    [Senate Hearing 114-501]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg 114-501

                   TO EXAMINE THE IMPACTS OF INVASIVE SPECIES
                        ON THE PRODUCTIVITY, VALUE, AND
                    MANAGEMENT OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCES;
                      TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT ON THE NATIONAL
                    INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL'S NEW FRAMEWORK
                    FOR EARLY DETECTION AND RAPID RESPONSE;
                     TO EXAMINE IMPROVED COOPERATIVE TOOLS
                        FOR CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT; AND
                        TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON S. 2240,
                   THE FEDERAL LAND INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL,
                         PREVENTION, AND MANAGEMENT ACT

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                       PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 28, 2016

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

                                      ________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    21-978                         WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      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 20402-0001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia

               Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining

                            JOHN BARRASSO, Chairman
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO                 RON WYDEN
    JAMES E. RISCH                       DEBBIE STABENOW
    MIKE LEE                             AL FRANKEN
    STEVE DAINES                         JOE MANCHIN III
    BILL CASSIDY                         MARTIN HEINRICH
    CORY GARDNER                         MAZIE K. HIRONO
    JOHN HOEVEN                          ELIZABETH WARREN
    JEFF FLAKE
    LAMAR ALEXANDER
                          Colin Hayes, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
       Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Natural Resources Policy Director
                Angela Becker-Dippman, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
            Bryan Petit, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Barrasso, Hon. John, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator
      from Wyoming...................................................     1
    Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from Minnesota..................     3
    Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., a U.S. Senator from Hawaii................     4
    Risch, Hon. James E., a U.S. Senator from Idaho..................     5
    Gardner, Hon. Cory, a U.S. Senator from Colorado.................    17

                                   WITNESSES

    Casamassa, Glenn, Associate Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service,
      U.S. Department of Agriculture.................................     7
    Pool, Mike, Acting Deputy Director for Operations, Bureau of Land
      Management, U.S. Department of the Interior....................    17
    Miyamoto, Doug, Director, Wyoming Department of Agriculture......    25
    Beck, Dr. George, Professor of Weed Science, Colorado State
      University.....................................................    30
    Campbell, Dr. Faith, Vice President, Center for Invasive Species
      Prevention.....................................................    41

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Barrasso, Hon. John:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Beck, Dr. George:
        Opening Statement............................................    30
        Written Testimony............................................    32
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    88
    Campbell, Dr. Faith:
        Opening Statement............................................    41
        Written Testimony............................................    43
    Casamassa, Glenn:
        Opening Statement............................................     7
        Written Testimony............................................     9
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    76
    Franken, Hon. Al:
        Opening Statement............................................     3
    Gardner, Hon. Cory:
        Opening Statement............................................    17
    Hirono, Hon. Mazie K.:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
    Miyamoto, Doug:
        Opening Statement............................................    25
        Written Testimony............................................    27
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    86
    Perryman, Dr. Barry:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    91
    Pool, Mike:
        Opening Statement............................................    17
        Written Testimony............................................    20
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    81
    Risch, Hon. James E.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................     5
        Written Statement............................................     6
    S. 2240, the Federal Land Invasive Species Control, Prevention,
      and Management Act.............................................    62

    TO EXAMINE THE IMPACTS OF INVASIVE SPECIES ON THE PRODUCTIVITY, VALUE,
    AND MANAGEMENT OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCES; TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT ON THE
     NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL'S NEW FRAMEWORK FOR EARLY DETECTION
     AND RAPID RESPONSE; TO EXAMINE IMPROVED COOPERATIVE TOOLS FOR CONTROL
      AND MANAGEMENT; AND TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON S. 2240, TO IMPROVE THE
       CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE SPECIES THAT THREATEN AND HARM
    FEDERAL LAND UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND
              THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2016

                                           U.S. Senate,
             Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John
    Barrasso, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM
                                WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. The Subcommittee will come to order.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the ecological
    impacts of invasive species, to conduct oversight on the
    National Invasive Species Council's new framework for early
    detection and rapid response, and to receive testimony on a
    bill, S. 2240, the Federal Lands Invasive Species Control
    Prevention and Management Act.
        The issue we are here to discuss today is at the heart of
    many important issues our communities face. Every year out of
    control invasive species populations cost the United States
    more than
    $100 billion. The number is substantial but it pales in
    comparison to the ecological damage caused by invasive species.
        In my home state of Wyoming we deal with many invasive
    species that compromise water resources and landscape health.
    As a result of fragmented land ownership and poor forage
    management, invasive species, like cheat grass, now infest
    hundreds of millions of acres. These infestations threaten soil
    retention and increase the likelihood of fast moving,
    catastrophic wildfires; they are low quality forage for
    wildlife and livestock; and, they are an unnecessary burden on
    our already taxed water supply.
        As we all know, catastrophic wildfires destroy wildlife
    habitat, they contaminate watersheds and they cause unspeakable
    damage to our landscapes.
        Cheat grass infestations make these fires more likely and
    ultimately worse when they do happen. As an annual grass, cheat
    grass is the first to return after a fire has decimated the
    landscape. Other seedlings are pushed out by cheat grass and
    soon the landscape is overrun. These mono cultures are far more
    susceptible to future fires and so the cycle continues.
        But this does not just happen after a catastrophic
    wildfire. Although they are not here to provide testimony
    today, the Fish and Wildlife Service has consistently
    recognized that cheat grass infestations pose one of the most
    significant threats to sage grouse habitat conservation
    efforts.
        The worst part is that cheat grass is only one of many
    invasive species we face. Zebra and Quagga mussels threaten our
    aquatic ecosystems and cause millions of dollars in damage to
    dams, to municipal water systems, and to agriculture irrigation
    systems.
        Land and waters are under constant threat from invasive
    populations. I know from walking/talking with Senator Stabenow,
    Asian carp has overtaken the Great Lakes and now threaten
    watersheds downstream.
        In 1999 Executive Order 13112 established the National
    Invasive Species Council. The Council was intended to
    coordinate invasive species management programs around Federal
    agencies. Several subsequent reports from the Government
    Accountability Office describe the Council as widely
    ineffective, much like the agency's own efforts to stem the
    tide of invasive species.
        The concept of a council is not without merit; however,
    there is an overwhelming consensus that something must be done
    to more effectively coordinate agency efforts. Last year
    attendees at the Western Invasive Weed Summit outlined a set of
    barriers that hamper their ability to control explosive
    invasive populations. Among those barriers were lack of
    coordination and communication among agencies, lack of
    leadership and accountability among oversight bodies and
    insufficient monitoring compliance and enforcement. The gaps
    must be addressed.
        That is why I introduced S. 2240, the Federal Lands
    Invasive Species Control Prevention and Management Act. This
    bill sets clear targets for reduction of invasive species that,
    while ambitious, I believe will motivate success with the tools
    it provides.
        As part of the target to achieve an annual five percent
    reduction in invasive populations, S. 2240 requires annual
    reports of the successes and failures of management efforts.
        It also provides limited categorical exclusions so that
    when personnel see an area that is at risk for a catastrophic
    infestation, they are able to react quickly to prevent
    environmental damage. Land managers want to streamline NEPA
    approach to the most critical cases so that the processes which
    are meant to protect our environment are not inadvertently
    causing damage.
        Most importantly, S. 2240 encourages the use of
    collaborative partnerships to ensure that management efforts
    are unrestricted by jurisdictional boundaries. Cheat grass does
    not stop at the fence line. Control efforts should not stop
    there either.
        I want to thank each of our five witnesses for being with
    us today. I now turn to Senator Franken for his opening
    remarks.

       STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

        Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling
    this hearing on such an important topic.
        As you said, invasive species are a significant threat to
    our national economy, to environmental resources, and to the
    public health. They cost the United States billions of dollars
    in damages each year, some research suggests over $120 billion,
    and they are often remarkably persistent and difficult to keep
    in check. Many non-native invasive species spread at a rate
    that far outpaces our ability to contain them, a problem
    compounded by our limited resources to fight back. This is an
    issue that, of course, crosses state jurisdictional boundaries
    and obviously requires coordination at the highest levels.
        I commend the Administration for the work they are doing
    with the National Invasive Species Council to improve federal
    response and coordination on this issue.
        As many of you know, addressing invasive species becomes
    difficult, increasingly so, as the species becomes more
    established or widespread. Efficiently leveraging our resources
    to combat invasive species is critical with an eye toward
    eradication and long-term control, and the work of the National
    Invasive Species Council is a step in that direction.
        In Minnesota, non-native invasives continue to threaten the
    health of our forests and aquatic environments, like in
    Wyoming. Species such as the Emerald Ash Borer, the Gypsy Moth,
    Zebra Mussels, and Asian Carp are becoming increasingly
    pervasive and costly. These species have spread quickly and
    have damaged both my state's natural resources and economy.
        From 2014 to 2015 the number of counties in Minnesota
    affected by the Emerald Ash Borer has almost doubled. This
    insect infests trees and kills them within three years, and
    unfortunately today we have few effective controls.
        To make things worse, there is climate change, which is
    already affecting the range and severity of invasive species
    throughout our country. And I think that it's really important
    that we consider those impacts.
        For example, warmer winters allow the Emerald Ash Borer to
    continue to spread more rapidly, and other species will follow
    behind them. I do not think we can fully combat this problem
    without addressing climate change.
        In closing, we are also here today to consider Chairman
    Barrasso's bill on invasive species. I greatly appreciate his
    engagement on this issue and wholeheartedly agree that we must
    develop tools and strategies to get ahead of our problem, a
    problem that is affecting all of us from Senator Hirono's State
    of Hawaii, to Minnesota, to Maine.
        We might have some differences of opinion on how to do
    this, but we certainly agree that it is a worthy and important
    topic that requires a coordinated prevention and response
    strategy.
        I look forward to discussing this issue today in order to
    move toward a solution to combat the spread of harmful invasive
    species.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you for that conclusion and
    consideration.
        Senator Franken. Yes.
        Senator Barrasso. Are there any other members who would
    like to make a statement?
        Senator Hirono.

      STATEMENT OF HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

        Senator Hirono. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    convening this panel and this hearing.
        I think Hawaii is known as the invasive species capital of
    the country, so this is a topic that is really important to us.
    Certainly the threat of invasive species is something that we,
    in Hawaii, are all too familiar with.
        In fact, the Washington Post just this past Monday
    published an article asking the question, ``Is Hawaii the
    extinction capital of the world?'' To take an excerpt out of
    the article, I am quoting the article, ``Across the Hawaiian
    Island chain non-native species have been rapaciously
    destroying native plants and birds, feral cattle and pigs have
    trampled large patches of forest habitat, other non-native
    species such as rats and the mongoose devour birds and bird
    eggs.'' To quote a Fish and Wildlife Service employee in the
    article, ``Hawaii is the sounding board for the mainland. Our
    problems are becoming its problems. We're just a concentrated
    laboratory. When something goes bad here, it goes bad big
    time.''
        I agree that more coordination and resources on the federal
    level are necessary to effectively prevent, control and
    mitigate invasive species. While I disagree with a number of
    provisions outlined in S. 2240, I do look forward to working
    with you, Senator Barrasso, and members of the Committee, to
    explore ways in which we can strengthen our nation's prevention
    and response to invasive species.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Hirono.
        It is now time to hear from our witnesses:
        Mr. Glenn Casamassa, who is the Associate Deputy Chief of
    the Forest Service. Thank you for joining us.
        Mr. Mike Pool, the Acting Deputy Director of the Bureau of
    Land Management. Thank you.
        Mr. Doug Miyamoto, who is the Director of the Wyoming
    Department of Agriculture. We appreciate you being here again.
        Dr. George Beck, who is a Professor of Weed Science at
    Colorado State University. Thank you.
        And Dr. Faith Campbell, Vice President of the Center for
    Invasive Species Prevention. Welcome.
        I would like to take a moment to introduce my constituent,
    Doug Miyamoto. He has served as the Director of the Wyoming
    Department of Agriculture since 2015. Prior to that he served
    as the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Wyoming
    Livestock Board. He is a native of Wyoming. He is a University
    of Wyoming alumni, former NRCS employee. He provides an
    important multifaceted perspective on the issues we face today.
        I would ask that each of the witnesses try to keep your
    testimony within five minutes.
        Before turning to you, Mr. Casamassa, I would welcome
    Senator Risch and I know you have an opening statement.

       STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

        Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I do.
        I want to thank you for holding this hearing on a very
    important issue. I think those of us who live in Western
    states, particularly, have had some pretty difficult
    experiences in the area that we are talking about today. The
    invasive species, be it aquatic or be it land, have been a real
    and growing problem.
        I have a detailed opening statement that I would like to
    submit, and I would ask unanimous consent that it be placed in
    the record.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Thank you, Senator Risch.
        Mr. Casamassa.

      STATEMENT OF GLENN CASAMASSA, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S.
             FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Mr. Casamassa. Chairman Barrasso 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 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
    Administration supports the Federal Lands Invasive Species
    Control Prevention and Management Act.
        Invasive species are among the most significant
    environmental, economic threats facing our nation. Aquatic and
    terrestrial invasive plants, pathogens, vertebrae, invertebrae,
    algae and fungi have become established on millions of acres
    across North America.
        These infestations degrade watersheds, reduce forest and
    rangeland productivity, increase the risk of wildfire and soil
    erosion, negatively impact human health and safety, threaten
    native fish and wildlife populations and their associated
    habitats and undermine the economy at all levels.
        Invasive species cause billions of dollars in damage each
    year in the United States. 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
    invasive species' problems.
        The wide-ranging authorities of the Forest Service allow us
    to work with partners and 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.
        The Forest Service has a responsibility for the stewardship
    of over 193,000,000 acres of public lands within the National
    Forest System. This vast 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 invasives. Effective management of these harmful
    exotic species that cripple part of the agency's land
    stewardship responsibility.
        The Forest Service invasive species management performance
    is outcome driven with the focus on treating and destroying
    priority areas to improve watershed condition and reduce long
    term impacts. We typically treat nearly 400,000 acres of
    priority aquatic and terrestrial invasive species infestations
    annually. Since 2007 the Forest Service has restored more than
    2,000,000 acres of national forest lands and waters with very
    high treatment success rates each year.
        To accelerate the expansion of our on-the-ground efforts,
    an invasive species' management policies for the National
    Forest System was issued in late 2011. The policy defines and
    clarifies the authority, scope, roles and responsibilities
    associated with the National Forest System management
    activities against aquatic and terrestrial invasive species.
        The Forest Service provides a wide range of 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 851,000,000 acres of rural and urban forest
    through programs such as our urban and community forestry
    program.
        In 2014 the Forest Service program provided about $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 the turn of the century the Forest Service, working
    in partnership with states and other federal agencies, have
    implemented a national slow-to-spread strategy to minimize the
    rate of which gypsy moth spreads into uninfested areas. The
    program has reduced the spread of gypsy moth more than 60
    percent from the historical levels of 13 miles per year. In
    only 12 years this program has prevented impacts on more than
    100,000,000 acres.
        In Fiscal Year 2015 the Forest Service research and
    development branch delivered 258 invasive species tools which
    included a decision support model that estimates the
    suitability of preemptive quarantine across multiple counties
    that surround areas infested with the Emerald Ash Borer.
        In addition, the Forest Service research and development
    scientists demonstrated that a fungal pathogen, known commonly
    as black fingers of death, is very effective in eliminating the
    cheat grass carryover seed back.
        Addressing the invasive species issue is a high priority
    for the U.S. Forest Service. We believe our collaborative, all
    lands approach to invasive species management enhances our
    ability to work together by building on each other's strengths
    and authorities.
        I'd like to thank the Committee and Chairman for your
    interest in invasive species management, and I welcome any
    questions you may have at this time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Casamassa follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
        Before going on to Mr. Pool, I would like to invite Senator
    Gardner to make an introduction.

       STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    the witnesses for your time and testimony today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Franken, for holding
    this hearing.
        I would just like to take a few minutes to introduce Dr.
    Beck, George Beck, a great professor at Colorado State
    University (CSU), my alma mater as well. A professor, at the
    head of the Department, in the Department of Bioagricultural
    Sciences and Pest Management at CSU. A Professor of Weed
    Science can take on different meanings in Colorado these days,
    but you have been in this business longer than the others have
    been.
        So thank you very much for the opportunity to be here and
    certainly, Mr. Chairman, whether it is Dalmatian toad flax or
    the Douglass-fir tussock moth, we have significant invasive
    species to be concerned about throughout the West.
        Thank you, Dr. Beck, for being here.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
        Mr. Pool.

    STATEMENT OF MIKE POOL, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS,
       BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Pool. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
    Members of the Subcommittee. I'm Mike Pool, the BLM's Acting
    Deputy Director for Operations at BLM. Thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss this very important issue of invasive
    species and management across public lands.
        The Department shares the sponsor's goal of improving the
    management and control of invasive species on lands and waters
    that it manages and appreciates changes made in the bill since
    similar legislation was introduced in the House.
        BLM manages over 245,000,000 acres of public lands,
    primarily located in 12 Western states, and is deeply committed
    to preventing the introduction and spread of invasive species
    that threaten the nation's economy, environment and human
    health.
        Invasive and noxious weeds, like cheat grass, star thistle,
    Medusa head and salt cedar, exist on over 79,000,000 acres of
    BLM-managed lands and require significant effort to control and
    manage.
        The formidable challenges imposed by invasive species must
    be addressed for the BLM to effectively protect and preserve
    natural, cultural, historic and tribal resources, safeguard
    traditional uses of public lands, facilitate new economic
    opportunities and build ecological resilience to national
    disasters.
        The key to invasive species control is addressing the
    threat in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. Prevention
    early, detection and rapid response, also known as EDRR,
    control, coordination, education and outreach, research and
    restoration are critical elements for effective management of
    invasive species.
        To prevent and control invasive species, the BLM partners
    with state and local government agencies, tribes and the
    private sector to carry out this work. The BLM is proud to have
    played a role in working with Federal departments, agencies,
    states and tribes to develop the recently released
    interdepartmental EDRR framework, and we'll continue to work
    with all partners to implement the recommendations outlined in
    the report.
        The BLM is implementing many projects on public lands
    across the West to combat the spread of invasive species. For
    example, in Colorado the BLM has worked with stakeholders since
    2001 to remove over 30 miles of salt-cedar and restore native
    vegetation along the San Miguel River.
        In 2005 the BLM launched the Restore New Mexico initiative
    to restore disturbed lands on a landscape scale. Through that
    effort, the BLM has worked with state and local partners to
    restore over 3,000,000 acres of public land across New Mexico
    that had been previously denigrated by invasive species and
    woodland encroachment.
        The BLM has also worked on immediate rehabilitation efforts
    in the aftermath of major wildland fires each year such as the
    recent Soda fire which burned over 280,000 acres in 2015. These
    BLM post fire activities include erosion control, soil
    stabilization efforts, seeding, planting and area closures to
    protect the recently burned areas. Effective rehabilitation of
    these areas, including establishment of planted vegetation, can
    help combat invasive weed species.
        Throughout these and numerous other projects BLM has
    treated millions of acres to address invasive species,
    concerned threatened and endangered wildlife lands and
    rehabilitate and restore public lands following natural
    disasters. These actions result in significant benefits
    including more desirable recreating conditions, healthier
    habitat for fish and wildlife, decreased infestation of on both
    private and public land downstream and educational
    opportunities with adjacent landowners and outdoor
    recreationists to address larger scale noxious weed control
    efforts.
        We believe that the BLM does tremendous work on the ground
    with available resources, and we are always looking for
    opportunities to better work with our partners to increase our
    effectiveness and efficiency.
        The Department of the Interior--the Department supports the
    goals of S. 2240, to facilitate Federal efforts to address
    invasive species across public lands and waters and appreciates
    the changes included from the earlier iterations of the
    legislations. We have identified areas in the bill where
    additional clarity and further discussion with the sponsor and
    Subcommittee would be helpful.
        For example, we would like to work on language to maintain
    administrative flexibility to allow agencies to prioritize
    actions to address the most harmful species and adapt a new
    challenge on some public land.
        The Department does not support such an expansive
    categorical exclusion; however, we would both eliminate an
    important opportunity for public--which would also eliminate an
    important opportunity for public involvement, environmental and
    cultural review and land management decisions.
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and
    I look forward to answering any of your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pool follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thanks so much for your testimony.
        Mr. Miyamoto.

      STATEMENT OF DOUG MIYAMOTO, DIRECTOR, WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF
                              AGRICULTURE

        Mr. Miyamoto. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Senator
    Franken, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to address you today about this important topic.
        My name's Doug Miyamoto. I'm the Director of the Wyoming
    Department of Agriculture, and this topic is particularly
    pertinent to me because almost half of the land mass of the
    State of Wyoming is federally administered and invasive species
    have as much impact on agriculture as they do any other sector.
        I'm here to talk about S. 2240, the Federal Land Invasive
    Species Control Prevention and Management Act. And I really
    want to emphasize my remarks on four critical components of
    this legislation that I think, based on our experience, will
    optimize its chances for success.
        First and probably foremost, this proposal mandates local
    leadership. In my experience farmers and ranchers have a vast
    amount of knowledge regarding the natural resources in which
    they live and work. They're also more impacted by any policy
    decisions that are made regarding those resources. I can point
    to local communities that have worked tirelessly in Wyoming to
    draft locally-developed plans for natural resources used
    ranging from sage grouse habitat to septic system remediation
    and projects for improved water quality. These agricultural
    producers are the exact people that time and time again
    volunteer to serve on their local Weed and Pest District Boards
    and their local Conservation District Boards to address these
    problems. I can also point to a huge local commitment from
    Wyoming. In 2015 alone, the State of Wyoming invested $19
    million in local weed and pest programs. My agency alone, the
    Department of Agriculture, contributed an additional $570,000
    through grants and collaborative invasive species management
    programs.
        The second key tenant that I wanted to emphasize today is a
    consistent commitment that this legislation would provide for
    our federal partners. Invasive species management simply
    demands an ongoing presence by all the partners, and S. 2240
    provides a realistic level of certainty that our federal
    partners can maintain a presence and finish the job that
    they've started.
        The third key component is that this is a goal-oriented
    proposal. The goal of a net five percent reduction in invasive
    species is identifiable and is trackable, at least to the
    maximum extent possible. There's also a strategic planning
    requirement in this proposal that's an essential part of the
    bill and it identifies specific actions and timing for optimal
    coordination with other federal agencies, state agencies and
    local jurisdictions, which I know, will increase our return on
    investment.
        The fourth key component that I would like to highlight,
    specifically addresses one of our biggest and albeit
    inadvertent problems and that's the National Environmental
    Policy Act. And I'll give you a local example to highlight.
        In June 2012 there was a fire that started about 30 miles
    southwest of Laramie, Wyoming called the Squirrel Creek Fire.
    It burned about 11,000 acres. Ninety percent of those acres
    were on Forest Service-administered lands.
        Prior to the fire starting satellite imagery showed that
    less than ten percent of the cover was cheat grass. Forest
    Service initiated the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at
    that time, and the problem is that it took four years for that
    EIS to be completed. In the four years since the fire started
    cheat grass occupancy has more than doubled, and so we're now
    looking at total coverage of more than 25 percent in cheat
    grass.
        I want to contrast that to a fire that ignited just last
    summer in Northern Wyoming, the Sheep Creek Fire. This fire
    occurred on mostly state-managed lands, and the topography and
    land use between these two fires is similar. The topography is
    the same and the land use is the same. Riverside treatments for
    cheat grass in the Sheep Creek Fire were applied within four
    months of the fire and cheat grass is, today, less prevalent
    than it was before the fire started. The categorical exclusion
    language of the bill is extremely important. Sometimes these
    actions require a timeliness that, so far, has been a challenge
    for us in some instances.
        Invasive species simply demand a high degree of
    collaboration across jurisdictional boundaries. In the case of
    the Squirrel Creek Fire, Forest Service committed seven percent
    of the funding despite having jurisdiction for 90 percent of
    the land. In Wyoming we eagerly await the opportunity to
    collaborate with our federal partners in an effort where the
    common goal is invasive species control, prevention and
    management. I know that these will be universally supported,
    and I know it will also provide us yet another opportunity to
    prove that locally led and collaborative conservation works
    best.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today
    about this important topic.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Miyamoto follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much for your thoughtful
    testimony, and we appreciate you coming to be with us today.
        Dr. Beck.

       STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE BECK, PROFESSOR OF WEED SCIENCE,
                       COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

        Dr. Beck. Chairman Barrasso and honorable members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
    today.
        I'm George Beck, and I'm a professor of Weed Science at
    Colorado State University. Today I represent the Healthy
    Habitats Coalition. We are a diverse alliance dedicated to
    improving invasive species management in our country.
        In spite of almost three decades of efforts by many
    organizations working to persuade the Federal Government to do
    a better job of controlling and managing invasive species, not
    nearly enough progress has been made.
        Zebra mussels are in the Great Lakes, and Asian carp are
    poised to invade. Cheat grass, knapweed, and tamarisk abound in
    the West. Burmese pythons, melaleuca and hydrilla are wreaking
    havoc in Florida. The emerald ash borer is another invasive
    force. Insects are invading the Northeast and Midwest, and
    Hawaii is simply overrun with invasive species. All these
    problems are spurting rapidly in every state as invasive
    species without exception.
        Cheat grass alters habitats so significantly that it is
    clearly linked to the decline of the greater sage grouse
    habitat. We possess, however, the knowledge and ability to
    recover cheat grass infested sage grouse habitat if we would
    just seize the initiative to do so. For example, Colorado State
    University weed scientists recently completed a comprehensive
    study to demonstrate such success. And we have also developed
    approaches to target and eliminate the cheat grass soil seed
    reserve which then will provide the greatest opportunity to
    recover native species habitat.
        The invasive species conundrum in our country is not
    necessarily due to a lack of knowledge rather it is because of
    chronically poor federal land management agency performance
    around managing invasive species, and this is a reflection of
    chronically poor administrative leadership concerning this
    problem.
        Leadership from the National Invasive Species Council is
    practically non-existent. The recent charge by the Department
    of the Interior from NISC and their staff to lead the
    implementation of a national early detection and rapid response
    program is a significant error. NISC and their staff do not
    possess the appropriate knowledge base to implement EDRR and
    their leadership capacity will instantly be in question.
        It is highly unlikely the federal agencies will take
    direction from NISC staff regarding EDRR because staff are not
    authorized to provide such correction. Quite frankly, NISC
    could be dissolved and the funds used to operate that body be
    spent on decreasing population abundance of invasive species
    and recovering native species habitat.
        This poor federal performance is due to several reasons:
    Inconsistent budgets and non-transparency in the invasive
    species budgeting process; lack of collaboration,
    prioritization and on-the-ground performance with state and
    local governments; using NEPA as an excuse for an action or
    justification to postpone making timely management decisions;
    and, poor administrative leadership leading or developing
    appropriate invasive species public policy and management and
    budgetary action.
        The solution to these problems have been introduced as
    bills. S. 2240 works in the Senate and H.R. 1485 in the House.
    These are entitled the Federal Lands Invasive Species Control,
    Prevention and Management Act. The bills focus on the major
    land management agencies. The bills require agencies to develop
    a strategic plan and foster cooperative agreements with state
    and local governments, have categorical exclusions that will
    protect high value sites from invasive species and fully
    supports and facilitates EDRR. The bills will end years and
    years of analysis to approve management tools and requires
    invasive species populations to be decreased a net five percent
    annually to stay ahead of expansion rates, and it changes
    spending parameters. Seventy-five percent must go on the
    ground, not more than 15 percent on education and awareness or
    excuse me, awareness and research and up to ten percent on
    administration.
        We have multiple supporters for these efforts including an
    Invasive Species resolution from the Western Governors
    Association and direct support from Governor Otter of Idaho,
    former Governor Andrus of Idaho, Governor Martinez from New
    Mexico and the State of Wyoming.
        There's no federal administrative leadership on invasive
    species. It is up to Congress to provide that leadership and
    pass S. 2240 and H.R. 1485. Doing so will place our country on
    the road to begin solving our invasive species problems.
        Honorable members, we must stop kicking this can down the
    road.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to share the Healthy
    Habitats Coalition's thoughts on invasive species management
    and our country.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Beck follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Dr. Beck.
        Dr. Campbell.

      STATEMENT OF DR. FAITH CAMPBELL, VICE PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR
                      INVASIVE SPECIES PREVENTION

        Dr. Campbell. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and other
    Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to speak with you
    today about invasive species management.
        I do have a written statement that I've asked be included
    in the record.
        I represent the Center for Invasive Species Prevention and
    the Natural Areas Association. We believe everyone in this room
    agrees that invasive species cause enormous damage, that the
    nation needs a comprehensive invasive species program and that
    needed federal leadership has fallen short.
        The invasive species threat does not have a Teddy Roosevelt
    or a John Muir, but you can be the John Lacey, the Member of
    Congress who moves it forward. You can use your powers as
    Senators to promote strong and comprehensive programs that will
    praised 100 years from now.
        And I'm going to suggest some immediate practical steps
    that you can take.
        First, you can work with your colleagues to amend the Lacey
    Act, which I just praised John Lacey. One hundred sixteen years
    ago it was a very forward looking bill, but everything changes
    in 116 years. The Fish and Wildlife Service needs new authority
    to apply scientific risk assessments, to act quickly when
    confronted by an emergency, to regulate imports of all kinds
    and interstate movement of all animal taxa to deal with
    wildlife diseases such as West Nile virus and to have clear
    authority over the regulation of movement of these animals
    among the 49 continental states.
        A second action that you can help on is appropriations.
    None of the agencies, none of the land managing agencies, nor
    APHIS, the lead agency on prevention, has adequate funding to
    carry out its tasks.
        You could also conduct oversight hearings at which you
    bring in the secretaries and assistant secretaries and
    undersecretaries and ask them about their efforts. I think we
    all agree that they're the ones with the authority to ramp up
    these programs, but they don't get the pressure that they
    should be getting about this.
        I suggest three specific topics that you might ask them
    about. Has the Forest Service implemented its 2011 internal
    directive amending its manual to integrate invasive species
    activities across national forest programs, National Forest
    System programs? Why has neither the Forest Service nor the
    National Park Service adopted a nationwide regulation governing
    movement of firewood? And why has the Council on Environmental
    Quality not, over the last 15 years, met with the National
    Invasive Species Council to develop NEPA guidance which would
    solve, I think, many of the problems that have been enumerated
    here?
        And finally, in less than a year you will be holding
    confirmation hearings for new secretaries, undersecretaries and
    assistant secretaries at USDA and U.S. Interior Department and
    I ask you to ensure that questions about their plans for
    managing invasive species are prominent in those hearings.
        I do welcome your interest in the invasive species topic,
    and I congratulate the Healthy Habitat Coalition for a lot of
    hard work that's brought us to this point. Unfortunately, I do
    not agree that S. 2240 will provide the necessary changes.
        I've outlined some problems with the funding allocation,
    especially when combined with the five percent reduction goal.
    I fear that it creates even more overlapping reporting and
    coordination requirements that might further delay needed
    actions. I believe that the priorities for dealing with
    invasive species on national lands should be--should reflect
    national perspectives, not perspectives of individual state
    governors. And finally, I think that the NEPA categorical
    exemption outlined in the bill would expose the environment to
    additional damage.
        I'm ready to answer any questions you might have.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Campbell follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well thank you so much for your
    testimony, Dr. Campbell.
        Mr. Miyamoto, thanks for being here. Thanks for traveling
    from Wyoming to Washington. I appreciate the commitment and the
    proactive approach that you and the rest of the Wyoming
    agencies have taken to control invasive species and to prevent
    ecological damage.
        In your testimony you provided an example of an unintended
    consequence of a slow, cumbersome NEPA process. You talked
    about the cheat grass and going from 10 percent to over 25,
    waiting four years. It is clear that a 48-month delay in
    applying necessary treatments like the one that you mentioned
    is unacceptable in any circumstance, but particularly when it
    is clear that invasives will soon cause catastrophic damage to
    the ecosystem.
        So in your experience do you believe that agencies, like
    the one that you oversee, would actually overuse this
    categorical exclusion in this bill?
        Mr. Miyamoto. Chairman Barrasso, I do not believe that
    agencies would overuse a categorical exclusion. When you're an
    agency such as the Wyoming Department of Agriculture or others
    like it, one of the responsibilities that you have to undertake
    is you have to know what the consequences of your actions will
    likely be in addressing some of these natural resource
    problems. These are oftentimes complicated situations, and you
    have to get multiple experts in the room to try to determine if
    what you're going to do is going to have a net benefit on the
    resource.
        So I think that is undertaken, particularly in the case
    where you're responding to something like fire. All of the
    outcomes are weighed, and you're simply managing as best you
    can to avert disaster. So I don't think the categorical
    exclusion would be used to a fault.
        Senator Barrasso. Okay.
        Mr. Pool, your agency has published an estimate that
    invasive species spread approximately, I think, 4,600 acres a
    day on federal lands alone in the Western United States. Is
    that accurate?
        Mr. Pool. Mr. Chairman, I would have to confirm that
    figure, and I will be glad to do so.
        [The information requested was not provided as of the time
    of printing.]
        Senator Barrasso. Okay, that would be great because I
    appreciate that the Department of the Interior recently
    published their new Early Detection and Rapid Response Plan. A
    key part of that protocol is the response is rapid. That is the
    rapid response component of this. The document reads, ``The
    comprehensive set of EDRR, Early Detection and Rapid Response,
    actions from coordination and planning, to monitoring and
    eradication must be effectively and efficiently implemented.''
        We would all agree with that desire.
        If one or more actions are not implemented or implemented
    inadequately, examples as the response is too slow, then the
    Early Detection and Rapid Response activities will fail and the
    invasive species will continue to spread, and that is what we
    have seen. So in reality the BLM and other agencies should have
    been responding quickly and efficiently all along.
        Can you talk a little bit about when does the BLM plan to
    implement this Department of the Interior's new EDRR
    recommendations and how does the agency plan to decrease
    reaction times? Then I am going to ask Mr. Casamassa the same
    question.
        Mr. Pool. Mr. Chairman, I think a tool that's worked very
    effectively for the BLM, given the number of acres that are
    affected by noxious plants, we felt that our NEPA process which
    is basically a programmatic environmental assessment that can
    cover a large province, that involves the public, that explains
    alternatives, that talks about various method treatments, has
    been a very effective tool for us.
        So we can address large areas with that one tool, and
    should we move into any type of application then we can simply
    go, for what we call, a determination of NEPA adequacy. It's
    not a laborious analysis. It's pretty much check the box and
    based upon what we plan to do. That tool has served us well in
    cooperation with our state, government entities, working with
    tribes, working with industry, working with our grazing
    permitees and working with the conservation/environmental
    community. It served us well.
        Just to reflect a little bit on use of the--for example on
    many of our fuel reduction projects to reduce catastrophic
    wildfire. We were challenged in the courts, and it was
    determined that the degree of our environmental analysis was
    inadequate.
        We turned that around, we, the BLM. We trained our
    practitioners in the field to improve upon the preparation, a
    programmatic environmental assessments more comprehensive. We
    think it's more informative with the public, and those tools
    have served us well in carrying out large project type
    application in terms of reducing invasive upon public land.
        Senator Barrasso. Mr. Casamassa, same thing from the
    standpoint of the Forest Service?
        Mr. Casamassa. Yeah, Chairman Barrasso, the Forest Service
    uses, for one thing, I'd start out with as far as an emergency
    response. Underneath the burned area emergency response, we do
    take actions immediately after a fire on those more
    significantly burned areas to ensure that invasive species and
    erosion of highly steep toils is taken care of. So I think we
    have that tool in our tool belt to actually be able to address
    some immediate, specific needs.
        We do have the wherewithal through the early detection and
    rapid response to have more of a consistent approach when it
    comes to looking at specific populations of invasives on the
    forests and using our forest plan as the umbrella to guide us
    when it comes to the management area of prescriptions and the
    stand ins and guides by which we would apply any kind of
    pesticide is that something that we have in place right now.
        We do recognize that under some categorical exclusions
    right now in our present authorities we've been very effective
    in focusing efforts on restoration, and we could support a call
    for rulemaking to establish, perhaps, an appropriate, necessary
    categorical exclusion for invasive species. This would enable
    us, I think, to kind of fill in the gap between those
    categorical exclusions that we have presently versus the ones
    that we would need specifically for invasive species.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Franken.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for this
    hearing.
        I want to ask about a couple things. Climate change is one
    of them, and I noticed that in the testimonies there was very
    little discussion of that. I think Mr. Pool was the only one in
    your written testimonies to briefly acknowledge the connection
    between climate change and invasive species.
        It is no secret that climate change has strong, well-
    established connections to invasive species on land and in
    water. Climate change is creating more favorable conditions,
    helping them spread in new areas, environments, and it seems to
    me that any plan to combat invasive species must also address
    the effects of climate change. It is concerning to me that that
    was more or less ignored in your testimony.
        So I would ask Mr. Casamassa and Mr. Pool, what are your
    agencies doing to address these concerns about climate change
    and invasive species?
        Mr. Casamassa. Yes, Senator Franken, we do recognize that
    the climate is changing and that it is having an impact on the
    National Forest System lands as well as all lands. We do know
    now that on average each fire season is probably around between
    70 and 80 days longer than it has been in the past.
        We are presently looking at ways to change, perhaps, our
    management prescriptions to ensure that there is more
    restoration and resilient forests that we're managing.
        Senator Franken. You are spending so much of the budget
    fighting the fires that you have less budget to maybe do that
    kind of management.
        Mr. Casamassa. Well certainly that in addition to, perhaps,
    the ever increasing fire season, the cost of fire suppression
    continues to increase. And it does take up over 50 percent of
    our operating budget which provides us with less funding to
    allocate toward restoration and ensuring that forests are
    resilient against climate change.
        Senator Franken. Mr. Pool.
        Mr. Pool. Yes, Senator, I share the same views as the
    Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. We recognize
    that there are climate change influences that are affecting
    Western rangelands. We also evaluate large scale conditions and
    trends.
        More recently, we're working in various prescriptions,
    adaptability, mitigation into some of our sage grouse policies
    in terms of improving upon habitat conservation and the
    sustainability of those populations.
        So we want to be adaptable as we work through trending
    conditions, and we want to come up with the right set of
    mitigations that can hopefully preclude the negative influences
    and trends of climate change.
        Senator Franken. Okay, thank you.
        I want to bring up the NEPA review process because Dr.
    Campbell brought it up and Dr. Beck brought it up and Mr. Pool,
    you brought it up. So just go ahead and discuss it, you three.
        Dr. Campbell, what are your concerns regarding this
    legislation in terms of NEPA review?
        Dr. Beck, you brought that up as sometimes you were saying
    that is an excuse. You feel like the NEPA review is an excuse,
    if I heard you correctly.
        Mr. Pool, you discussed the NEPA review as a necessary
    tool.
        I will start with Dr. Campbell because you expressed your
    concerns.
        Dr. Campbell. Thank you, Senator Franken.
        The procedure, the methods, that one uses to control any
    invasive species and I spend most of my time on tree killing
    insects and pathogens, not invasive plants, but it's true in
    all cases all those activities carry their own environmental
    downsides. And it is the belief of the organizations that I
    represent that those analyses need to be done so as to make
    sure that the cure is not worse than the disease to begin with.
        I do think that agencies can find ways to streamline this
    process. The large programmatic Environmental Impact Statements
    have served not just the land management agencies but others,
    APHIS, for example, quite well in setting up situations so that
    they can move quite quickly when a new outbreak is detected
    somewhere. They've already laid out the options and the pros
    and cons of them.
        It is very frustrating, I've been in this business almost
    as long as George has, that the Council on Environmental
    Quality has stonewalled efforts by the Invasive Species Council
    to come up with some government-wide guidance and the Council
    staff is not in a position to force EQ to cooperate.
        Senator Franken. Yes, I hope I didn't open a can of worms
    here, but it seems like a can of worms if it is worth exploring
    for the other two?
        Senator Barrasso. If you would like, go ahead.
        Senator Franken. I do not want open----
        Senator Barrasso. Then we will go to Senator Hirono.
        Senator Franken. Yes, sorry.
        Senator Barrasso. No, go ahead, finish what you wanted.
        Senator Franken. Well I just would like a comment from Dr.
    Beck and from Mr. Pool.
        Dr. Beck. Thank you for that question, Senator Franken.
        NEPA is a very important process, but when the process gets
    in the way of biology that's very difficult to accept. And but
    I think Wyoming has one of the best examples of unintended
    consequences associated with that.
        And a lot of times things sound very good on paper. We're
    going to take time. We're going to do this, but when you need
    to act now. I mean, if there's a fire, you're not going to do a
    NEPA analysis to make sure you're doing everything correct.
    You're going to get in there and get the job done.
        What we're saying is invasive species is a very similar
    process, and clearly in Senator Barrasso's bill this is
    outlined with categorical exclusions is a very small area that
    is being considered for an exception to NEPA so this job can be
    done. So early detection and rapid response is done correctly.
    And that's incredibly important because prevention is probably
    one of the most important things we have going for us, well for
    invasive species management. So when NEPA either by design or
    by use becomes a stumbling block that becomes unacceptable.
        Senator Franken. Thank you.
        Mr. Pool, do you have anything to add?
        Mr. Pool. Sure.
        So I mentioned previous there's two--there is which we
    address NEPA. There's the non-fire restoration type, prevention
    or actions and then there's the areas where we are responsive
    to the catastrophic effects of wildfire.
        As it relates to the catastrophic effects of wildfire, we
    have strike teams. It's an immediate response to get into the
    area and there is no NEPA requirement there.
        Now, if we're going to treat the area longer term, 280,000
    acres or longer, then we would come back in and address the
    appropriate NEPA analysis and mitigations and actions we need
    to take. But when you get into non-fire related project
    management we're talking hundreds, if not thousands, of acres
    similar to what happened, what New Mexico undertook. You want
    to inform the public. You want them to be part of the solution.
    And so you address a range of alternatives. For any given
    province we may elect to go with mechanical treatments, we may
    go with chemical applications and we may also use prescribed
    fire. All of those can have different consequences in trying to
    address infestations and the mitigations associated with it.
        So we have, over a number of years, working with partners,
    we think we've been successful using NEPA as a very effective
    tool.
        Senator Franken. Okay, thank you.
        And I apologize.
        Senator Barrasso. No, no, that is quite alright.
        Senator Hirono?
        Senator Hirono. Thank you very much.
        A question for Mr. Casamassa.
        The bill that is before us, S. 2240, mandates that no less
    than 75 percent of funds appropriated be used for on the ground
    control management and management of no more than 15 percent be
    used for investigations, outreach and public awareness and no
    more than 10 percent be used on administrative costs. So these
    are pretty prescriptive.
        Let me just cite what is happening in Hawaii with regard to
    Rapid Ohia Death. It is a pathogen on Hawaii Island that is
    currently ravaging our native Ohia trees. It is so new that the
    majority of the expenditures to date have been directed toward
    research on both the identification and spread of the disease,
    as well as public outreach to contain the pathogen to Hawaii
    Island. As you know we have a chain of islands, and we hardly
    need to have this spread to the other islands. We do not
    currently have known treatments or control options.
        Do you see the program funding allocations identified in
    this bill supporting work on Rapid Ohia Death under the
    circumstances that I have described and other new forest
    diseases? Do you think that the funding allocations allow
    agencies to collect the necessary intelligence to control
    invasive species or do you think that more flexibility is
    needed to work on invasive species on a case-by-case basis?
        Mr. Casamassa. Well Senator, certainly the way that the
    allocation is prescribed in the Senate bill 2240, is something
    that is a bit prescriptive. We have looked at the way that our
    funding now goes to and is allocated to various components of
    the overall program, and it is somewhat in line with those
    numbers.
        However, it would be advantageous, given the fact that on
    certain situations we may need to do something different than
    that allocation prescribes, and it would be advantageous for
    the agency to have the flexibility to allocate the resources
    where we think would be most appropriate.
        Senator Hirono. Does anyone else want to weigh in on this
    particular aspect of the bill?
        Dr. Beck. Yes.
        Senator Hirono. Dr. Beck.
        Dr. Beck. Yes.
        As I look at the bill there's, kind of, like reading the
    back of the page first. If you look at the back of the bill it
    clearly states in there that this, these new bills, would not
    usurp any previous invasive species, I guess, it's not
    statutes, but the ability for other agencies, for example, to
    do what they've been doing all along. So at Interior, USGS is
    typically considered to be the research arm, and in USDA it's
    usually the Agricultural Research Service. So to answer your
    question about these pathogens there's at least two entities
    there that could be doing the research independent then of what
    the Forest Service would be doing to help solve----
        Senator Hirono. Excuse me, my time is running out.
        So basically my concern was that the provisions of the
    percentages were really prescriptive and may not help in a
    particular situation, that was my question, because we all want
    the same thing. We want to get rid of the invasive species. So
    that was my question. Okay, let me move on.
        Mr. Pool and/or Mr. Casamassa, S. 2240 directs the
    secretaries to choose the least costly option to effectively
    control and manage invasive species. It further exempts the
    secretaries from conducting an environmental assessment, or an
    EIS.
        A number of you have already talked about the NEPA concern.
    I have a concern that the least costly option would often time
    result in the use of pesticides, and in Hawaii we have major
    concerns about the use of pesticides on our islands. Our fear
    is that exempting certain activities from having to do any EA
    or an EIS would jeopardize the health and well-being of the
    public.
        Mr. Pool, do you have a sense of the amount of pesticide
    required to achieve a five percent reduction in invasive
    species that cover lands owned and/or managed by BLM?
        Mr. Pool. Yeah, I don't have a sense, Senator, as to the
    analogy that you present on why. I think I could take those
    questions back to both Park Service and Fish and Wildlife
    Service, and I think they could provide you probably more
    information on that.
        Senator Hirono. The major concern is that the least
    expensive often will be something like use of pesticides, and
    the people in my state would be very concerned about that.
        Ms. Campbell, if you do not mind, Mr. Chairman, if I could
    just----
        Senator Barrasso. Yes, please go right ahead, Senator
    Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Campbell, the bill also requires a strategic plan for
    invasive species programs to achieve an annual five percent net
    reduction of invasive species populations. That sounds like a
    worthy goal except that we may not be able to really
    objectively get to that.
        There are a lot of insects such as the red imported fire
    ant and coconut rhinoceros beetle as well as forest pathogens
    such as the Rapid Ohia Death where estimating the population is
    challenging. Do you have any concerns about the agency's
    ability to define populations, measure said populations,
    measure a five percent reduction in populations and verify
    those measurements as required by the strategic plan under this
    bill?
        Dr. Campbell. Aloha, Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Aloha.
        Dr. Campbell. Thank you for the question.
        The issue of dealing with invasive species that move
    around, insects, as you mentioned and the pathogen,
    particularly this very alarming one attacking Ohia trees. And I
    think it's probably true of the aquatic ones as well.
        Trying to find them, as you said, detect them, to delimit,
    as APHIS would say, the extent of the infestation is often
    beyond the scientific capabilities of the agencies for several
    years, much less than finding tools that will actually contain
    them or control them. So I do think that it's unrealistic to
    expect to be able to reach a five percent reduction.
        I think it also needs to be said that all these land
    managing agencies are confronted by hundreds of different kinds
    of invasive species, that are at different stages of invasion,
    at different parts of the lands and waters that they manage and
    the appropriate tools may or may not be available if science
    takes a while to come up with these.
        And I'm afraid that a five percent reduction requirement
    will put a lot of pressure on the agencies to focus on those
    that are--for which we have tools and which are more easily
    measured which might be the invasive plants and take resources
    away from other invaders that are at least as damaging and
    which we could get a handle on if there were adequate research
    and strategic planning. And if I might divert just a moment.
    ARS and USGS do a lot of really useful research but so does the
    Forest Service, and I would hate to see it reduced.
        Thank you.
        Senator Hirono. Well I know that there are scarce resources
    for all of our agencies. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Beck, I could not help but note that in your testimony
    you quote someone from Hawaii for the--to give the example that
    the federal workers are not committed to protecting us from
    invasive species. So I just would like to say that I do not
    think that represents the majority of federal employees.
        Thank you.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
        Well Dr. Beck, additional follow up.
        You raise some, I felt, alarming figures in the testimony
    regarding the role that a lack of agency accountability can
    play. So I appreciate that you said there is a reason for hope.
        You indicated that there is a body of knowledge to recover
    landscapes overrun by invasive populations by using the
    technology requires an initiative that federal agencies
    sometimes do not apply. It seems that the National Invasive
    Species Council (NISC) has failed in its coordination role.
    Despite promises to a House Committee last year the National
    Invasive Species Council has still not released an updated
    national management plan.
        Are you familiar with the Department of the Interior's new
    EDRR plan?
        Dr. Beck. Chairman Barrasso, I have read a little bit about
    it, probably as much as there's been released to the public.
        EDRR is an exceptionally important on prevention again, it
    is the cornerstone of invasive species management. Another part
    of prevention that sometimes doesn't get observed is brought up
    in your bill and that is the containment of something that's
    already here also is preventing it from spreading elsewhere.
        I think the Early Detection and Rapid Response is so
    critically important that within the bounds of our country, I
    think that the states probably best suited to take the lead on
    that. But the Federal Government has a very, very important, a
    critical role for things coming in from abroad and frankly,
    that is not done very well.
        I was on an Invasive Species Advisory Committee for six
    years and one of our tours was in addition to Hawaii, but we
    went to a port in Miami and that was just the standard theme is
    that there's not enough inspection. We don't catch enough, so
    the opportunity for prevention is not working as well.
        So the leadership on EDRR is very important, but I just
    don't see it happening out of the National Invasive Species
    Council. I think there's conflict between NISC and the
    agencies.
        Senator Barrasso. Okay, because I am just thinking about
    your significant experience both at the state and the federal
    level, and you are questioning, the opinion you have in the
    Department of the Interior's new plan if it is going to really
    make them any more effective.
        Dr. Beck. The potential certainly is there. It could be
    made more effective. There's not enough being done now to give
    more on a charge like this.
        I think what will end up happening is that's all that will
    be done. And not enough prevention of movement elsewhere of
    things that we already have will take it on the chin, if you
    will.
        Senator Barrasso. Okay, thank you, Dr. Beck.
        Senator Hirono, do you have any additional questions?
        Senator Hirono. Oh yes----
        Senator Barrasso. Yes, but if you would like to go at this
    point.
        Senator Hirono [off mic]:----
        Senator Barrasso. Okay.
        I appreciate you staying, but Senator Hoeven has arrived
    and I think he does have some questions, if it is okay with
    you?
        Thank you.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like
    to thank all of the witnesses for appearing today.
        I hope I pronounce your name right having just arrived. Is
    it Casamassa?
        Mr. Casamassa. Yes, that's correct, Senator.
        Senator Hoeven. Alright.
        So our North Dakota cattle ranchers are constantly having
    to battle invasive species and noxious weeds like leafy spurge,
    Canadian thistle, toad flax are real problems on the grasslands
    and of course, that affects our cattle ranchers who are raising
    their herds out there.
        So can you talk about the Forest Service's efforts to
    collaborate with our North Dakota ranchers on those grasslands
    to fight these invasive species and preserve the health of the
    grasslands?
        Mr. Casamassa. Yes, Senator.
        The, you know, certainly working with the Grazing
    Association and the individual permitees on specific pastures
    within specific allotments and over, over a large area that is
    the grasslands both on the Dakota prairie grasslands and a
    number of different grasslands in Colorado and Wyoming, is part
    of the overall way that we ensure that we reduce the impacts of
    invasive species and that we are ensuring that there is
    adequate forage both now and into the future.
        So the livestock industry, the Grazing Association and
    individual permitees play an important role in ensuring that
    we're working across the mixed ownership to combat invasive
    species.
        Senator Hoeven. How do you see Chairman Barrasso's bill
    assisting in that collaborative effort, working with the
    locals?
        Mr. Casamassa. I certainly think that, you know, the
    ability to collaborate and leverage resources across all lands
    is critical and key to our ability to either control or
    eradicate invasive species. That is a key critical cornerstone
    to the way that we're going to, at least, arrest some of the
    impacts to invasive species.
        Senator Hoeven. Do you see working through that with MOUs
    between the ranchers and U.S. Forest Service or how would you
    implement that? How would you do it?
        Mr. Casamassa. I'd certainly start with right now the
    foundational piece of how we work with the Grazing Association
    is through allotment management plans, our forest plans,
    potentially Memorandums of Understanding, collection agreements
    with local, county, state and other federal entities that have
    some ownership within a particular grassland based on the mixed
    ownership. So it could be a wide array of methods and tools
    that we would use to ensure that we're collaborating and that
    we are, you know, we're working toward common goals.
        Senator Hoeven. Mr. Pool, a question to ask you in regard
    to BLM. What reports are you currently submitting to Congress
    and with what frequency and what are the delays that you are
    seeing and what are the primary causes of those delays?
        Mr. Pool. I would have to get back with you, Senator, on
    the reports that we're providing at this level in Congress.
        [The information requested was not provided as of the date
    of printing.]
        Can you clarify the other part of your question?
        Senator Hoeven. Well basically as it regards to this
    legislation and how you would be trying to expedite or address
    some of the reporting issues on BLM lands.
        Mr. Pool. I think we're going to have to work with you and
    the Committee and Subcommittee members and talk about our
    reporting requirements. I mean, we want to be responsive. We
    have a wealth of data that we can easily compile and provide to
    you.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay. Well, that is fine. If you would get
    back to me on that, that would be great.
        Mr. Pool. Sure.
        [The information referred to was not provided as of the
    date of printing.]
        Senator Hoeven. Alright, thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
        If there are no further questions, I just think it is
    important to note, Dr. Campbell, that I think your perspective
    in the tools that this bill provides are not mutually exclusive
    or even at odds. I think it is clear that prevention is the
    least costly and the most effective way to address new invasive
    species.
        Prevention is a key part of S. 2240, a concept which is
    included in the mandated funding for control and management
    programs.
        In their letter of support of this bill, the National
    Association of Conservation Districts urged inclusion of other
    relevant secretaries and departments to ensure that port
    activity and foreign invasive species could be appropriately
    managed. They said that preventing introduction is only one
    piece of the puzzle. The established population of invasive
    species must be contained and reduced.
        I want to thank all the witnesses for your time and your
    testimony today.
        If there are no further questions members may submit
    written follow up questions for the record. The hearing record
    will be open for two additional weeks.
        Senator Barrasso. The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                       [all]