through which these
    harmful exotic species can be detected, prevented, controlled,
    and eradicated.
        To ensure the continued production of needed goods,
    services, and values from our Nation's terrestrial and aquatic
    systems, the Forest Service takes a strategic approach for
    managing invasive species across all program areas, much the
    same as the Council and Department of the Interior. This
    approach includes four main elements: prevention, detection,
    control and management, and restoration and rehabilitation.
    And, in our experience, all four elements are necessary to
    respond to invasive species.
        We believe USDA's collaborative approach to invasive
    species management enhances our ability to work together by
    building on each other's strengths and authorities, and
    appreciate the bill's language directing a partnership
    approach.
        We are concerned that the categorical exclusion in Section
    5 is overly broad, and could call into question our
    collaborative work with partners and other stakeholders. The
    Forest Service has successfully established categorical
    exclusions under existing authorities recently under
    restoration, and we could support a call for rulemaking to
    establish an appropriate and necessary categorical exclusion
    for invasive species. This would enable us to focus on gaps of
    our current categorical exclusions, and strengthen
    relationships as we do that.
        The 2014 Farm Bill provides for a designation of insect and
    disease treatment areas. And projects, if they meet certain
    criteria, can be categorically excluded from documentation in
    an EA or EIS. And there are also limitations on the use of the
    categorical exclusion in that bill. Perhaps that approach would
    be valuable to assess. So we would welcome, and we are
    interested in working with the subcommittee to address these
    concerns. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Mary Wagner, Associate Chief, U.S. Forest
                    Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before you today on the role of the Forest
    Service in protecting forests and grasslands from invasive species. The
    Forest Service is only one of several agencies of the U.S. Department
    of Agriculture (USDA) committed to the prevention, detection, control,
    management and eradication of invasive species, and to restoring the
    structure and function of affected aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems
    on all lands. As such, the USDA supports the goals and use of
    collaborative partnerships set out in the Federal Lands Invasive
    Species Control, Prevention, and Management Act and looks forward to
    working with the subcommittee to address some concerns.
                                   background
        Invasive species are among the most significant environmental and
    economic threats facing our Nation. Aquatic and terrestrial invasive
    plants, pathogens, vertebrates, invertebrates, algae, and fungi have
    become established on millions of acres across North America. These
    infestations are degrading watershed condition and ecosystem
    functionality, reducing forest and rangeland productivity, increasing
    the risk of wildfire and soil erosion, causing declines in recreational
    use and enjoyment, negatively impacting human health and safety,
    threatening native fish and wildlife populations and their associated
    habitats, causing declines in property values, and undermining the
    economy at all levels. Invasive species cause billions of dollars in
    damage each year in the United States. Pimentel et al. (2001) estimated
    damage from invasive species worldwide totaled at more than $1.4
    trillion per year.
        Burgeoning global trade and transportation have facilitated the
    spread of many species among continents well beyond their native range.
    With the number of people living in, enjoying, and using forests,
    grasslands, and water resources continually increasing, the likelihood
    of invasive species spreading through transportation and recreational
    activities is also rising. As a result, many species of invasive
    plants, pathogens, vertebrates, invertebrates, and other harmful exotic
    species have been introduced to our Nation's aquatic and terrestrial
    ecosystems. Many of these have become established within these
    ecosystems.
            responsibilities and capabilities of the forest service
        The Forest Service plays an important role in the Nation's efforts
    to address the threat of invasive species across the landscape through
    our National Forest System, State and Private Forestry, Research and
    Development, and International program areas. In this testimony we will
    explore how individually and collectively these programs work together
    to address invasive species threats.
        With internationally recognized land management and scientific
    expertise, the Forest Service is well suited to address the many
    challenges of invasive species. The Forest Service continues to play an
    important national and international leadership role in advancing the
    understanding of the invasive species problem. The wide ranging
    authorities of the Forest Service allow us to work with partners to
    combat invasive species across all lands, public and private. We also
    develop methods, tools, and approaches, through which these harmful
    exotic species can be detected, prevented, controlled, and eradicated.
        At the national, regional, state and local levels the Forest
    Service works extensively with county, state, tribal, Federal, and
    private stakeholders to proactively implement invasive species
    management activities across the broader landscape. Through an ``all
    lands approach'' the Forest Service provides a wide range of technical
    and financial assistance to help manage invasive species. The Forest
    Service works closely with state forestry agencies to implement State
    Forest Action Plans to protect forest from threats.
        The Forest Service has also been a major financial supporter for
    the establishment of Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs) and
    Cooperative Invasive Species Management Areas (CISMAs) for nearly two
    decades, under the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's ``Pulling
    Together Initiative'' grant program. This Federal grant program led to
    the establishment and sustainability of dozens of CWMA and CISMA areas
    across the Nation to expand public and private partnerships against
    invasive species.
        In each region of the country, the Forest Service is also a partner
    in implementing priority invasive species management actions identified
    in state invasive species management plans, supporting the
    implementation of the invasive species components of State Wildlife
    Action Plans, helping to develop local and regional invasive species
    management strategies, and providing local support to prevent the
    spread of invasive species. As an example, the Forest Service plays
    several important roles in implementing the USDA obligations and
    priorities under the national Quagga-Zebra Mussel Action Plan,
    developed through a Federal-State collaboration to prevent and control
    the spread of these high-risk invasive mussels across the United
    States. These partnerships help achieve our agency watershed
    restoration and protection goals.
        The Forest Service also provides interagency leadership and support
    as a member of the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of
    Noxious and Exotic Weeds, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, and
    the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Invasive
    Terrestrial Animals and Pathogens. In addition, the Forest Service
    serves as an active member of the Invasive Species Committee of the
    Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Through these partnerships
    the Forest Service continues to expand national and state efforts to
    address the invasive species threat.
             forest service invasive species management activities
        As one of the largest Federal land management agencies in the
    country, the Forest Service has the responsibility for the stewardship
    of over 193 million acres of public lands within the National Forest
    System. This vast and nationally significant system extends from Alaska
    to the Caribbean, and includes examples of nearly every type of aquatic
    and terrestrial ecosystem in North America. These lands and waters are
    under tremendous pressures from aquatic and terrestrial invasive
    plants, algae, pathogens, fungi, vertebrates, and invertebrates.
    Effective management of these harmful exotic species which threaten the
    National Forest System and all lands is a critical part of the agency's
    land stewardship responsibility.
        The recognition that national forests and grasslands play a key
    role in the local, regional, and national battle against aquatic and
    terrestrial invasive species is reflected by the annual expansion of
    on-the-ground management efforts to address a wide range of invasive
    species challenges. To accelerate this expansion, a new national
    Invasive Species Management Policy for the National Forest System was
    issued to the field in late 2011. It is viewed as a comprehensive
    national policy for invasive species management in the Federal land
    management sector. The new policy defines and clarifies the
    authorities, scope, roles, and responsibilities associated with
    National Forest System management activities against aquatic and
    terrestrial invasive species. A few examples of the requirements in
    this new policy include:

         Requiring that Forests work closely with local
                communities, including state, local, and tribal interests,
                to address a variety of invasive species challenges across
                the landscape.
         Increasing program transparency, performance
                accountability, and management effectiveness against
                priority aquatic and terrestrial invasive species at all
                levels.
         Requiring the use of invasive species-free materials and
                products, and the decontamination of vehicles and equipment
                to reduce the spread of aquatic and terrestrial invasive
                species to, and from, national forests and grasslands.
         Prioritizing prevention, and early detection and rapid
                response, activities to maximize management efficiency over
                time.

        Forest Service invasive species management performance is outcome
    driven, with a focus on treating and restoring priority areas to
    improve watershed condition and reduce the long-term impacts of
    invasive species. To achieve this, national forests and grasslands
    typically treat nearly 400,000 acres of priority aquatic and
    terrestrial invasive species infestations annually using an integrated
    management approach. Since 2007, more than 2 million acres of lands and
    waters have been restored to protect against aquatic and terrestrial
    invasive species across National Forest System lands and waters; with
    very high treatment efficacy rates each year.
        The Forest Service's State and Private Forestry programs provide a
    wide range of assistance to states, tribes, and others to better manage
    private and other public natural resources. The Forest Service provides
    technical and financial assistance to state natural resource and
    agricultural agencies, tribal governments, and other Federal land
    management agencies to respond to and manage forest pests that threaten
    the Nation's 851 million acres of rural and urban forests of all
    ownerships. The Urban and Community Forestry program works with
    community partners in the detection, monitoring, containment, and when
    possible, eradication of invasive species and provides funding and
    technical assistance to states to support canopy restoration and
    management.
        We also work closely with sister USDA agencies to coordinate
    prevention and management of invasive species across all lands. USDA
    has the largest Federal role in invasive species management because of
    its responsibility to offer technical assistance to responsible
    agencies who quarantine goods coming into the country; manage more than
    193 million acres of national forests and grasslands; conduct research;
    and provide technical assistance to the private sector and in large
    agricultural pest control projects. The USDA Agricultural Research
    Service (ARS) conducts research in extremely diverse areas involving
    prevention, control and management of invasive species. For example,
    ARS provides research in support of action agencies such as the Animal
    and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), to reduce the rate of
    introduction of invasive species, and to rapidly detect, identify and
    eradicate incipient species.
        APHIS is a multi-faceted agency with a broad mission area that
    includes protecting and promoting U.S. agricultural health, regulating
    certain genetically engineered organisms, administering the Animal
    Welfare Act and carrying out wildlife damage management activities.
    APHIS's mission has expanded over the years to include protection of
    public health and safety as well as natural resources that are
    vulnerable to invasive pests and pathogens.
        The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has become a
    conservation leader for all natural resources, ensuring private lands
    are conserved, restored, and more resilient to a changing climate. NRCS
    helps agriculture producers and private landowners tackle invasive
    species problems in four major ways: technical and financial assistance
    to manage invasive species; conservation initiatives that work at a
    landscape scale to address natural resource concerns, including
    invasive species; Conservation Innovation Grants with partner entities
    to support development and implementation of innovative approaches and
    strategies to address invasive species; and Plant Materials Center
    research geared toward invasive plant species management and restoring
    areas where invasive plant species have been removed.
        The Forest Service Forest Health Protection program directs and
    implements measures to prevent, detect, contain, and suppress unwanted
    native and invasive insects, pathogens, and plants affecting trees and
    forests. Since the start of fiscal year 2014, State and Private
    Forestry programs have provided $1.8 million in essential matching
    funds and technical assistance to state governments to combat
    economically significant weed threats to state and private forest
    lands. Since 2000, the Forest Service, working in partnership with
    states and other Federal agencies, has implemented a national Slow the
    Spread (STS) strategy to minimize the rate at which gypsy moth spreads
    into uninfested areas. The STS program has reduced the spread of gypsy
    moth more than 60 percent from the historical level of 13 miles per
    year. In only 12 years, this program has prevented impacts on more than
    100 million acres.
        Forest Health Protection and partners from cooperating states
    conduct an annual collaborative forest pest surveys on over 400 million
    acres of Federal and cooperative forest land. Additionally, we have
    developed a pest Web site (http://foresthealth.fs.usda.gov/portal/Flex/
    APE) and the annual report, Major Forest Insect and Disease Conditions
    in the United States (http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/
    ConditionsReport_2012.pdf), to track and report on invasive insects and
    diseases affecting our Nation's forests.
        In fiscal year 2013, Forest Service Research and Development
    delivered 193 invasive species tools including the identification of
    key pathways for invasion by new forest pests; best management
    practices for significantly reducing invasive plants spread during
    timber harvesting operations; evaluating the establishment of a
    biological control agent for emerald ash borer (EAB); and a model of
    future pest risk that can be used to make prevention efforts more cost
    effective.
        The Forest Service International Programs also work to protect our
    forests from invasive species damage. For example, the program works
    with Chinese counterparts who have partnered with us to address one of
    the most destructive invasive forest pests, the EAB. The Forest Service
    continues to work with ARS to better understand why the borer is so
    resilient and pervasive. This will help predict and prevent potential
    future outbreaks by related wood boring beetles. With an aim of
    identifying biocontrol mechanisms, a partnership was formed between the
    Forest Service's Northern Research Station, the ARS and counterparts in
    China. With support from International Programs, the team is working to
    find natural enemies of EAB in its native range.
               strategic approach to invasive species management
        To ensure the continued production of needed goods, services, and
    values from our Nation's terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, the Forest
    Service takes a strategic approach for managing invasive species across
    all program areas. This approach includes prevention, early detection
    and rapid response, control and management, restoration and
    rehabilitation, and technical assistance.
    Prevention
        The most effective strategy to protect forests, waterways, and
    grasslands from invasive species is to prevent invasive species
    introduction and establishment. Containing known infestations is also
    important for blocking the spread of invasive species from infested
    lands to surrounding areas. We coordinate with Federal and state
    regulatory agencies to understand pathways for introductions, implement
    quarantine regulations, survey for invasive species, and educate the
    public about invasive pest threats and how to prevent the spread of
    invasive species.
        Forest Service researchers in partnership with APHIS are working
    with industry partners to reduce the introduction of invasives into the
    United States through shipments of wood products and packaging and the
    live plant trade. Additionally, Forest Service scientists and managers
    at the Eastern and Western Threat Centers are working closely with
    domestic and international partners to develop a comprehensive database
    for prediction, prevention, and proactive management of invasive
    plants. A public education campaign developed by the Forest Service in
    partnership with Wildlife Forever recruits hunters, anglers, and
    recreational boaters to help prevent the spread of aquatic invasive
    species such as quagga and zebra mussels and Eurasian milfoil.
    Early Detection and Rapid Response
        As a critical second-line of defense against invasive species
    threats, the Forest Service develops and implements efficient survey
    and monitoring tools and technologies to facilitate early detection of
    aquatic and terrestrial invasive species across the landscape,
    including in urban areas, and to rapidly assess their potential impact
    on the environment. Using a coordinated and collaborative approach with
    local, state, tribal, and other Federal partners, the Forest Service is
    then able to respond rapidly to new infestations to eradicate or
    contain those populations before the can spread.
        The Forest Service has supported development of a mapping system
    used nationally by cooperating agencies and weed management
    organizations to document distribution of invasive species, and has
    developed an integrated user interface to efficiently collect and map
    inventory and treatment information for all terrestrial and aquatic
    invasive species across the National Forest System. Additionally,
    Forest Service scientists developed a test capable of detecting the
    fungal pathogen that causes white-nose syndrome (WNS) in bats. The test
    is being used to identify infested caves, so that Forest Service and
    other land managers might selectively restrict access to those caves
    and mines to help slow the spread of WNS.
    Control and Management
        The Forest Service directly intervenes to manage populations of
    invasive species that threaten forest and grassland health and
    sustainability. Rapid response following early detection is used to
    eradicate new infestations. If eradication is not feasible, Integrated
    Pest Management (IPM) and adaptive management techniques are
    implemented to help maintain ecosystem function. This includes research
    and management to increase the resilience of threatened ecosystems to
    mitigate the impacts of pests. Using new research tools, and the
    authorities and requirements defined within our new Invasive Species
    Management Policy (Forest Service Manual 2900), the Forest Service
    coordinates closely with external stakeholders to implement effective
    control and management activities on millions of priority areas
    throughout the National Forest System.
        For example, the Jackson and Buffalo Ranger Districts of the
    Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming include the majority of the
    land within the Jackson Hole Weed Management Association, where the
    Forest Service identified approximately 7,000 priority acres for early
    detection and immediate eradication efforts. In total, the Forest
    Service successfully eradicated 15 priority species from those 7,000
    acres. When oak trees started dying in the San Francisco Bay Region,
    the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station developed a
    collaborative research response that helped identify the cause--a water
    mold previously unknown to science. The combined efforts of the Forest
    Service with APHIS and numerous partners via the California Oak
    Mortality Task Force have reduced the human-assisted spread of Sudden
    Oak Death and helped communities in the 14 infested coastal counties in
    California and Oregon deal with the infestation.
    Restoration and Rehabilitation
        Restoring landscapes that have been impacted by invasive species or
    associated management activities is necessary for improving ecosystem
    integrity and function and may reduce vulnerability to invasive species
    establishment in the future. Restoring and maintaining the health,
    functions, and productivity of areas affected by invasive species is
    consistent with management guidance on restoring national forests and
    the effective use of native species.
        For example, In order to restore cutthroat trout populations to
    streams, non-native trout are replaced with genetically pure cutthroat
    populations. After a decade of restoration efforts, Cherry Creek, on
    the Gallatin National Forest, now contains the largest genetically pure
    population of this cutthroat trout subspecies in the upper Missouri
    River drainage area. The Forest Service strives to utilize cost-
    effective methods; however we note the importance of providing
    discretion to land managers to choose appropriate methods, in full
    consideration of a balance of land management objectives. There may be
    situations in which the lowest cost option for invasive species
    management is not the best option for achieving multiple objectives on
    the landscape.
    Technical Assistance
        The U.S. Forest Service has some concerns that we welcome working
    with the subcommittee to address. We are concerned with establishing
    categorical exclusions without input from those most affected by their
    application, and are concerned that the categorical exclusion in
    section 5(c) is overly broad and could call into question our
    collaborative work with partners and other stakeholders. The Forest
    Service has successfully established categorical exclusions under
    existing authorities, such as those focused on restoration, and could
    support a call for a rulemaking to establish any appropriate and
    necessary categorical exclusions for invasive species. This would
    enable us to focus on gaps in current categorical exclusions and
    strengthen our relationships with our partners and other stakeholders.
                                   conclusion
        The invasive species issue is considered a high priority by all
    program areas of the U.S. Forest Service. We believe the Forest Service
    collaborative approach to invasive species management enhances our
    ability to work together by building on each other's strengths and
    authorities. In addition, our Forest Service personnel work closely
    with local, county, state, and tribal governments; Cooperative Weed
    Management Areas; Cooperative Invasive Species Management Areas; our
    departmental partners NRCS, ARS and APHIS; and other organizations in
    the public and private sectors to promote a collaborative approach to
    mitigate, manage, and if necessary, adapt to aquatic and terrestrial
    invasive species threats across the landscape.
        I would like to thank the Chairman and subcommittee members for
    your interest in invasive species management, and look forward to
    working with you to refine some aspects of this bill. I welcome any
    questions you may have for me at this time.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate it. We will now turn to
    Dr. George Beck from the Healthy Habitats Coalition. I
    understand you are also at Colorado State University. Is that
    correct?
        Dr. Beck. That is correct, sir.
        Mr. Bishop. We will recognize you for 5 minutes, please.

      STATEMENT OF GEORGE BECK, HEALTHY HABITATS COALITION, FORT
                           COLLINS, COLORADO

        Dr. Beck. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
    Grijalva, and members of the subcommittee. I again thank you
    for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Dr.
    George Beck, I am a professor of weed science at Colorado State
    University. And today I represent the Healthy Habitats
    Coalition, and we are a diverse coalition dedicated to
    improving invasive species management in our country.
        In spite of almost three decades of effort by many
    organizations working to persuade the Federal Government to do
    a better job of controlling and managing invasive species,
    insufficient progress has been made. Zebra and quagga mussels,
    New Zealand mud snails, Burmese pythons, feral hogs, emerald
    ash borers, Asian carp, they are all spreading very rapidly.
    And some invasive species, such as cheatgrass, alter a habitat
    so significantly as to cause a decline in native species, and
    specifically, the greater sage-grouse, to the point of
    potentially being listed as endangered.
        Indeed, impacts caused by invasive species are daunting.
    And the list of invasive species is long, but quite manageable,
    including managing cheatgrass to successfully recover sage-
    grouse habitat. Health Habitats Coalition collective experience
    is with invasive weeds, and I will focus on them to show the
    need for substantial improvement, and how H.R. 3994 will
    rectify the situation.
        [Slide]
        The data in this table show the number of infested acres
    treated and restored, and the increase of infested acres for
    six Federal agencies that have responsibility to manage
    invasive species. And these data are from the year 2009. As you
    can see, only 3.2 percent of existing infested acres were
    treated and restored in 2009. And weed scientists indicate and
    agree that invasive species spread at about an average rate of
    12 percent, and this is annual expansion. Next slide, please.
        [Slide]
        Treating, restoring only 3.2 percent of acres annually,
    coupled with the 12 percent increase, indicates that acres
    infested with weeds on Federal land will double by 2017 and
    will surpass 100 million acres by 2018. Next slide.
        [Slide]
        Federal agencies are acquiring about three-and-a-half times
    more acres of invasive weeds annually than they are treating
    and restoring. This plan will never be successful, and will
    continuously produce more and more infested acres, thus
    preventing realization of land management goals and objectives.
        Just as importantly, these ever-expanding acres of invasive
    weeds on federally managed lands will serve as a constant
    source of propagules to disperse to new locations. HAC
    recommends that Federal agencies treat and restore at least 15
    to 17 percent of existing infested acres annually to overcome
    this management deficit. And that would equate, then, to a net
    reduction of 5 percent. Next slide.
        [Slide]
        The data in this table show that within 10 years 19.2
    million acres would be treated and restored using this plan I
    just described, which represents the 39 percent decrease of
    infested acres, as opposed to an over 120 percent increase,
    using their current approach.
        In addition to treating and restoring many more acres
    annually than Federal agencies currently do, they also must be
    more efficient and effective with taxpayer dollars. Next slide.
        [Slide]
        H.R. 3994 will provide the much-needed stimulus for Federal
    agencies to create and implement comprehensive and effective
    invasive management programs to improve invasive species
    management in our country.
        The legislation also creates a fiscal paradigm shift by
    requiring at least 75 percent of existing invasive species
    funds to be spent on the ground to decrease their populations.
    It also limits the administrative expenses to 10 percent or
    less, and allows up to 15 percent of the funds to be spent on
    research and development and educational efforts. This
    outstanding formula will significantly enhance fiscal and
    biological efficiency.
        Prevention is the keystone of invasive species management.
    It is recognized under the definition of managing it, and is
    essential because we must constantly be vigilant of pathways
    for introduction of new invasive species to avoid their
    occurrences in our country. Preventing existing populations of
    invasive organisms in the United States from spreading to new
    locations, however, also is a very powerful and critical
    prevention measure that is often overlooked.
        H.R. 3994 represents the necessary solution to our national
    invasive species problem. This legislation will allow Federal,
    state, and local government land managers, private enterprise,
    and private land owners to work together to achieve continuity
    by implementing a cooperative and borderless solution for this
    insidious problem. The time for action is upon us. We must stop
    kicking this can down the road.
        Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you again
    for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing.
        And I am happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Beck follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Dr. George Beck, Healthy Habitats Coalition,
                             Fort Collins, Colorado
             Professor of Weed Science at Colorado State University
           H.R. 3994, a New Paradigm for Invasive Species Management
        Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
    today. My name is Dr. George Beck and I am a professor of weed science
    at Colorado State University. I am appearing before you today
    representing the Healthy Habitats Coalition, a diverse coalition of
    land managers, conservation organizations, private companies, and
    academics such as myself, focused on improving invasive species
    management by all sectors in our country, but especially by Federal
    land management agencies. I would like to take this time to describe
    the problem and how passage and implementation of H.R. 3994 will
    rectify this issue.
    Invasive Species Overview and Situation to Date
        Invasive species is an insidious and occasionally sinister economic
    and environmental issue--it is not new. Canada thistle, for example,
    was first declared noxious in the United States in 1795 in Vermont. A
    little overgrazing by one user, in this instance, opened the door for
    invasion of the common area by Canada thistle, which in turn decreased
    everyone else's ability to raise the sustenance needed to survive. It
    was the tragedy of the commons where one person's use of the
    environment influenced the next person's use and invasive species
    continue to plague us in this fashion to this day.
        In the 1980s, many western states public and private land managers
    were highly dissatisfied with how Federal land management agencies were
    managing noxious and invasive weeds. The Intermountain Noxious Weed
    Advisory Council (INWAC) was formed in 1987. INWAC was a grass roots
    organization whose goal was to educate Federal agency decisionmakers
    and Congress about the problems associated with noxious and invasive
    weeds and the need for much enhanced management by Federal agencies in
    particular. In 1990, INWAC helped write and secure passage of Section
    2814 of the Federal Noxious Weed Act, which requires all Federal
    agencies to manage noxious weeds in cooperation with state and local
    governments. Furthermore, the law specifically requires that any
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assessment that must be
    produced be completed within 1 year and Section 2814 presently remains
    the law of the land. Some Federal agencies have not yet complied with
    Section 2814.
        In 1996, INWAC along with several noted invasive species scientists
    from across the United States met with President Bill Clinton's Science
    Advisors to voice their dissatisfaction with the management of invasive
    species by Federal agencies. The administration at that time disagreed
    but a letter of protest about invasive species management in the United
    States signed by 500 scientists was an outcome of that meeting and
    found its way to the highest administrative offices. As a result,
    Executive Order 13112 was issued by President Clinton in 1999. The
    National Invasive Species Council (NISC) was formed, which was
    comprised of eight of the President's Cabinet Secretaries and co-
    chaired by the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. E.O.
    13112 created the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) which
    along with NISC staff created all the National Invasive Species
    Management Plans over the past 13 years. ISAC also wrote and published
    a guidance paper for all Federal agencies clearly defining what
    constitutes an invasive species--i.e., what is, and just as
    importantly, what is not an invasive species (see Addendum).
        The National Invasive Weed Awareness week in Washington, DC started
    in 2001 and evolved recently into the National Invasive Species
    Awareness Week. The goal was to heighten the awareness about invasive
    species among Federal agency decisionmakers and Members of Congress. We
    were successful and our elected leaders in particular understand that
    invasive species indeed is an insidious issue albeit, a competing
    priority that has fallen short of the action that is clearly needed.
    Current status and necessary steps to take:
        In spite of almost three decades of work with the Federal
    Government to control and manage invasive species, little progress has
    been made and what progress that has occurred is grossly insufficient
    on a national scale. A multitude of taxa require our immediate
    management attention; zebra and quagga mussels, New Zealand mudsnails,
    Burmese pythons, feral hogs, emerald ash borers, gypsy moths, Asian
    carp, snakehead fish, and some invasive species such as cheatgrass,
    impact native species like the Greater Sage-grouse causing their
    populations to be imperiled increasing the probability of it being
    listed as endangered! The list of invasive species is daunting but
    manageable. The Healthy Habitat Coalition's collective experience is
    with invasive weeds and we will focus on the continued growth of weed
    species, as examples, and the need for better control and management
    measures on lands and waterways throughout the country. The data in
    Table 1 outline the amount of infested acres, the amount of acres
    treated, and the increase of infested acres for the six major Federal
    agencies who have jurisdiction over invasive species.
       table 1. magnitude of federal agency invasive weed management fy09
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8697.001

        .epsThese data clearly show that only 3.2 percent of existing acres
    infested with invasive weeds were treated and restored in 2009. Weed
    scientists indicate that a typical rate of spread for weeds is 12 to 16
    percent annually (Duncan and Clark 2005). Treating and restoring only
    3.2 percent of infested acres annually coupled with a 12 percent
    increase indicates that the FY 2009 infested acres on federally managed
    lands will double by 2017 and will surpass 100 million acres by 2018
    (Table 2). Because the rate of invasive weed spread apparently is not
    recognized or at least accounted for, Federal agencies are acquiring
    3.5 times more acres of invasive weeds annually than they are treating
    and restoring. This is a plan that decidedly will never be successful
    and will continuously produce more and more infested acres thus,
    preventing realization of land management goals and objectives. Just as
    importantly, these ever-expanding acres of invasive weeds on federally
    managed lands will serve as a constant source of propagules to disperse
    to neighboring lands and those distant to the infested site--this
    includes continued expansion of cheatgrass, which could lead to listing
    the Greater Sage-grouse as endangered! HHC recommends that Federal
    agencies treat and restore at least 15 percent of their infested acres
    annually to successfully decrease acres of invasive weeds on lands they
    manage on behalf of the American public. Additionally, our Nation must
    create a borderless collaboration among Federal agencies, states and
    their land management agencies, and private land owners and land
    managers for invasive species management. Invasive species do not
    recognize political borders and we must overcome the barriers that
    prevent borderless collaboration to be successful.
    table 2. performance assessment of invasive weed management by federal
                         agencies over a 10-year period

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Solution to Federal Agency Performance Managing Invasive Weeds

        Federal agencies must treat and restore at least 15 percent of
    existing infested acres in any given year to overcome their management
    deficit (Table 3). Table 3 is similar to Table 2 but is based upon
    treating and restoring 15 percent of infested acres annually. Within 10
    years, 19.2 million acres would be treated and restored, which
    represents a 39 percent decrease of acres infested with invasive weeds
    on federally managed lands as opposed to their current thrust where
    over 100 million new acres would be infested (Table 2) over the same
    time period! In addition to treating and restoring many more acres
    annually than Federal agencies currently do, they also must be more
    efficient and effective with taxpayer dollars. A paper addressing this
    issue is included in the addendum.
     table 3. a positive outcome if federal agencies treat and restore at
        least 15 percent of acres infested with invasive weeds annually

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Invasive Species Management by Federal Agencies

        It is abundantly clear that the management by Federal agencies for
    invasive species is not sufficient to slow the growing problem. The
    very nature of invasive species is to increase their populations in
    their new home seemingly without bounds until habitats are saturated
    (Figure 3) thus; current invasive species management by agencies is
    grossly insufficient.
         figure 3. typical population growth curve for invasive species

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    H.R. 3994
        H.R. 3994, Federal Lands Invasive Species Control, Prevention, and
    Management Act, will provide the much needed stimulus for Federal
    agencies to create and implement comprehensive and effective invasive
    species management programs that will launch an era of cooperation and
    collaboration by private and public entities to improve invasive
    species management in our country. H.R. 3994 requires the Secretaries
    of Agriculture and Interior to create and adequately fund invasive
    species management programs for the land management agencies under
    their direction. While H.R. 3994 focuses on USDA and USDI land
    management agencies, it clearly states that the bill does not usurp
    invasive species management efforts by other Federal departments and
    agencies. Fiscal accountability is of paramount importance and the bill
    further requires that at least 75 percent of the developed invasive
    species budgets be spent on-the-ground to decrease their populations
    while up 15 percent can be spent on education, awareness, and research,
    and up to 10 percent can be spent on administration. This is an
    outstanding formula that will significantly enhance fiscal and
    biological efficiency. Prevention is the foundation for invasive
    species management and H.R. 3994 emphasizes this essential management
    component. Pathways of introduction for invasive species must be
    managed but preventing existing populations of invasive organisms in
    the United States from spreading to new locations also is a very
    powerful and critical prevention measure.
        Many university professors with extension appointments have spent
    considerable time over the past 25 years educating and training the
    Federal land management workforce about invasive species and their
    management. To be sure, there are some shinning lights within the
    Federal system with regard to invasive species management. For example,
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spent about 42 percent of their FY09
    ``invasive species budget'' to control and manage invasive species and
    the National Park Service spent 100 percent of their FY09 ``invasive
    species budget'' on control and management, and the majority of these
    monies were spent on invasive weeds. So it is clear that if an agency
    or department desires to manage all taxa associated with this insidious
    problem, they can do so! Furthermore, if those agencies with land
    holdings in the western United States associated with Greater Sage-
    grouse habitat would effectively manage cheatgrass, habitat recovery
    for the bird likely would ensue thus, aiding bird populations and
    avoiding the draconian land use changes that would be associated with
    endangerment status. We possess the knowledge to succeed but we must
    summons the will to do so and H.R. 3994 provides the means to be
    successful!
        Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you again for the
    opportunity to testify at today's hearing and present the facts related
    to invasive species. I am happy to answer any questions.
                                    ADDENDUM

     fy09 national invasive species council invasive species expenditures
                                  compilation

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Economics of Invasive Weed Control: Chemical, Manual/Physical/fire,
                           Biological, Doing Nothing
      K. George Beck, Professor of Weed Science, Colorado State University
    FY09 NISC budget:
        The National Invasive Species Council staff assembled an annual
    ``invasive species budget'' by collecting data from Federal agencies
    and placing that information into one of seven categories that are
    associated with the National Invasive Species Management Plan. In FY09,
    the Federal Government spent $1.563 billion (Figure 1) on invasive
    species stating that $642 million was spent on control and management,
    which is one of the NISC budget categories. HHC members have years of
    experience helping to design weed management strategies and systems and
    our calculations differ substantially from the Federal data. From Table
    1, Federal agencies indicate they treated and restored 1,603,805 acres
    infested with invasive weeds in FY09. Our calculations suggest the
    following when Early Detect and Rapid Response (EDRR) is budgeted at
    $1,000/acre, restoration at $300/acre, and control with a herbicide at
    $100/acre:

        $291,000,000 spent on EDRR  $1,000/acre = 291,000 acres EDRR
    treated;

        $50,520,000 spent on restoration  $300/acre = 168,400 acres
    restored;

        1,603,805 acres ^ 291,000 EDRR treated-acres ^ 168,400 acres
    restored = 1,143,505 acres remaining for direct weed control.
    Calculating at $100/acre to control invasive weeds with a herbicide
    equates to $114,350,500 spent by Federal agencies to decrease their
    population abundance, which is the first logical step in any weed
    management system. Based on HHC calculations, far less appears to have
    been spent on control and management than the data stated by the
    Federal agencies (Figure 2).
                  figure 1. nisc fy09 invasive species budget

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     figure 2. hhc's recalculated nisc budget impacts based on average
                                 cost analysis

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        APHIS projects to control invasive insects and taxa other than
    invasive weeds comprise about two-thirds of the control and management
    budget categories. There remains about $305 million that cannot be
    readily placed into one of the NISC budget categories and it is highly
    likely that Federal agencies are spending more per acre to control
    invasive weeds than is necessary because they are not using the most
    cost-efficient tools and high labor expenses.
    Financial Costs/Acre and Impacts to Budgets
        Regardless of whether working for private enterprise or government,
    land management personnel must stretch limited budgets yet be effective
    simultaneously. Labor most often is the most expensive portion of any
    weed management project. It is incumbent upon land managers to use
    methods that minimize labor costs and this is especially so with public
    land managers because they are dependent upon tax dollars to execute
    their programs.
        Using herbicides or biological control agents to decrease the
    population abundance of a target invasive weed represent those
    approaches that utilize the least labor to effect initial/continued
    reduction of targets species. Biocontrol is developed with public funds
    and this is the primary reason that it seems inexpensive to the end
    user, including Federal agencies. Biocontrol is a very attractive and
    highly useful approach to control invasive weed species but success has
    been inconsistent in space and time. There are numerous successful
    biocontrol endeavors and the literature has many examples. The Fire
    Effects Information System Web site managed by USDA-Forest Service is
    one of the best and most complete information sources for the biology
    and management of many invasive weed species (http://www.fs.fed.us/
    database/feis/). Another outstanding source of information on managing
    invasive weeds recently became available--Weed Control in Natural Areas
    in the Western United States by Joseph DiTomaso et al. (2013). It too
    describes where and upon what species biocontrol has been successful
    and extensively outlines all management options. If biocontrol is the
    method of choice, land managers must carefully research choices for
    their effectiveness. The spatial and temporal variation associated with
    biocontrol performance can be due to many genetic and environmental
    reasons from habitat preference by the biocontrol agent to the
    production of new genotypes from previously geographically separated
    genotypes now growing in proximity to one another, and many as yet to
    be discovered reasons.
        Fire too can be a good tool to decrease populations (DiTomaso et
    al. 2006) of some invasive weeds, most notably annual grasses and forbs
    such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) or medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-
    medusae) and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). As with other
    integrated management systems for weeds, use of fire to manage invasive
    weeds must be integrated with other tools such as seeding to provide
    competition to ward off recovering weed species and allow completion of
    land management goals and objectives. Burning mixed brush-cheatgrass
    stands destroys some to many weed seeds and allows for about one season
    to establish desirable vegetation before cheatgrass re-establishes and
    dominates the site again (Evans and Young 1978; Young and Evans 1978;
    Young 2000). Establishing competitive perennial grass species may
    successfully keep cheatgrass from re-establishing. If, however, the
    system is left alone after burning, cheatgrass or medusahead will re-
    invade. Burning stands of yellow starthistle also will provide
    excellent population control if combined with herbicide treatment and
    seeding (DiTomaso et al. 2006b). Burning stands of perennial weeds such
    as Canada thistle, leafy spurge, Russian and other knapweeds, or
    tamarisk rarely is effective because of the plants' capability to re-
    grow from its root system and dominate a site again. These and other
    similar invasive weeds may recover soon enough after a prescribed burn
    to preclude establishment of seeded species. If fire is used to control
    perennial forbs or grasses, herbicides likely will have to be
    integrated into the management system to allow sufficient suppression
    of the target weed for a long enough time to give seeded species the
    opportunity to establish.
        Of all the methods used to decrease weed population abundance,
    herbicides are the most researched and arguably the best understood. In
    the course of their development, consistent spatial and temporal
    performance is an extremely important consideration for a product to
    reach the consumer. Because of known performance developed from
    extensive research and the decreased labor associated with their use,
    herbicides often represent the most cost-effective means to use
    taxpayer dollars to decrease invasive weed populations so land
    restoration or rehabilitation may proceed.
        The decision to do nothing seems inexpensive and harmless on the
    surface but nothing could be farther from reality. The problem with
    invasive species is their populations always seem to expand and cause
    harm, albeit, a species can be problematic in one location or setting
    and not another (Beck et al. 2008). Most invasive species and certainly
    invasive weed populations develop in a sigmoid curve pattern and after
    a lag time following introduction, their populations increase
    exponentially until site saturation when their populations are limited
    by resource availability (Figure 1).
                                    figure 1

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The problem is one never knows where on the curve the
    population at any given population lies. Even with cheatgrass, the
    invaded location/site might be new and at the bottom of the curve when
    population control is most easily obtained or it could be at beginning
    of the exponential phase but it is difficult at best to make such a
    determination. The best response is to NEVER DO NOTHING because doing
    nothing can be the most expensive decision one can make due to the
    subsequent population growth by the invasive weed and the resulting
    havoc it wreaks upon the native plant community and the animals it
    supports! Doing nothing simply yields the site to the invasive species.
    Importance of Prevention, Early Detection and Rapid Response/
            Eradication
        Prevention often is thought of as the most powerful form of weed
    management and indeed, the least expensive weed to control is the one
    that is not present--however, prevention is not free. The perception
    that prevention is simply steps taken to keep stuff out that currently
    does not exist in a particular location is accurate for certain and
    possibly represents the greatest cost savings to taxpayers. Cleaning
    equipment between uses and locations seems a logical prevention
    approach along with using certified weed seed-free hay, forage, mulch
    or gravel, and careful screening of ornamental and agricultural
    introductions can be of tremendous benefit in the battle against
    invasive species. Prevention, however, can be expensive when it
    arbitrarily impedes trade and benefit: risk assessment is an important
    if not an essential component to screening programs so decisions that
    impact trade are transparent, logical, and acceptable.
        Prevention also means decreasing population abundance of existing
    weed infestations so they are not a source for new ones to develop some
    distance--close or far--from the infested site. It is quite appropriate
    to think of extending prevention as a management strategy to efforts
    that decrease target populations in an infestation that is part of a
    project area. In fact, this may be the best ``first light'' under which
    to examine prevention efforts; i.e., how to keep current infestations
    from serving as sources for others. The silo or stovepipe approach to
    any weed management project is dangerous and invasive species
    management always should be thought of as a continuum among the
    strategies and methods used to manage such species. All this must be
    kept in mind because prevention and EDRR are the first lines of defense
    against invasive species.
    Economics and Pest Expansion Models Can Help Set Program Priorities
        Almost every person recognizes that it is much simpler to pull a
    single, newly found noxious weed than let it go and try to eradicate
    the large infestation that undoubtedly will occur over time. It is
    puzzling then that people tend to wait because ``that weed is not
    causing me a problem . . . now'' knowing well that it inevitably will
    do so. The sooner an incipient patch of an invasive weed is controlled,
    regardless of proximity to the source, the less expensive it is to
    control, the greater the success will be, and most likely one will have
    eradicated a new or small, dispersed population. Data in Table 1 shows
    the increasing control cost associated with waiting in a hypothetical
    example of a newly found patch of spotted knapweed. The data also
    compare the decision to control manually v using an herbicide and both
    include seeding costs.
      table 1. cost comparison of controlling spotted or diffuse knapweed
        physically or chemically, demonstrating the importance of early
                          detection and rapid response

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        These data clearly show that the decision to wait to respond to
    a new weed infestation can be very costly. Regardless of the method,
    the cost of management increases several thousand times but the cost of
    manual control exceeds the cost of using an herbicide by 800 to 1,500
    percent! This example shows the value of monitoring to find incipient
    invasive weed populations so they can be effectively controlled or
    eradiated at a fraction of the expense compared to waiting for impact
    and havoc to occur. These data also show the dramatic fiscal savings
    associated with using a herbicide compared to hand pulling or similar
    manual methods of control. The decisions to act quickly when new or
    small infestations are found and to use a herbicide to affect target
    weed population decrease represent efficient and responsible use of
    taxpayer dollars and the stretching of limited budgets.
        While this example is hypothetical, Tables 2 and 3 present data
    comparing the costs (late 90s) associated with different methods to
    decrease target weed populations on Colorado and Montana rangeland.
    Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) was targeted in Colorado where
    hand pulling twice annually was compared to mowing three times
    annually, to mowing twice followed by herbicide in fall, to herbicide
    application alone. Control of diffuse knapweed rosettes and bolted
    plants was best 1 year after treatments were exerted where a herbicide
    was used alone or in combination with mowing compared to mowing alone
    or hand pulling. Herbicides alone were about 1 percent of the total
    cost of hand pulling and the latter was completely ineffective.
      table 2. cost of different control methods for diffuse knapweed on
    colorado rangeland in 1997 and subsequent control 1 year after original
               treatments were applied (sebastian and beck 1999)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The second experiment (Table 3) was conducted in Montana on
    spotted knapweed and was similar to the Colorado experiment except
    biocontrol also was evaluated and the treatments were exerted for 2
    years and data collected shortly (1 to 2 months) thereafter. Hand
    pulling kept 100 percent of plants from going to seed (bolted plants
    were targeted for pulling), but controlled only about one-half of
    spotted knapweed plants. Herbicides alone kept 93 to 100 percent of
    plants from going to seed and controlled 79 to 100 percent of spotted
    knapweed plants. Mowing in combination with herbicides or hand pulling
    combined with herbicide use produced similar results to herbicides
    alone. Biocontrol was ineffective but insufficient time had passed to
    allow their successful establishment much less spotted knapweed
    population decrease. As with the Colorado study, the use of herbicides
    alone was less than 1 percent of the cost associated with hand pulling
    and controlled almost twice as much knapweed.
        Both of these experiments show the strong monetary and weed control
    advantages associated with using herbicides to decrease target weed
    populations. All government land managers, regardless of the level of
    government, must demonstrate fiscal responsibility to taxpayers and
    that not only translates into total dollars spent but also what benefit
    or return was realized from the expenditures.
     table 3. cost of different control methods invoked for 2 consecutive
      years for spotted knapweed in montana and subsequent control 1 year
      after initial treatments applied and 1 month after final treatments
                              (brown et al. 1999)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Control Risks vs. Harm Caused by Invasive Weeds
        Duncan and Clark (2005) cite numerous examples of the environmental
    and economic impacts caused by invasive weeds. Pimentel et al. (2005)
    calculated that invasive species impact the U.S. economy by more than
    $120 billion annually and $36 billion of this was caused by invasive
    weeds. The problems associated with invasive weeds are very clear and
    very expensive. The harm, real or potential, from invasive species is
    always a much greater risk than the tools used to control any invasive
    taxa but especially invasive weeds. If this was not the case, the
    species in question would not be considered invasive. Invasive species
    alter evolved relationships among organisms that share a habitat or
    ecosystem, which is highly significant biologically, ecologically, and
    economically!
        Herbicides are the most efficacious, most economical, and most
    consistent means of decreasing the population abundance of invasive
    weeds. A common theme is readily apparent when attempting to recover an
    infested habitat; i.e., a land manager must first decrease the
    population of the invasive weed before beginning any seeding operation
    or the latter effort will fail. Other site characteristics also may be
    in need of attention to fully realize restoration and these too should
    be addressed before expecting establishment of seeded species. Many of
    these characteristics could be very expensive to repair and thus, all
    the more reason to use the most economically viable tool to decrease
    invasive weed populations to use taxpayer dollars to the greatest
    extent possible.
        One serious concern about using herbicides to decrease target
    invasive weed populations is their effect on native plants, especially
    native forbs and shrubs. Many people believe that using an herbicide
    that will control invasive weedy forbs will strongly select for grasses
    and eliminate native forbs and shrubs, which are essential components
    of any native plant community. This is in fact not the case and the
    weed research community is developing databases to define the injury to
    native grasses, forbs, and shrubs caused by herbicides used to control
    invasive weeds. Erickson et al. (2006) sprayed Paramount (quinclorac)
    or Plateau (imazapic) directly onto the western fringed prairie orchid
    (Platanthera praeclara) in fall when it was senescing to mimic when
    these herbicides would be used to control leafy spurge (Euphorbia
    esula) and data were collected on orchid survival and fecundity 10 and
    22 months after treatments (MAT) were applied. Neither herbicide
    influenced orchid survival. Plateau decreased orchid height by 43
    percent at 10 MAT but this effect was no longer apparent at 22 MAT.
    Plateau also decreased raceme length by 58 percent and flower number by
    70 percent 22 MAT. Quinclorac, however, had no such effects on the
    orchid and the researchers concluded that it was safe to use Paramount
    to control leafy spurge in the presence of the western fringed prairie
    orchid and while Plateau caused temporary stunting and decreased
    fecundity of the orchid, most of these symptoms disappeared the second
    year following treatment.
        Rice et al. (1997) studied the effects of plant growth regulator
    herbicides (picloram, clopyralid, and clopyralid + 2,4-D) on native
    grasses, forbs, and shrubs applied to control spotted knapweed
    (Centaurea maculosa; C. stoebe) in Montana over an 8-year period at
    four sites. Herbicides were applied once in either spring or fall to
    control spotted knapweed in 1989 and re-treated again in 1992 to
    control the recovering invasive weed. Plant community data were
    collected annually over the 8-year period and compared back to the
    floristic composition of each study site determined before initiation
    of the experiments. Herbicides controlled spotted knapweed very well
    (98-99 percent control) and shifted the plant community to dominance by
    grasses but the depression on plant community diversity was small and
    transient. By the end of the third year after initial treatment, there
    were no differences in species diversity among treatments and some
    herbicide-treated plots began to surpass untreated plots in plant
    community diversity measurements. They also found that late-season
    herbicide application after forbs had entered summer-drought induced
    dormancy minimized the impact on plant community diversity. The effects
    of the pyridine herbicides (picloram and clopyralid) on the native
    plant community diversity were small and temporary and minimal compared
    to the reported impacts caused by spotted knapweed on the plant
    community (Tyser and Key 1988; Tyser 1992).
        University researchers worked with Dow AgroSciences to test a new
    pyridine herbicide, Milestone (aminopyralid), effects on native
    grasses, forbs and shrubs (http://techlinenews.com/
    ForbShrubTolerancetoMilestone.pdf) at 14 locations throughout the
    western United States. Individual tolerance rankings were established
    for 90 native forb and 19 native shrub species to Milestone applied at
    5 or 7 fl oz/acre in spring, late summer, or fall. Of the 90 forb
    species studied in this experiment, 23, 14, 19, and 34 were ranked as
    susceptible (more than 75 percent stand reduction), moderately
    susceptible (51-75 percent stand reduction), moderately tolerant (15-50
    percent stand reduction), and tolerant (less than 15 percent stand
    reduction) 1 year following application, respectively. Many of these
    forbs recovered by the end of the second year following application and
    only 19 of the 90 forbs were ranked either as moderately susceptible or
    susceptible at that time. Interestingly, shrubs generally were more
    tolerant of Milestone than were forbs. Of the 19 shrubs in the study,
    74 percent were ranked as moderately tolerant or tolerant 2 years after
    herbicides were applied and Rosaceae shrubs were generally the most
    susceptible species. These data also demonstrate the transitory nature
    of injury to native forbs and shrubs caused by herbicides used to
    decrease the populations of invasive weeds.
        Recently, weed scientists at Colorado State University finished an
    oil site reclamation project in western Colorado to decrease cheatgrass
    population abundance and recover the habitat for wildlife. Cheatgrass
    presence on western rangelands increases fire frequency and intensity
    and wildfires dramatically alter Greater Sage-grouse habitat.
    Cheatgrass populations in the study were decreased in fall, 2010 with
    one of five different herbicides then native perennial grasses and
    forbs were sown in 2010 shortly after herbicide application or 1 year
    later in 2011. When data were analyzed in 2012, density of seeded
    grasses was dependent upon the herbicide used to control cheatgrass in
    2010 and the year that seeding was done (Table 4).
     table 4. density of seeded grass species was dependent upon herbicide
      used in 2010 to control cheatgrass and year of seeding 1

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Journey (imazapic + glyphosate), Landmark (chlorsulfuron +
    metsulfuron), Matrix (rimsulfuron) controlled 87 to 100 percent of
    cheatgrass 1 and 2 years after application and seeded species
    established best where these herbicides were used because they
    effectively decreased cheatgrass populations. Our data show that
    several native grasses established well when sown into herbicide soil
    residues. Native forbs also emerged through herbicide residues but did
    not establish as well as grasses (Table 5).
    table 5. forb species density in 2012 was dependent upon the herbicide
    used to control cheatgrass in 2010 and the year of seeding 1

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Our data clearly show that herbicides can be used to decrease
    cheatgrass populations and such areas can be recovered to native plant
    species. Different herbicides will favor the establishment of different
    native plant species and this selection pressure is not limited to
    favoring only perennial grasses--forbs too are differentially favored.
    Our data also strongly suggest that public and private land managers
    with cheatgrass infestations can effectively manage such sites and
    recover them for native species, including the Greater Sage-grouse--
    they just need the will and stimulus to do so.
                                literature cited
        Beck, K. George, Kenneth Zimmerman, Jeffrey D. Schardt, Jeffrey
    Stone, Ronald, R. Lukens, Sarah Reichard, John Randall, Allegra A.
    Cangelosi, and John Peter Thompson. 2008. Invasive Species Defined in a
    Policy Context: Recommendations from the Federal Invasive Species
    Advisory Committee. Invasive Plant Science and Management 1:414-421.
        Brown, Melissa L., Celestine A. Duncan, and Mary B. Halstvedt.
    1999. Spotted knapweed management with integrated methods. Proc. Wes.
    Soc. Weed Sci. 52:68-70.
        DiTomaso, J. M., G. B. Kyser, J. R. Miller, S. Garcia, R. F. Smith,
    G. Nader, J. M. Connor, and S. B. Orloff. 2006b. Integrating prescribed
    burning and clopyralid for the management of yellow starthistle
    (Centaurea solstitialis). Weed Sci. 54:757-767.
        DiTomaso, Joseph M., Matthew L. Brooks, Edith B. Allen, Ralph
    Minnich, Peter M. Rice, and Guy B. Kyser. 2006. Control of invasive
    weeds with prescribed burning. Weed Technol. 20:535-548.
        DiTomaso, J.M., G.B. Kyser, S.R. Oneto, R.G. Wilson, S.B. Orloff,
    L.W. Anderson, S.D. Wright, J.A. Roncoroni, T.L. Miller, T.S. Prather,
    C. Ransom, K.G. Beck, C. Duncan, K. A. Wilson, and J.J. Mann. 2013.
    Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States. Weed
    Research and Information Center, University of California. 544 pp. IBSN
    978-0-692-01922-1.
        Duncan, Celestine L. and Janet K. Clark, eds. Invasive Plants of
    Range and Wildlands and Their Environmental, Economic, and Societal
    Impacts. 2005. Weed Science Society of America, Lawrence, KS. 222 pp.
        Erickson, Ann M., Rodney G. Lym, and Don Kirby. 2006. Effect of
    herbicides for leafy spurge control on the Western Prairie Fringed
    Orchid. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 59:462-467.
        Evans, Raymond A. and James A. Young. 1978. Effectiveness of
    rehabilitation practices following wildfire in a degraded big
    sagebrush-downy brome community. Journal of Range Management.
    31(3):185-188.
        Pimental, David, Rodolfo Zuniga, and Doug Morrison. 2005. Update on
    the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive
    species in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 52:273-288.

        http://techlinenews.com/ForbShrubTolerancetoMilestone.pdf.

        Rice, Peter M., J. Christopher Toney, Donald J. Bedunah, and
    Clinton E. Carlson. 1997. Plant community diversity and growth form
    response to herbicide applications for control of Centaurea maculosa.
    J. App. Ecol. 34:1397-1412.
        Sebastian, James R. and K. George Beck. 1999. The influence of
    various control methods on diffuse knapweed on Colorado rangeland.
    Proc. Wes. Soc. Weed Sci. 52:41-43.
        Sebastian, James R., K. George Beck, Scott Nissen, Derek Sebastian,
    and Sam Rodgers. 2011. Native species establishment on Russian knapweed
    infested rangeland following pre-plant herbicide applications. Proc.
    Wes. Soc. Weed Sci. 64:16-17.
        Sebastian, James R., George Beck, and Derek Sebastian. 2012. Using
    aminocyclopyrachlor to control Dalmatian toadflax and promote native
    plant community recovery and diversity. Proc. Wes. Soc. Weed Sci.
    65:51-52.
        Tyser, R.W. 1992. Vegetation associated with two alien plant
    species in a fescue grassland in Glacier National Park, Montana. Great
    Basin Naturalist 52:189-193.
        Tyser, R.W. and C.W. Key. 1988. Spotted knapweed in natural area
    fescue grasslands: an ecological assessment. Northwest Science 62:151-
    160.
        Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1978. Population dynamics after
    wildfires in sagebrush grasslands. Journal of Range Management.
    31(4):283-289.
        Young, Jim. 2000. Bromus tectorum L. In: Bossard, Carla C.;
    Randall, John M.; Hoshovsky, Marc C., eds. Invasive plants of
    California's wildlands. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press:
    76-80.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate all of you joining us
    today. We will now open up for questions. Mr. Grijalva, do you
    have any?
        Mr. Grijalva. Yes, thank you. Ms. Williams, I think you
    mentioned Section 4 of the legislation that places restrictions
    on the level of public outreach and education. Explain to us
    why this component is important in combating the issue of
    invasive species.
        Ms. Williams. Right, thank you. One of the things you hear,
    outreach and education. There are several kinds of outreach and
    education, and one really important kind of outreach is to help
    educate the public on what behaviors cause the spread of
    invasive species.
        For instance, one of the major pathways of the spread of
    the quagga and zebra mussels across the West that Dr. Beck
    mentioned is the movement of recreational boats. It is very
    important to fund that education effort. There is no way to
    regulate every single boat. So a lot of it is public education.
    So that is an example of where education is more than education
    in this instance; it is really a pathway interdiction, which is
    the key to--one of the keys to prevention.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Following up on that, Chief
    Wagner, buffalo grass is a huge problem in the district I
    represent in southern Arizona. It impacts the Coronado National
    Forest, the Ironwood Forest and National Monument, and the
    Saguaro National Park. It takes a lot of time. I think it's a
    3-year effort to--of intensive manual labor to get rid of about
    25 square miles in the Oregon Pike.
        Following up on the question about the public interaction,
    and it continues to be a huge threat both to public and private
    lands in the region. How does your agency work with local
    communities, and is this restriction I just asked about in the
    question hinder the ability to bring its community effort on to
    something like this?
        Ms. Williams. So the Forest Service established national
    policy direction for invasive species management. And it
    suggests and directs, at the local level, the state level, the
    regional level, and the national level, a really collaborative
    approach, and working with others to address this problem.
        We have had a long tenure and financial support for
    cooperative weed management areas, or cooperative invasive
    species management areas. And that is local, state, and Federal
    partners all working locally together to address the species
    that are impacting lands of interest, and pooling resources and
    delivering the education, the prevention, the eradication, the
    treatment, and control, all together, in many cases.
        Mr. Grijalva. What would--that effort you described, and
    the example that uses the buffalo grass, how would this
    legislation affect that?
        Ms. Williams. The legislation just codifies and requires
    that partnership approach in every way we address invasive
    species. So I think it affirms and backs and supports many of
    the local efforts that have generated some of the successes
    that you have talked to.
        Mr. Grijalva. Dr. Beck, one question. You are testifying on
    behalf of the Healthy Habitats Coalition today. And the DuPont
    Corporation is one of the partners. My question is what is
    DuPont's interest in invasive species and in pursuing this
    legislation? Is there a specific herbicide or chemical that
    they produce that is currently not allowed on Federal land?
        Dr. Beck. I think--I apologize for my hearing. You were
    asking about--is there a DuPont chemical that----
        Mr. Grijalva. Or a herbicide or a pesticide that they
    have----
        Dr. Beck. Yes, that is----
        Mr. Grijalva [continuing]. That is currently not allowed on
    Federal land.
        Dr. Beck. As far as I know, there is just one, and it is a
    compound that is brand new, and I just don't think there has
    been enough time to review it yet. But, other than that, I
    think most of the compounds can be used. There is a variation
    from agency to agency, and the time it takes for--when material
    appears on the market----
        Mr. Grijalva. Their reliance on the categorical exclusion,
    would that facilitate the use of any compound?
        Dr. Beck. I don't know, I would have to say. But the idea
    behind the categorical exclusion was related to early detection
    and rapid response. So we would certainly----
        Mr. Grijalva. Yes, you are protecting waterways, 1,000 feet
    from. If you are looking at long-term environmental effects of
    a use of a particular chemical, don't you think that is
    important to know ahead of time?
        Dr. Beck. Oh, absolutely. I think--first of all, we follow
    FIFRA, and the label--that we will not make errors, the label
    is--the guidelines and it will address how close any particular
    body of water you can get with the material, and there is a
    long list to choose from.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Doctor.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. McClintock, do you have
    questions?
        Mr. McClintock. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Beck, you
    painted a damning picture of the Federal land management
    practices with respect to invasive species. What would you say
    are the reasons that the Federal Government has been such a
    poor land manager?
        Dr. Beck. Well, the picture about being poor land
    management is largely related to the insufficient funds that
    find their way out to the hinterlands, if you will, to solve
    whatever problem. In the case of invasive species--and my
    specialty is weeds--there is a pittance of money that finds--I
    mean, and I know it is a large sum back here, but by the time
    it gets out to where it is being put to work, they are grossly
    insufficient.
        Mr. McClintock. Ms. Williams?
        Ms. Williams. Yes. I mean I think you would also want to
    compare the rate of control and management on state lands.
    These problems--some of these species have been here quite a
    long time; you are already behind before you start. Funding has
    been limited. That is why we need to take the collaborative
    approach that we do.
        I don't think there has been a showing that just switching
    the percentage of money going out to the field, even if this,
    in fact, does this, will have a demonstrable effect. I would
    rather sit down and really figure out what strategies, working
    with the states, would be beneficial, and how we better
    allocate our resources, rather than coming up with an arbitrary
    percentage.
        Mr. McClintock. Well, on that point, the Central Valley of
    California has been laid waste by water diversions under the
    ESA for delta smelt and salmon, yet the principal cause of the
    decline of these populations appears to be bass that just love
    to eat those things.
        Ms. Williams. I think that is one reason it is so important
    to do the research to figure out what are the real impacts of
    the species, are they impacting native and endangered species.
    I think that is where we want to keep the research and looking
    at all avenues of this early detection method response
    research, working with the public. All of those are important
    to identify the real impacts.
        Mr. McClintock. We have the same problem up in the Sierra.
    The critical habitat has been declared for a species of frog
    and a species of toad up there. Again, the principal cause is
    not human activity, it is invasive populations--again, non-
    native species of bass that just love to eat those things.
        Why don't we take simple reforms, like opening up a bass
    for unlimited takes, for example? Why don't we open up these
    invasive species for unlimited takes?
        Ms. Williams. In some cases that has happened. You look at
    the Asian carp. The Asian carp they have dealt with, in many
    cases, allowing unlimited takes of those species. And so that
    is something that should be considered in a comprehensive plan,
    I agree with you.
        Mr. McClintock. Well, the House did send legislation to the
    Senate earlier this year and in the prior session to do
    precisely that. And it has been crickets over there. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Ms. Bordallo, do you have questions?
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and
    Congressman Horsford for the introduction of H.R. 3994.
        Invasive species has very serious and negative consequences
    on our environment and our ecosystem. On Guam we know all too
    well the impact of a number of invasive species on our way of
    life. The most popularly known are the brown tree snakes; they
    have decimated our bird population. Fire ants threaten our
    animals and ecosystems. And the rhino beetles threaten the
    coconut trees.
        I am concerned that this bill does not quite get to the
    heart of the problem, which is research and preventative
    methods and strategies. So, currently, we are in the throws of
    fighting the coconut rhino beetle, and additional research is
    needed. In the meantime, we have also prioritized public
    education so that the public can help with an active and
    informed role in stymieing the growth of the rhino beetle
    population.
        So, my first question is for Ms. Williams. This bill caps
    spending on investigations, outreach, and public awareness at
    15 percent of funds in any given year, while also setting 75
    percent of funding for control and management. So I am
    concerned that arbitrary limits on public awareness and
    preventative strategies could have an overall invasive species
    prevention efforts. So, could you please explain the potential
    impact of this legislation on ongoing scientific research and
    prevention strategies?
        Ms. Williams. Yes, we are unsure of the exact impact, but
    we are concerned that, in certain circumstances with a species
    that is widespread--like a cheatgrass--you really do want to
    put most of your effort in on-the-ground control methodologies.
    But for other species, where on-the-ground just doesn't even
    provide control or, as you said, for the rhino beetle or one of
    the other species where you really need to try to stop a
    pathway of spread and contain that, you might want to spend
    quite a bit more money on public education and outreach and
    maybe even exploring a harvest program, like the other
    congressman mentioned.
        So you just really want to have the flexibility, but maybe
    very strong measures that you want to meet to deal with
    invasive species so we can respond to the frustration that is
    out there that we are not adequately dealing with these
    species.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. If you could make your answers
    brief, I have so little time here.
        My second question is for Ms. Wagner. How could this bill
    address and prioritize prevention?
        Ms. Wagner. The four strategies that I mentioned that are
    kind of at the heart of our strategic approach, prevention is
    featured as one of those. And I don't think there is any
    question that one of the most effective ways to protect forest
    waterways and grasslands from invasive species is to prevent
    them in the first place. And I think that is what citizens do
    with RVs and boats and those pathways needs to be addressed.
        Ms. Bordallo. And this would also include early detection?
        Ms. Wagner. Yes.
        Ms. Bordallo. Yes. And the final question is for either Ms.
    Williams or Ms. Wagner. This bill sets a 5-percent net
    reduction of invasive species populations on lands managed by
    the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture. Now, how could
    this net reduction requirement work, given, where there are not
    baselines of invasive species populations or quantitative
    impact?
        Ms. Williams. I guess I am not sure how it would work. In
    many cases we don't have the comprehensive inventory of
    invasive species on public lands. And I don't see how this bill
    would provide for even getting to that starting point.
        Ms. Bordallo. Ms. Wagner, you feel the same way?
        Ms. Wagner. What I might add is that a 5-percent net
    reduction in some populations, in some geographic locations,
    may be very doable. For other species, like white nose
    syndrome, it would be difficult to say if a 5-percent reduction
    is possible.
        Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Chairman, before I close off, I just want
    to mention that the brown tree snakes are the most popular
    known, when it comes to Guam, and funding has been reduced,
    while the population is increasing. And I yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Gohmert.
        Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all the
    witnesses for being here.
        Ms. Williams, I want to direct my questions to you. I had
    written you back last year, because we have a huge problem in
    the South with a species called giant salvinia. And, as you
    point out in response, beginning at page--bottom of page 5 of
    your letter, here is what--your letter asks five specific
    questions. Well, I have four-and-a-half pages there of
    discussion about invasive species about the different
    prevention that is helpful. You mentioned that was really
    helpful for you to tell me that.
        But I have been trying to figure out what your Federal
    council does. And the best I can find out is we pay for you
    guys to have a real nice annual meeting, and people come in,
    and you sit around and talk. But I can't find that you have
    done a blessed thing to actually specifically stop an invasive
    species. And, in fact, at page 4 of your letter you say,
    ``Neither NISC nor its staff has the capacity to coordinate the
    great number of site and species-specific efforts that are
    occurring across the country.''
        What, in heaven's name, are you doing? Give me one species
    that your Council has actually slowed the invasion of. Just
    one. Tell me what you have done, your Council, specifically.
        Ms. Williams. Well, if you talk about the Council, the
    Council is actually the Secretaries and the department heads of
    the 13 departments that work on invasive species. The goal--and
    the criticism of the Federal Government, it wasn't working
    together, and it didn't have a master plan.
        Mr. Gohmert. OK. But my question was very specific, and
    give me one species that your gathering together has helped
    stop or slow, because I am not finding anything. And when I
    originally found out about, wow, a National Invasive Species
    Council, where all these people come together, we need a
    coordinating agency that will bring together state, Federal,
    local people to help stop this thing that could actually end
    up--and has, in some cases, just completely overwhelmed a water
    facility, a lake, a place where, in one case, they are getting
    drinking water, they can't get it any more.
        And I thought this is ideal, they will coordinate all these
    efforts. And what I get is a seven-page letter back dancing
    around the issue, and it brings me back to this, that when we
    need to cut funding to help in areas where we can actually do
    some good, it looks like your Council is basically primed to be
    eliminated, because you are not coordinating anything.
        We wanted you to come in and help with the Federal, state,
    local, and you point out in here, ``However, NISC agencies,
    such as Fish and Wildlife Service, have been involved with
    the''--yes, we have gotten Fish and Wildlife to come in. We
    needed somebody to help coordinate the efforts. And if that is
    not you, I think we ought to eliminate your Council completely,
    and spend it on somebody who will get out there in the field,
    who will coordinate. End your little Federal meeting with all
    the money we are wasting on you guys coming together and
    talking about it. End the money that would send me a seven-page
    letter and only at the end say, ``Here are the five things you
    asked for.''
        In my letter I asked, ``Have any of the Federal agencies at
    NISC's direction engaged in a coordinated effort to address the
    spread of giant salvinia? What has NISC done to encourage
    planning and action at the local and state level to address the
    spread of giant salvinia?'' And I got nothing. So, unless you
    can tell me something specific that you guys at the Council
    have done as you come together--and we pay all this money for
    you to coordinate--tell me one specific invasive species you
    have helped coordinate the attack against, and maybe we will
    find that there is a reason for having this Council.
        But otherwise, we are better off spending that money to
    bring in Fish and Wildlife, having them get with the local
    Texas Parks and Wildlife and the local people at the lakes, to
    work together. Because I don't get the impression that you have
    ever actually done that. Have you?
        Ms. Williams. The Council, as I said, is for coordination
    and planning. What we have done is----
        Mr. Gohmert. And I am asking you what planning have you
    specifically done on any species.
        Ms. Williams. I will be glad to send you----
        Mr. Gohmert. Please.
        Ms. Williams [continuing]. The National Invasive Species
    Management Plans, the guidelines on early detection and rapid
    response, the guidelines on control and management, the
    encouragement for best management practices, the work we have
    done to foster regional coordination, the support of state
    invasive species councils.
        Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. We will have other rounds here, as well. Mr.
    Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, my district
    represents the Southern Everglades. And so we have a huge
    problem with invasive species. It is something that I have even
    had on what was my farm. We once caught a 12-foot python that
    had consumed three of my chickens--or our chickens at the time.
    So it is a huge problem, particularly in South Dade.
        So, I would like to ask all of you. What can we do to sort
    of involve citizens more in a proactive way in this issue, as a
    first question. And I will leave it to those of you who want to
    answer.
        And then, you know, in this legislation there is some
    controversial use of pesticides or strong chemicals. What is
    the alternative to that? I understand what is here in the
    legislation we are looking at, but give me an alternative to
    that. And is there an alternative to that?
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How about we go from the right to
    left, or from the left to right? Go ahead.
        Dr. Beck. As far as alternatives to chemicals, there are
    other strategies, of course. Biological----
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Beck, is your microphone on?
        Dr. Beck. It says it is on.
        Mr. Bishop. Pull it closer to your mouth.
        Dr. Beck. Sorry.
        Mr. Bishop. I am having a difficult time hearing you.
        Dr. Beck. That better?
        Mr. Bishop. That is much better, thank you.
        Dr. Beck. I can even hear that. There are alternatives to
    chemicals.
        The law also--or, excuse me, the bill also requires that
    integrated pest management approaches be used for whatever the
    organism is, and that is typically a combination of things. And
    that includes all of the management strategies like prevention,
    and not just control and management.
        Not all organisms have a biological control available to
    manage their populations. There is always a physical method,
    maybe like in the case of weeds, hand pulling. Unfortunately,
    in many cases like that, then the cost of managing that problem
    skyrockets to $1,000 or so an acre. So, many times a pesticide,
    as part of the management plan, is representative of something
    that is economically more efficient.
        As far as what we can do to educate the public, or get the
    public involved, is that very thing, is education. The Federal
    Government is not the only source of information. I work for a
    land grant institution, and I am busier than you can imagine. I
    have been this way for 28 years, educating the public. So there
    is lots of opportunity outside of the scope of H.R. 3994 to
    provide education for the public to get them involved.
        In fact, the law even says at the very end that it is not
    meant to usurp or preclude any other efforts that are ongoing
    at the moment. So even when it comes to research and things
    like that, we have other arms--USGS, USDA, ARS--that can and
    should be conducting what research needs to be done. Forest
    Service has their own research arm. And so, I think there is
    plenty of opportunity outside of the scope of the bill to
    achieve that goal.
        Mr. Garcia. And I want to hear from you, Ms. Wagner and Ms.
    Williams. But one of the things we have done, for example, we
    have, like, the invasive lion species in the Florida Keys. And
    so we have lion species hunts. We have now--the idea of re-
    regulating some issues--for example, traps, fish traps, have
    not been something that we legally allow, so they now use
    lobster traps to catch these lionfish. But they have now become
    a delicacy on the menus. So there are no limits, and it
    obviously pleases our hunter friends.
        You know, when you look at coral reefs that have human
    usage--right, divers are always on them--they are clear of
    lionfish precisely because divers know they can take them out.
    And so the diving community has protected the asset themselves.
        I am sorry, Ms. Wagner.
        Ms. Wagner. I will just mention a couple of other
    opportunities for citizen involvement. I mentioned earlier in
    my oral comments the suite of authorities the Forest Service
    uses. And among those are things like volunteer agreements, or
    working with youth conservation corps. And many times, when
    they are out in the field, an invasive species project is part
    of the work that they do. So that's a really active connection,
    do something on the land, educate kids, build a constituency
    who understands the impacts and takes responsibility for
    addressing invasive species.
        Ms. Williams. Yes, a couple comments. First on the
    overall--the Everglades, one thing that we have been careful of
    at the national level, as important as national coordination
    is, many of these issues need to be solved at a regional level.
    And we have been very supportive of the work in the Everglades.
    And right now they are coming up with an invasive species
    management plan, the task force down there. They have been in
    communication with us, and we want to provide any support we
    can, and recognize that effort in the revision of our
    management plan. So that is an example of national working with
    regional and local.
        Our Invasive Species Advisory Committee, the meeting he was
    talking about, one of the meetings--they have put together a
    paper on using harvest incentives as an incentive to remove
    invasive species. I would be glad to send that very good paper
    to the members of the committee. And there will be a journal
    article about that to explore these--use them. Use them, if
    you----
        Mr. Bishop. Ms. Williams, please. You are out of time.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
    all for your service.
        Mr. Bishop. Mrs. Lummis, you are recognized as long as you
    say absolutely nothing about Colorado State University.
        Mrs. Lummis. Fair enough.
        Mr. Bishop. All right, thank you.
        Mrs. Lummis. Fair enough, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman
    Bishop. And thanks for your hard work on H.R. 3994. Wyoming is
    half Federal lands. We have major issues with noxious weeds and
    pest management. And it affects ranching, it affects wildlife,
    it affects sage-grouse habitat and wildlife--and wildfire
    prevention, like Dr. Beck pointed out. So I am supportive of
    the bill, and appreciate your work on it.
        I would like to take some time today to talk about larger
    wildfire issues with Associate Chief Wagner from the Forest
    Service, so thank you for being here. Now, what I understand is
    Department of Defense has halted the transfer of surplus
    military equipment to states and local governments because of a
    new EPA interpretation of regulations barring the transfer of
    Federal vehicles that don't meet emissions standards.
        Now, that seems absurd, given that they are out there--they
    are being retrofitted by states and local firefighters to go
    fight fires, where there is a much higher carbon emission than
    could ever occur from a military vehicle that is being
    retrofitted. In fact, in Wyoming, nearly 40 percent of our
    wildland firefighting vehicles are excess military vehicles.
    Our guys spend the winter months in this Quonset hut in--
    outside of Cheyenne, retrofitting those vehicles. And, all over
    the state, that is what the local folks are doing to retrofit
    them, because it is less costly than buying commercial
    vehicles.
        And I used to be the Director of the Office of State Lands,
    under which the Department of State forester resides, so I ran
    those agencies. I know exactly what they are doing in those
    buildings, and how much it saves us, in terms of our costs of
    firefighting. And, given the schizophrenic way that land is
    situated in the West, where you have private land, state land,
    Federal land, all right next to each other, and you've got
    these wildfires jumping from private land to state land to
    Federal land, we all have to work together to fight these
    wildfires.
        And I have done it personally. I have been out on fire
    lines. I have had it jump from state land, when I was the
    Director of the State Lands, to my own personal private land,
    to the Federal land, and have been out drenched in ash,
    firefighting with Federal folks and with state folks and with
    the neighbors. It is just a phenomenal effort.
        So, I want to visit with you about it, because it really
    hits home, personally, to me. Run me through, if you would, Ms.
    Wagner, how Federal land wildfire suppression is connected to
    local response, and how much the Forest Service relies on state
    and local agencies to respond to fires.
        Ms. Wagner. So, two comments. One, you have identified a
    very important issue: Federal excess property and the Federal
    firefighter property programs are absolutely vital to equipping
    local volunteer and local jurisdictions to participate in fire
    suppression. I know that Defense and EPA are in conversations.
    Our Chief and Under Secretary are monitoring that situation. We
    are hopeful and confident that resolution will take place, and
    there will be the ability to use that equipment to equip local
    firefighters and departments.
        Mrs. Lummis. I like your word ``confident.'' Tell me what
    gives you that confidence.
        Ms. Wagner. The dialog and some movement on the Federal
    firefighter program. I believe Defense and EPA released a
    statement yesterday. I have not seen that statement. I will
    make a commitment to keep you apprised of the progress that is
    being made on that.
        You are daylighting an important issue, and I think it is
    shared by a number of folks. So, people working together will
    come up with a solution, I am pretty confident of that. I will
    keep you apprised.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. And I will very much appreciate
    being kept apprised, because the state foresters are people
    that I worked with and we rely on just unbelievably,
    enormously--our budgets in state forestry all around the West
    in firefighting are enormous. And I think a lot of times the
    Federal Government and we in Congress think, oh, we are putting
    out all this money for firefighting. If you think we are
    putting out a lot of money, you should see what the states and
    locals are doing. And the volunteer hours, there is no way we
    could fight these fires without the local volunteers. And those
    local volunteers are relying on that equipment.
        So, thank you for your confidence, and I hope your
    confidence bears the fruit we need. Thank you. My time is up.
        Look how precise I was about my timing, Mr. Chairman. I
    hope I get brownie points in the second round, maybe.
        Mr. Bishop. You will.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thanks.
        Mr. Bishop. You will. You may even get some brownies.
        Mr. Daines, you have questions?
        Mr. Daines. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And regarding the
    Colorado State University, I have to say my son is a proud Ram
    graduate--engineering degree--recently. Dr. Beck, we are very
    happy parents. Even though I am a Montana State University
    Bobcat, we are happy parents. We have a Ram in the family as
    well, now.
        But--so greetings from Montana. In fact, on Monday I was
    with our smoke jumpers in Missoula, getting a briefing as we
    are getting ready for fire season. What a tremendous group of
    professionals there. Very, very impressed with what they do.
    And 95 percent success rate when they drop those jumpers in to
    stop the fires before they become wildfires.
        But, as you know, we have over 7 million acres of forest
    land in Montana that is at risk of mortality from insects. I
    remember growing up in Montana, we saw the beetle kill come
    through back in the 1970s and 1980s. We are seeing similar
    kinds of invasive species now across the state.
        We have heard from the Forest Service and other Federal
    land management agencies that they spend millions of dollars on
    the NEPA analysis, including excessive analysis on some of
    these treatments for invasive species, in order to protect
    their decisions from these habitual litigants. It seems like
    any more in Montana the trial lawyers are running our forests,
    instead of forest management professionals and the people of
    Montana.
        Do you have any sense of how many dollars are spent, how
    much goes toward invasive species management, roughly?
        Ms. Wagner. Our overall investment is about $55 million in
    treatment.
        Mr. Daines. In treatment?
        Ms. Wagner. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Daines. And this H.R. 3994, what I am glad to see, it
    provides some streamlining of NEPA analyses on these projects,
    so we can spend more time actually addressing invasive species
    here, instead of having to look over our shoulders at the trial
    lawyers and these habitual litigants. And I hope this will
    reduce this analysis paralysis that we are seeing, and thereby
    improve our forest health, and protect public safety and
    infrastructure, certainly.
        Additionally, both the Department of the Interior and the
    Forest Service tout the working relationships with local,
    state, and our tribal governments. However, I do hear from my
    constituents in Montana there can be a lot of improvement in
    Federal land management if local governments had more input and
    authority. H.R. 3994 protects the ability for local and state
    governments to enter into partnerships under the new
    streamlined regulatory framework provided under this bill.
        I will start with Ms. Wagner and then to Ms. Williams. Can
    you tell me how important it is for the Federal agencies to
    partner with our local and state governments?
        Ms. Wagner. I don't think there is any question that
    invasive species takes all of us. It doesn't recognize
    boundaries. And I think some of the most successful efforts are
    really those grass roots local entities, cooperative weed
    management associations or areas, cooperative invasive species
    management areas, locals working together across boundaries,
    county local municipalities, volunteers, working with their
    state partners and Federal partners to address the issues, I
    think that is where the real success is generated in a lot of
    cases.
        Mr. Daines. How significant do you think the threat of
    litigation is, in terms of the way you run your processes?
        Ms. Wagner. It is really somewhat situational. The majority
    of our expenses relative to environmental analysis, we think,
    are important disclosures of impacts, and citizens are
    interested, and all of that. The majority of our decisions
    aren't actually litigated or appealed. But in those cases where
    we have an environment--and Montana has one of those
    environments--where we are in a bit of that----
        Mr. Daines. Yes, I probably should have targeted Montana
    there, where the----
        Ms. Wagner. Yes
        Mr. Daines [continuing]. Part of the Ninth Circuit Court,
    which tends to be a flashpoint, certainly, of activism----
        Ms. Wagner. I do know that, in many cases where projects
    have been developed collaboratively----
        Mr. Daines. Yes.
        Ms. Wagner [continuing]. Local, state, and Federal partners
    are all working together with non-governmental organizations
    and other citizens, we are having a great rate of success of
    prevailing in those lawsuits, or not being litigated at all,
    because of the way the projects were developed.
        Mr. Daines. Ms. Williams, do you have a thought on that, as
    well?
        Ms. Williams. Well, I would agree with everything Ms.
    Wagner said, and I would have to get back to you with the
    specifics of litigation.
        But one thing the Bureau of Land Management and other
    agencies are exploring is programmatic EISs, so that that would
    reduce the cost and necessity to do an individual EIS for each
    of their projects. So that is one alternative to a categorical
    exclusion we might want to look at.
        Mr. Daines. OK, I would appreciate some follow-up on that.
        Chairman Bishop, I have heard from our Montana tribal
    governments that they want to be better partners with the
    Federal agencies in managing invasive species on the
    reservation or in areas that neighbor the reservations. H.R.
    3994 does not explicitly allow for tribal governments to take
    advantage of the benefits of invasive species treatments under
    the bill, and I hope that we can maybe fix that in mark-up on
    this legislation.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Yes, we can.
        Mr. Daines. OK. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bishop. It is good of you to be looking out for your
    constituents that way. We will increase that, we will do that.
        Mr. Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. With that--and I should have
    extended the ban on Colorado State comments further on than
    just Ms. Lummis, but I appreciate that.
        Mr. Daines. Go Rams.
        Mr. Bishop. Yes, OK. And if we can get you out of the Ninth
    Circuit, we can solve a whole lot of other problems.
        Mr. LaMalfa, I appreciate you coming here. Would you like
    me to go first with some questions to give you time to catch
    up? I realize you came in from another meeting. Let me ask a
    few, if I could.
        Ms. Wagner and Ms. Williams, I was going to ask you how
    many acres we are talking about that are infested, but Dr. Beck
    had the numbers up there. Do you dispute the numbers that he
    has shown, as far as infestation or restoration reclaiming
    efforts?
        Ms. Wagner. So, Mr. Beck's data was 2009, I believe. We
    currently estimate infested acres on national forests at 20
    million acres. We treat about 400,000 acres per year. And out
    of that 400,000 acres treated per year, we believe that about
    300,000 of those acres are actually restored and reclaimed,
    meaning resilient to further infestations.
        Mr. Bishop. Ms. Williams, do you have a different number
    than Dr. Beck had in his figures?
        Mr. Williams. I would like to provide that for the record,
    because I have five different agencies. And so, if I could
    provide those figures for the record, I would be glad to do
    that.
        Mr. Bishop. Ms. Williams, how much does it cost you, your
    agency, to treat an acre of infested weeds, on average?
        Mr. Williams. I would have to get back on the record for
    that.
        Mr. Bishop. Ms. Wagner, do you have that number?
        Ms. Wagner. We have a range, and it is very situational.
        Mr. Bishop. Give me the range.
        Ms. Wagner. Interior Alaska, expensive----
        Mr. Bishop. Give me the range.
        Ms. Wagner. About $100 per acre to over $2,000 per acre.
    But, on average, we would say $250 to $300 per acre, on
    average.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, I appreciate that.
        Ms. Williams, can you have a net 5-percent reduction
    applied to Asian carp, zebra mussels, and other invasive
    animals?
        Mr. Williams. I think that would be very difficult at this
    point, without having better baseline data about their
    populations----
        Mr. Bishop. You don't have the baseline data of those
    invasive animals?
        Mr. Williams. Asian carp we would. Quagga and zebra mussels
    we might, but there are many other----
        Mr. Bishop. So if you have--let's just do those two. You
    would be--a bill that--you would have the ability to get a 5-
    percent reduction in those invasive animals. You have the
    baseline, you could find out what the effective rate would be.
        Mr. Williams. We could calculate what that would be.
        Mr. Bishop. All right.
        Mr. Williams. I don't think we would have the resources
    to----
        Mr. Bishop. OK. Ms. Williams, how much do you spend right
    now on investigation, outreach, and education? What percent of
    your budget goes to that?
        Mr. Williams. I would have to get that for the record.
        Mr. Bishop. I need that, because that was the comment that
    you wrote about Section 4. You made that comment without
    knowing what you are now spending on that area?
        Mr. Williams. What it does is set an arbitrary limit.
        Mr. Bishop. No, I am asking. Do you know what--what you
    have just told me is you don't know how much you are spending
    on that area right now, even though that was one of your
    criticisms----
        Mr. Williams. I need to provide the record----
        Mr. Bishop. Yes, you do need to provide that. Thank you.
        Let me ask you, then, the other one. How much do you spend
    on administration right now?
        Mr. Williams. I would need to provide that, because of the
    five different agencies, for the record.
        Mr. Bishop. So you gave me a written comment and came up
    with oral comments, and those were your criticisms, but you
    don't know what the answers are to those two? That is
    disconcerting, that you would actually come up without having
    that kind of data available. Because I think it is essential to
    the questions that you are raising in your written and oral
    testimony.
        Dr. Beck, let me go to a couple of questions for you, then.
    What ways--in broad terms--let's do this briefly, and there
    will be other rounds here. H.R. 3994, how could that help
    Federal land management achieve and reduce populations of
    invasive species better than we are doing under current status
    quo law?
        Dr. Beck. I believe that more money would get out to the
    areas where it needs to be spent to manage the problems
    specifically, rather than drastically--insufficient budgets
    that--and it doesn't matter which agency. By the time it gets
    out to the West, in particular, it seems like it is minuscule,
    compared to what it was.
        Mr. Bishop. And your testimony was, ``If we keep on going
    on the current status, the direction we are doing, what we come
    up with is''--what were the numbers--``150 million acre
    increase''?
        Dr. Beck. No, about 120 percent increase.
        Mr. Bishop. OK.
        Dr. Beck. And that is using a fairly conservative figure.
    Spread rates for weeds vary from about 5 percent to 25 percent.
    So it is species-oriented.
        Mr. Bishop. All right. I have less than a minute. I will
    try and do this as quickly as we can. What is meant by a 5-
    percent annual reduction in invasive species population? What
    does that mean?
        Dr. Beck. What it means is that you account for the rate of
    spread that inevitably will occur, and you must exceed that
    rate of spread to achieve a 5-percent decrease. So in the case
    of my example on weeds, if they are increasing at 12 percent,
    the target should be 17 percent to achieve that 5-percent
    reduction. Otherwise, all we are doing is not even slowing down
    the rate of spread.
        Mr. Bishop. So, 5 percent is not 5 percent. Five percent is
    determined by the situation in which it comes to reach that
    particular goal.
        Dr. Beck. That is very correct.
        Mr. Bishop. In which case you would have to have the
    baseline and you have to know what your effective goal actually
    is.
        Dr. Beck. That, too, is correct.
        Mr. Bishop. All right. There will be another round of
    questions here.
        Mr. LaMalfa, do you have questions? And I will yield to
    you. We will recognize you.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Pardon me, panelists
    and Mr. Chairman, for--there was a conflicting Ag. Committee
    meeting a while ago, so I didn't get to hear testimony.
        So, if it is not too redundant, Dr. Beck, when we see this
    ever-proliferating invasive species of noxious weeds--I am a
    farmer in northern California. We--it is a huge problem for a
    lot of my colleagues, as well, ranching. What is the
    relationship with the public land versus private lands that are
    managed differently--I would say better. What are you finding
    in your travels is the overall view of public land, the way it
    is managed, and how it keeps up with these invasive species,
    the noxious weeds, et cetera, versus private land?
        Dr. Beck. Oftentimes public lands are a source of the
    problem. In the Federal lands, of course, being a rather large
    amount, particularly in the western United States, then becomes
    a sizable issue. But it is also state and county lands. But
    public lands are not as well attended to as private lands.
        Mr. LaMalfa. In one of the statements here it did talk
    about how most of our tax dollars that flow through Federal
    agencies for management, the vast majority doesn't actually get
    to the end use, that it is lost along the way. Can you comment
    on that?
        Dr. Beck. I taught a workshop--now, let's just use this as
    an example--back in May in Montrose, Colorado, on the West
    Slope. And there was a wide variety of people there. Amongst
    them was someone new who worked for the Forest Service near
    Paonia. And she was in charge of the invasive species program.
    And apparently she only gets $7,000 a year for the entire
    forest to deal with all the issues and every manner--paying for
    vehicles, whatever tools they are going to use, the labor. Very
    insufficient.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Ms. Wagner, following up on that same
    question, you have a budget for this that the Congress, via the
    taxpayers, provide. How do you feel about how the end result
    comes along versus the dollars that are lost along the line in
    the administration? What do you think--and what H.R. 3994 is
    trying to do, how will that be a tool for you?
        Ms. Wagner. I appreciate the question. So, as we assess our
    appropriated dollars and what we invest in, we would say
    roughly 75 percent of our appropriated dollars do go to
    treatment on the ground. That differs from Mr. Beck's--or Dr.
    Beck's characterization. So we would like to follow up with
    some specific detailed information about our expenditures that
    would be helpful to that.
        Mr. LaMalfa. May I--Mr. Chairman, is that consistent with
    what we have been understanding, that 75 percent gets to the
    ground?
        Mr. Bishop. I think you should ask Dr. Beck that question.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, OK. Well, I guess we have a dispute here
    on that, because we are stewards of tax dollars and we want
    results. And so, Dr. Beck, please follow up on that.
        Dr. Beck. Well, I would--in this case that I used as an
    example, I can't imagine $7,000 being 75 percent of anything,
    and certainly not 75 percent of what started out from here, and
    I think that is part of the problem is, as money flows, it just
    gets touched by a whole bunch of folks before it gets to the
    people who need it. These people are my heroes, they are trying
    to get this job done out on the ground.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Back to Ms. Wagner on that. Now, it
    requires an infusion of tax dollars from the U.S. Treasury. But
    if we are able to do more timber harvests and get more of those
    receipts in that seem to be so difficult to accomplish these
    days--I know at least in California--how much more income could
    we be generating that stays within the system?
        And can we do more things that--do you need our help to
    have that money say within the U.S. forest system to go much
    farther toward these goals from more timber receipts, et
    cetera? What can you tell me there?
        Ms. Wagner. I would say that the Forest Service has a very
    strong interest in ensuring that we are creating resilient
    ecosystems. And in our forested ecosystems, active management,
    thinning, creating resilient forests, that is a very important
    goal for us.
        When we sell timber or have proceeds--products that
    generate value, we return a percentage of that to the Treasury.
    We keep a percentage of it for reforestation or Knutson-
    Vandenberg-type activities, which includes invasive species
    treatment in that impacted area, and brush disposal.
        Mr. LaMalfa. And these are all concurrent. If there is a
    timber harvest going on, you are accomplishing timber value,
    you are accomplishing forest safety, health, fire----
        Ms. Wagner. Yes.
        Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. Danger improvement, all that. In
    addition, at the same time, invasive species are being
    mitigated, as well.
        Ms. Wagner. They would be treated in that project area,
    yes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. So if we are doing more of this, we are having
    a lot more effect, plus positive timber receipts at the same
    time.
        Ms. Wagner. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK, thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, appreciate the questions. Ms.
    Lummis, do you have another set of questions for these
    witnesses?
        Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just ask Dr.
    Beck a couple of questions.
        Could you rank the biggest invasive species issues facing
    the Rocky Mountain West right now?
        Dr. Beck. Well, one that jumps to mind is cheatgrass. I
    mean it is enormous, to be sure. But, I mean, I have been asked
    that question, ``Where do we start managing cheatgrass?'' And
    my response was a little short, but I said, ``Well, it really
    doesn't matter, but someplace.'' And what I really mean by that
    is I would start off with something visible, so you can show
    the public that we are effective at this. But that is probably
    one of our biggest problems in the western United States.
        Mrs. Lummis. OK. Let's focus on that right now. How might
    the Federal Government go about working with local land owners
    and state lands to better manage cheatgrass?
        Dr. Beck. I can--I have a project I just finished, and the
    BLM was involved in that project. And it is because they are
    trying their level best to manage the problem. And this is an
    area close to Grand Junction. So there is involvement there.
    And I certainly don't want to leave anyone with the impression
    that the agencies aren't doing anything, but they just have
    insufficient funds to achieve the job at the right level.
        Mrs. Lummis. Yes, it is an enormous problem. Livestock
    grazing actually helps manage cheatgrass, would you agree?
        Dr. Beck. Absolutely.
        Mrs. Lummis. And can livestock be used in a way that is a
    benefit to suppression of endangered species?
        Dr. Beck. Well I am certain in a form of habitat
    improvement they could be used--I mean one must be, of course,
    prudent about how they manage their livestock. But typically,
    grazing--the lands in the western United States, especially in
    the Great Plains, evolved with grazing. So that is going to
    create the most resilient systems. And if we avoid grazing,
    then it is a disturbance. We consider, on the short grass step,
    the lack of grazing to be a disturbance, which is quite
    interesting, in and of itself.
        Mrs. Lummis. What about using either sheep or goats to
    manage leafy spurge in the area where there are trees along
    creeks or rivers in the West that would respond poorly? Meaning
    the trees would respond poorly to Tordon or something. Can you
    use sheep and goats to graze down and control leafy spurge that
    way?
        Dr. Beck. Absolutely.
        Mrs. Lummis. Have you done that in Colorado?
        Dr. Beck. Yes, yes, we have. I did about a 6-year research
    project. Now we use sheep, goats tend to eat more forbs than
    sheep, so they are a little bit more efficient. But we found
    eight sheep grazing for 10 days, in combination with flea
    beetles on this particular project, we eliminated leafy spurge.
    It was a pretty good project.
        Mrs. Lummis. Would something similar work before cheatgrass
    has headed out in areas where cheatgrass has come in following
    a forest fire?
        Dr. Beck. Yes. The grazing would help. What I have noticed,
    just practicing weed management, if you will, is you can mow,
    you can graze off cheatgrass multiple times, and it will reset
    new seed, but at a drastically decreased rate. So, ultimately,
    something besides just grazing would have to be done. But that
    certainly could be a component of such a management system.
        Mrs. Lummis. With cheatgrass being so prevalent and
    invasive after a wildfire, the better course of action is to
    not have the wildfires go so massively across these mountains,
    and especially in areas where bark beetle kill creates an
    environment in which a forest fire or a canopy fire can thrive.
    Is that a fair statement?
        Dr. Beck. I believe so. I am not an expert on fire, but
    yes, that is probably a fair statement.
        Mrs. Lummis. Is it a fair statement to say that cheatgrass
    is a chief invasive species after a wildfire?
        Dr. Beck. Oh, absolutely. I mean it has to be present there
    to begin with, but fire rarely destroys seed. It is kind of a
    misnomer that some people have. Fire actually stimulates the
    germination of seeds. Some brilliant biochemists in the early
    parts of this century identified the compound in green plant
    smoke that stimulates seeds to germinate.
        Mrs. Lummis. And how does cheatgrass invasion affect
    endangered species such as sage-grouse?
        Dr. Beck. There is a pretty direct relationship there. It
    seems like, because cheatgrass causes fire, you are destroying
    nesting habitat and habitat where they would seek hiding from
    predators. But it is also the--brood success seems to be at the
    base of the problem with the sage-grouse. And after fires, most
    of the anthills that--which are--ants are a primary food source
    for the chicks--those are eliminated after the fire.
        Mrs. Lummis. I didn't know that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    learned something today.
        Mr. Bishop. I am going to take his 30 seconds over off of
    my time, because that was the question I wanted to ask. I
    appreciate that. We have a lot of people talking about sage-
    grouse in the future. You know, 43 percent of my state is
    actually controlled by the BLM. And yet, if we are not going to
    actually deal something with invasive species that create
    wildfires, which is the greatest source of lack of habitat,
    then we are fooling ourselves thinking that Fish and Wildlife
    can actually superimpose a requirement when we don't have the
    vehicle to do it. So I appreciate that comment. I would
    seriously put me at 4 minutes, and we will go on from there.
        Dr. Beck, let me ask you a couple other questions. Let's go
    on to the NEPA categorical exclusion language that is in there.
    What is the purpose of the NEPA categoric exclusion language in
    the legislation?
        Dr. Beck. Well, I think the purpose behind that is to
    provide the tools, the necessary tools, for early detection and
    rapid response. And, obviously, this would be the rapid
    response. So, in the case of a weed, it may be a new
    infestation of cheatgrass. When it first shows up, the
    categorical exclusion then would allow the use of a herbicide
    to get rid of that.
        Mr. Bishop. So, there are a lot of groups out there that
    are opposed to categorical exclusions for political reasons. I
    want you to address this, simply from a scientific standpoint
    that you bring with both the coalition, as well as your work at
    the college. What, therefore, then, are the environmental costs
    of the NEPA delay that is in treatment, compared to the
    environmental risks by using a categorical exclusion to
    expedite those treatments?
        Dr. Beck. Well, without the categorical exclusion, or some
    kind of mechanism similar to that, the agencies would lose the
    opportunity to exterminate that plant, or eradicate it from the
    environment. I will use a case. Right now we are working with a
    private rancher on a 15,000-acre ranch on the western parts of
    Colorado. And we discovered two paper-sized patches of
    cheatgrass. And as we can tell, they are the only ones. And so,
    my advice to them--and we are actually going to provide them
    with the compounds to do this--is to spray it and get rid of it
    before it goes over the entire ranch.
        Mr. Bishop. All right. So, from your scientific point of
    view, which is the greater risk? Is it the risk of delay or the
    risk of actually doing something quicker under categorical
    exclusion?
        Dr. Beck. My scientific perspective is the risk associated
    with not acting as quickly as possible far exceeds the risk of
    using the chemical.
        Mr. Bishop. All right. You work with--Dr. Beck, you work
    with many Federal land managers in the field. Are they, in
    general, more supportive of these kinds of reforms that we are
    talking about than the agency testimony you have heard today?
        Dr. Beck. Very much so. They are very, very frustrated, not
    only with insufficient budgets, but also some of the process
    associated with using the new tools that become available. And
    again, the variation from agency to agency is pretty
    extraordinary.
        Mr. Bishop. Ms. Wagner, the Forest Service seems to be a
    little bit more effective and efficient in dealing with
    invasive species than the Department of the Interior. Do you
    list that simply because of the different topography in which
    you deal? What is your success, relative to the other agency,
    what is the purpose for that, or reason for that?
        Ms. Wagner. For the Forest Service, we are part of four
    other agencies in USDA who have a very aggressive stance. USDA,
    overall, spends over $1 billion in invasive species program
    delivery and management over the course of a year. The Forest
    Service is devoted to land stewardship.
        I would say permittees oftentimes are that front line of
    early detection.
        Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that. I am going to cut myself off
    here for the timing element. Just add some categorical
    exclusions, and you will be doing great.
        Mr. LaMalfa, do you have some other questions?
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms.
    Wagner, in my area here in northern California, and also part
    of Nevada, we have a newer problem here with a--something
    called the chytrid fungus has affected the mountain yellow-
    legged frog and Yosemite toad and those populations, as have a
    lot of amphibians around the world, have been affected by this
    fungus.
        And so, recently, the Fish and Wildlife Service has chosen
    to list them under the ESA. So now we have that to deal with in
    these forested areas, where you are coming on the heels of the
    gigantic rim fire in the Yosemite area last year. I am really
    concerned we are going to run out of options on how to manage
    the areas for the forestry practices we need to be doing along
    with all the invasives. And I suppose we could count the
    chytrid fungus as an invasive problem, as well.
        So, can we count on you, as the rules are being developed,
    or what have you, for how that is going to be combated?
        My concern is that people's involvement, their activity in
    that forest is going to be limited, even though people, human
    activity, had nothing to do, really, with the chytrid fungus
    taking effect there. We still need to do perhaps even more
    forest management for the fire purposes, for the invasive
    purposes, and whatever positives can be done to remedy the
    chytrid fungus. Can we count on you to be an ally in the
    arguments that we should not stop human activity in these areas
    because of all these invasives, especially because of this
    listing now for the toad and the yellow-legged frog?
        Can we count on your advocacy to say, ``Look, don't stop
    these harvest activities and other things that we need to be
    doing in the forest; they don't really have anything to do with
    the fungus'' ?
        Ms. Wagner. Sir, I am going to have to admit I don't know
    about this fungus and these listed species, but I will follow
    up and get more information about the intersection between
    these species, the listing, and our forest management
    activities.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Please take that back with you to--because,
    again, we don't know what the rules are going to be on the no-
    forest intervention by people, or what have you. We don't know
    what is going to come on that. It really shouldn't be that,
    because it is a fungus, and that should be addressed somehow
    that way.
        As well, getting back to this area of Nevada and northern
    California, where we have a sage hen situation, I hope we can
    get ahead of it here. We are talking about cheatgrass and other
    issues. But also, we want the sage hen to recover, and it
    requires certain types of species, and not the ones that have
    taken over, as far as the grasses, et cetera. But also, we have
    a wild horse problem, where we have a management plan that--
    they have targets there for what the wild horse population
    should be. Some is on Forest Service, some is on BLM, that
    really aren't even coming close to being met.
        Would you, for your part, consider the wild horse, in its
    over-population, to be one of the invasive species?
        Ms. Wagner. I am honestly not sure if--I don't believe it
    is considered an invasive species. Wild horse and burros are
    something that we collaborate with our colleagues at Department
    of the Interior to manage on public lands. I am going to have
    to get versed in answering your question, and I will follow up
    with you on that.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Because, again, you know, everybody likes
    the wild horses in the romantic tone, I guess. A lot of
    ranchers don't like that there are 10 times the population as
    supposed to be sustainable in some of these zones of the right
    amount of wild horses, in addition to grazing, in addition to
    maybe areas where none of it should be going on. So it is
    having a very devastating effect on the ecology of that land,
    as well as the neighbors there that have for over 100 years in
    some cases been able to operate cattle operations, as well.
        So, it really needs to be looked at that way, and get to
    the right size population on the horse population. Otherwise, I
    think it is another invasive species, as any other are in that
    context.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. Do you have other questions? All right. And I
    appreciate the question. Certainly it is not an endangered
    species, and it is not a native species. I think invasive is
    the only thing that is left, isn't it?
        Dr. Beck, let me come back to you for just a second. When
    we talk about 75 percent going for on-the-ground control and
    management, what activities are included in that term? What do
    we mean by that term? And--well, first, what do we mean by that
    term?
        And then the second follow-up is what currently is being
    done that could be curtailed by this type of definition?
        Dr. Beck. On-the-ground is a very broad term. My
    perspective on that would be--obviously, one is decreasing the
    population of the target species. And it doesn't matter what
    technique, but it could be a herbicide, it could be something
    physical, it could be biological control.
        But it also involves, then, if there is labor associated
    with that, that is also a cost associated with the on-the-
    ground control. Vehicle cost and whether it be gasoline,
    depreciation, that has to be figured in in the on-the-ground
    cost, as well.
        Mr. Bishop. So is there something that would be curtailed
    by delineating 75 percent going on the ground?
        Dr. Beck. I think we could partner better on education.
    There is a distinct need for research, but there is a pile of
    research that we could coordinate. There seems to be a lot of
    redundancy about invasive species, which--for years, that was
    not a bad thing. But I think now it is to the point that
    duplication of effort--those are things that we could divert
    money from.
        So in education--I am an educator. I have a deep
    appreciation of that. But we can work with the land grant
    institutions throughout the country to help provide some of the
    education, and then relief to the Federal agencies that are
    doing that. And I think that would be a benefit, and provide
    them with the opportunity to put more money on the ground.
        Mr. Bishop. So we may be talking about also the difference
    between the cost of using a herbicide, for example, versus
    manual eradication?
        Dr. Beck. Oh, yes, absolutely. The cost of control--I mean
    the reason we developed herbicides--and they are ancient, they
    go clear back to just salt. But the reason we use them is to
    save labor. And typically, it is, you know, somewhere between
    50 and 70 percent of the price of raising a crop is still weed
    control. We can be much more efficient by using a herbicide,
    and to suppress the populations is one of the first logical
    steps in the management program.
        Mr. Bishop. All right. I thank you for that.
        Ms. Williams, let me just end by expressing some
    frustration I have with your Department--not just you, but the
    entire Department of the Interior--and the kinds of testimony
    that they are coming and giving us.
        As I look at the written testimony, the only two things
    that actually are put in definitive statements are that this
    bill would actually limit your flexibility and cap your
    administrative costs. Everything else is done in subjunctive
    case: it might, it could, it should, it would have, and
    oftentimes. Even in your oral testimony, you made 2 sentences
    that were definitive, and 10 sentences, once again, in
    subjunctive case. That does not help with that kind of
    testimony.
        And the two questions that I asked you, for not having
    those answers ready, and coming up here not prepared with those
    answers when it was the crux of one of your criticisms, is
    unacceptable. I am very dismayed with the testimony that we are
    getting from the Department. It is not just this particular
    hearing; it seems to be a pattern. But I would hope that the
    testimony would be more specific, and not having to report for
    the record, especially when you are the one who added--your
    Department added those criticisms in the written testimony.
    That is unacceptable.
        With that, I do want to thank all of you for coming here
    and participating in this hearing. This is another issue that
    is extremely significant. We have to get control of invasive
    species, or we--we have to. There is no other way around it.
    And, obviously, what we are doing in the status quo is not
    working. There needs to be a better way.
        I guess I could ask one last thing. Dr. Beck, when we first
    started talking about these things, the Coalition actually
    requested or hoped that there would be a whole lot more money
    that could be put into this. In our budgetary climate, that is
    not acceptable, that just doesn't work. Money, and pouring more
    money at it, is not going to be the solution. We have to be
    more intelligent and more effective in the way we use the
    funds. And that is why I appreciate the Coalition's efforts to
    try and craft language in here that makes sure that we direct
    the funds where they need to be, and the definitions that we
    have in here from both on-the-ground, as far as categorical
    exclusion, that becomes significant to it.
        I want to thank you. I need you to wait for just 1 minute,
    because there is one concluding sentence I have to have. I wish
    I could remember what it is. And it is going to be something
    like there are other questions people may have for you, they
    will be coming back to you, and--that is not it. Oh, yes. And
    so, we may have additional--you are even worse than
    parliamentarians on the Floor, I am sorry. They don't like me
    to ad lib, either. Members of the subcommittee will have
    additional questions. We would like you to respond to that in
    writing.
        With that, the hearing record is going to be open for 10
    days to receive those kinds of responses or questions, if
    indeed they have.
        Thank you all for showing up, thank you for traveling great
    distance to be here. I appreciate your participation in this
    hearing as we go forward with these, this piece of legislation,
    as well as the Kilmer piece of legislation.
        And, with that, unless there are other questions--but there
    is no one here to--it is just you all and I, right?
        I don't have any other questions for you. So, with that,
    the hearing is adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

            Letter Submitted for the Record in Support of H.R. 4751

                            National Parks Conservation
                                            Association (NPCA),
                                                          July 8, 2014.

    House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation,
    Washington, DC 20515.

    Re: Please Support H.R. 4751: Bainbridge Island Japanese American
            Exclusion Memorial

        Dear Members of the House Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
    Subcommittee:

        Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has
    been the leading voice of the American people in protecting and
    enhancing our National Park System. On behalf of our more than 800,000
    members and supporters nationwide, I write to urge you to support H.R.
    4751 when it comes before the subcommittee tomorrow, July 9. H.R. 4751
    would make technical corrections to Public Law 110-229 to reflect the
    renaming of the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Exclusion Memorial.
        On the morning of March 30, 1942, 227 Bainbridge Island men, women
    and children--most of them U.S. citizens--were escorted by armed
    soldiers to the Eagledale ferry landing. They solemnly boarded the
    ferry Kehloken and departed on a lonely journey with an unknown
    destination and fate. They were exiled by Presidential Executive Order
    9066 and Civilian Exclusion Order No. 1 because they were Nikkei--
    persons of Japanese ancestry. With only 6 days notice they were forced
    to hastily sell, store, or make arrangements for all of their
    possessions, businesses and property. They were allowed to take only
    what they could carry or wear.
        The word ``exclusion'' is so vital to completely tell this sad
    chapter of American history, because not only were 120,000 Japanese
    Americans forcibly removed and placed behind barbed wire in internment
    camps, but anyone with a drop of blood of Japanese ancestry was
    forbidden to remain in the exclusion zone. We should remember and honor
    everyone who suffered from this unconstitutional violation of civil
    liberties, and vow to never let fear, hysteria and prejudice deprive
    anyone of life, liberty and equal protection under the law.
        It is the desire of a multitude of groups on Bainbridge Island; the
    Bainbridge Island Japanese American Exclusion Memorial Association, the
    Bainbridge Island Japanese American Community, and the survivors of
    those excluded from the community of Bainbridge Island as well as the
    City Council of the city of Bainbridge Island, the Bainbridge Island
    Historical Museum, the Bainbridge Island Chamber of Commerce and the
    Board of Commissioners of the Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park &
    Recreation District that the memorial name be corrected. This unit of
    the National Park System should expressly acknowledge the exclusion
    experienced by these American citizens by correcting the name of the
    memorial to the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Exclusion Memorial.
        Thank you for considering our views.

                Sincerely,

                                                 Craig D. Obey,
                             Senior Vice President, Government Affairs.

                                     ______

            Letter Submitted for the Record in Support of H.R. 3994

                                                          July 7, 2014.

    Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
    House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation,
    1324 Longworth House Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20515.

        Dear Chairman Bishop:

        As representatives of the powersports industry and off-highway
    vehicle (OHV) enthusiasts we write in support of, and to thank you for
    introducing, H.R. 3994, the ``Federal Lands Invasive Species Control,
    Prevention and Management Act.''
        As you know, this legislation would reduce the impact that invasive
    species have on public lands by directing the Secretaries of Interior
    and Agriculture to plan and implement invasive species programs that
    reduce invasive species populations by 5 percent annually. The bill
    also specifies that no less than 75 percent of budgeted funds be used
    each year for on-the-ground control and management of invasive species,
    making sure that as much funding as possible is used to treat the
    problem. Finally, the bill would require the appropriate Secretary to
    use sound scientific data when making decisions on methods of invasive
    species control.
        Invasive species can have a dramatic negative impact on public
    lands. Unless threats from invasive species are dealt with quickly and
    thoroughly, in some cases irreversible damage can occur to some of our
    Nation's most outstanding natural treasures. Your legislation will make
    sure that existing resources are utilized as effectively as possible
    and mitigation efforts will have the best possible chance for success.
        This issue is very important to the motorized recreation community
    both because invasive species jeopardize access for OHV recreation, and
    because responsible OHVers value public lands and want them to remain
    healthy and vibrant for posterity. Again, thank you for introducing
    this legislation and we look forward to working with you as it
    progresses through the legislative process.

                Sincerely,

                                                   Larry Smith,
                                                    Executive Director,
                         Americans for Responsible Recreational Access.

                                                  Duane Taylor,
                                             Director, Federal Affairs,
                                           Motorcycle Industry Council.

                                                     Tom Yager,
                                                        Vice President,
                          Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association.

                                              Kathy Van Kleeck,
                           Senior Vice President, Government Relations,
                                Specialty Vehicle Institute of America.