[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.