[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT 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
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, May 16, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-18
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
___________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or
866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Jim Costa, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Niki Tsongas, MA
Jeff Duncan, SC Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Tony Cardenas, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Steven A. Horsford, NV
Steve Southerland, II, FL Jared Huffman, CA
Bill Flores, TX Raul Ruiz, CA
Jon Runyan, NJ Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Mark E. Amodei, NV Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Markwayne Mullin, OK Joe Garcia, FL
Chris Stewart, UT Matt Cartwright, PA
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Vacancy
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, 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 Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Niki Tsongas, MA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Raul R. Labrador, ID Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Mark E. Amodei, NV Steven A. Horsford, NV
Chris Stewart, UT Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Steve Daines, MT Joe Garcia, FL
Kevin Cramer, ND Matt Cartwright, PA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, May 16, 2013........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Horsford, Hon. Steven A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Nevada........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Beck, Dr. K. George, Professor of Weed Science, Colorado
State University........................................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Questions submitted to................................... 25
Dye, Randy C., West Virginia State Forester, President,
National Association of State Foresters.................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Questions submitted to................................... 32
Fearneyhough, Jason, Director, State of Wyoming, Department
of Agriculture............................................. 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Questions submitted to................................... 38
Hughes, Debra, Executive Director, New Mexico Association of
Conservation Districts..................................... 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Ogsbury, James D., Executive Director, Western Governors'
Association................................................ 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Ries, Paul, Associate Deputy Chief, State and Private
Forestry, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture................................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Additional materials submitted for the record:
FY09 National Invasive Species Council Invasive Species
Expenditures Compilation................................... 16
The Idaho Invasive Species Strategic Palan 2012-2016......... 50
The Nature Conservancy, Letter Submitted for the Record...... 64
Western Governors' Association Policy Resolution 10-4........ 48
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS''
----------
Thursday, May 16, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Lummis, Stewart, Cramer,
Holt, Horsford, and Garcia.
Mr. Bishop. Noticing that there is a presence of a quorum,
the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
is meeting today to hear testimony on the invasive species
management on Federal lands.
So, under the rules, only the Ranking Member and the
Chairman are allowed opening statements, but I ask unanimous
consent to include any Member's opening statement in the
hearing record if submitted to the clerk by the close of
business today. And hearing no objections, it will be so
ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. This morning the Subcommittee is exercising its
role in good government by taking a look at a growing issue
facing our Federal lands. The proliferation of invasive species
on our public lands is impacting the health, the landscape, and
it is increasing the risk of wildfire, affecting wildlife
habitat, impacting the viability of land for multiple use, and
perhaps most troubling, it is undermining the efforts of their
neighboring land owners, who, unlike the Federal Government,
are often taking proactive steps to reduce the threat of
invasive species on their lands.
This hearing is intended to take a first look at this
issue. We are going to hear from the Forest Service about their
efforts to tackle the growing threats to the 193 million acres
that it manages. The Department of the Interior, unfortunately,
chose not to talk to us about the 400 million acres that they
manage.
We will also hear from other stakeholders about what they
think is and is not working, and how scarce public resources
can be better utilized.
Invasive species management is a complex and difficult
issue. And, from my perspective, there are certainly more
questions than answers as to what is being done, and what could
be done better. Many, who will be represented by our panel,
have raised concerns with Federal funds actually reaching the
on-ground effort to eradicate the invasive species, and have
asserted a fact that became a common theme with land
management, that actually State and local and private entities
are superior to their Federal counterparts when it comes to
managing lands and resources.
Therefore, this hearing is a much-needed fact-finding
mission to hear from experts on how the Federal Government can
operate more effectively to work with those who are willing and
able partners to start catching up with the invasive species
that have invaded our land since the late 1700s and are
impacting State and private property at the same time.
We thank our witnesses for being here. We look forward to
hearing about their efforts to try and make sure that the money
that we are spending on invasive species actually gets on the
ground so it does what it was intended to do. And I look
forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
This morning the Subcommittee is exercising its role in good
government by taking a look at a growing issue facing our Federal
lands. The proliferation of invasive species on our public lands is
impacting the health of the landscape, increasing the risk of wildfire,
affecting wildlife habitat, impacting the viability of the land for
multiple-use, and finally--perhaps most troubling--undermining the
efforts of neighboring landowners who, unlike the Federal Government,
are often taking proactive steps to reduce the threat of invasive
species on their land.
This hearing is intended to take a first look at this issue. We
will hear from the Forest Service about their efforts to tackle the
growing threats to the 193 million acres it manages, the Department of
the Interior unfortunately could not join us to talk about the other
400 million acres. We will also hear from other stakeholders about what
they think is and is not working, and how scarce public resources can
be better utilized.
Invasive species management is a complex and difficult issue, and
from my perspective there are certainly more questions than answers as
to what is being done and what can be done better. Many--represented by
our panel--have raised concerns with Federal funds actually reaching
the on-the-ground efforts to eradicate invasive species, and have also
asserted a fact that has been frequently heard by this Subcommittee
that States are better situated to utilize funding to implement more
effective control measures.
Therefore, this hearing is a much-needed fact finding mission to
hear from experts on how the Federal Government can operate more
efficiently and work with these willing and able partners to start
catching up with the invasive species that are invading Federal lands
and impacting State and private property.
______
Mr. Bishop. So I would now like to recognize the Ranking
Member, Mr. Horsford, for 5 minutes for any opening statement
he wishes to give. Actually, you've got as much time as you
want for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVEN A. HORSFORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, and witnesses. I am pleased to be standing in for
Mr. Grijalva today, and I thank you all for participating in
this hearing.
I think we can agree on a number of things. Invasive
species are a growing problem across millions of acres of
Federal land. The spread of invasive species costs billions of
dollars and negatively impacts agriculture, commerce, water
quality, and wildlife habitat. Invasive species monitoring
control and eradication is time-consuming and expensive. And we
can probably use our resources better.
In my home State of Nevada, we have a massive invasive
species issue. My congressional district, covering both a rural
part of the State, one of our worst is the invasion of the
Quagga Mussel, cheatgrass, and other noxious weeds, are
increasing fire risk and impacting sage grouse habitat. So this
has been our experience in Nevada, my experience in our
congressional district. And I look forward to hearing from the
Healthy Habitat Coalition, which, unfortunately, does not
include any Nevada representation, but I hope to learn more
about how your efforts on noxious weed might help translate to
some of our concerns, as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from
our expert panel this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horsford follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steven A. Horsford, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Nevada
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and witnesses. Thank you
for participating in this hearing today.
I think we can agree on a number of things.
Invasive species are a growing problem across millions of acres of
Federal land.
The spread of invasive species is costing billions of dollars and
negatively impacts agriculture, commerce, water quality, and wildlife
habitat.
Invasive species monitoring, control, and eradication is time
consuming and expensive.
We can probably use our resources better.
In my home State of Nevada, we have massive invasive species
issues, the worst being the invasion of the quagga mussel. Cheatgrass
and other noxious weeds are also increasing fire risk and impacting
sage grouse habitat.
This is my experience. I look forward to hearing from the Healthy
Habitat Coalition, which unfortunately does not include any Nevada
representation, to learn more about how their efforts on noxious weeds
might translate to our concerns.
Thank you again.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We welcome the panel that we have up
here in front of us. Let me introduce just--I hope from left to
right--Mr. Paul Ries, who is the Associate Deputy Chief from
the Forest Service and the Agriculture Department; Dr. George
Beck from Colorado State University, part of the Healthy
Habitats Coalition; Randy Dye, who is President of the National
Association of State Foresters; Jason Fearneyhough--I hope I
said that right--who is the Director of the Wyoming Department
of Agriculture; Debra Hughes, the Executive Director of the New
Mexico Association of Conservation Districts; and James
Ogsbury, who is the Executive Director of the Western
Governors' Association.
Before we ask you to testify, I would like to ask Mrs.
Lummis if she would have a desire to introduce Mr.
Fearneyhough, who happens to be one of her constituents.
Mrs. Lummis. I definitely would, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
And thank you, Ranking Member, for holding this hearing.
Director Fearneyhough has been the director of Wyoming's
Department of Agriculture for the past 4 years, which means as
an appointee, and a political appointee at that, he has served
both for a Democrat Governor and a Republican Governor. And I
think that speaks volumes to how he is received and thought of.
He is very, very well respected in Wyoming--not only in
Wyoming, but also among his fellow directors of agriculture,
because he is also the current Chairman for the National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
We have known each other for a long time. He is a committed
partner with Federal agencies in tackling invasive species. And
as we all know in our Western States, the Federal presence is
so significant, so commingled with private and State land, that
we have to have these partnerships in order to make things
work. He knows their policies, he knows what works well, and he
knows what doesn't work well. And he has got an extensive pool
of experience.
Invasive species, like cheatgrass, have great implications
for wild fires and Wyoming's efforts to prevent the listing of
the sage grouse, a huge issue for us right now. So, any
solution in a State like Wyoming, and more so with yours, Mr.
Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, because of the tremendous
amount of Federal land ownership, has to involve an effective
Federal commitment, which we need more of.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member.
And welcome, Mr. Fearneyhough; we are delighted to have you
here.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Representative. To all the others,
we would have equal kind of introductions, but you are not from
Nevada or Utah.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. So screw it, you know, you are just real
people. But I appreciate it.
I am assuming--many of you have been here before--you
understand the system. Your written testimony is already part
of the record. We would ask you to add to it in your oral
testimony. The clock you see in front of you starts ticking
down at 5 minutes. When it goes yellow, that means you have a
minute left, so please hurry up. And when it is red, we wish
you to stop, even in mid-sentence.
So, you each have 5 minutes. Let me turn, first of all, to
Mr. Ries. We thank you for being here. Make sure you pull the
mic as close to you--and have it on. And we would recognize you
for 5 minutes for your testimony, please.
That is why you need to have it really closer to you.
Mr. Ries. Is that better?
Mr. Bishop. A little bit.
Mr. Ries. How is that?
Mr. Bishop. Good enough for government work, yes. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF PAUL RIES, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. FOREST
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ries. Thank you, 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
forest and grasslands from invasive species. The work that we
do is accomplished with and through partners. Those partners
include States, counties, communities, conservation districts,
and weed boards. They also include our Federal agencies,
colleges and universities, and non-profits. We, the collective
we, together, deliver a comprehensive, integrated program
across the land, in our waterways, from the air, and even
overseas. We, together, implement that program across Federal,
State, private, and tribal lands.
Our program, like all comprehensive invasives programs
today, includes four universal components of invasive species
management. One is prevention. Two is early detection and rapid
response. Three is control and management. Four is restoration.
So I will talk briefly about each one of those and provide an
example or two.
First, prevention. The most cost-effective action that any
of us can take in invasive species management is to prevent
species from ever getting here. We are heavily involved in
prevention. We use our research branch, our international
program authorities, and our relationships to work with foreign
countries to stop invasives at their source. As an example, we
have been successful in establishing science-based treatment of
wood-based packing materials to avoid them becoming a vector
for invasive species introductions.
We have also been successful working with foreign countries
such as Korea and even China, and having those standards
implemented to eliminate invasives before they leave their
countries of origin. Prevention has kept the Asian Gypsy Moth
out of the Western United States. Prevention has kept Sudden
Oak Death out of the Eastern Hardwood Forest.
Number two is early detection combined with a rapid
response. When prevention fails, early detection and a rapid
response is the second most cost-effective action you can take
to control invasive species. We are continually looking for
more effective ways to detect invasives early, when populations
are small, so that they can be effectively eliminated through a
rapid response.
Since most invasives do not initially become established on
Federal lands, we use our State and private forestry
authorities to implement successful early detection rapid
response programs on private lands. Early detection with rapid
response eliminated Asian Longhorn Beetle in Chicago, and
Sacramento, and, as was announced yesterday, in Manhattan. An
early effort in Maryland successfully eradicated one of the
first Emerald Ash Borer populations found on the east coast. We
are currently working with the Nature Conservancy in
Chattanooga, Los Angeles, and New York, to jointly develop
better systems for early detection. We want to find new pests
in the United States and detect known pests in new locations.
When prevention and early detection/rapid response fail us,
then we move into the third program element: control and
management. Again, we use our collected researchers,
entomologists and pathologists, to develop the most effective
control and management measures. In some cases, we even license
and pay for the manufacturing costs of pesticides in order to
make them available for use across all ownerships. One such
agent, BT, Bacillus Thuringiensis, has been extremely effective
in slowing the spread of gypsy moth in the East. We estimate
100 million acres have been kept free of gypsy moth, as a
result of Slow the Spread.
We work to locate and introduce biological control agents,
often by bringing them from their home countries of origin.
Bio-control agents, for example, have been very effective and
significant in reducing the stranglehold that Musk Thistle and
Knapweed have on many of our range lands. We have been
successful enough in some cases that we can spend our funds on
restoration, rather than on control. We are currently working
on bio-control agents for cheatgrass, Emerald Ash Borer, Rush
Skeletonweed, and a host of other invasives.
Education and science are a big part of each of these
elements. We work to educate boat owners about the dangers of
Quagga and Zebra Mussels to our waterways. Our scientists work
to determine the right cleansing agents and hot water
temperatures that are needed to keep mussels from being
transported. We have helped fund washing stations and boat
inspections. We have worked to develop policies around weed-
free hay, and we have helped develop dozens of cooperative weed
management areas across the West. And that is why it is not
uncommon to see county trucks spraying weeds on national
forests, or Forest Service crews spraying weeds along State and
county roads.
In closing, I will say that I realize I am out of time.
Thank you for letting me join you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ries follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Ries, Associate Deputy Chief, State and
Private Forestry, 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 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.
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 world-wide 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 lead 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 (QZAP),
developed through the interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
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 (FICMNEW), and the Federal Interagency
Committee for the Management of Invasive Terrestrial Animals and
Pathogens (ITAP). In addition, the Forest Service serves as an active
member of the Invasive Species Committee of the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). 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.
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.
Forest Service 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 (1) conduct port-of-entry inspections and offer
technical assistance to responsible agencies who quarantine goods
coming into the country, (2) manage more than 192 million acres of
national forests and grasslands, (3) conduct research, and (4) provide
technical assistance to the private sector and in large agricultural
pest control projects.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (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.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is a multi-
faceted Agency with a broad mission area that includes protecting and
promoting U.S. agricultural health, regulating genetically engineered
organisms, administering the Animal Welfare Act and carrying out
wildlife damage management activities. APHIS' 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 Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has become a
conservation leader for all natural resources, ensuring private lands
are conserved, restored, and more resilient to environmental challenge.
NRCS helps private landowners tackle invasive species problems in four
major ways: (1) technical and financial assistance to manage invasive
species and pests; (2) conservation initiatives that work at a
landscape scale to address natural resource concerns, including
invasive species; (3) Conservation Innovation Grants with partner
entities to support development and implementation of innovative
approaches and strategies to address invasive species; and (4) Plant
Materials Center research geared toward invasive species management and
restoring areas where invasive species have been removed.
The Forest Service Forest Health Protection programs direct and
implement measures to prevent, detect, contain, and suppress unwanted
native and invasive insects, pathogens, and plants affecting trees and
forests. In FY 2012, State and Private Forestry programs provided $1.4
million in essential matching funds and technical assistance to State
governments to combat economically significant weed threats to State
and private forest lands.
Forest Health Protection and partners from cooperating States
conduct an annual collaborative forest pest survey on over 400 million
acres of forest land. We recently completed high resolution maps for
over 250 forest tree species in the United States that will be used to
guide these surveys in the future. Additionally, we have developed a
program called the ``Forest Disturbance Mapper,'' a near real-time web
portal that uses remote sensing to detect disturbances caused by forest
pests, and an interagency database to detect and track thousand cankers
disease of walnut and other pests.
In FY 2012, Forest Service Research and Development delivered 169
invasive species tools including the identification of key pathways for
invasion by new forest pests; methods for detecting, monitoring, and
controlling the walnut twig beetle; release and recovery guidelines for
biological control agents for emerald ash borer; and an assessment of
the potential impacts of hemlock woolly adelgid predators.
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 emerald ash borer
(EAB). The Forest Service continues to work with the USDA Agricultural
Research Service (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 four main elements: (1)
prevention, (2) detection, (3) control and management, and (4)
restoration and rehabilitation.
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.
Detection
The Forest Service develops and implements efficient survey and
monitoring tools and technologies to facilitate early detection of
invasive species, including in urban areas, and rapidly assess their
potential impact on forest and grassland health. As necessary and
appropriate, the Forest Service coordinates these activities with
Federal and non-Federal cooperators across all lands.
The Forest Service has supported development of a mapping system
used nationally by cooperating agencies and weed management
organizations to document distribution of invasive weeds. 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. In cooperation with external
stakeholders, the Forest Service conducts research to characterize
infestations, to identify factors conducive to infestations, and to
develop tools and techniques to cost-effectively eradicate or manage
priority invasive species.
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
detection and immediate eradication efforts. In total, the Forest
Service successfully eradicated 15 priority species from those 7,000
acres. 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. 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.
Conclusion
In 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 works with local, county, and State 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 invasive species
threats across the landscape.
I would like to thank the committee members for their interest in
invasive species management, and I welcome any questions you may have
for me at this time.
______
Mr. Bishop. No, thank you. I appreciate your testimony,
looking forward to asking questions. And how you managed to get
the bagpipes as background music was truly--that was a master
stroke. I don't know how you did it, but congratulations.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Next to Dr. George Beck from the Colorado State
University on the Healthy something Habitat.
Dr. Beck. Coalition.
Mr. Bishop. Whatever it is. Happy to have you here, and you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. K. GEORGE BECK, PROFESSOR OF WEED SCIENCE,
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, HEALTHY HABITATS COALITION
Dr. Beck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Bishop, Ranking
Member Horsford, 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. Today I represent the Healthy Habitats Coalition.
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 controlling and managing invasive species, little
progress has been made. The list of invasive species is long,
but quite manageable.
The Healthy Habitats Coalition collective experience is
with invasive weeds, and I will focus on them to show the need
for substantial improvement by the Federal Government.
The data on this particular slide show the number of
infested acres in 2009, acreage treated and restored and the
increase of infested acres for six Federal agencies that have a
responsibility to manage invasive species. Only 3.2 percent of
existing infested acres were treated and restored in 2009. Weed
scientists indicate that invasive weeds typically spread at a
rate of 12 to 16 percent annually. Treating and restoring only
3.2 percent of infested acres annually, coupled with a 12
percent increase, indicates that Federal infested acres will
double by 2017 and will surpass 100 million acres at that time.
Federal agencies are acquiring about three-and-a-half times
more acres of invasive weeds annually than they are treating
and restoring. This plan 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, however, these ever-expanding acres of
invasive weeds on federally managed lands will serve as a
constant source of propagules to disperse to new locations.
These data show the National Invasive Species Council
budget, which is assembled by asking the agencies for what they
have done, and putting those figures into one of these seven
budget categories. The Federal Government spent $1.563 billion
in fiscal year 2009 on invasive species management, stating
that $642 million was spent on control and management. HHC
members have years of experience designing weed management
plans, and our calculations differ substantially from the
Federal data.
Agencies indicated they treated and restored 1,603,805
acres in 2009. Our calculations suggest the following when
early detection/rapid response is budgeted at $1,000 per acre,
restoration at $300 per acre, and controlled herbicide at $100
per acre. As you can see, our calculations indicate that far
less appears to have been spent on control and management than
that stated by the Federal agencies.
This figure shows our recalculated budget, and there
remains about $305 million that cannot be readily placed into
one of the next budget categories. It appears, then, that
agencies are spending more money per acre to control invasive
weeds than is necessary.
The Healthy Habitat Coalition recommends that Federal
agencies must treat and restore at least 15 percent of infested
acres annually to overcome this management deficit. The data in
this table show that within 10 years, 19.2 million acres would
be treated and restored using this plan, which represents a 39
percent decrease of infested acres, as opposed to over 120
percent increase using their current approach 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. Many
university extension professors have spent considerable effort
over the past 25 years educating and training Federal personnel
about invasive weeds and their management. The inadequate
Federal performance in spite of this extensive educational
effort by so many also suggests, then, that their efforts are
likely insufficient. We, as a Nation, are digressing, rather
than progressing, on invasive species management.
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Horsford, and members of
the Subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to
testify at today's hearing and presenting the facts related to
invasive species. I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Beck follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. K. George Beck, Professor of Weed Science,
Colorado State University
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 how local management is the best
practice for natural resources management including invasive species. I
would like to walk you through the growing problem related to invasive
species as well as some of the research HHC has conducted on dollars
spent to control and manage invasive species.
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 decision makers
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, D.C.
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 decision makers 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 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--the list of invasive species is long but manageable.
The Healthy Habitat Coalition's collective experience, however, is with
invasive weeds and we will focus on the continued growth of various
weed species 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 Fiscal Year 2009
[Data provided to Healthy Habitats Coalition directly from Federal Agencies]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treated & New Acres Total Net
Agency (Big 6) Infested Acres restored acres Percent T&R Annually * * Infested Acres
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM................................................................ 35,000,000 375,000 1.1% 4,155,000 38,780,555
USFS............................................................... 7,000,000 390,000 5.6% 793,200 7,403,200
NPS................................................................ 2,600,000 66,000 2.5% 304,080 2,838,080
DOD *.............................................................. 2,500,000 200,000 8% 276,000 2,576,000
APHIS.............................................................. 81,709 27,805 34% 6,469 60,372
FWS................................................................ 2,300,000 345,000 15% 234,600 2,189,600
Others............................................................. Not 200,000 Not Not -
available available available
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals......................................................... 49,481,709 1,603,805 3.2% 5,769,349 53,847,807
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These 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 FY09 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! 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, private
enterprise, 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres Treated &
Beginning Restored (3.2 Infested Acres 12 Percent Year End
Year Elapsed Years Infested Acres percent of After Treatment Annual Increase Infested Acres
Begin)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.............................................. 1 49.48 -1.60 = 47.88 + 5.75 = 53.63
2010.............................................. 2 53.63 -1.74 = 51.89 + 6.23 = 58.12
2011.............................................. 3 58.12 -1.89 = 56.23 + 6.75 = 62.98
2012.............................................. 4 62.98 -2.04 = 60.94 + 7.31 = 68.25
2013.............................................. 5 68.25 -2.21 = 66.04 + 7.92 = 73.96
2014.............................................. 6 73.96 -2.40 = 71.56 + 8.59 = 80.15
2015.............................................. 7 80.15 -2.60 = 77.55 + 9.31 = 86.86
2016.............................................. 8 86.86 -2.81 = 84.05 + 10.09 = 94.14
2017.............................................. 9 94.14 -3.05 = 91.09 + 10.93 = 102.02
2018.............................................. 10 102.02 -3.31 = 98.71 + 11.85 + 110.56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Detection 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 $1000/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).
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
epsFigure 1. NISC FY09 invasive species budget.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
epsFigure 2. HHC's recalculated NISC budget impacts based on average
cost analysis.
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 have high labor expenses.
Solution to Federal Agency Performance Managing Invasive Weeds
Table 3.--A Positive Outcome if Federal Agencies Treat and Restore at Least 15 Percent of Acres Infested With Invasive Weeds Annually
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres Treated &
Befinning Restored (15 Infested Acres 12 Percent Year End
Year Elapsed Years Infested Acres percent of After Treatment Annual Increase Infested Acres
Begin)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.............................................. 1 49.48 -7.42 = 42.06 + 5.1 = 47.16
2010.............................................. 2 47.16 -7.07 = 40.09 + 4.81 = 44.90
2011.............................................. 3 44.90 -6.73 = 38.17 + 4.57 + 42.74
2012.............................................. 4 42.74 -6.40 = 36.34 + 4.35 = 40.69
2013.............................................. 5 40.69 -6.10 = 34.59 + 4.15 = 38.74
2014.............................................. 6 38.74 -5.80 = 32.94 + 3.95 = 36.89
2015.............................................. 7 36.89 -5.53 = 31.36 + 3.76 = 35.12
2016.............................................. 8 35.12 -5.26 = 29.86 + 3.58 = 33.44
2017.............................................. 9 33.44 -5.01 = 28.42 + 3.41 = 31.83
2018.............................................. 10 31.83 -4.77 = 27.06 + 3.25 + 30.30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Agencies must treat and restore at least 15 percent of
existing infested acres in any given year to overcome their management
deficit to date (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.
Invasive Species Management by Federal Agencies
It is abundantly clear that the management of invasive species by
Federal agencies 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). Invasive species management is not an option.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
epsFigure 3. Typical population growth curve for invasive species.
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 weeds 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! The Healthy Habitats Coalition has a proposed
solution to our national invasive species problem, but it will take
Congress, the States, local governments, Federal land managers, private
enterprise, and private landowners working together to implement a
solution. 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 present the facts related
to invasive species. I am happy to answer any questions.
______
fy09 national invasive species council invasive species expenditures
compilation
Economics of Invasive Weed Control: Chemical, Manual/Physical/fire,
Biological, Doing Nothing
K. George Beck
Professor of Weed Science
Colorado State University
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 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 performance in space and
time 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).
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
epsFigure 1.
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 vs. 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time for Total cost Total cost
Initial patch Herbicide Application handpull or Handpull or Seed cost herbicide + handpull/dig
size cost a cost a dig a dig cost seeding + seeding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 ft\2\ b $0.003 $0.20 0.25 h $3.00 $0 $0.20 $3.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 ft\2\ $0.03 $0.40 0.5 h $6.00 $0.46 $0.89 $6.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 acre $14 $20 145 h $1,742 $200 $218 $1,742
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 acres $140 $200 1,450 h $17,420 $2,000 $2,340 $19,420
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 acres $1,400 $2,000 $20,000 $23,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Cost comparisons based upon: Milestone herbicide $300/gal; $20/A application cost; labor $12/h; seed cost $200/
A.
b For 10 and 100 ft\2\ initial patch size, application method spot spray; only labor calculated.
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 an herbicide compared to handpulling or similar
manual methods of control. The decisions to act quickly when new or
small infestations are found and to use an 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
handpulling 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 handpulling.
Herbicides alone were about 1 percent of the total cost of handpulling
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Percent
Treatment Rate Control Control Hours Rate/hr or Cost/acre Total cost/
rosettes \1\ bolted \1\ acre \2\ acre
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handpull 2 times/year 0 c 0 d 8.2 $9/Hr $2,643 $2,643
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mow 3 times/year 0 c 0 d 1.6 $50/A $150 $150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mow + 2 times + 1 pt/A 84 a 100 a 1.1 + 0.4 $50 + 31/A $100 + 31 $131
Tordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mow + 2 times + 1 pt 43 b 100 a 1.1 + 0.4 $50 + 22/A $100 + 22 $122
Translin
e
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tordon 1 pt 74 a 96 b 0.4 $31/A $31 $31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transline 1.3 pt 8 c 94 bc 0.4 $23/A $23 $23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Banvel + 1 + 2 pt 0 c 89 c 0.4 $22/A $22 $22
2,4-D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Compare means within a column; means followed by the same letter are similar (a=0.05).
\2\ Rates/costs based upon the following: $9/hr labor; mowing $50/A; Tordon $86/gal; Transline $31/gal; Banvel +
2,4-D $90/gal; $20/acre all ground herbicide applications (each plot 300 ft\2\, 4 reps=1,200 ft\2\ total/
treatment).
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. Handpulling 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 handpulling 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 handpulling 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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/4/98 \1\ 8/4/98 \1\
Plant growth Application percent percent Cost/acre
Treatment Rate stage 1997 Dates 1998 decrease in control of \2\ for 2
flowering plants years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handpull Twice Early & 6/20 & 7/20 6/20 & 100 a 56 d $13,900.00
(bolted late bud 7/22
plants)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tordon + 0.5 pt + Bolt 6/2 --- & 100 a 98 ab $97.50
handpull
(rosettes + once late bud 7/21
mature)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mow Twice Early & 6/20 & 7/20 6/19 & 7/17 99 a 0 f $200.00
late bud
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mow + Tordon Once + Late bud 7/20 --- 100 a 100 a $75.37
0.5 pt Fall 9/29 ---
regrowth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mow + Curtail Once + Late bud 7/16 --- 100 a 93 a $77.67
1 qt Fall 9/29 ---
regrowth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tordon 0.5 pt Fall 9/29 --- 100 a 96 ab $25.37
regrowth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curtail 1 qt Fall 9/29 --- 100 a 79 c $27.67
regrowth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tordon 1 pt Bolting 6/2 --- 99 a 98 ab $30.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curtail 2 qt Bolting 6/2 --- 93 b 93 b $35.37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyphocleonus 30/plot Flowering 8/27 --- 0 d 0 d $90.00
achates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tordon + 0.5 pt Bolt 6/2 --- 46 c 46 e $113.58
Cyphocleonus +
achates 30/plot Flowering 8/27 ---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Untreated 0 d 0 d $0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Compare means within a column; means followed by the same letter are similar (p=0.05).
\2\ Costs based upon the following: handpulling $9.00/hr; Cyphocleonus achates $1.00/weevil; mowing $50/acre;
Tordon $86/gal; Curtail $30.70/gal; ground application $20.00/acre.
Control Risks v 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 3rd 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. 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.
Aminocyclopyrachlor is a new herbicide developed by DuPont and can
be used to control susceptible invasive weedy forbs and woody species.
It is a reduced-rate herbicide (typical maximum rate for selective weed
control is 2 oz active ingredient/acre) that was placed on a fast-track
registration by U.S.-EPA. An experiment was conducted on a rangeland
site north of Denver, CO (Sebastian et al. 2011) to assess the
establishment of native forbs and shrubs after using
aminocyclopyrachlor (AMCP) to decrease the population abundance of
Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens). The herbicide was applied at 0.0,
0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 a.i./a on May 14, 2009 and 10 native forbs, 4 native
shrubs, and 2 native, cool-season perennial grass species were drill-
seeded in April 2010 and data were collected in fall 2010. Data for a
penstemon species, gayfeather (Liatris punctata), and blanketflower
(Gaillardia pulchella) showed the highest establishment at the highest
herbicide rate where Russian knapweed control was greatest (Figure 2)
and the same effect was observed for the average of all forbs;
blanketflower, however, appeared more susceptible to the herbicide
residue than did the penstemon species and gayfeather. Shrubs in
general seemed to be more susceptible than forbs to AMCP soil residues
(Figure 3). Greatest establishment of all seeded shrubs was realized at
the 1 oz ai/a rate of AMCP. Louisiana sage (Artemisia ludoviciana)
established best at the 1 oz rate of AMCP but winterfat
(Krascheninnikovia lanata) and fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens)
established similarly at the 1 and 2 oz rates of AMCP and all three
species established better than in plots where the Russian knapweed was
not controlled. The latter is a key response and our research results
are very clear regardless of the target species and herbicides used to
decrease its populations--the target weed species populations must be
decreased to give seeded species the opportunity to establish or
failure of the latter will ensue! Overall summary of this experiment
showed that 50 percent of grasses, 8 percent of forbs, and no shrubs
established in the untreated controls whereas 100 percent of grasses,
93 percent of forbs, and 88 percent of shrubs established in plots
treated with 2 oz ai/a of aminocyclopyrachlor where Russian knapweed
control was maximized.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
epsA similar studied was conducted at a foothills location west of
Longmont, CO but on an established plant community (Sebastian et al.
2012). It is a harshsite with thin topsoils and a very robust native
plant community that was invaded by Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria
dalmatica). Aminocyclopyrachlor was applied at 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0
oz ai/a in May 2009 and data were collected in fall 2010. Dalmatian
toadflax adults were controlled well at 1.0 and 2.0 oz/a (Figures 4 and
5) but a flush of toadflax seedlings was apparent suggesting that the
herbicide residue was insufficient to control these germinants (data
not shown). The mean density of all native forbs (Figure 4) decreased
22, 18, and 40 percent at the 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 oz/a AMCP rates,
respectively. Native shrubs appeared more sensitive to
Aminocyclopyrachlor than forbs; mean shrub densities decreased 33, 42,
and 75 percent at the 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 oz/a rates (Figure 5). Overall,
native forb richness by species decreased 22-44 percent and shrubs
decreased 33-75 percent but neither native functional group was
eliminated by Aminocyclopyrachlor. Warm season grass abundance
increased 227 percent (data not shown) over the course of the
experiment likely in response to increased summer precipitation that
occurred in 2010. The harsh conditions at this site, i.e., thin soils
and typically dry climatic conditions replaced by abundant summer
precipitation--appeared to have influenced results and this experiment
is currently being repeated at three additional sites nearby and we
will continue to monitor changes at all four sites for at least 4 years
following herbicide application to detect temporary and permanent
shifts in the native plant community.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
eps[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
epsContinual monitoring for incipient patches or introductions is
of critical importance for successful invasive species management. Bear
in mind that invasive species have earned such declaration and their
populations almost always increase and often exponentially so. New
ecological relationships vary drastically from their points of origin--
there are over 20 hypotheses associated with invasion success but they
all share the common theme that the invasive species populations,
regardless of species, increase dramatically in new homes. Invasive
weed populations throughout the United States should be managed
assertively by all land managers but especially by public land managers
that are managing large tracts of land for the benefit of the American
public. Management systems developed to help restore or reclaim
infested habitats should be effective and efficient and one of the most
important aspects associated with being effective and efficient is the
decrease in the population abundance of invasive weeds that must occur
before seeded species can successfully establish. Herbicides represent
the most effective and fiscally efficient means to decrease target
invasive weed populations. Databases are under development that
carefully define the injury to native grasses, forbs, and shrubs caused
by herbicides used to control invasive weeds to provide all land
managers with the appropriate information to design ecologically-based,
IPM systems that include herbicides yet allow recovery of productive
native plant communities so land management goals and objectives can be
realized.
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.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. K. George Beck
Question. Please share some examples of plants and plant pests that
move in interstate and foreign commerce that have become problems for
State inspection, quarantine, agriculture, and natural resource
authorities.
Answer. Arunda donax; common name giant reed; imported as an
ornamental in many U.S. States and now being considered for biofuel
production.
Pennisetum setaceu; fountain grass; imported as an ornamental and
now one of Hawaii's most damaging invasive plant species.
Imperata cylindrica; cogongrass; used as packing material and
imported for forage and erosion control. Now an aggressive invasive
species problem in the Southern and Eastern United States as far north
as Michigan.
Anoplophora glabripennis; Asian longhorned beetle; accidentally
introduced in wood packing materials; destructive wood boring pest
expanding its range in the United States.
Agrilus planipennis; emerald ash borer; arrived accidentally in
cargo from Asia; first discovered in Michigan in 2002 and since spread
to 17 other States in upper Midwest and Northeast.
Lythrum salicaria; purple loosestrife; introduced as an ornamental
but now prohibited in most States. Considered by some to be the poster
child for invasive species.
Sturnus vulgaris; European starlings; introduced into New York
1890s and have since spread across continental United States and may
even be helping to spread other invasive species such as Russian olive
(Elaeagnus angustifolia).
Question. What are some examples of associated costs to States for
invasive species that have arrived via interstate and foreign commerce
and then become established in States?
Answer. Emerald ash borer in Ohio projected costs for landscape
value losses, tree removal and replacement range from $1.8 to $7.6
billion (in Ohio alone) (Sydnor et al. 2007). Data from nine U.S.
cities (Atlanta, GA; Baltimore, MD; Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Jersey
City, NJ; New York, NY; Oakland, CA; Philadelphia, PA; and Syracuse,
NY) indicates maximum economic impact potential of losing 1.2 billion
trees from attack by Asian longhorned beetle is $669 billion. Estimates
were based upon losses accrued to date. (Nowak et al. 2001). Economic
impact by purple loosestrife in 19 Eastern and Northcentral States was
estimated to be $229 million annually because of decreased value of
wetlands, hay and pasture, fur harvest, migratory bird hunting, and
wildlife observation and photography. (Duncan et al. 2004).
Question. What limitations and opportunities are there for State
agriculture and natural resource authorities to guard against new pest
introductions at borders and other entry points?
Answer. States are limited by authority when managing pathways of
invasive species introductions, particularly those pathways that
involve foreign commerce. The Federal Government (Homeland Security/
Customs and Borders and USDA-APHIS) possess the authority to inspect
cargo/shipments for the occurrence of invasive species whereas States
do not have this authority. Therefore, States are limited by Federal
involvement and further limited by the inadequacy of Federal
involvement. Documentation in this questionnaire indicates that Hawaii
State inspectors intercepted numerous (16 pages of reports) incidences
of ants in cargo between 2002-2013 whereas Federal agents did not
intercept a single case over that same period.
An opportunity exists to use funding made available to States
through the proposed Healthy Habitats Coalition (HHC) legislation that
would redirect $200 million annually to all 50 States and territories
for invasive species management. In our legislation, prevention is part
of management including management of introduction pathways (e.g.
intercepting invasive species unintentionally included in cargo). It is
critically important to manage introduction pathways but this must be
balanced with managing existing problems so the latter do not continue
to serve as sources to disperse to new locations. States like Hawaii
could form a partnership with Federal authorities and use some of the
funds provided through HHC's proposed legislation allowing State and
Federal personnel to work together cooperatively to dramatically
enhance inspections at ports of entry.
Question. Are there opportunities and limitations on the ability of
Federal and State agriculture inspection and natural resource
authorities to share real time data at ports of entry on potential
high-risk pests, products and pathways moving between and into States?
Answer. There apparently is a fundamental problem with
communication among levels of government concerning inspection of cargo
at ports of entry and the reporting of intercepted invasive species.
The preamble that accompanied these questions implies that Federal and
State personnel that inspect cargo do not communicate their findings
and this is a clear limitation. Whether the Federal Government has the
sole authority to intercept and hold cargo that harbors invasive
species is irrelevant if the intercepted problem is not reported to
appropriate States (and appropriate entities within any State). It
would be a fairly simple chore to create a communication network among
State and Federal authorities at ports of entry and then to appropriate
natural resource authorities in a State using smart phones and other
computer technology that enhances simultaneous and instant
communication. This is a human problem that can be corrected by
stimulating cooperation.
The opportunity to overcome this apparent problem resides in the
proposed Healthy Habitats Coalition legislation. Re-directed funds to a
State could be used to create a communication network among Federal and
State authorities such that information on tainted cargo could be
shared immediately via this network so State authorities can maintain a
watch on susceptible habitats for the occurrence of the new interloper.
Additionally, Federal port of inspection authorities can apply for
funds re-directed to States so to augment their efforts at ports of
entry, which is yet another route that can be exploited to improve
interception of high-risk or other invasive species.
Question. Please provide examples, opportunities and limitations to
Federal and State agriculture inspection and natural resource
authorities engaging in real-time sharing of information and even being
co-located at ports of entry.
Answer. I am not aware of any examples of Federal and State
inspectors engaging in real-time sharing of information or being co-
located at ports of entry. The problem seems obvious and relatively
easy to cure by taking advantage of language in the Healthy Habitats
Coalition proposed invasive species legislation that encourages
partnerships between State and local governments to manage invasive
species including preventing new species from arriving in our country.
Invasive species is a borderless issue because only humans respect
political boundaries so it seems most logical to create a borderless
approach to resolving importation of new invasive species by forming
partnerships between Federal and State governments so each body is
helping the other do the job of preventing new species from
establishing in our country . . . State by State. MOUs and Cooperative
Agreements are required in our proposed legislation to carefully spell
out roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in the venture
and re-directed funds to States will help stimulate such partnerships.
Question. What are some examples of impacts to invasive species
control anticipated due to reductions in Federal funds made available
through the U.S. Forest Service's State and Private Forest Health
Program?
Answer. There should be no impacts to invasive species control
programs regardless of funding cuts to the State and Private Forest
Health Program. Invasive species tend to be a competing interest for
some decision makers and HHC's proposed legislation to create a
borderless and gap-free invasive species management program throughout
all 50 States and U.S. territories will solve this apparent problem.
States will have greater opportunity for shared responsibility to
manage invasive species and the ability of Federal agencies to be more
directly involved with States will stimulate Federal decision makers to
prioritize invasive species management over other competing priorities
because of funding made available through HHC's legislation.
Question. Can there be opportunities to utilize funds from the
State and Private Forest Health Program to control ungulates that
impact forest health?
Answer. I am not certain whether State and Private Forest Health
funds could be used to control ungulates that damage forests but the
funds associated with HHC's proposed legislation certainly could be
used for that purpose. Our proposed legislation clearly places the
Governor of each State in charge of that State's invasive species
program and the desire to manage feral goats, hogs, or any other
species that damage forests or any other habitat is a decision that
will be made at the State level. Our legislation also will stimulate
improved Federal agency cooperation and coordination with States as
they will prepare a strategic plan for their invasive species
management responsibilities in any State or region. They also will have
to demonstrate measurable outcomes associated with the use of public
money.
Question. Different regions across the Nation face different
invasive species challenges due to factors such as climate, elevation,
etc.; this is particularly the case for the tropical, isolated, island
State of Hawaii. Biocontrol development for the highest priority pests
nationally is not likely to benefit the unique challenges faced by
individual regions. Are there any examples of efforts to account for
the unique conditions of various regions in developing biocontrol
priorities?
Answer. USDA-ARS is the primary agency charged with developing
biocontrol for the United States and ARS has installations throughout
our country and almost all States, including Hawaii, have such
installations. I have had the opportunity to evaluate ARS invasive
species programs on several occasions as an ad hoc reviewer and member
of evaluation teams and it was quite clear that their charge is to
interact locally to help resolve local issues. Perhaps all that is
necessary is to meet with ARS scientists to explain the control/
management--biocontrol in particular--needs for the specific invasive
species problems in Hawaii.
USDA-Forest Service also has a substantial research group and
agenda including developing biocontrol around local needs. This may be
yet another opportunity to meet with Forest Service scientists to
acquire their expertise to help on this important issue for Hawaii.
Again, jointly prioritizing issues and working across agencies and
States will lead to a shared effort with better outcome.
Question. The Hawaii Invasive Species Council was modeled after the
National Invasive Species Council (NISC) to recognize the importance of
cabinet-level leadership and interagency coordination, planning, and
prioritization in effectively addressing invasive species. A Hawaii
representative from the State Department of Agriculture also serves on
the national Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). When was the
last time Council members of NISC or ISAC met and how often do they
meet to fulfill the intent of Executive Order 13112 and support
improved Federal, State, and regional coordination?
Answer. I served on ISAC for 6 years (2002-2008) including serving
as vice-chair and chair of the committee. Once during that time,
Secretary of Interior Norton visited with ISAC during a scheduled
meeting and no other cabinet-level members ever visited with ISAC from
2002-2008. Clearly, this was one of my deepest concerns while serving
on ISAC, i.e., a lack of strong leadership for the Federal agencies and
it seems that this deficiency stood in the way of getting agencies to
cooperate and work together to create a borderless, gap-free approach
to managing invasive species. In fact, the opposite seems to remain the
case today--agencies work in isolation and have a piecemeal approach to
resolving the invasive species issue in our country. NISC staff worked
diligently to breakdown barriers to agency cooperation during my term
on ISAC but they had no authority to foster such cooperation. The three
NISC co-chairs should not only meet regularly to develop a coordinated
and cooperative approach to managing invasive species within the
Federal system, their leadership to foster the same strategy to
coordinate Federal, State, and local government efforts with private
landowners and land mangers is absolutely necessary to demonstrate the
necessity to effectively contend with this insidious issue.
I cannot comment as to when, if ever, one or more of the NISC
cabinet-level co-chairs attended an ISAC meeting or engaged with the
advisory committee since 2008, much less provide strong directives to
agencies so they coordinate and cooperate with State and local
governments and private landowners to effectively manage invasive
species across the United States.
HHC's proposed legislation will stimulate greater leadership from
the co-chairs because at least one of the Secretaries will be leading
the funds re-direction effort to States and evaluate Federal agency
overall progress on this issue as well. While the NISC/ISAC concept
seems plausible, given the lack of authority, insufficient leadership,
and annual cost, one must ask what is the actual benefit for the effort
to manage invasive species.
literature cited
Duncan, Celestine A., John J. Jachetta, Melissa L. Brown, Vanelle
F. Carrithers, Janet K. Clark, Joseph M. DiTomaso, Rodney G. Lym, Kirk
C. McDaniel, Mark J. Renz, and Peter M. Rice. 2004. Assessing the
Economic, Environmental, and Societal Losses from Invasive Plants on
Rangeland and Wildlands. Weed Technology 18:1411-1416).
Nowak, David J., Judith E. Pasek, Ronaldo A. Sequeira, Daniel E.
Crane, and Victor C. Mastro. 2001. Potential Effect of Anoplophora
glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on Urban Trees in the United
States. J. Economic Entomology 94(1): 116-122.)
Sydnor, T.Davis, Matthew Bumgardner, and Andrew Todd. 2007. The
Potential Economic Impacts of Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis)
on Ohio, U.S., Communities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2007.
33(1):48-54.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.
We will now turn to Mr. Dye, who is representing the State
Foresters.
Mr. Dye?
STATEMENT OF RANDY C. DYE, WEST VIRGINIA STATE FORESTER,
PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS
Mr. Dye. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
Horsford, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today on behalf of the National
Association of State Foresters.
Programs delivered by State forestry agencies are on the
front lines of eradicating, slowing the spread, and addressing
the enormous collateral damage of invasive species. My comments
this morning highlight recommendations for the 2012 farm bill
endorsed by State Foresters that support the conservation and
management of the Nation's forests.
Invasive species know no boundaries. They span landscapes,
land ownerships, and jurisdictions. Their consequence costs the
American public an estimated $138 billion each year and,
therefore, are a significant drain on the national economy. The
Federal Government has a direct authority to manage over 200
million acres of national forest, parks, and grasslands, many
of which harbor invasive species. It also has the authority to
provide technical and financial assistance for all the Nation's
731 million acres of forest land, including urban, State,
private, and tribal lands.
In 1999, Executive Order 13112 established the National
Invasive Species Council, chaired by the Secretaries of
Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce, and includes six other
Federal agencies. This Committee was charged with providing
coordination, planning, and overall leadership for the Federal
invasive species program and reaching out to States, tribal,
local, and private partners. Coordination is not only critical
between agencies of the Federal Government, but also with State
and local entities. Recent efforts to create national
management framework have helped coordinate U.S. Forest
Service, APHIS, NASF, and the National Plant Board and their
missions, expertise, and available resources, to effectively
respond to three priority invasive species: Sudden Oak Death;
Emerald Ash Borer, and Thousand Cankers Disease.
NASF recommends the following strategies to be considered
in any comprehensive invasive species legislation. Number one,
Federal agencies such as APHIS should coordinate with
appropriate State agencies, as well as their traditional State
agricultural agency partners, in addressing forest invasive
pests. State agencies should be provided the option to have a
lead role in deciding what programs, regulations, and
initiatives are needed and best suited to protect forest
resources within their respective States. In most cases, State
agencies have better knowledge and contacts with local
stakeholders and community-based organizations at the Federal
level.
Number two, where Federal forests dominate ownership at a
local or regional level, Federal agencies should partner
strategically with State forestry agencies to minimize the
potential of spread between adjoining private or State forest
land, and identify opportunities for cost-effective treatment.
Support efforts to enhance forest-invasive species
response, management, and restoration in areas and communities
that have been impacted by harmful, non-native forest insects
and disease. Development of procedures that resolve
jurisdictional and other disputes in an effort to improve
coordination of Federal agencies, as well as Federal and State
agencies.
Increase research capacity in efforts to quickly assess
impacts of potential invasive species. Identify tests and
deploy bio-control agents. Develop management tools for
mitigation and suppression and genetic and breeding programs
designed to enhance resistance of high-priority tree species.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today, and
stand ready to answer any questions or provide any further
information. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dye follows:]
Prepared Statement of Randy C. Dye, West Virginia State Forester,
President, National Association of State Foresters
On behalf of the National Association of State Foresters, I thank
Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for the opportunity to
appear before the Subcommittee today. The National Association of State
Foresters (NASF) represents the directors of the State forestry
agencies of all 50 States, 8 territories, and the District of Columbia.
State Foresters manage and protect State and private forests across the
United States., which make up two-thirds of the Nation's forests, and
work closely with our Federal partners to respond to invasive species
issues.
The impacts of invasive forest insect and disease species on our
Nation's forests have become an increasing concern for the National
Association of State Foresters (NASF). NASF's programs and stewardship
actions are on the front lines of eradicating, slowing the spread, and
addressing the enormous collateral damage of invasive species.
Forested landscapes cover approximately one-third of the total land
area of the United States, including 100 million acres in urban
environments. Every American benefits from forests, whether in the form
of wood products for construction or paper, neighborhood amenities,
wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, clean water and air, and even
our spiritual well-being. Many Americans' jobs are linked to trees. The
U.S. forest products industry employs nearly 900,000 people; it is
among the top 10 manufacturing sector employers in 47 States. Jobs
associated with production of non-wood forest products are estimated to
be in the tens of thousands.
Invasive species know no boundaries; they span landscapes, land
ownerships, and jurisdictions. The damage they cause costs the American
public an estimated $138 billion each year, which makes them a
significant drain on the national economy.
Private landowners and small communities are some of the hardest
hit by invasive species infestations.
Invasive species can be exceptionally damaging in urban
environments where ecological systems are already stressed. Invasive
species threaten the quality of life and the property values of
millions of metropolitan residents across the country.
Currently, 42 percent--400 of 958--of the plant and animal species
listed by the Federal Government as threatened or endangered have been
negatively affected by invasive species.
Invasive species populations have depleted water supplies,
poisoned wildlife and livestock, and directly impacted thousands of
acres of native forests and rangelands.
Public recreational opportunities and experiences have become
severely degraded by rapid infestations of invasive species, in many
cases hampering access, reducing recreational quality and enjoyment,
and decreasing the aesthetic values of public lands
Some of the most damaging Invasive species include Asian Long-
horned Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer, Gypsy Moth, Sudden Oak Death, Hemlock
Woolly Adelgid, and Cogon grass. Municipal governments across the
country are spending more than $1.7 billion each year to remove trees
on city property killed by these pests. Homeowners are spending $1
billion to remove and replace trees on their property and they are
absorbing an additional $1.5 billion in reduced property values. The
scope of the impacts of these pests is demonstrated by a brief
description of the threats they pose:
The Asian Longhorned Beetle kills trees in 15 botanical families--
especially maple and birch which constitute much of the forest reaching
from Maine to Minnesota and urban trees worth an estimated $600
billion.
Emerald Ash Borer occupies more than 200,000 square miles in 18
States. More than 200 million ash trees in the Plains States and
additional trees in the South are at risk to this pest. Homeowners and
municipalities collectively will pay more than $10 billion over the
next 10 years to remove dead ash trees that would otherwise fall and
could cause property damage or even loss of life.
Hemlock Woolly Adelgid has killed up to 90 percent of hemlock
trees in the Appalachians from Georgia to Massachusetts. Loss of
hemlock groves threatens unique ecosystems and watersheds.
Goldspotted Oak Borer has killed up to 80,000 California live oak
and black oak trees in San Diego County in less than 15 years. The
insect threatens oaks throughout California, including close to 300,000
oak trees growing in greater Los Angeles and Yosemite Valley.
Sudden Oak Death affects 143 different plant species and continues
to spread in California's 14 impacted counties as well as Curry County,
Oregon. In 2012 alone, nearly 400,000 trees were lost to Sudden Oak
Death in California.
The Federal Government has several unique characteristics that
compel it to play a primary role in the fight against invasive species.
It has the direct authority to manage over 200 million acres of
national parks, forests and grasslands, many of which harbor
infestations of invasive species. It also has the authority to provide
technical and financial assistance (primarily for insect, disease, and
invasive plant suppression) for all the Nation's 731 million acres of
forest lands, including urban, State, private, and tribal lands.
In 1999, Executive Order (EO) 13112 established the National
Invasive Species Council (NISC), co-chaired by the Secretaries of the
Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce. NISC members include the
Secretaries of Transportation, State, Defense, Homeland Security,
Treasury, and Health and Human Services; the Administrators of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; as well as the Director of the U.S. Agency for
International Development and the U.S. Trade Representative. NISC was
charged with providing coordination, planning and overall leadership
for Federal invasive species programs and reaching out to State,
tribal, local and private partners.
Coordination is not only critical between agencies of the Federal
Government, but also with State and local entities. Recent efforts to
create national management frameworks have helped coordinate U.S.
Forest Service (USFS), Animal Plant health Inspection Service (APHIS),
National Association of State Foresters (NASF), National Plant Board
(NPB), and their missions, expertise and available resources to
effectively respond to three priority invasive species threats: Sudden
Oak Death, Emerald Ash Borer, and Thousand Canker Disease.
Actions at the local level are also critical. I'd like to highlight
some efforts in my home State of West Virginia. The Potomac Highlands
Cooperative Weed and Pest Management Area (CWPMA) is a partnership
between Federal, State, and local agencies, community associations,
non-profit organizations, and private land owners aimed at coordinating
efforts and programs for addressing the threat of invasive species. The
mission of Potomac Highlands CWPMA is the prevention and management of
invasive species in the headwaters region of the South Branch of the
Potomac River in West Virginia and Virginia. They are dedicated to
decreasing the impacts of invasive species on native plant and animal
communities, public and private forests, private and agricultural
lands, and local economies through public awareness, education,
professional improvement and environmental awareness. Projects include
volunteer work days, landowner education, and youth events at schools.
Other efforts like those in Georgia are essential in the fight
against invasive species such as Cogon grass. The Georgia ``Cogon grass
Task Force'' has provided training to resource professionals throughout
the State, and its educational campaign continues to help landowners
identify and remove the plant. The Georgia Forestry Commission
spearheaded an effort to bring a total of 23 State, Federal and private
partners to establish the entire State of Georgia as a Cooperative Weed
Management Area for Cogon grass in May 2008. The combined effort of
this group should have far reaching impacts to help educate the public
about Cogon grass as well as help locate all infested sites.
Legislation and program implementation is needed to increase the
Nation's current protection system for invasive species, which is
currently piecemeal and lacks adequate rigor and comprehensiveness,
virtually ensuring that invasive species will continue to arrive and
spread. Federal Government involvement with States is critical as
specific Federal legislation (e.g. interstate commerce, plant
protection) limit certain State actions. A successful forest invasive
species prevention and control program must address the complexity and
wide-ranging agency and community needs at the regional, State, and
local level. The National Association of State Foresters believes that:
Federal agencies (e.g., USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service) should coordinate with appropriate State agencies as well as
their traditional State agricultural agency partners in addressing
forest invasive pests. If desired, State agencies should be provided
the option to have a lead role in deciding what programs, regulations
and initiatives are needed and best suited to protect forest resources
within their respective States. In most cases State agencies have
better knowledge and contacts with local stakeholders and community-
based organizations that have developed tactics and programs to combat
invasive species at the local level (e.g., county representatives,
utilities).
Where Federal forests dominate ownership at a local or regional
level, Federal agencies should partner strategically with State
forestry agencies to minimize the spread of invasives between adjoining
private or State forest land and identify opportunities for cost-
effective treatment.
A Federal program should include initiatives that are non-
regulatory and incentive driven, support and build capacity at the
State, regional, and community level, and encourage voluntary
cooperation of affected private entities and communities.
Investments to support local, State, and regional partnerships,
which are prepared to take immediate action against known priority
invasive species, will provide valuable lessons for others and promote
innovations and efficiencies in protection and public outreach
strategies. By sharing their progress, these partnerships will, in
turn, help identify the policy and legal obstacles to success as well
as build a constituency for more effective invasive species prevention
and control programs in other areas.
NASF recommends the following strategies to be considered in any
comprehensive invasive species legislation:
Establishment of a State-level rapid response capacity that can
quickly eradicate priority forest invasive species.
Non-regulatory and incentive-driven national programs, with
specific focus on encouraging voluntary cooperation.
Adoption and enforcement of workable national regulatory programs
to address key pathways such as firewood movement where non-regulatory
approaches are not in place, effective or, simply, to serve as a
``backstop'' for those voluntary approaches.
Support efforts to enhance forest invasive species response,
management and restoration in areas and communities that have been
impacted by harmful non-native forest insects and diseases.
Development of procedures that resolve jurisdictional and other
disputes in an effort to improve coordination of Federal agencies, and
between Federal and State agencies. A network of partners is needed
with agreed upon authorities, responsibilities, and roles.
Increase research capacity in efforts to quickly assess impacts of
potential invasive species; identify, test, and deploy bio-control
agents, develop management tools for mitigation and suppression, and
genetic and breeding programs designed to enhance resistance of high
priority tree species; and
An increased percentage of funds delegated to the States and their
cooperating entities. In most cases, State agencies have better
knowledge and contacts with local stakeholders and community-based
organizations.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee
today to offer perspectives shared by State foresters regarding the
impacts of invasive species on the Nation's forests. I would like to
thank the Subcommittee for its continued leadership and support of
active, sustainable management of all forest lands.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Randy C. Dye
Question. Please share some examples of plants and plant pests that
move in interstate and foreign commerce that have become problems for
State inspection, quarantine, agriculture and natural resource
authorities.
Answer. There are numerous examples of high priority pests arriving
via foreign commerce through airport and harbor hubs. Wooden pallets,
used in transporting goods have been especially problematic in
introducing wood borer insects (e.g. Asian Long-horned Beetle, Emerald
Ash Borer). These pests are now being spread through a variety of local
pathways, with firewood as a major vector. The National Association of
State Foresters (NASF) has encouraged the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) to move expeditiously to provide a standardized
treatment and certification procedure for the interstate movement of
all firewood. The firewood industry is largely unregulated, with little
or no national regulatory guidelines outside of pest-specific
quarantine areas and states. This lack of Federal regulation has led
many States to seek or pass their own firewood regulations for specific
pests.
Cogon grass, a noxious weed infesting pastures and forests first
appeared in Alabama as an escape from orange crate packing in 1912. It
was intentionally introduced from the Philippines into Mississippi as a
possible forage in 1921 and then introduced into Florida in the 1930s
and 1940s as a potential forage and for soil stabilization purposes. It
now extends as far north as South Carolina and west to Texas.
The devastating example of the Brown Tree Snake, introduced to Guam
during military operations in WWII in Guam is internationally known.
Accidental introductions of Brown Tree Snakes continue to threaten
Hawaii, and if established would result in major economic and
environmental damage.
Question. What are some examples of the associated costs to States
for invasive species that have arrived via interstate and foreign
commerce and then become established in States?
Answer. The Asian Long-horned Beetle kills trees in 15 botanical
families--especially maples and birches which constitute much of the
forest reaching from Maine to Minnesota and urban trees worth an
estimated $600 billion. Emerald Ash Borer occupies more than 200,000
square miles in 18 States. More than 200 million ash trees in the
Plains States and additional trees in the South are at risk to this
pest. Homeowners and municipalities collectively will pay more than $10
billion over the next 10 years to remove dead ash trees that would
otherwise fall and cause property damage or even loss of life.
Question. What limitations and opportunities are there for State
agriculture and natural resource authorities to guard against new pest
introductions at borders and other entry points?
Answer. Budget reductions are a key limitation, especially State
agency capacities due to lay-offs and attrition. New State findings of
invasive species bring about additional duties with no or diminished
response resources. Federal sequester cuts present additional
limitations.
The opportunities for State agriculture and natural resource
authorities to guard against new pest introductions at borders and
other entry points are based on the degree that there is: (1)
Coordination among Federal agencies; (2) communication with relevant
State agencies; and (3) public leadership roles in identifying and
committing to action.
Coordination and information sharing between Federal and State
inspection agencies can be improved by: (1) Sharing of import manifests
and interception data between Federal (USDA and Border Patrol) and
State regulatory agencies and (2) promoting and committing to joint
inspection facilities for cargo at airports and harbors.
In certain cases, States are hampered in their ability to
effectively address State-specific invasive species threats due to
Federal laws (i.e. U.S. Commerce Clause and Plant Protection Act).
These laws deal with the Federal preemption, where States cannot
establish regulations stricter than existing Federal statutes. For
examples Federal preemption limits a State's ability to establish rules
on incoming plants and animals, prevent species that are not on a
Federal actionable list, and receive notification from Federal
inspection agencies.
Under section 436 of the Plant Protection Act, which is
administered by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
no State may regulate the movement in interstate commerce of any plant
product in order (1) to control a plant pest (2) to eradicate a plant
pest; or (3) to prevent the introduction or dissemination of a plant
pest. The only exceptions to this prohibition are when a State imposes
regulations which are consistent with and do not exceed the regulations
or orders issued by the Secretary of Agriculture, or when the State
demonstrates to the Secretary, and the Secretary finds, that there is a
special need for additional prohibitions or restrictions based on sound
scientific data or a thorough risk assessment.
Question. Are there opportunities and limitations on the ability of
Federal and State agriculture inspection and natural resource
authorities to share real time data at ports of entry on potential
high-risk pests, products and pathways moving between and into States?
Answer. The opportunity to build joint inspection facilities at
both airports and harbors represents the most cost effective approach
to increase the capacity of Federal and State agriculture inspection
and natural resource authorities to share real time data at ports of
entry on potential high-risk pests, products and pathways moving
between and into States
One limitation is that even though airports pose a serious
biosecurity risk through the movement of passengers and cargo, the FAA
does not recognize inspections as a core airport function, and there is
no responsibility for mitigation or requirements to provide inspection
space and support.
Question. Please provide examples, opportunities and limitations
related to Federal and State agriculture inspection and natural
resource authorities engaging in real-time sharing of information and
even being co-located at ports of entry.
Answer. A joint inspection facility was constructed at Kahalui
Airport on the island of Maui, Hawaii. A joint facility is being
planned for the Honolulu airport as part of a public/private
partnership. Cargo services have found that joint inspection facilities
have reduced the time of inspection as well as costs incurred from
spoilage of fresh produce.
Question. What are some examples of impacts to invasive species
control anticipated due to reductions in Federal funds made available
through the U.S. Forest Service's State and Private Forest Health
Program?
Answer. Reductions in Federal funds made available through the U.S.
Forest Service's State and Private Forest Health Program could impact
the Gypsy Moth Slow-the-Spread Program. This program has reduced the
spread rate of gypsy moth by 60 percent along a 1,000 mile long project
area from North Carolina to Minnesota, and has delayed the need for
increased expenditures by Federal, State, and local governments as well
as landowners. In 2012, this program treated more than 526,000 acres in
eight States. Without the Slow-the-Spread about 50 million more acres
would be infested. Reduced Federal funds (both USDA APHIS and USFS)
could impact the ongoing eradication of Asian Long-horned Beetle in
Massachusetts as efforts to ongoing management efforts to address the
spread of emerald ash borer, sudden oak death, oak wilt, thousand
cankers disease, and Hemlock Wooly Adelgid.
Oak wilt is the single most important disease affecting oaks in the
eastern half of the Nation. The Forest Health program supports
suppression efforts in the Great Lakes and Texas, including root graft
disruption and spore tree removal. The Hemlock Wooly Adelgid remains a
significant threat to the health of hemlock forests in the Eastern
United States, and the Forest Service has contributed to an integrated
multi-agency effort focused on management of high value hemlocks (using
biological and chemical controls) and continued research and methods
development to better manage hemlocks across their range.
Question. Can there be opportunities to utilize funds from the
State and Private Forest Health program to control ungulates that
impact forest health?
Answer. We defer to the USFS, but believe that funds can be used
for certain components of an ungulate control program (e.g./fencing).
Question. Different regions across the Nation face different
invasive species challenges due to factors such as climate, elevation,
etc; this is particularly the case for the tropical, isolated, island
State of Hawaii. Biocontrol development for the highest priority pests
nationally is not likely to benefit the unique challenges faced by
individual regions. Are there any examples of efforts to account for
the unique conditions of various regions in developing biocontrol
priorities?
Answer. Biological control is one of the few tools proven effective
in controlling widespread invasive plants. Successful biological
control agents can provide continuing and expanding control while
reducing dependence on pesticides. However, because ecosystems are
complex it is important to consider the effects on all the other
organisms within the community, not just the pest and biological
control agent. This necessitates that specific regional aspects are
considered. Work on biological control agents for important rangeland
weeds, such as cheatgrass, leafy spurge and dalmatian toadflax are
being undertaken in the West--Chinese privet, an important riparian
weed in the South, and--strawberry guava, an invasive forest pest in
Hawaii.
Insect pest biological control is currently focused on priority
pests, such as emerald ash borer, hemlock wooly adelgid, asian gypsy
moth, and Douglas-fir tussock moth.
Question. The Hawaii Invasive Species Council was modeled after the
National Invasive Species Council (NISC) to recognize the importance of
cabinet-level leadership and interagency coordination, planning, and
prioritization in effectively addressing invasive species. A Hawaii
representative from the State Department of Agriculture also serves on
the national Invasive Species Advisory Council (ISAC). When was the
last time the Council members of NISC or ISAC met and how often do they
meet to fulfill the intent of Executive Order 13112 and support
improved Federal, State and regional coordination?
Answer. The Invasive Species Advisory Council (ISAC) usually meets
twice a year. Unfortunately, the National Invasive Species Council
(NISC) has not met for the past 3 years. While the many Federal
agencies within the six Federal departments set their own budget and
program priorities, the National Invasive Species Council can encourage
a coordinated and cost-effective Federal investment to ensure that the
various agency efforts are collaborative, rather than being overlapping
or insufficient. They could also develop procedures that resolve
jurisdictional and other disputes in an effort to improve coordination
of Federal agencies, and between Federal and State agencies as well
cooperative sharing of information through a centralized web-based
system.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Mr. Fearneyhough from the Department of Ag in Wyoming,
please.
STATEMENT OF JASON FEARNEYHOUGH, DIRECTOR, STATE OF WYOMING,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Fearneyhough. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Horsford,
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to speak today. Again, I am Jason Fearneyhough. I am the
Director of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture. Along with
this, as Congresswoman Lummis stated, I currently serve as the
Chair of the Natural Resource Committee for the National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and I am the
immediate past chair of the Western Association of the State
Departments of Agriculture.
Wyoming initiated its first noxious weed law in 1895,
targeting Russian thistle, commonly recognized as tumbleweed.
Today, each Wyoming county has a weed and pest control district
that assists land owners and managers with local workshops,
cost share incentives, and coordinated landscape-scale
planning. Because of these programs, the State has eradicated
Yellow starthistle, a toxic plant that covers over 12 million
acres in California. Additionally, we have kept our waterways
clear of Eurasian watermilfoil and quagga mussels, a species
that are extremely harmful to our water resource.
Many Western States have similar invasive species programs.
Keys to the successes of these programs include prevention and
educational programs, coupled with control and management
effort. In addition, many States have university and/or USDA
ARS experiment stations to improve the understanding of
invasive species and improve understanding of cost-effective
ways we can manage them.
Natural resource managers have a broad understanding of the
negative impacts invasive species play on our ecological
systems, communities, agriculture interests, recreation, and
human health. The economic impact, by some estimates, is in
excess of $120 billion annually, up to $138 billion annually.
This recognition has created multi-faceted efforts. It has
brought together local agriculture producers, natural resource
agencies, and non-government representatives to work
collectively on short and long-term management goals. It has
also created the Consolidated USDA APHIS Plant Protection Act,
protecting the national and international pathways from
invasive species, and some on-the-ground successes such as the
recent eradication of Asian Longhorn Beetle from New Jersey.
In Wyoming, the Federal Government manages 48 percent of
our land. Like many Western States, our invasive species
program success is heavily influenced by cooperation with
Federal agencies. Local Federal representatives typically
understand and share the same concerns, as do the regional and
national offices. The U.S. Forest Service lists the
introduction and spread of invasive species as a Top Four
threat to the national forests and grasslands. The Bureau of
Land Management Web site states that the rapid expansion of
weeds across public lands is one of the greatest obstacles to
achieving ecosystem health. Even the Department of Defense has
a Web site to address the growing ecological and economic
damage caused by invasive species.
In many cases, local, State, and Federal agencies have the
right knowledge, information, and people to make a positive
difference. However, we lack the ability to fully implement
management projects. We are subject to short-term grants,
limited local and State funding sources. We are confined to
detection and planning while strapped with unsuccessful
management control and follow-through. Where various Federal
agencies manage adjoining land masses, the problem can be
compounded by the variation in agency funding, policy, and
priorities.
For example, in Teton County, Wyoming, which is situated in
the northwest corner of the State, and is approximately 3
million acres in size, or slightly smaller than the State of
Connecticut, the majority of land is managed by Yellowstone
National Park, Grand Teton National Park, the National Elk
Refuge, and Bridger-Teton National Forest. This natural
resource draws in millions of tourists annually to hike, take
horses into the back country, or simply drive through America's
first national park to see its majestic beauty. Visitors come
from all corners of the world, potentially bringing weeds and
non-native insects with them. To protect the natural resources
from invasive weeds, Teton County organized the Jackson Hole
Weed Management Association.
This association is implemented through an agreement with
the Federal, State, and local agencies, in addition to
nonprofit organizations. The association has identified
invasive weeds as the greatest threat to the ecosystem, and has
identified the high-priority areas. Each partner is willing to
participate, but when it is time to put things on the ground we
have a problem, due to lack of funding.
Each State has its own set of invasive species issues
management needs. I have heard countless examples from my
fellow directors and commissioners of the invasive species
issues in their States. These concerns have resulted in WASDA
and NASDA recently--recent actions in policy to address this
national issue. There simply needs to be more on-the-ground
implementation of control and management in the effort.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fearneyhough follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jason Fearneyhough, Director, State of Wyoming,
Department of Agriculture
Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, as well as other
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak
today. My name is Jason Fearneyhough and I have served as Director of
the Wyoming Department of Agriculture for the past 4 years and as
Deputy Director of the Department before that. Along with this, I
currently serve as the chairman for the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture--Natural Resource Committee, and I am the
past chairman of the Western Association of State Departments of
Agriculture. I'm pleased to appear before you today to discuss the
impacts invasive species have on our Nation's natural resources and the
challenges we face with their management.
Wyoming began its battle with invasive species in 1895 with its
first noxious weed law targeting Russian thistle, or what many of you
may recognize as the western tumbleweed. At that time, homeowners were
limited in their ability to identify the plant and lacked the resources
to control the spread of the species. This made it easy for Russian
thistle to establish itself throughout the State and the West in spite
of the legislature's well intended efforts. While the law didn't stop
the Russian thistle, it created the foundation for the State's current
weed and pest program. Today, we are able to assist land owners and
managers with locally funded educational workshops, cost-share
incentives, and coordinated landscape based planning through the
efforts of the State's weed and pest control districts. Because of
these programs, the State has eradicated Yellow starthistle (a toxic
plant that covers more than 12 million acre in California) and we have
kept our waterway clear of Eurasion watermilfoil and the invasive
quagga mussel.
Many of the Western States have similar invasive species programs
to Wyoming that match, or surpass our own, in their preventative,
educational and management efforts, and funding. In addition to these
programs, many of the Western States have Universities and USDA--ARS
experiment stations that are continually improving our understanding of
the invasive species issue and the cost effective ways we can manage
them. This is no longer just an agricultural issue. We have a broader
understanding of the impacts these species play on our ecological
systems, communities, recreation, and human health. This broader
recognition has created multifaceted efforts with a unified call for
action and has brought together local agriculture producers, natural
resource agencies, and non-government representatives to work
collectively on short and long-term management goals. It has also
created the consolidated USDA-APHIS Plant Protection Act, education
programs such as the National Firewood Task Force, and have made on the
ground successes like the recent eradication of Asian longhorn beetle
from New Jersey possible.
In Wyoming, the Federal Government manages more than 48 percent of
the lands in our borders. Like many Western States, our invasive
species program success is heavily influenced by the cooperation of the
Federal agencies. The local Federal representatives, along with
regional and national offices, typically understand and share the same
concerns on invasive species. The USFS lists ``the introduction and
spread of invasive species'' as a top four threat to the national
forests and grasslands. The Bureau of Land Management Web site states
that the ``rapid expansion of weeds across public lands'' is one of the
greatest obstacles to achieving ecosystem health. The Department of
Defense has a Web site that addresses the growing ecological and
economic damage caused by invasive species on defense installations.
Along with this, a National Invasive Species Council was created by
Executive order and the Federal Interagency Committee for the
Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds to assist Federal agencies in
the collaborative invasive species efforts.
In most cases, the local, State, and Federal agencies have the
right knowledge, information, and people in place to make a positive
difference on invasive species. While we have this positive situation,
we lack the ability to fully implement what they know. We rely on short
term grants, limited local or State funding sources, or intra-agency
generosity and simply do not have the fiscal resources to implement
long-term, landscape scale control. Consequently, we are confined to
successful detection and planning but fall short on implementation. In
the West, where various Federal agencies may manage adjoining land
masses, the problem can be compounded by the variation in agency
funding, policy, and/or priorities.
For example, Teton County Wyoming is situated in the northwest
corner of the State and it is approximately 3 million acres in size.
Within its boundaries, the majority of land is managed by Federal
agencies who oversee Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National
Park, the National Elk Refuge, and the Bridger-Teton National Forest.
The county's natural resources draw in millions of tourist annually
with visitors from all corners of the world who are potentially
bringing noxious weed seeds or non-native insects in their luggage, as
hitchhikers on their cars, or as food. To protect the natural resources
from invasive weeds, Teton County organized The Jackson Hole Weed
Management Association in 1998 through an agreement with non-profit
organizations and the Federal, State, and local government agencies.
The association has identified the invasive weeds that pose the
greatest threat to the ecosystem, and have prioritized treatment areas
based on the threat. Many of those high priority areas are highways,
wildlife corridors, and public access points located on Federal lands.
The Association attempts to pool resources to mitigate the threat in
these areas and strengthen each agencies response to their respective
lands through the collective approach. While each party was a willing
participant on paper, the Federal agencies response is limited or
fragmented due to lack of funding and resources when the window of
opportunity for treatment is open. Without the proper resources to
manage the invasive species threat, the Association can only hope to
slow the spread of invasive weeds through selective control rather than
reducing the impacted acres through prioritized management.
A good regional example of insufficient on the ground support is
cheatgrass. Wyoming and many Western States have been working
diligently to avoid the listing of the sage-grouse as an endangered
species and a primary threat to the species is sage brush degradation
due to invasive grasses. Cheatgrass matures quicker then native
grasses, is highly susceptible to fire and recovers from fire quicker
than native grasses. Sage brush communities historically experience
wildfires on a 50 year or more cycle, but cheatgrass can reduce that
cycle to 5 years or less which makes it difficult for native sagebrush
to re-establish. Simply stated, with no sagebrush there is no sage-
grouse. In 2007, the Governors of Wyoming, Nevada, Idaho and Utah
signed an agreement to coordinate efforts on cheatgrass and other
wildfire issues. The agreement looked for cooperative efforts on
management of cheatgrass beyond jurisdictional State boundaries.
Unfortunately, the agreement has served very little purpose. The
participating States were ready to act, but their best intentions were
hampered by the inability to manage invasive species beyond the agency
or State boundaries.
These examples are based on my experiences as Director of the
Wyoming Department of Agriculture, but the issue of lacking resources
for invasive species in not limited to my State or the West. Each State
has its own set of invasive species issues and management needs. In the
Southeast it may be giant African snail or Burmese python; in the
Midwest it may be Asian carp or Asian longhorn beetle; in the Southwest
it may be feral pigs or fire ants. Looking at these few examples, it's
easy to see how invasive species are costing the United States nearly
$120 billion in losses annually. This includes the litany of new
invasive plants, insects, and animals USDA-APHIS works to stave off at
our harbors and ports each year. I've heard countless examples from my
fellow directors and commissioners of the invasive species issues their
States face. These concerns have resulted in NASDA's current invasive
species policy which request the Federal Government to, ``assert
primary jurisdiction and assume a more dynamic leadership role in the
interdiction and eradication of destructive invasive species.''
I would like to close by respectfully offering some recommendations
for your committee to consider as they look towards national solutions
to invasive species. First, review and improve Federal agency funding
for invasive species management. Look at what is being allocated in
each agency budget for invasive species, track where that funding is
going, and evaluate if the funds are used effectively.
Secondly, support localized, State, and regional programs with
funding to meet short-term and long-term management needs. The
technical knowledge of these groups is superior in their ability to
decide what should be done and what is practical. Along with this,
centralize a funding source that is easily understood and accessible
but demands results. Emphasize direct mitigation, without discounting
the need for education, administration, and research. Make the rate of
compensation sufficient to do the job properly, especially on incipient
populations. It should also support a ``color blind'' approach to
agency land management boundaries.
Finally, hold Federal, State, and private entities fiscally
responsible for any and all Federal dollars spent. Review the successes
and failures of the programs and disseminate that information to other
professionals in the field so they might learn and adapt their programs
based on the data. Use those reports to help determine when costs
exceed the benefits.
I appreciate the opportunity your Committee has provided today and
look forward to answering any questions you might have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Jason Fearneyhough
Question. Please share some examples of plants and plant pests that
move in interstate and foreign commerce that have become problems for
State inspection, quarantine, agriculture and natural resource
authorities.
Answer. Many of the invasive species Wyoming deals with were
introduced through intra-State or foreign commerce. Wyoming lists 25
plant species as State priority weeds. Some of these plants such as
Dalmatian toadflax and Russian olive were deliberately introduced as
ornamental plants or trees and have escaped cultivation. Some weeds and
pests such as Hoary cress, cheatgrass and emerald ash borer were
introduced through packing materials. Other weeds such Russian knapweed
and quackgrass likely made their way into the United States through
contaminated seed. Many of the aquatic invasive species such as quagga
mussels and Eurasian watermilfoil were likely introduced through
ballist water discharge or through the aquarium trade.
According to the Hawaii Department of Agriculture they share some
similar invasive species issues, in addition to some State specific
concerns. They noted varroa mites which were accidentally introduced on
the island of Oahu in 2007 from California. The varroa mites have been
a significant issue for the contiguous United States since 1987. The
introduction to Hawaii is notable as prior to 2007 the State
represented a unique location within the United States to produce honey
bees without the threat of varroa mites. Some of the more State-
specific issues Hawaii deals with include little fire ants and coqui
frogs introduced through imported plants, and siam weed and fireweed
that were likely introduced through contaminated seed. Little fire ants
and coqui frogs are also present in Florida, but are not currently
found throughout the contiguous States.
Question. What are some examples of the associated costs to States
for invasive species that have arrived via interstate and foreign
commerce and then become established in States?
Answer. The costs of invasive species are staggering from the
impacts side. The following is a small collection of the economic
impacts from various invasive species.
Leafy spurge costs producers and taxpayers an estimated $144
million/year in just four States alone (MT, WY, ND and SD).
It is estimated that $16-$44 million dollars of hydropower
generation is lost annually due to the salt cedar invasion in the
United States.
Purple loosestrife is responsible for $45 million/year in
agricultural losses for the United States.
Colorado wheat farmers estimate loses from cheat grass and jointed
goatgrass to be near $24 million annually.
U.S. agriculture loses $13 billion annually in crops from invasive
insects, such as vine mealybugs.
An aquatic invasive plant, Eurasian watermilfoil, reduced Vermont
lakefront property values up to 16 percent and Wisconsin lakefront
property values by 13 percent.
In Wyoming, the local Weed and Pest Control Districts collectively
spend over $15 million annually for the management of invasive species.
Besides direct management, this includes salaries, equipment and other
administrative costs. The State of Wyoming also allocates an additional
$350,000 for the management of invasive weeds and another $1.5 million
annually for the management of the invasive vector-borne disease West
Nile virus. The Wyoming Game and Fish spends $426,000 annually on the
inspection of boats for aquatic invasive species. None of these figures
include the costs associated with State quarantines, nursery stock
inspection and seed inspection programs that assist in preventing the
introduction of new invasive species in Wyoming.
Question. What limitations and opportunities are there for State
agriculture and natural resource authorities to guard against new pest
introductions at borders and other entry points?
Answer. Borders and entry points not only play a significant role
in the international movement of weeds and pests, but as important of a
role in minimizing the interstate movement as well. States bordering
Wyoming such as Utah, Idaho and Colorado have invasive plant
infestations that are not yet established in Wyoming. These species
include Yellow starthistle, Medusahead grass and quagga and zebra
mussels. To help protect Wyoming's borders we utilize quarantines on
non-certified hay and much, and utilize boat inspections at our
interstate port-of-entries. Neighboring States such as Montana,
Colorado and Idaho utilized boat inspection programs also to help stop
the spread of the aquatic nuisance species. As successful as these
programs are, there are often difficulties in funding staff at the
interstate port-of-entries, and getting all vehicles to stop as
required by law. The Rocky Mountain State Department of Agriculture's
have created a system of communication to help track and report boats
that have not been inspected is they travel across the regional States.
Several infested boats have been stopped from launching into uninfested
waters due the cooperative efforts of the States.
Question. Are there opportunities and limitations on the ability of
Federal and State agriculture inspection and natural resource
authorities to share real time data at ports of entry on potential
high--risk pests, products and pathways moving between and into States?
Answer. Currently there are restrictions on information sharing
between Federal and State agricultural inspectors resulting from the
Federal preemption clause of the Plant Protection Act of 2000. Because
States may not regulate foreign commerce and may not create
restrictions on plants or plant pests that are not regulated by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal agricultural inspectors are not
prohibited to alert State agriculture inspectors of the discovery in
foreign or interstate commerce plants or plant pests that may be of
State concern but are not federally regulated. Encouraging joint
inspection facilities that house both Federal and State agricultural
inspectors, allowing information sharing between Federal and State
agricultural inspections, and providing more flexibility in Federal
preemption would provide opportunities for enhanced biosecurity.
Question. Please provide examples, opportunities and limitations
related to Federal and State agriculture inspection and natural
resource authorities engaging in real--time sharing of information and
even being co--located at ports of entry.
Answer. A joint inspection facility was built at an airport in
Kahului, Maui as part of a required mitigation effort.
Question. What are some examples of impacts to invasive species
control anticipated due to reductions in Federal funds made available
through the U.S. Forest Service's State and Private Forest Health
Program?
Answer. Wyoming has received State and Private Forestry funds from
the U.S. Forest Service for an Invasive Plant Management grant annually
for 10 years. The program has been very successful for the State and
its partners for the simplicity with which it is administered. In our
case, the State of Wyoming has minimized their administration costs
associated with the grant to no more than 2 percent. That means 98
percent of the Federal funds allocated to the State are used for actual
``on the ground'' invasive weed management. This program is a model for
how States can adequately administer and implement programs through
partnerships with Federal agencies and get funds on the ground. In most
cases, Wyoming has utilized the funds from the program for State or
private forests lands that neighbor Forest Service lands, thereby
providing the National Forests an invasive weed buffer.
In 2004 Wyoming received $173,000 from the program which we matched
with $486,000 of local, State and private funds in managing over 20,000
acres for invasive weeds. Wyoming, and most of the participating
Western States, have watched the amount provided through the State and
Private Forestry program decrease annually. This year Wyoming will only
receive $49, 250 from the program and the result will be a significant
reduction in the amount of acres we can treat.
Question. Can there be opportunities to utilize funds from the
State and Private Forest Health program to control ungulates that
impact forest health?
Answer. Our agency has been told that the funds provided to the
Wyoming Department of Agriculture through the USFS--State and Private
Forestry Health program are intended for the management of invasive
plants. I am not aware if this is a Regional or National policy within
the U.S. Forest Service, nor am I aware if any other State program is
utilizing these funds for ungulate control.
Question. Different regions across the Nation face different
invasive species challenges due to factors such as climate, elevation,
etc; this is particularly the case for the tropical, isolated, island
State of Hawaii. Biocontrol development for the highest priority pests
nationally is not likely to benefit the unique challenges faced by
individual regions. Are there any examples of efforts to account for
the unique conditions of various regions in developing biocontrol
priorities?
Answer. Wyoming recognizes the value bio-control provides for the
long-term success of invasive species management and that high value
crops receive precedence in the research of new bio-control agents.
Therefore the Wyoming Weed and Pest Council created a Wyoming Bio-
control Steering committee that supports research into bio-control
agents that meet the unique needs of our State. The committee allocates
over $250,000 annually of State and county funding into regional,
national and international bio-control research. The committee
allocates the funding using invasive specie specific grants for
research into bio-control agents targeting those species the committee
and State see as priorities. The prioritized species the committee
target are often independent to those USDA-APHIS and other States might
have. The committee and their funding played a significant role in
supporting the research of two bio-control agents (Aulacidea
acroptilonicais and Jaapiella ivannikovi) which were approved in 2011
by USDA-APHIS for the management of Russian knapweed.
After conferring with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture
personnel, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture has a biocontrol
program under its Plant Pest Control Branch that develops regionally
specific biocontrol projects. This includes exploratory biocontrol
efforts for which staff travel to similar tropical climates to search
for appropriate biocontrol agents that can be tested for specificity on
the invasive species in question.
Question. The Hawaii Invasive Species Council was modeled after the
National Invasive Species Council (NISC) to recognize the importance of
cabinet--level leadership and interagency coordination, planning, and
prioritization in effectively addressing invasive species. A Hawaii
representative from the State Department of Agriculture also serves on
the national Invasive Species Advisory Council (ISAC). When was the
last time the Council members of NISC or ISAC met and how often do they
meet to fulfill the intent of Executive Order 13112 and support
improved Federal, State and regional coordination?
Answer. I am aware of both the National Invasive Species Council
(NISC) and the Invasive Species Advisory Council (ISAC). Wyoming does
not have a representative on ISAC, but there are two individuals
currently representing the Rocky Mountain region on ISAC. According to
NISC staff the NISC Policy Liaisons meet on a monthly basis; the most
recent meeting of the NISC Policy Liaisons occurred on June 6, 2013.
The last full meeting of NISC was August 8, 2008, to approve the 2008-
2012 National Invasive Species Management Plan. The two most recent
meetings of ISAC were cancelled due to administrative and budget
constraints; therefore the last actual meeting of ISAC was May 22-24,
2012 in Portland, Oregon. When discussing the current status of ISAC
with a current committee member, they indicated they are willing to
meet by teleconference if needed to fulfill their advisory duties.
The success of NISC and ISAC in supporting improved Federal, State
and regional coordination is difficult to gage. Although NISC staff
runs a supportive Web site, it's difficult to determine current
activities or objectives of either committee. I would recommend a re-
structuring of their current Web site to make the recommendations of
ISAC, and the NISC responses easier to follow.
Please feel free to contact with any further questions or
clarification needed. The State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Department
of Agriculture looks forward to working with Congress on a solution to
the invasive species issue.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for being here.
We will next turn to Ms. Debra Hughes. Now, your sign says
you are the Association of Conservative Districts.
``Conservative'' is a good word. I realize you are actually
``Conservation.'' But, regardless, we are happy to have you
here. You have 5 minutes, please.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF DEBRA HUGHES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW MEXICO
ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Ms. Hughes. Thank you very much. Chairman Bishop, Ranking
Member Horsford, and members of the Committee, I do want to
thank you for the opportunity. And, as was stated, I am the
Executive Director of the New Mexico Association of
Conservation Districts. But, in addition to being the director
of NMACD, my husband and I also own and operate a ranch and
hunting business in the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New
Mexico. And we have been putting best management practices on
the ground on our ranch for almost 40 years.
NMACD is a nonprofit organization and it is made up of the
47 soil and water conservation districts in New Mexico. Soil
and water districts have a very unique opportunity nationwide,
because they are the only local government entity that actually
can work on any type of land ownership, be it private, State,
Federal, or even tribal. Through different agreements and also
through our statutory authority.
New Mexico is the Land of Enchantment. We have diverse
ownership. And 40 percent of New Mexico is owned by the Federal
Government, with 33 percent being owned by private land owners.
Most ranches in the West include ownership and management of
all these different types of land ownership. We have a diverse
wildlife population, we have deserts, we have mountains. But we
also have several prominent candidate species, such as the Dune
Sand Lizard and the Lesser Prairie Chicken.
But since 2005, NMACD, with Federal, State, and private
partners have worked together to create what we call Restore
New Mexico. Prior to Restore New Mexico, our BLM was treating
10 to 15,000 acres of any type of land--restoring that in New
Mexico. Restore New Mexico is this very aggressive partnership.
We are working on woodlands, grasslands, riparian areas, to try
to get it to a healthy, productive condition. As most of you
are aware, when we had this fragmentation in the different land
ownerships, it makes that very hard to work on a landscape
scale. But we are doing it in New Mexico, regardless of the
ownership. We strive to be color-blind, when it comes to the
ownership and management of these State, Federal, and private
lands.
Restore New Mexico represents this broad partnership, and
the key players are our association, NMACD, BLM, NRCS, our
Department of Game and Fish, the State university, and numerous
other partners. And both BLM and NRCS of New Mexico both have
the same visions for trying to just restore the health of the
land.
Furthermore, we are working--I think what is making it work
is they work with the local managers and the local ranchers to
determine the most pressing projects, the best applications to
accomplish these goals. This locally led process has enabled
great success. And let me tell you about it.
Since the program's inception just less than 8 years ago,
2.1 million acres in New Mexico have--they were impaired
habitat, and they have been treated, and now we have started
that transition to a healthy ecological state. This expansive
effort has been possible due to a strong relationship between
NMACD, BLM, NRCS, and all our other partners. The way we have
done it is NMACD has a cooperative agreement with BLM and the
conservation districts, and we serve as the contracting agent,
or have served, for over $14.4 million from BLM. Since that
same time, the NRCS has contributed $11 million. And then other
funds coming from private and all kinds of partners have been
$17.8 million.
The part I am probably the most proud of, while treating
over 2 million acres, is that we function at a very high
efficiency rate. The Restore New Mexico has placed over 93
percent of all of these dollars on the ground. This is possible
because we have a very low overhead to administer it, and we
have figured out that when you do landscape-scale treatments,
the economies of scale, you can treat more acres, you can lower
that cost, and you can get it done much cheaper and much more
efficiently.
Our proactive partnership improved enough habitat to keep
the Dune Sand Lizard from getting listed. This is unprecedented
success. It doesn't happen. But it has happened, and we have
done it. We went from 10,000 acres to 2 million acres in under
8 years. And we have some slides with pictures.
But, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Horsford, I just
want to thank you for this opportunity to be able to present
our wonderful success story in New Mexico. We are very proud of
it. And we appreciate your time, and I will be glad to try to
answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hughes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Debra Hughes, Executive Director, New Mexico
Association of Conservation Districts
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am
Debra Hughes, Executive Director of the New Mexico Association of
Conservation Districts. In addition to serving as NMACD's executive
director, my husband and I operate Hughes Brothers Ranch & Hunting
business in the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, NM. We have
installed best management practices on our land for the past 40 years.
NMACD is a non-profit association whose members include the 47 New
Mexico Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD's). NMACD provides
support to the local SWCD's on State and national issues, and works
with the New Mexico Legislature, Congressional Delegations, and related
governmental agencies. Conservation districts in New Mexico and
nationwide are focused on empowering those at the local level to
determine what is best for the natural resource concerns in a specific
area. It is our belief that the local leadership has the best
understanding and can have the greatest impact with the least expense.
Soil and Water Districts are the ``only governmental agency'' that has
the ability to work on private, State, Federal and tribal lands through
agreements and our statutory authority!
New Mexico is the Land of Enchantment with diverse ownership and
uses. Forty percent of our land is owned by the Federal Government--
predominately by U.S. Forest Service (USFS) at 20 percent and the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at 17 percent; 17 percent is owned by
the State; 10 percent by the tribes; and 33 percent by private
landowners, but most ranches in the West include ownership and
management of private, State and Federal land. NM land uses include
ranching and agriculture, oil and gas, and recreation, to name a few.
We have diverse wildlife habitat from deserts to mountains; home to
deer and elk and much more, including several prominent candidate
species such as the Dune Sage Lizard and the Lesser Prairie Chicken.
Conservation districts are very concerned with the health of our
State's beautiful landscape. Conservation districts work on threatened
and endangered species, insect and disease concerns, wildfire
prevention and rehabilitation, drought and water concerns, and, of
course, invasive species. Since 2005, NMACD, along with Federal, State,
private partners, and fellow non-governmental organizations have worked
to create Restore New Mexico.
Restore New Mexico is an aggressive partnership to restore
woodlands, grasslands, and riparian areas to a healthy and productive
condition. In the West, as many of you are aware, the fragmentation of
the landscape due to checkerboard land ownership and jurisdiction makes
landscape level restoration efforts difficult. Restore New Mexico works
to overcome those boundaries and have a positive impact on the land on
a landscape level, regardless of ownership--Federal, State, tribal, or
private. We strive to be ``colorblind'' when it comes to land
restoration efforts and treatments across multiple jurisdictions and
ownerships.
Restore New Mexico represents a broad partnership--the key players
include NMACD, BLM, and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
along with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, and the New
Mexico State University Jornada Experimental Range. Both BLM and NRCS
have matching visions for improving the health of the land, lending
significant strength and credibility to the success of Restore New
Mexico. Furthermore, Restore New Mexico works with the local land
managers--conservation districts supervisors, BLM field staff, NRCS
conservationists, and State officials to determine the most pressing
projects and the best applications to accomplish those goals. This
locally led process has enabled great success.
Since the program's inception, more than 2.1 million acres of
impaired habitat have been treated, starting the transition to healthy
ecological States. This expansive restoration effort has been possible
due to the strong relationship between the BLM and NMACD. NMACD has a
Cooperative Agreement with BLM, enabling us, the conservation
districts, to serve as the contracting agent for over $14.4 million in
BLM dollars to distribute on the ground. Since 2008, BLM's
contributions to Restore New Mexico have made up between 12 and 19
percent of the overall habitat treatments conducted by the BLM
nationwide. Additionally, NRCS has made over $11 million available for
conservation projects. The resources provided by BLM and NRCS, coupled
with $17.8 million from other partners, have enabled Restore New Mexico
to thrive to the successes we have seen today.
The part I am most proud of is that while treating over 2 million
acres, we function at a very high efficiency level. Restore New Mexico
places over 93 percent of the dollars on the ground for treatment. This
is possible given that there is only a small overhead needed to
administer the program. We also believe landscape level restoration is
efficient because of economies of scale; treating more acres per
project lowers the cost per acre of treatments.
Thanks to our partners and relationships throughout the State, we
have been able to monitor results on grasslands, thanks to the Jornada
Experiment Station; soil moisture, thanks to the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation; conduct forest inventories, thanks to New Mexico
Highlands University; photos for all treatment sites, post-monitoring
to rereading the initial plots, and other post-treatment monitoring as
necessary, all thanks to the BLM.
On a local conservation district level, 10 conservation districts
have financial assistance agreements with the BLM for noxious and
invasive weed treatments and weed education programs. The conservation
districts include Otero, Socorro, San Juan, Upper Hondo, East Rio
Arriba, Sierra, East Torrance, Cuba, Carlsbad, and Chaves.
Specific projects Restore New Mexico has been responsible for
include Salt Cedar restoration work along the Delaware River, Creosote
Restoration in Last Chance Canyon, Sagebrush and Juniper treatment
south of Cuba, New Mexico, reclamation of the Sulimar Oil Field, Henery
Tank Mesquite treatments, and Sagebrush shaving adjacent to the Taos
Field Office. These are just a few of the examples of the capabilities
of Restore New Mexico and the significant impact that is capable of
local land management.
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you again for the
opportunity to present the successes we have had in New Mexico locally
managing natural resources concerns, including invasive species. I am
happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. And our final
witness is Mr. Ogsbury, right?
Mr. Ogsbury. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. From the Western Governors' Association.
STATEMENT OF JAMES D. OGSBURY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WESTERN
GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
Mr. Ogsbury. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member,
members of the Committee, my name is James D. Ogsbury, I am the
Executive Director of the Western Governors' Association, and I
felt that the plaintive bagpipe hums provided the perfect
background for this somber topic. So, Mr. Chairman, if you are
inclined to turn them back on, I would be obliged.
The WGA represents the Governors of 19 Western States and 3
U.S. flag islands. Our association is strictly bipartisan, and
I am honored to appear before you today to briefly summarize my
written testimony. I will necessarily defer to the very
impressive subject matter experts that you have assembled on
this panel when it comes to technical aspects of invasive
species or the efficacy of overall operation of the current
Federal programs.
I can, however, confidently represent on behalf of the
Western Governors that, one, the problem with invasive species
is substantial and growing in the Western United States; two,
the issue is, on a bipartisan basis, a top priority of Western
Governors; three, Western Governors are prepared to work with
the Federal Government in an authentic partnership to develop
and execute a more successful strategy to control, eradicate,
and prevent introduction and proliferation of invasive species;
four, the Western States have considerable competence and
expertise with respect to addressing invasive species, and the
application of their ability and their local knowledge must be
a part of any effective solution; and, five, despite their
expertise and skill, the States cannot adequately tackle this
massive problem on their own. For one thing, invasive species
do not respect the political/jurisdictional boundaries
separating the States. For another, States lack the kind of
resources that the Federal Government commands to implement on-
the-ground solutions.
Governors are well aware of the negative impacts of
invasive species, including threats to native plants, birds,
reptiles, and mammals, many of which are endangered; electrical
power outages; interference with water supply systems;
increased wild fire vulnerability, especially from non-native
grasses; and economic damages to lands and communities.
A couple of examples will illustrate the case. In Guam, an
invasion of Brown Tree Snakes introduced to the island by U.S.
Army Jeeps during World War II has resulted in the extinction
of 12 native bird species. Non-native feral pigs introduced
from the Philippines and rats continue to pose a health hazard
to human residents of the island. Zebra and quagga mussels are
spreading into more western water bodies each year. These
organisms often settle in massive colonies that can block water
intake and threaten water supply, agriculture, and power
production. Western utilities and their customers are spending
millions of dollars annually to clean out zebra mussels from
intake facilities and then additional funds to retrofit those
facilities to prevent future invasions.
Cheatgrass is an aggressive invader of western range land
and forest areas. It grows and reproduces rapidly, overtaking
native grasses, reducing available forage, degrading wildlife
habitat, and increasing wild fire risks.
Western States and Pacific Islands are responding as best
they can to the threat of invasive species. Colorado, for
example, has launched the ``Lend a Hand for Your Lakes and
Lands'' project, which is raising awareness about the problem
of invasive weeds, such as Tamarisk, and engaging volunteers in
control solutions.
Governor Bullock and the Montana Legislature took action
this year to strengthen State laws regarding the control of
aquatic invasive species, and committed a substantial boost in
funding to support those efforts.
Idaho has long been at the vanguard of invasive species
management, and has published a 5-year invasive species
strategic plan. I respectfully request that a copy of the plan
be included with our written testimony in the hearing record.
Pursuant to WGA policy resolution 10-4, ``Combating
Invasive Species,'' Western Governors are on the record calling
for a better coordinated nationwide effort to control and
manage invasive species. The Governors support a more focused
and streamlined Federal approach to the invasive species
problem, implementation of aggressive Federal invasive species
control programs that result in more on-the-ground prevention,
management, and eradication of invasive species, and improved
governmental coordination, communication, transparency, and
accountability with respect to invasive species programs and
the expenditure of available taxpayer resources.
I will conclude by emphasizing the willingness of the
Western States to engage in meaningful partnerships with the
Federal Government to attack the problem. The Restore New
Mexico partnership illustrates the potential of just such
collaboration and Ms. Hughes has described the program and
suggested its promise for other areas of the West.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members of the Committee,
the WGA applauds you and the Subcommittee for your examination
of this critical problem, and we would be pleased and honored
to serve as a resource and a partner as you develop legislative
solutions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ogsbury follows:]
Prepared Statement of James D. Ogsbury, Executive Director, Western
Governors' Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
providing the opportunity for the Western Governors' Association (WGA)
to testify today. My name is James D. Ogsbury and I am the Executive
Director of the WGA. WGA is an independent, non-partisan organization
representing the Governors of 19 Western States and 3 U.S.-flag
islands.
Western Governors are encouraged that the Subcommittee is focusing
this oversight hearing on the insidious problem of invasive species,
which poses a serious and growing threat to our region. Over the years,
the Federal Government has invested substantial taxpayer resources to
address this problem. Nevertheless, invasive species continue to
proliferate.
Aquatic and terrestrial invasive species are causing extensive
damage across western landscapes, coastal areas and Pacific Islands--
and have been doing so for some time. In California alone, over 1,000
non-native species have been identified. All over the region, invasive
species are harming natural environments and habitat, recreational
uses, shore and marine uses, industrial and municipal uses, grazing,
and timber harvests.
Invasions of non-native species are resulting in:
Decreased biodiversity of native plants, birds, reptiles, and
mammals;
Increased vulnerability of native species, some of which are
endangered and threatened species;
Electrical power outages and disruptions;
Physical disruption of water supply systems and increased flood
damage;
Increased wildfire severity (especially from non-native grass);
Reduced value of Federal, State and private lands; and
Economic harm to communities.
Let me illustrate the Governors' concerns with several specific
examples of invasive species that are now creating challenges for the
West:
Aquatic Mussels
Aquatic invasive species (such as zebra and quagga mussels) are
spreading into more western water bodies each year. Western States are
on high alert to contain, control, and prevent their proliferation. The
most common sources for the introduction of these species are
recreational watercraft and materials sold by aquatic plant and animal
suppliers.
Invasion of these mussels result in impairments to water supplies
for drinking, energy production, and irrigation. The economic
consequences are severe. For example, the operators and customers of
large power plants and water users are spending millions of dollars to
clean out zebra mussels from water facilities and additional funds to
retrofit those facilities to prevent future invasions. In addition,
native fish and wildlife habitat are negatively impacted when these
species become established in streams, lakes, estuaries and other water
bodies.
Western States have committed significant resources to man
watercraft inspection and decontamination stations for invasive
species, but this tactic cannot be the only line of defense. California
currently dedicates over $7 million annually to prevent the spread of
quagga and zebra mussels into and within State. Decontaminating quagga/
zebra mussel fouled watercraft at their source, especially federally
managed water bodies, such as Lake Mead National Recreation Area, is
essential, or we will continue to witness the spread of quagga and
zebra mussel to new areas in the Western United States.
These growing costs do not include local reservoir prevention
program or control expenses for water agencies in southern California,
including the Metropolitan Water District, which currently spends
millions of dollars annually to treat infested Colorado River water.
Interception--whether at the source or at the borders--is critical for
California, where water project control costs can run as high as $40
million dollars annually if mussels infest the system.
Cheatgrass
Cheatgrass is an aggressive invader of ponderosa pine, mountain
brush, and other rangeland and forest areas in the West. Its ability to
rapidly grow, reproduce and overtake native grasses makes it especially
troublesome on ranges, croplands, and pastures. Where it becomes dense
and dominant, cheatgrass can make wildfires even more severe because
they burn easily. After a wildfire, cheatgrass thrives and out-competes
native shrubby seedlings such as antelope bitterbrush.
Cheatgrass can also diminish recreational opportunities, reduce
available forage, degrade wildlife diversity and habitat, and decrease
land values. It is important to note that managed grazing practices
have historically helped to reduce large, high-intensity range fires
and, consequently, the spread of invasive species like cheatgrass. As
grazing has become less prevalent on Federal lands, cheatgrass has had
more opportunity to thrive.
Western States and Pacific Islands are responding as best they can
at the local and State levels. For example:
New Mexico's ``Restore New Mexico Partnership''--working with the
State of New Mexico, USDA-NRCS, and BLM--has now treated over 2 million
acres of invasive species, including Russian Olive and Salt Cedar
(Tamarisk) in the past 8 years.
Colorado is piloting a collaborative effort between State, county
and municipal governments to tackle land-based invasive weeds, such as
tamarisk. The ``Lend a Hand for Your Lakes and Lands'' project is
raising awareness about this significant natural resource challenge
while engaging youth and other volunteers in management solutions.
Island ecosystems and economies are particularly vulnerable to
invasive species impacts. For example, Brown Tree snakes brought to
Guam in U.S. Army Jeeps during the World War II have resulted in the
extinction of 12 native bird species. The Pacific Invasives Partnership
promotes coordinated planning and assistance from regional and
international agencies to meet the invasive species management needs of
countries and territories of the Pacific.
Montana Governor Bullock and the 2013 Montana legislature
strengthened State laws regarding the control of aquatic invasive
species (AIS) and provided a substantial boost in funding to support
those efforts. The new law establishes a statewide management area to
prevent new AIS introductions through watercraft and equipment
inspection stations at State borders. The Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks is the lead agency, with the Montana Departments of
Transportation and Natural, Resources and Conservation also tasked with
major responsibilities. The agencies are currently providing training
for watercraft inspectors and establishing 20 highway watercraft
inspection stations.
In California, invasive aquatic plants, such as water hyacinth and
other invasive plants have proliferated to the point that they:
obstruct navigation and create hazards for boats and other watercraft;
impair recreational uses such as swimming, fishing, and hunting; damage
water delivery and flood control systems; alter water quality; and
degrade the physical and chemical characteristics of fish and wildlife
habitat. California's aquatic weed control activities cost over $6
million annually.
The 100th Meridian Initiative is a cooperative effort among local,
State, provincial, regional and Federal agencies to prevent the
westward spread of zebra and quagga mussels and other aquatic nuisance
species in North America, as well as to monitor, contain, eradicate and
control zebra mussels and other aquatic nuisance species if detected.
Idaho has long been at the forefront of invasive species
management. Most recently, the State released the Idaho Invasive
Species Strategic Plan, 2012-2016. WGA respectfully requests that the
plan be included with our written testimony in the hearing record.
Despite best efforts, Western States and territories cannot
adequately prevent or reduce the spread of invasive species on their
own. Federal agencies own and manage more than 40 percent of the land
in the West.
In 2010, Western Governors called for a better coordinated,
nationwide effort to control and manage invasive species. WGA urged
that available Federal funding be focused on the worst problems,
regardless of land ownership, and targeted at the ground level on
Federal and non-Federal lands to reduce invasive species. I am
providing a copy of WGA policy resolution 10-4, Combating Invasive
Species, as part of my testimony today.
Unfortunately, it seems little progress has been made at the
Federal and regional level since 2010. Western Governors sent a letter
to the leadership of House and Senate natural resources committees
supporting new invasive species management legislation. The Governors
urged the legislation to ensure:
A more focused and streamlined Federal approach to the invasive
species problem;
Implementation of aggressive Federal invasive species control
programs that result in more on-the-ground prevention, management, and
eradication of invasive species;
Opportunities for collaboration with States and Pacific Islands to
prevent the spread of invasive species populations, avert new
unauthorized introductions, and work together to set priorities for
invasive species management;
Improved intergovernmental coordination and communication
regarding invasive species infestations in order to facilitate the most
effective, cooperative and rapid response; and
Increased transparency and accountability regarding how Federal
funds are allocated and used for the prevention, control and management
of invasive species.
We believe that those Federal agencies that have jurisdictional
responsibility for land and water resources (i.e., Bureau of Land
Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Insular Affairs, U.S.
Forest Service, and Army Corps of Engineers) must work with the States
and territories to: implement aggressive invasive species control
programs; provide grant resources for monitoring, intrastate
interdiction and containment; and establish a rapid response to early
detection of invasive species.
New Mexico's partnership program provides a great example of how
effective this kind of Federal-State-local coordination can be when
treating invasive species on public and private lands. The New Mexico
Association of Conservation Districts has administered the funds for
the BLM and has completed coordinated management plans for over 143
private ranchers. The NMACD has also executed and managed contracts for
very large landscape scale treatment projects. The ability to do
landscape scale treatment projects (with matching Federal, State, and
private dollars) has resulted in lower per-acre cost of treatment.
Western Governors are keenly aware of the fiscal constraints under
which Congress and the Federal agencies are currently operating. We
believe, however, that an effective response to the economic and
ecological devastation caused by invasive species can be achieved, if
existing resources are deployed more wisely and efficiently.
As the Committee begins its work to draft invasive species
legislation, Western Governors urge you to concentrate your efforts on
what can make a difference where it matters: on the ground. States, in
partnership with Federal agencies, have the expertise to run effective
invasive species eradication programs.
Again, Western Governors urge the Subcommittee to pursue and
champion invasive species legislation during the 113th Congress. Thank
you for the opportunity to be a part of today's hearing on an issue of
great importance to the Western States and Pacific Islands.
______
Western Governors' Association Policy Resolution 10-4
combating invasive species
A. BACKGROUND
1. The National Invasive Species Council (Executive Order 13112)
defines an invasive species as ``an alien species whose introduction
does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to
human health.'' The rapid spread of invasive species remains one of our
country's biggest environmental problems, a situation complicated by
the sheer number of invasive species, lack of a coordinated and
comprehensive effort to prevent introductions, monitor and survey for
new introductions, and the remarkable ability of invasive species to
adapt, reproduce and ultimately overtake entire ecosystems.
2. Invasive species are a global problem. The annual cost of
impacts and control efforts equals 5 percent of the world's economy.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates the country spends
at least $138 billion per year to fight and control invasive plant and
animal species, such as the emerald ash borer beetles that have
destroyed millions of trees in the East and Midwest. Invasive species
influence the productivity, value, and management of a broad range of
land and water resources in the West, ultimately limiting the direct
and indirect goods and services these ecosystems are capable of
producing. Over 100 million acres (an area roughly the size of
California) in the United States are suffering from invasive plant
infestations.
3. On a scale of biodiversity destruction, the EPA reports that
invasive species rank second only to urban development. In addition,
invasive species have been identified by the Chief of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service as one of the four significant
threats to our Nation's forest and rangeland ecosystems.
4. The Western Governors recognize that the spread of invasive
species results from a combination of human behavior, susceptibility of
invaded environments, and biology of the invading species. These
characteristics are not dictated by geopolitical boundaries, but rather
by ecosystem-level factors, including climate change, which often cross
State borders. Scientists and land managers across the West have
expressed the need to develop a strategy for more aggressive invasive
species prevention, early detection, and management.
5. Invasive species have significant negative economic, social, and
ecological impacts which include, but are not limited to:
a. Reduction of the value of streams, lakes, reservoirs, oceans,
and estuaries for native fish and wildlife habitat;
b. Degradation of water resources for human uses including drinking
water, energy production, irrigation systems and other
water uses;
c. Decreased real estate property value and increased costs of
property development;
d. Detraction from the aesthetics and recreational value of
wildlands, parklands, and other areas;
e. Degradation of ecosystem functions and values, including
populations of desirable species;
f. Reduction of the yield and quality of desirable crop and forage
plants that are important in production of our food supply;
g. Reduction of native biodiversity, resulting in a growing number
of threatened, endangered and extinct species (Note:
invasive species have contributed directly to the decline
of 42 percent of the threatened and endangered species in
the United States);
h. High cost of control; and
i. Reduction of preferred native vegetation important to native
fish and wildlife as well as livestock.
6. Aquatic invasive species such as the zebra mussel, quagga
mussel, and Eurasian water milfoil are spreading into more western
water bodies each year. The most common sources for the introduction of
these species in the West are recreational watercraft and materials
sold by aquatic plant and animal suppliers. This is a regional,
interstate issue and no Western State can independently implement
programs to adequately prevent or reduce the spread of invasive
species. The economic and environmental damage from aquatic invasive
species will continue to rise in Western States without a well-
organized and adequately funded effort to survey and monitor for
invasive species as well as implement prevention, control, and
eradication programs in each State to complement coordinated multi-
State efforts.
7. Many of these invasive species were introduced, or their
distribution was expanded, due to inadequate implementation of Federal
regulations dealing with international trade and/or interstate
commerce.
B. GOVERNORS' POLICY STATEMENT
1. Western Governors support coordinated, multi-State management
and eradication actions to limit or eliminate intentional and
unintentional introductions and improve control of invasive species.
The principal objectives should be to maintain properly functioning
natural systems and their associated native fish and wildlife
populations, ensure agricultural productivity, enhance resource and
environmental protection, and protect human health. Control programs
should be economically practical in relationship to the long-term
impacts an invasive species will cause.
2. Programs for the control and/or eradication of invasive species
must incorporate education, prevention, and early detection and rapid
response techniques.
3. Western Governors strongly encourage all natural resource
management agencies, local governments, universities, nonprofit
organizations and the private sector to collaborate and form
partnerships with States to prevent the spread of invasive species,
avert new unauthorized introductions, and work together to find
creative new approaches for protecting and restoring natural,
agriculture, and recreational resources.
4. Western Governors urge full funding support for invasive species
management programs on Federal lands as well as financial assistance
for state invasive species management, including the National Invasive
Species Act and programs administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and funding support for State invasive
species councils These programs provide valuable services in the
detection and elimination of invasive species as well as coordination
and communication, and their participation is essential for States
relying on these services to maintain strong trade and export
functions.
5. Western Governors encourage the federal government to:
a. Assume responsibility and a direct partnership role with States
in interstate interdiction of invasive species;
b. Substantially increase grant funding to the States for
monitoring, intrastate interdiction and containment; and
c. Implement aggressive invasive species control programs within
the Federal agencies (e.g., Bureau of Land Management,
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Forest Service, Army Corps of
Engineers) who have jurisdictional responsibility for land
and water resources.
d. Establish rapid response spending authorization for States
responding to early detection of invasive species.
6. Western Governors support a coordinated regional approach to
invasive species management. Of particular importance will be: a.
Developing scientifically based and coordinated species lists between
the States;
b. Developing efficient coordination and communication mechanisms
to share information promptly with each other and the Federal
Government to allow for the most effective cooperative and rapid
response;
c. Establishing consistent and effective policies and procedures to
prevent transport, sale and dispersal of undesirable species,
particularly those under eradication in specific states; and
d. Increasing awareness and support for effective public outreach
and education throughout the Western States.
C. GOVERNORS' MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE
1. This resolution shall be posted on the Western Governors'
Association Web site and shall be referenced and used as appropriate by
Governors and staff.
2. Western Governors' Association staff shall coordinate within
existing WGA committees, such as the Climate Adaptation Workgroup and
the Forest Health Advisory Committee, to promote coordination and
cooperation of invasive species management across agencies.
3. The Western Governors' Association shall seek financial and
human resources to work with appropriate partners to facilitate the
development and coordination of strategies to prevent the introduction
and spread of invasive aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial species.
4. WGA shall support increased pass-through funding for invasive
species management to States including funding for the Federal Highway
Administration to support of State Department of Transportation
invasive species management efforts.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir. And if you provide us with an
Idaho plan we will add that as part of the record.
Mr. Ogsbury. Thank you, sir.
[The Idaho Invasive Species Strategic Palan 2012-2016,
provided for the record by Mr. Ogsbury, has been retained in
the Committee's Official files and can also be found at http://
www.agri.state.id.us/Categories/PlantsInsects/NoxiousWeeds/
Documents/Idaho%20Invasive%20Species%20Strategy%202012-
2016.pdf.]
Mr. Bishop. With that, we will turn to questions of our
panel. Let me turn first to Representative Lummis, if you have
any questions of these witnesses.
Mrs. Lummis. I do. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. Before I begin, I have a confession to make to
Dr. Beck. When I was a student at the University of Wyoming
College of Agriculture. I was involved in a vast right wing
conspiracy that did spirit the CSU ram from his pen and placed
him in a pen at the University of Wyoming with Cowboy Joe, our
pony. I was subsequently dragged into the President's office,
along with some other ag students, and we did return the ram to
CSU, unharmed. But I do have that history with regard to CSU.
We are happy to have you here today, by the way.
My questions, first, are for Director Fearneyhough. Now,
you are in charge of invasive species control in the State of
Wyoming, is that correct?
Mr. Fearneyhough. That is correct.
Mrs. Lummis. And you testified briefly before about the
variety of Federal agencies that you have to deal with in
Wyoming. It is not just the BLM or just the Forest Service. It
is multiple Federal agencies, is that correct?
Mr. Fearneyhough. That is correct.
Mrs. Lummis. When you are trying to respond to invasive
species threats on a statewide basis, what kind of challenges
arise when you are dealing with these separate agencies with
separate budgets, separate species management philosophies?
Mr. Fearneyhough. Congresswoman Lummis, we work very
closely with our Federal partners, and I want to make that
clear.
However, Ms. Hughes talked about the color-blind approach
and seeing the different colors on the map. The biggest
challenge that we have, from my perspective, is exactly that.
You mentioned policies and budgets and all of those things. We
need a consistent way to act on lands as if they are just
lands. We have heard today that invasive species do not
recognize political boundaries, they don't recognize any of
those budgets, any of those policies. They go where they want
to go. We need to be able to be nimble and get on to the ground
as quickly as we can to stop the threats that we have.
So, those are the challenges that you laid out right there,
are that, that we have different sets of policies, different
budgets that we are working with all the time, and the species
just keeps promulgating itself.
Mrs. Lummis. There have been some regional approaches that
have been discussed at this hearing. Could you elaborate on
that, and how that is working?
Mr. Fearneyhough. Yes, Congresswoman. I can give you two
examples, one of an invasive species--and this one isn't
working--and one that--or hasn't worked very well--and one that
is not an invasive species, but a threat to Wyoming that is.
And I will start with the one that is working on the
cheatgrass.
We have four States. I am in the western part of the United
States, where the Governors had come together and they had
signed an MOU to work together to stop cheatgrass because of
the issues that we have with sage grouse. Because of what we
just talked about a moment ago, the different budgets,
policies, the problems that we encounter there, that MOU, that
plan, is sitting on a shelf. It is not being able to be
implemented. And the opportunity still lies there. We need, I
guess, a mechanism to get it off the shelf and on to the
ground. So there is a problem that isn't working.
On the Eastern side of Wyoming, we have the beetles, the
Pine Beetles. We have the issue that is in two States, multiple
counties, we are dealing with the BLM, with the Forest Service,
the State of South Dakota, the State of Wyoming, and several
counties. We have been able to utilize the Wyoming Department
of Agriculture through the generosity of the State legislature
in Wyoming, and also like members in South Dakota, with
partnership with the Federal Government to get on the ground
and start taking care of that problem. So----
Mrs. Lummis. You have talked, then, about prioritizing
direct mitigation of these species, but you also mentioned
research funding to be valuable. What type of research programs
have helped you make a difference on the ground?
Mr. Fearneyhough. Congresswoman, again, I think all of that
is important, all of the things that we have talked about. It
is not just research, it is not just on the ground. It is a
combination of doing it all. Because we have to use the
research, though, to be applied. We have to get to a point
where we can take what we are learning in the academic world
and get it on the ground to deal with the species. This problem
is broad-ranging, and we need to--I can't give just specifics
from Wyoming because, as I mentioned, we have the different
problems in different States throughout the country. But we
need to make sure that research goes to the next step, where we
have application, and get things on the ground.
Mrs. Lummis. I will defer now back to you, Mr. Chairman.
So--will we have a second round? Excellent. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Ask questions--do you have any Ram stories?
Mr. Horsford. I actually do.
Mr. Bishop. Oh, great.
Mr. Horsford. Not Thelonious, but----
Mr. Bishop. Well, see, CSU and Wyoming are in different
conferences now, so I don't care. But go ahead. I recognize Mr.
Horsford for questions.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My wife actually got
her undergrad from CSU. And having attended the University of
Nevada Reno, whenever there is a big game I always let her know
that we often beat the Rams. So go Wolfpack.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Horsford. I never stole a ram, though.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Horsford. I appreciate very much the panel. And as I
said, this is a very important topic. The Healthy Habitats
Coalition and some of the testimony seems focused on noxious
weeds. But as we indicated, we have a problem with cheatgrass
in Nevada. We also have a problem with quagga mussels.
So, does it make a difference whether it is an aquatic
species or a noxious weed, when we talk about funding for
prevention versus control for the various panel members, if you
could respond?
Mr. Ries. I can speak for the Forest Service and say that
it does not. The big issues for us is identifying the various
invasives that are out there, taking a look at the threats that
they pose, evaluating our treatment options. What are the
possible ways we can control that? And how effective might they
be?
And then, in every situation I am aware of, we are working
with our partners, both at the State and local level, to set
priorities together so that we can move forward on those. So in
some parts of the country we are involved in cheatgrass. And we
are also involved in developing biological controls for it. In
other parts of the country we have been very active and
aggressive with our partners in looking at quagga mussels, as
well as zebra mussels and other aquatic invaders.
Dr. Beck. All of the organisms are problematic and
important. They all need to be dealt with. And we need a
balanced approach to do so. We shouldn't favor one over
another, maybe--unless it is something brand new and arrived,
then that should be taken care of immediately. But otherwise,
they are all bad. It is not just noxious weeds, and it is not
just the mussels, it is not just the Burmese Python, it is all
of them together.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you. One other area that you talked
about, obviously, is effectively eradicating an invasive
species, and particularly having a rapid response when it is
first detected.
State agencies often view the new invader from the
perspective of their own boundaries. How would you suggest that
State and Federal agencies coordinate their responses to a new
invader, when the ultimate impact might be widespread, but the
initial responsibility to respond falls only to one State?
Often times States have inadequate resources.
Dr. Beck. To make that, the system, work, early detection
and rapid response, you obviously need a local set of eyes
keeping track, because they are familiar with the area, and
they live there, they are out, looking around. But ultimately,
it needs to be borderless, it needs to be collaborative. We
need everybody communicating, open lines of communication to
address this very issue, just as you suggest.
Mr. Fearneyhough. Congressman Horsford, I would agree with
that. I think that it is important that we work together. We
have opportunities. And, of course, in Wyoming, our biggest
issues tend to be insects and weeds. We do have some of the--we
are trying to keep quagga mussels out.
But I think if you have the opportunity to even work with
another State to keep a weed, for instance, or an invasive
species that is in that State from coming into your State, it
ultimately reduces the pathway of that invasive species to move
across the country. I think that prevention is done through
rapid response.
Mr. Horsford. Anyone else?
[No response.]
Mr. Horsford. Governors' Association, maybe?
Mr. Ogsbury. I think that we should develop a model where
the State governments, the Federal Government, the conservation
districts, private interests, are all at the table to develop
broad-scale strategies, kind of on a landscape-basis, much like
what they have done in New Mexico.
So, when the rapid response is required, people have
already kind of talked that through and they are on the same
page, and there is a much more--a better common-sense of the
problem, and a more collaborative solution that has already
been kind of deliberated upon.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Stewart, according to theme
here, is it going to be a Utah State story? In fact, I don't
even know where you went. If you say BYU, you don't even get to
ask questions, but----
Mr. Stewart. OK. Well, I am going to excuse myself at this
time, then.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stewart. I went there for a year, until I almost got
kicked out, but it wasn't for ram-stealing. I would like to
make that clear.
I am assuming, Mr. Chairman, that it is my time, then?
Thank you.
Like many of us here, I am from a Western State, and I
appreciate this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
expertise. And for those of you, service to your Nation,
service to your States, and your expertise. And I would like to
use this opportunity to actually educate myself, rather than
pretend that I am an expert in this, because I am not, and ask
some questions that some of you may think, well, those are
silly, or maybe I should know that. But I really would
appreciate some clarification.
Invasive species are alien species that can cause economic
or environmental damage. I understand that. But I am wondering,
are you concerned about native species, as well, that can also
cause economic or environmental concern? Do you spend any
efforts on what we would, I guess, scientifically consider a
native species?
Some of you are nodding your head, I guess. Would you mind
jumping in and say yes, you do? Or where is that on your
priorities?
Mr. Ries. And I can start that, speaking from the
perspective of the Forest Service.
Mr. Stewart. OK.
Mr. Ries. And a really good example that we see throughout
the West is with Mountain Pine Beetle.
Mr. Stewart. Is what?
Mr. Ries. Mountain Pine Beetle.
Mr. Stewart. Yes, OK. Yes, absolutely, yes.
Mr. Ries. And we have had instances, significant losses of
spruce to Spruce Beetle in Utah.
Mr. Stewart. Right, right.
Mr. Ries. And those are natives. And we do spend a
significant amount of resources, really, along the same lines
as we do for invasives. We look for an early detection of a new
outbreak of a native species when it begins to do harm, and
gets out of the background. We apply direct control measures.
We work on biological control measures, and we also look at
restoration work once----
Mr. Stewart. Many of the same things, then.
Mr. Ries. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stewart. And so, I am noticing again many of you shook
your heads. I recognize this hearing is on invasive species,
but that is not the only problem. You also have to deal with
the natives, as well. And you deal with them, I am assuming, in
much the same way, as far as mitigating the harm, the processes
are much the same. Is that true? Yes, OK. Thank you.
Then again, we have heard a number of examples. You have
talked about the aquatic mussels or the cheatgrasses or some of
the native species, the Bark Beetle, which many of us are
concerned about. And I think, from a visual perspective, it is
one of the more obvious ones. The mussels, for example, you may
not be as aware of because of that.
But recognizing that these are very different species, very
different economic or environmental remedies to them, that they
concern different constituents or different groups for
different reasons, are there any that seem to rise to this is
the number-one priority, or this is the greatest danger that we
face right now? Is there any consensus among you at all that
this is our primary concern? Or maybe two, top one or two.
Dr. Beck. Well, Representative Stewart, I actually was
asked that question earlier this week, and it is very difficult
to pin down a top one, top two, or top three. But every State
and every county within the State will have a priority group
that they will work on.
Typically, when something is new, then that receives
priority immediately through early detection and rapid response
for the obvious reason. We do not want it to become a
cheatgrass, or something of that nature. So it is not a moving
target, but the priorities are adjusted as necessary.
Mr. Stewart. OK. So among you, maybe those who haven't
responded--yes, I am sorry, Ms. Hughes? Yes. You seem to want
to answer that. If you would.
Ms. Hughes. Well, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stewart, it
really depends on the location, and it depends--I mean because
we have done a large amount of just Mesquite treatment, which
is a native, but it was invading so bad, and it was affecting
the habitat area of the Dune Sand Lizard and Lesser Prairie
Chicken. So, therefore, it was a priority, even though it--so
it is going to depend on the location and what all the other
species are.
I mean Pinyon-Juniper invasion, even though they are
native, is a huge factor because of wild fire and drought
issues. Salt Cedar is a huge problem because of water issues.
So every State and every locale----
Mr. Stewart. Has its own challenge.
Ms. Hughes [continuing]. Is going to have its own
challenges.
Mr. Stewart. So, I think if you were to ask most people in
my State, for example, most of them would think of the Bark
Beetle, because it is most visual. But the reality is, A, it is
not invasive, it is native. Same problem, have to deal with it.
And, B, it doesn't seem to be the most worrisome to you at all.
There are many others that you are at least equally concerned
with. Is that true?
Mr. Fearneyhough. Congressman, if I may?
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Mr. Fearneyhough. I believe that, yes, it depends, as Ms.
Hughes just stated, the issues that face Florida and California
are very different than the issues that face Wyoming, and those
are different than the issues that even face my neighbor, Utah,
in many cases.
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Mr. Fearneyhough. So it is a very location-based problem.
Mr. Stewart. OK. And I view that as being good news and bad
news. I mean the good news is there is not one major problem
that seems so overwhelming that everyone has agreed this is the
priority for us now. The bad news is that there is a wide range
of other problems that are so different, there is no real
concerted effort to take care of it. And it is going to take
the efforts of a lot of people from a lot of different
backgrounds to do that. OK. Thank you for your questions and
your responses.
Mr. Chairman, having run out of time, I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate it. Let me ask a couple question
in here. And there will be another round for everybody if there
are more questions.
Mr. Ries, first of all, you cited several different
acronyms of invasive species partners and efforts under which
you work. So, my question is, who is in charge, as far as the
Federal Government's agencies, to coordinate these efforts to
address this issue? Who actually is in charge?
Mr. Ries. There is an Invasive Species Council composed of
Federal agencies that oversees the work that all of us do. It
helps us set priorities and assures that we are operating
consistently.
Beyond that, as we move into individual locations, we in
the Forest Service are responsible for the National Forest
System and BLM, of course----
Mr. Bishop. Let me just take one step further. The council
to which you refer has been there for quite a while, a couple
administrations, at least. And it is made up of multi-agencies
and districts. Do they--does that Council, though, have
authority to make decisions, or do they generally try to
coordinate and make recommendations?
Mr. Ries. They coordinate, they make recommendations.
Mr. Bishop. All right.
Mr. Ries. They----
Mr. Bishop. We still have a diffuse authority that is out
there.
What authorities does your agency have to let State and
local entities manage invasive species on national forest land?
Mr. Ries. We operate under a couple of different
authorities, but primarily through cooperative agreements, my
experience is with cooperative weed management areas in Idaho.
When we all got together in an area similar to what Ms. Hughes
describes in New Mexico, that group determines what their
priority invasives are----
Mr. Bishop. I understand cooperative agreements. Do you
have the authority to let State and local governments take lead
and take charge of this program?
Mr. Ries. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Bishop. How much does it cost the Forest Service per
acre to do invasive species treatment?
Mr. Ries. Our costs vary significantly, depending on the
species and the location. In remote wilderness areas in Idaho
and Montana, where we are packing herbicide in on horseback,
costs can be as high as $1,000 an acre.
Mr. Bishop. All right.
Mr. Ries. And if we are spraying for Gypsy Moth, costs can
be as low as $25 to $35 an acre.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Mr. Beck, if I could ask you a couple of
questions now. Ms. Hughes said 93 percent of their revenue
actually gets on the ground. Your coalition, I understand, has
made some estimates of what the Federal money actually gets on
the ground. And I understand it is as low as 7 percent. Is that
a ballpark figure?
Dr. Beck. For weed control, yes, Mr. Chairman, that is a
close ballpark figure. If you put in the other monies from,
like, APHIS, for example, it does go up.
Mr. Bishop. How effective has the invasive species
management plans produced by this National Invasive Species
Council been?
Dr. Beck. Sadly, I would have to say that it has not had
the effect that we would desire. When I served on the Invasive
Species Advisory Committee, that was one of the frustrations.
Mr. Bishop. All right, thank you. Let me ask Mr. Dye a
couple of questions, if I could, then.
Your testimony mentioned the billions of dollars being
spent by municipalities and private property owners to address
invasive species. Can you talk about their success rate in
curbing invasive species?
Mr. Dye. As we have heard here today, it is a very
challenging problem. It requires the effort of many agencies.
And to say that we have been totally successful, we would be
hard-pressed, except for those relating to the Asian Longhorn
Beetle that you heard reference to earlier.
The important thing is that we work closely together. And
most importantly is to stop the invasive species at our shores,
before they arrive. That is the most cost-effective method to
address the problem.
Mr. Bishop. I thank you. Let me turn to Ms. Hughes for a
second, if I could.
You said that 40 percent of New Mexico is Federal land. I
wish ours was that low. I will trade you 27 percent, if you
would like it. How much of that is infested by the invasive
species, relative to State and privately owned land, the 33
percent you were talking about?
Ms. Hughes. Mr. Chairman, I don't have an exact number. But
in working with the BLM, before we started the Restore, they
estimated that 5 million acres of just BLM land needed some
kind of treatment. And we have done 2.1 million. So just the
BLM, I would estimate at least another 3 million acres. I don't
have numbers for the Forest Service; I would expect it to
probably be even higher. But I do think on the private land we
have probably done a lot better job, because we have been
working with them for years through the farm bill.
Mr. Bishop. Right.
Ms. Hughes. And there is less on the private land.
Mr. Bishop. I am out of time, I apologize. But you did say
that the BLM was treating, like, 10 to 15,000 acres. You are
now doing 2.1 million acres. Thank you.
There will be another round. Mr. Horsford, do you have
other questions?
Mr. Horsford. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly,
each of you quickly, if you could, tell me. In your experience,
is a focus on pathways or vectors of introduction a more
effective approach in trying to prevent introductions of a
particular species?
[No response.]
Mr. Horsford. Quickly, because I have only got 5 minutes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ries. Yes, it is the most cost-effective thing we can
do.
Dr. Beck. Pathways management is very powerful, but we need
a balanced approach for the whole problem.
Mr. Dye. I totally agree that we must address the pathway.
It is the most cost-effective way to do that, and stop the
invasion.
Mr. Fearneyhough. I am in agreement that the pathways are
important. But we also have to remember, Congressman, that we
have these invasive species here, in many instances, already.
So, they have come down the pathway in many places, so we need
to address them where they are, as well.
Ms. Hughes. I think we have got to pay attention to the
fact that a lot of these are coming off of our Federal lands
and affecting our private land owners. So the pathway is--they
are already in our State and they are coming off our Federal
lands. If we don't work together, we have more problems.
Mr. Ogsbury. The Western Governors have not endorsed any
specific strategies for invasive species control, but they have
enacted broad principles to address the problem.
Mr. Horsford. If I can get a copy, maybe, of those broad
principles separately, or through the Committee.
The USDA Forest Service adopted in December 2011 an
internal directive to Forest Service Manual 2900 for invasive
species management: ``The final invasive species directive will
provide foundational comprehensive guidance for the management
of invasive species on aquatic and terrestrial areas of the
National Forest System.'' Have each of you reviewed how this
policy will address some of the problems that you have
identified? And specifically, how this could be part of the
coordination among our local, State, and Federal partners?
[No response.]
Mr. Horsford. Just jump in there Mr. Dye or someone. When
you--it counts against my time when you are not responding.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Dye. Excuse me, sir, but I am not totally familiar with
the manual that you mentioned. I am sorry.
Mr. Ries. And, of course, I have reviewed it. And it is
really designed to better coordinate our efforts internally and
set the tone for working with partners externally.
Mr. Horsford. So how is that shared, then? He is the State
Association of State Foresters. How are they not informed about
a manual that is supposed to improve coordination, when they
don't know about it?
Mr. Ries. And that manual is the direction to our forest
supervisors and district rangers, our folks in the field. So we
don't routinely provide a copy of our internal policy to State
Foresters. But my hope is that all of our partners will notice
the difference.
Mr. Horsford. OK. So, regarding how to get agencies to work
better together, I mean we hear about this all the time in this
Committee in particular, and some of you have some demonstrated
successes. How can the land-managing agencies effectively
manage the many pathways of introduction by which new invasive
species are introduced to lands and waters under their
management? Any suggestions? Ms. Hughes?
Ms. Hughes. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Horsford, I just
think it is all about partnerships. When you work together, you
have got more people out there, we are working across different
landscapes. We actually are in the process of doing a master
service agreement with the Forest Service, so that we can do
the same kind of thing as we are with the BLM, because the
local people on the ground are the ones that know this and see
these things. And I think that is part of the answer: more
partnerships at the local level.
Mr. Fearneyhough. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I would agree
with that. I think that some of the examples that I gave, where
we had some successes were based in partnership. But in that
partnership you need an avenue to get everybody to work
together. So partnerships are key.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one of the
questions I will just ask--maybe if you can all respond to
separately at some other point--is the sustainability of
partnerships. It is one thing to get them going, but how do you
sustain them over time, particularly when we are talking about
different types of species that happen at different points? And
while there might be an interest today, how do you sustain that
in a future process?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Stewart, do you have more
questions?
Mr. Stewart. Yes. Maybe I will just do this briefly. And we
will go down the row, if we could. Are there Federal policies
in place right now that make what you are trying to do more
difficult?
Mr. Ries. From our perspective, no.
Mr. Stewart. No?
Mr. Ries. We believe we have what we need, and----
Mr. Stewart. OK. You don't feel like there is any Federal
policies or laws that tie your hands in trying to respond to
these invasive species in an appropriate way.
Mr. Ries. Well, in terms of forming partnerships to do
that, and establish local priorities, and work together, no.
Mr. Stewart. OK. Any others? Do you feel like your hands
are tied, or it is made harder because of some Federal
policies?
Mr. Fearneyhough. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I think that a
specific policy is probably not the obstacle that we see, from
a State perspective, it is often that there are several
conflicting policies or, for instance, Forest Service operates
one way, BLM operates another, Department of Defense operates
another. Trying to work through that often times is the
obstacle.
Mr. Stewart. OK. Yes, Ms. Hughes?
Ms. Hughes. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stewart, the whole
NEPA process can be an obstacle. But what we have learned to do
is do bigger, and include everybody at one time, instead of
going out there and doing a clearance on private land, a
separate one on State, and a separate one on BLM. We do it
together. And it is much more cost-effective, and it helps us
get through that very difficult process much more economically.
Mr. Stewart. OK. Does the NEPA process frustrate you
sometimes in trying to deal with these things?
Ms. Hughes. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stewart, yes, it
does. But we have learned to work within it, and we know it is
a requirement, and we just make it happen together.
Mr. Stewart. OK. Anyone else want to respond to that?
[No response.]
Mr. Stewart. Oh, you cowards. You may be the only people in
America who would look at that question about does Federal
policy make my life more difficult or what I am trying to do
more challenging and not want to answer that question.
Let me ask it in a slightly different way, then. Other than
asking for more money, which, of course, is, in some
perspectives, the answer to everything, what is it that we
could do to help you? What would you ask Federal regulators--
which isn't us, necessarily--or those who have some input on
that? What could we do to help you in your goal to contain or
to mitigate the impacts of some of these invasive species? Any
thoughts or suggestions? Again, Ms. Hughes.
Ms. Hughes. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stewart, I just think
if more of the funds could be directed--if the Federal agencies
could be directed to work more locally with the States and the
local governments. I mean, yes, they are required to do it in
NEPA, but they don't necessarily always do it.
We have found out that we can actually take part of our
farm bill dollars, spend it on Federal land, we can spend some
of the Federal dollars on private land through the Wyden
Amendment. There are ways, there are avenues to do it if you
really want to. But just a little carrot, a little incentive to
every State, all 50 States and territories, to take some of
this invasive money and get it down to that local level, I
think, brings people together.
Mr. Stewart. OK.
Ms. Hughes. Those incentives----
Mr. Stewart. I appreciate your response on that. I think
that is probably right. Anyone else, as far as what we could do
to help you? Yes?
Mr. Dye. I would like to point out a partnership that we
have in the State of West Virginia, the Potomac Highlands Weed
and Pest Management Area. We cooperate with all of our Federal
partners, NRCS, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and
then the State Department of Agriculture the Division of
Forestry, and we bring in the Nature Conservancy. We do not
stop at the West Virginia State line. It extends into Virginia.
That has been one of the best programs, bringing everyone
together on the ground at the ground level. The program was
initiated by the U.S. Forest Service. I applaud the step they
took to bring the group together. And I am amazed at how it
functions as a team together to address the issues as they
come. I see that as a wave of the future in the Eastern portion
of the Nation.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Dye. Yes, Mr. Beck?
Dr. Beck. Representative Stewart, I think strong leadership
also would be helpful. Therefore, what I am saying, we need
someone saying, ``You need to do this,'' the you being the
Federal agencies. And I will use a case that happened in
Colorado a couple of years ago, where an invasive species
coordinator for one of the forests at a State--a Noxious Weed
Advisory Committee meeting suggested--well, he didn't suggest,
he said that invasive species simply weren't a priority for the
forest.
Mr. Stewart. Yes, OK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Ogsbury, if I could ask a simple question.
The impact of the spread of invasive species on Federal land,
how does that impact efforts on State and local management?
Mr. Ogsbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If one neighbor,
whether it is the State or the Federal Government or a private
land owner, treats for an invasive species and an adjoining
neighbor does not, then the chances are really good that the
treatment dollars will be wasted because of the spread of the
species from the non-managed area. An entity can spend an
enormous amount of money treating invasive species on its land,
only to have that species travel from nearby lands--through air
or human or vehicle transport--back to the previously treated
area.
So, I think the problem is particularly acute in the West,
given the large amount of land that is in a checkerboard
pattern. And it really calls, again, for more cooperative
management on a larger landscape scale, much as they have done
in New Mexico.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that. So, Dr. Beck, you were
saying that the issue, then, is we are growing the infestation
area at three-and-a-half times what we are solving. Was that
the slide that I saw?
Dr. Beck. Yes, Chairman Bishop. We are acquiring many, many
more acres than we are treating and restoring, correct.
Mr. Bishop. So we are in the wrong trajectory with this
issue. We are just going in the wrong direction in this issue.
Dr. Beck. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. So, Ms. Hughes, how did you get 93 percent of
your funding to get on the ground? And why are you able to do
this when obviously the Federal Government is not putting that
high of a percentage of the money dedicated to this issue on
the ground?
Ms. Hughes. Mr. Chairman, it probably includes several
things. One is working through the local soil and water
conservation districts. They are elected officials, but they
are not paid. So we have some of that administration happening
there. We are doing such large landscape-scale projects that it
is taking the cost down per acre. We have been hiring retired
Federal employees as contractors, which also helps take the
cost down. So it is a whole various amount of things that are
going on, and the private land owners are matching the dollars,
oil and gas companies are matching the dollars. Just a lot of
people are coming together because we all have the same goal.
Mr. Bishop. And you are doing it with--didn't you say it
was a ground-up--locally led process was the word that you
used.
Ms. Hughes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Fearneyhough? I am still mispronouncing
that, aren't I?
Mr. Fearneyhough. You are fine.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Can you just talk about the success
of your State invasive species management program, versus your
experience with the Forest Service and BLM in Wyoming?
Mr. Fearneyhough. Mr. Chairman, again, we work with them
very closely. I think that the dollars that we are afforded
that come through the Federal system, we are far more efficient
with. Now, we receive funding through the Department of
Agriculture. There are also monies that go straight to the
counties. But for similar reasons to what you just heard, when
we get those monies we are able to put them on the ground at a
greater rate of efficiency. I would say that we do that as well
with our State funds that we have.
Mr. Bishop. Well, there are several States--Wyoming is one,
Utah, others--that have devoted considerable State resources to
improve habitat, so you can avoid the onus of the Federal--
actually, my staff said Federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife. I had a
different adjective in front of that one, but we will go with
``Federal.''
So they won't be listing the sage grouse under the
Endangered Species Act. Do you feel the efforts to improve sage
grouse habitat by getting rid of or eradicating cheatgrass is
being undermined by the lack of a similar action on the Federal
lands in Wyoming?
Mr. Fearneyhough. I think in trying to control cheatgrass,
I think--as I spoke to earlier--the issue is the variety of
policies that you end up having to deal with. Now we are
throwing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service into the mix, along
with the actual land management agencies. The policies that you
deal with there are very hard to overcome. And that is whether
you are dealing with just the NEPA, or if you are dealing with
the actual trying to get something applied on the ground. It is
very difficult to overcome those----
Mr. Bishop. Well, then let me follow up with that--with the
last question that Representative Lummis wanted to ask you, and
did not have time to do it. She wrote, ``I understand that
there were several layers of approval for the use of pesticides
on public lands, starting with the EPA and then going through
the different processes employed by each agency. Do you think
streamlining that process is something Congress should be
looking''--she ended in a preposition; I can't do that. We
should be looking at that?
Mr. Fearneyhough. Mr. Chairman, yes. I think that you
should be looking at it. The example, as I understand it, in
that instance, where we are talking about pesticides
specifically, you have a pesticide that is approved by EPA.
Then it also has to go through an approval process through BLM.
Then it has to go through an approval process for the Forest
Service, and on down the line.
So, it would be great if we had an opportunity that, once
something is approved by a Federal agency that should be
concerned with those pesticides, that everyone else accepts
that, and we can get it on the ground.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Horsford, do you have other
questions?
Mr. Horsford. If I could just follow up to the last
question you asked, Mr. Chairman.
So, your last response to the Chairman's question. What
happens when the approval only deals with one type of species,
and then a different Federal agency has a interest or a scope
or responsibility in another. When you say just to approve
something, you could be closing off the opportunity to address
another invasive species. Correct?
Mr. Fearneyhough. Ranking Member Horsford, I understand the
question. I think that possibility does exist. But in the
examples that we are seeing, we are seeing it is approved for
Plant X on BLM--or through the EPA. So BLM then has to go
through a process to approve it for the same plant, or the same
insect, and then on down the line.
Certainly I think when you have that approval process, it
should be very robust. You should make sure that the chemical
or whatever the agent is that you are using is a viable and
safe agent. However, once it gets approved for a species, I
believe that it should be accepted by others.
Mr. Horsford. So just to clarify, then, your response is
that the approval among different Federal agencies should be
based on addressing an invasive species, not to mitigate other
factors which may need different approval processes. Correct?
Mr. Fearneyhough. Ranking Member Horsford, yes, that is
correct.
Mr. Horsford. OK. And then, Mr. Hughes, I really
appreciated your perspective and the work that you are doing
with Restore New Mexico. And I think it comes down to
leadership. It sounds like you have a can-do attitude and you
bring the stakeholders to the table. And that probably helps
push that envelope. And it sounds like you are being very
creative about how to deploy those resources.
I am interested in knowing how much Federal land is there
in New Mexico, as a percentage?
Ms. Hughes. Congressman Horsford, we have 40 percent
Federal land----
Mr. Horsford. OK.
Ms. Hughes [continuing]. In New Mexico.
Mr. Horsford. So most of this is being done with State and
private land activity. In my State of Nevada, we are over 80
percent Federal land. So----
Ms. Hughes. Yes, sir. With this Restore New Mexico, it has
been all types of land included: State, Federal, private, all
together.
Mr. Horsford. And I completely agree with your approach,
bringing everybody together, regardless if they are State,
private, Federal, to work on projects in an inclusive manner.
Even though it may not be a particular area's interest today,
it will be tomorrow.
So the more that you can keep them engaged in understanding
the big picture--but I do think, Mr. Chairman, there is a bit
of a disconnect sometimes because in some States the ability to
act or react, like in New Mexico, is very different than in a
State like Nevada, or another State that has so much Federal
land, to where we are reliant on those Federal agencies doing
their job, because we can't do that on our own. And I think
that has to be taken into account with these Federal policies.
Let me just end by asking--all of you talked about the need
to work together better and to create comprehensive solutions
to invasive species. And it is not new, right? And we have
heard this many times, and we continue to hear similar
concerns. Why has there been limited progress in national
efforts to work together and to take on the bigger problem? And
what is the one thing that you would recommend to help improve
that?
Ms. Hughes. Congressman Horsford, the BLM, after they
started working with us, they told us themselves that their
contracting process was their worst enemy. In other words, it
took them forever to actually just get an RFP out and get money
on the ground. And once they signed the overall agreement with
us, that the money could go to the local level, and we could do
the RFP, we actually are getting those same Federal dollars on
the ground within a couple of months, where it might take them
a year to 2 years.
Mr. Horsford. OK.
Ms. Hughes. So----
Mr. Horsford. Contracting? If everybody else could quickly
answer that, just one recommendation that would help improve
the process.
Mr. Ogsbury. Well, one recommendation I might offer is to
look for other models where this kind of collaboration has been
successful. And the one that I would cite would be the Western
Region Cohesive Wild Land Fire Management Strategy, which
brings together a diverse array of Federal, State, and private
partners. Everybody is at the table developing common goals and
strategies and objectives for the prevention and control of
wild fires.
Mr. Dye. I wouldn't give up on the National Invasive
Species Council. There is a framework there with coordination,
communication, just a continued emphasis among those Federal
agencies. And for them to focus on partnerships at the ground
level, like I described in the Potomac Highlands Cooperative,
it can be very effective.
Mr. Fearneyhough. Mr. Chairman, with permission, I think
that making sure--again, we have heard the word ``partnership''
a lot today. But I think that we need those partnerships. We
also need a mechanism to make sure that the people that are in
different locations have the opportunity to say, ``This is
where we need to focus our resources today.''
And as I mentioned earlier, the east coast is different
than it is in Wyoming and in California. So I think that we
need to have a very strong local input, wherever that is.
Dr. Beck. Mr. Chairman and Representative Horsford, I
think, again, very strong leadership beginning back here in
Washington, D.C. is very important. But that leadership, the
voice of leadership, has to be felt through the entire system,
all the way down to the ground, to assure that we work
together.
Mr. Ries. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Horsford, two
parts to your question. One was why haven't we made more
progress on this. And I think we continue to learn. But as Dr.
Beck described, this is a huge problem. This is significant all
across the country. And I think the common theme toward
solution is one that you have heard around this table over and
over again, and that is that we need to work together. We need
to partner up. And we need to cooperate locally to identify
priorities and work together to deal with them.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate all of you being here. I
appreciate your testimony, as well. There may be other
questions that Members have that we would submit to you, and
the record will be held open for 10 days for those responses,
if possible.
I think today is one of the first times I know this
Committee has actually looked on this particular issue. And I
think there is a couple of things that are very clear from the
testimony that you have given. One is we are spending a great
deal of money on an issue but we are not necessarily getting
the money on the ground to the problem that has to be there,
and solving that problem.
The second is we are doing all sorts of coordination
efforts, but sometimes those are too many and too complex and
at differing approaches to it. We have a structural problem in
actually going after this in a reasonable way over several
different kinds of jurisdiction lines. And I think the positive
aspect is we have seen how some local entities have been able
to actually solve this problem and deal with it very
effectively, if we change the structural issues and we also
change some of the spending habits that we have. And this is a
problem that is not going to go away.
And, as Dr. Beck indicated, this is a problem that is
growing, even though we are spending more money at it. We are
not solving it. So we have to start having a basic paradigm
shift here, that we have to look at this in a different way,
because it's not working in what we are doing. As much as we
would like to work together in a wonderful way and coordinate
our efforts, we are not doing it. We have to do something
drastically different. And I appreciate your testimonies and
your input.
If there is nothing else--I guess it is just us. If there
is nothing else, right? This Subcommittee will stand adjourned,
and I appreciate, once again, your willingness to be here.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additonal Material Submitted for the Record]
Letter Submitted for the Record by The Nature Conservancy
4245 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 100, Arlington VA,
22203-1606, May 16, 2013.
The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman,
The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C. 20515.
Dear Representatives Bishop and Grijalva,
The Nature Conservancy (The Conservancy) appreciates the attention
that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation is
devoting to the important threat posed by invasive species. We would
like to take this opportunity to add our thoughts to your
deliberations. We hope thus to contribute to thoughtful innovations
aimed at improving the efficacy of programs intended to reduce the
damage caused by invasive species.
The Healthy Habitats Coalition (the Coalition) has identified
serious shortcomings in our Nation's response to the damage caused by
invasive species and brought Congressional attention to the important
task of managing invasive species on Federal lands. The Conservancy
applauds the Coalition for achieving this progress. However, the
Conservancy feels that the language provided by the Coalition stops
short of addressing the pathways by which additional invasives enter
the country. Until these pathways are closed, managing established
populations will be a never-ending burden due to constant new
introductions. The Conservancy would like to offer our suggestions on
the structure of an effective, comprehensive invasive species program.
Our Recommendations
(1) Implement a mechanism for coordinating federal invasive species
programs and ensuring that priorities and strategies are aligned across
agencies.
(2) Grant appropriate agencies authority to manage invasive species
that currently fall outside any agency's jurisdiction.
(3) Where agency authority is inadequate to managing invasive
species or pathways of introduction, enact strengthening amendments;
e.g., the Lacey Act.
(4) Provide sufficient resources to agencies to enable them to
carry out their responsibilities for preventing introduction and spread
and managing established populations of invasive species.
(5) Support research and outreach programs essential to improving
programs' efficacy.
(6) Adopt metrics for gauging program efficacy that measure success
in preventing introduction and spread, closing off pathways of species
movement, and resulting in long-term control or removal of invasive
species.
Background
The Problem
The Conservancy agrees with the Healthy Habitats Coalition that:
(1) Invasive species impose huge costs on our resources and our
economy;
(2) The Federal Government effort has increased compared to 20
years ago, but agencies still have too little capacity and authority.
Nor are efforts sufficiently coordinated;
(3) There is a need to increase agencies' accountability, improve
measurements of programs' efficacy--and make changes where programs are
not effective;
(4) It is helpful to build support and capacity at the State,
regional, and community level, and encourage voluntary cooperation of
affected private entities and communities.
The problem is not new; the Office of Technology Assessment 20
years ago observed U.S. Government programs that address invasive
species are scattered among a myriad of agencies and authorized by
numerous statutes. It would be beneficial if all these programs applied
the same principles.
Coordination
Currently, the responsibility for coordinating Federal agencies'
programs and encouraging action by other parties falls to the National
Invasive Species Council. The Council has lacked sufficient authority
to ensure coordination across the member agencies. The Conservancy
supports efforts to re-invigorate programs aimed at coordinating
invasive species strategies and activities, while we remain open to
ideas on how best to achieve this goal.
Preventing Introduction and Spread
Several Federal agencies have responsibility for prevention
programs targeting various types of species, based on the agencies'
legislatively mandated responsibilities:
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)--invasive
plants; plant pests; parasites & diseases of livestock and poultry.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)--invasive vertebrate animals
and some invertebrates.
Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency--organisms
transported in ballast water.
Centers for Disease Control--human health threats.
DHS Customs and Border Protection--general authority over all
incoming people, goods, and vehicles; has formal collaborative
agreements with some agencies, e.g., APHIS.
Authority for regulating introduction and spread of some types of
potentially invasive organisms is unclear. These include:
Diseases of wildlife that don't attack livestock or poultry, e.g.,
whitenose syndrome of bats; chytrid fungus of amphibians.
Invertebrates that are not plant pests and that are not currently
listed under the Lacey Act, e.g. horseshoe crabs.
Pests that attack only dead plants, e.g., termites.
Pests that are nuisances to humans but do not spread disease or
attack agricultural plants; for example, APHIS originally classified
the brown marmorated stinkbug as a nuisance species and therefore
declined to attempt to contain its spread.
Invasive marine animals and plants.
Hull-fouling organisms.
None of the existing ``prevention'' programs is succeeding in
preventing introductions of damaging invasives. APHIS has strong and
broad authorities under the Plant Protection Act, and has the most
resources of any agency with invasive species responsibilities.
Nevertheless, APHIS staffing and funding are still inadequate to
implement fully programs for which the agency is responsible. The FWS
Lacey Act program is an example of a program hampered by weak
legislative authority and completely inadequate resources.
A Comprehensive Approach
Regarding invasive species program components and priorities, the
Nature Conservancy continues to emphasize policies and actions intended
to prevent introductions of additional non-native species to the United
States or to North America more broadly. We include under this umbrella
actions that enable early detection of new invaders and rapid response
to eradicate or contain them. Our experience has led us to focus on
pathways or vectors of introduction as a more effective approach than
trying to prevent introductions of particular species. Once a species
has been detected inside the United States or in North America,
eradication and control methods need to combine measures addressing
both pathways of movement (e.g., firewood, boat trailers) and species-
specific attributes (e.g., detection methods; biocontrol agents).
To create strong and effective invasive species programs, the
Congress should ensure that agencies tasked with preventing
introductions or eradicating or containing early-stage invasions have
adequate funding and the following attributes:
Prevention Programs:
(a) Statutory authority to regulate both potentially invasive
organisms and the pathways or vectors by which they are moved. This
authority should include the power to set conditions for importation,
inspect incoming articles, detain or destroy non-compliant articles,
and inspect and quarantine premises that receive imports. It is best if
the agency is also authorized to regulate interstate movement.
(b) Sufficient resources to enable timely completion of the
following tasks:
(i) Evaluate potential introductions and pathways;
(ii) Conduct risk assessments and other analyses;
(iii) Adopt appropriate actions to prevent those introductions
or close those pathways;
(iv) Promulgate regulations and comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act;
(v) Carry out other program responsibilities, e.g., inspection
of shipments, interactions with affected businesses and
stakeholders to identify practical approaches, enforcement
(including investigations, preparation of cases, holding
hearings, legal prosecutions, etc.);
(vi) Conduct outreach and extension programs in support of the
program (e.g., to encourage compliance);
(vii) Carry out research needed to improve risk analysis,
prediction, detection, and control measures;
Early Detection and Rapid Response programs:
(a) Research capacity to develop
(i) Detection and control tools (e.g., pheromone traps);
(ii) Understanding of principal pathways and vectors so as to
target detection and enforcement efforts where they will
provide the greatest return on investment;
(b) Detection networks deploying appropriate tools and targeting
appropriate pathways or vectors. This must include engagement by
(i) Entities engaged in moving articles that can transport the
pest of concern (e.g., shippers using crates, pallets, or other
packaging made of wood);
(ii) Concerned public;
(c) Official reporting and communicating capacity; outreach
capacity;
(d) Lead agency with clear authority for responding to incursion
and a command structure to manage the response; working relationships
with collaborators (Federal, State, local, non-governmental). Over the
years, several models for such programs have been suggested, including
the Interagency Fire program, Centers for Disease Control, and oil
spill emergency response.
Most introductions of new species to the United States occur in
cities and suburbs--where imported goods arrive and are disseminated;
or at ports, estuaries, and the Great Lakes. Federal land-managing
agencies (e.g. USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management) do not
have jurisdiction over either these geographic areas or the pathways of
introduction. Congressional support for invasive species programs will
be most effective when it is focused on agencies (e.g. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Coast Guard, APHIS, FWS) with
jurisdiction over pathways and authority to operate in these
geographies.
Role of Land Management Agencies
While the Conservancy believes the highest priority is to prevent
additional introductions, we agree that it is important to establish
and fund programs aimed at minimizing damage caused by the thousands of
invasive species already in the country. Numerous entities implement
such programs, including a half dozen or more Federal land-managing
agencies, State agencies, county weed districts, and private property
owners. Effective invasive species control programs should aim to:
1. Prevent introduction to lands or waters \1\ under their
jurisdiction of new potentially invasive species;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It is unclear to us whether the Healthy Habitats Coalition
proposal now addresses aquatic organisms and waters under Federal
jurisdiction. The Conservancy supports a comprehensive approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Detect presence of and respond rapidly to control new
potentially invasive species;
3. Prevent spread of invasive species on lands or waters under
their jurisdiction;
4. Prevent spread of invasive species from lands or waters under
their jurisdiction to others' properties;
5. Reduce or eradicate invasive species populations while
encouraging recovery of native species and maintaining or restoring the
utility of the lands or waters for intended purposes;
6. Educate people associated with the lands or waters about
invasive species to gain their cooperation (and possibly enhance their
invasive species control and stewardship efforts more generally).
Components of effective invasive species containment programs
operated by land-managing agencies should include:
1. Prevention (see relevant sections above; statutory or regulatory
authority is usually limited to the lands or waters under the agency's
jurisdiction);
2. Early detection programs and rapid response powers (see relevant
sections above; include appropriate staffing and funding);
3. Staff and funding dedicated to management of established
invasive species to conceive, plan, and oversee actions; sometimes, to
carry out those actions;
4. Research and development (in-house or external) focused on
understanding the invasion process, developing detection and management
tools, monitoring, etc. appropriate to the invasive species that
threaten the lands or waters under the agency's jurisdiction.
It is to the advantage of resource and land-managing agencies that
agencies charged with preventing introductions are as effective as
possible. Therefore it is appropriate that land-managing agencies
assist or support prevention agencies' efforts. For example, the USDA
Forest Service has conducted research into Asian longhorned beetle
biology and provided staff (smoke jumpers) to carry out tree canopy
searches for the beetle.
Need for Sustained Effort
Management of any specific invasive species or group of species
requires a long-term effort. Management of pathways or vectors of
introduction and spread requires a perpetual program. Long-term
programs function most efficiently when they enjoy long-term stability
of funding and are guided by expert staff. Research and outreach to
stakeholders are vitally important components of effective invasive
species prevention and control programs. The Conservancy is therefore
concerned that the Coalition's proposal to restrict funding to these
activities (set at 5 percent each) will undermine programs' efficacy.
Funding should be driven by priorities and program effectiveness based
on performance metrics, rather than by a percentage allocation.
Metrics
The Conservancy agrees that programs should be held accountable for
performance. Developing appropriate metrics will be difficult. ``Acres
treated'' is easy to understand, but is not very meaningful and, in a
comprehensive program insufficient because:
1. It does not enable assessment of the most important activity--
preventing species' introduction and spread;
2. It does not measure activities that target pathways or vectors
rather than invaded areas;
3. It does not measure whether the treatment was effective in
eradicating or reducing the target invasive species.
The Conservancy proposes some alternative metrics--although we
recognize difficulties in applying all of them:
Rate of new invasions; possibly categorized by type of invader or
geography;
Acres infested and change over time (e.g., range expansion or
contraction of targeted species);
Economic impact of invasive species;
Number of species intercepted.
Moving Forward
The Conservancy is interested in innovative suggestions for
improving invasive species efforts at all levels of government. In this
paper we describe some of our ideas for a comprehensive invasive
species program. We think that the Healthy Habitats Coalition has
started a discussion that should be pursued in the context of
addressing the whole invasive species problem. Even if everything
cannot be accomplished immediately, the entire system can be
envisioned, priorities set, and strategic progress made. There may be
better uses for the existing resources, but these should be carefully
evaluated with the goal of improving overall program effectiveness.