U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–978 2017

S. HRG 114–501 

TO EXAMINE THE IMPACTS OF INVASIVE SPECIES 

ON THE PRODUCTIVITY, VALUE, AND 

MANAGEMENT OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCES; 

TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT ON THE NATIONAL 

INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL’S NEW FRAMEWORK 

FOR EARLY DETECTION AND RAPID RESPONSE; 

TO EXAMINE IMPROVED COOPERATIVE TOOLS 

FOR CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT; AND 

TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON S. 2240, 

THE FEDERAL LAND INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL, 

PREVENTION, AND MANAGEMENT ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 28, 2016 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING

JOHN BARRASSO, Chairman 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO 

JAMES E. RISCH 

MIKE LEE 

STEVE DAINES 

BILL CASSIDY 

CORY GARDNER 

JOHN HOEVEN 

JEFF FLAKE 

LAMAR ALEXANDER 

RON WYDEN 

DEBBIE STABENOW 

AL FRANKEN 

JOE MANCHIN III 

MARTIN HEINRICH 

MAZIE K. HIRONO 

ELIZABETH WARREN 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

LUCY MURFITT, Senior Counsel and Natural Resources Policy Director 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMAN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

BRYAN PETIT, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Barrasso, Hon. John, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Wyoming ...................................................................................................................... 1 

Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from Minnesota ............................................... 3 

Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., a U.S. Senator from Hawaii ............................................ 4 

Risch, Hon. James E., a U.S. Senator from Idaho ................................................ 5 

Gardner, Hon. Cory, a U.S. Senator from Colorado ............................................. 17 

WITNESSES 

Casamassa, Glenn, Associate Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture .............................................................................................. 7 

Pool, Mike, Acting Deputy Director for Operations, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior ............................................................... 17 

Miyamoto, Doug, Director, Wyoming Department of Agriculture ....................... 25 

Beck, Dr. George, Professor of Weed Science, Colorado State University .......... 30 

Campbell, Dr. Faith, Vice President, Center for Invasive Species Prevention ... 41 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Barrasso, Hon. John: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Beck, Dr. George: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 30 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 32 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 88 

Campbell, Dr. Faith: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 41 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 43 

Casamassa, Glenn: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 7 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 9 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 76 

Franken, Hon. Al: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Gardner, Hon. Cory: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 17 

Hirono, Hon. Mazie K.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 4 

Miyamoto, Doug: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 25 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 27 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 86 

Perryman, Dr. Barry: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 91 

Pool, Mike: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 17 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 20 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 81 

Risch, Hon. James E.: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

S. 2240, the Federal Land Invasive Species Control, Prevention, and Management Act ................................................................................................................ 62 

(1) 

TO EXAMINE THE IMPACTS OF INVASIVE SPECIES ON THE PRODUCTIVITY, VALUE, AND 

MANAGEMENT OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCES; TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT ON 

THE NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL’S NEW FRAMEWORK FOR EARLY DETECTION AND RAPID RESPONSE; TO EXAMINE 

IMPROVED COOPERATIVE TOOLS FOR CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT; AND TO RECEIVE 

TESTIMONY ON S. 2240, TO IMPROVE THE 

CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE 

SPECIES THAT THREATEN AND HARM FEDERAL LAND UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF 

THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND 

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine the ecological impacts of invasive species, to conduct oversight on the National 

Invasive Species Council’s new framework for early detection and 

rapid response, and to receive testimony on a bill, S. 2240, the Federal Lands Invasive Species Control Prevention and Management 

Act. 

The issue we are here to discuss today is at the heart of many 

important issues our communities face. Every year out of control 

invasive species populations cost the United States more than 
2 

$100 billion. The number is substantial but it pales in comparison 

to the ecological damage caused by invasive species. 

In my home state of Wyoming we deal with many invasive species that compromise water resources and landscape health. As a 

result of fragmented land ownership and poor forage management, 

invasive species, like cheat grass, now infest hundreds of millions 

of acres. These infestations threaten soil retention and increase the 

likelihood of fast moving, catastrophic wildfires; they are low quality forage for wildlife and livestock; and, they are an unnecessary 

burden on our already taxed water supply. 

As we all know, catastrophic wildfires destroy wildlife habitat, 

they contaminate watersheds and they cause unspeakable damage 

to our landscapes. 

Cheat grass infestations make these fires more likely and ultimately worse when they do happen. As an annual grass, cheat 

grass is the first to return after a fire has decimated the landscape. 

Other seedlings are pushed out by cheat grass and soon the landscape is overrun. These mono cultures are far more susceptible to 

future fires and so the cycle continues. 

But this does not just happen after a catastrophic wildfire. Although they are not here to provide testimony today, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service has consistently recognized that cheat grass infestations pose one of the most significant threats to sage grouse habitat conservation efforts. 

The worst part is that cheat grass is only one of many invasive 

species we face. Zebra and Quagga mussels threaten our aquatic 

ecosystems and cause millions of dollars in damage to dams, to municipal water systems, and to agriculture irrigation systems. 

Land and waters are under constant threat from invasive populations. I know from walking/talking with Senator Stabenow, Asian 

carp has overtaken the Great Lakes and now threaten watersheds 

downstream. 

In 1999 Executive Order 13112 established the National Invasive 

Species Council. The Council was intended to coordinate invasive 

species management programs around Federal agencies. Several 

subsequent reports from the Government Accountability Office describe the Council as widely ineffective, much like the agency’s own 

efforts to stem the tide of invasive species. 

The concept of a council is not without merit; however, there is 

an overwhelming consensus that something must be done to more 

effectively coordinate agency efforts. Last year attendees at the 

Western Invasive Weed Summit outlined a set of barriers that 

hamper their ability to control explosive invasive populations. 

Among those barriers were lack of coordination and communication 

among agencies, lack of leadership and accountability among oversight bodies and insufficient monitoring compliance and enforcement. The gaps must be addressed. 

That is why I introduced S. 2240, the Federal Lands Invasive 

Species Control Prevention and Management Act. This bill sets 

clear targets for reduction of invasive species that, while ambitious, 

I believe will motivate success with the tools it provides. 

As part of the target to achieve an annual five percent reduction 

in invasive populations, S. 2240 requires annual reports of the successes and failures of management efforts. 
3 

It also provides limited categorical exclusions so that when personnel see an area that is at risk for a catastrophic infestation, 

they are able to react quickly to prevent environmental damage. 

Land managers want to streamline NEPA approach to the most 

critical cases so that the processes which are meant to protect our 

environment are not inadvertently causing damage. 

Most importantly, S. 2240 encourages the use of collaborative 

partnerships to ensure that management efforts are unrestricted 

by jurisdictional boundaries. Cheat grass does not stop at the fence 

line. Control efforts should not stop there either. 

I want to thank each of our five witnesses for being with us 

today. I now turn to Senator Franken for his opening remarks. 

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

MINNESOTA 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this 

hearing on such an important topic. 

As you said, invasive species are a significant threat to our national economy, to environmental resources, and to the public 

health. They cost the United States billions of dollars in damages 

each year, some research suggests over $120 billion, and they are 

often remarkably persistent and difficult to keep in check. Many 

non-native invasive species spread at a rate that far outpaces our 

ability to contain them, a problem compounded by our limited resources to fight back. This is an issue that, of course, crosses state 

jurisdictional boundaries and obviously requires coordination at the 

highest levels. 

I commend the Administration for the work they are doing with 

the National Invasive Species Council to improve federal response 

and coordination on this issue. 

As many of you know, addressing invasive species becomes difficult, increasingly so, as the species becomes more established or 

widespread. Efficiently leveraging our resources to combat invasive 

species is critical with an eye toward eradication and long-term 

control, and the work of the National Invasive Species Council is 

a step in that direction. 

In Minnesota, non-native invasives continue to threaten the 

health of our forests and aquatic environments, like in Wyoming. 

Species such as the Emerald Ash Borer, the Gypsy Moth, Zebra 

Mussels, and Asian Carp are becoming increasingly pervasive and 

costly. These species have spread quickly and have damaged both 

my state’s natural resources and economy. 

From 2014 to 2015 the number of counties in Minnesota affected 

by the Emerald Ash Borer has almost doubled. This insect infests 

trees and kills them within three years, and unfortunately today 

we have few effective controls. 

To make things worse, there is climate change, which is already 

affecting the range and severity of invasive species throughout our 

country. And I think that it’s really important that we consider 

those impacts. 

For example, warmer winters allow the Emerald Ash Borer to 

continue to spread more rapidly, and other species will follow behind them. I do not think we can fully combat this problem without 

addressing climate change. 
4 

In closing, we are also here today to consider Chairman 

Barrasso’s bill on invasive species. I greatly appreciate his engagement on this issue and wholeheartedly agree that we must develop 

tools and strategies to get ahead of our problem, a problem that is 

affecting all of us from Senator Hirono’s State of Hawaii, to Minnesota, to Maine. 

We might have some differences of opinion on how to do this, but 

we certainly agree that it is a worthy and important topic that requires a coordinated prevention and response strategy. 

I look forward to discussing this issue today in order to move toward a solution to combat the spread of harmful invasive species. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you for that conclusion and consideration. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Are there any other members who would like 

to make a statement? 

Senator Hirono. 

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

HAWAII 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for convening this panel and this hearing. 

I think Hawaii is known as the invasive species capital of the 

country, so this is a topic that is really important to us. Certainly 

the threat of invasive species is something that we, in Hawaii, are 

all too familiar with. 

In fact, the Washington Post just this past Monday published an 

article asking the question, ‘‘Is Hawaii the extinction capital of the 

world?’’ To take an excerpt out of the article, I am quoting the article, ‘‘Across the Hawaiian Island chain non-native species have 

been rapaciously destroying native plants and birds, feral cattle 

and pigs have trampled large patches of forest habitat, other nonnative species such as rats and the mongoose devour birds and bird 

eggs.’’ To quote a Fish and Wildlife Service employee in the article, 

‘‘Hawaii is the sounding board for the mainland. Our problems are 

becoming its problems. We’re just a concentrated laboratory. When 

something goes bad here, it goes bad big time.’’ 

I agree that more coordination and resources on the federal level 

are necessary to effectively prevent, control and mitigate invasive 

species. While I disagree with a number of provisions outlined in 

S. 2240, I do look forward to working with you, Senator Barrasso, 

and members of the Committee, to explore ways in which we can 

strengthen our nation’s prevention and response to invasive species. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Hirono. 

It is now time to hear from our witnesses: 

Mr. Glenn Casamassa, who is the Associate Deputy Chief of the 

Forest Service. Thank you for joining us. 

Mr. Mike Pool, the Acting Deputy Director of the Bureau of Land 

Management. Thank you. 

Mr. Doug Miyamoto, who is the Director of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture. We appreciate you being here again. 
5 

Dr. George Beck, who is a Professor of Weed Science at Colorado 

State University. Thank you. 

And Dr. Faith Campbell, Vice President of the Center for 

Invasive Species Prevention. Welcome. 

I would like to take a moment to introduce my constituent, Doug 

Miyamoto. He has served as the Director of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture since 2015. Prior to that he served as the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Wyoming Livestock Board. 

He is a native of Wyoming. He is a University of Wyoming alumni, 

former NRCS employee. He provides an important multifaceted 

perspective on the issues we face today. 

I would ask that each of the witnesses try to keep your testimony 

within five minutes. 

Before turning to you, Mr. Casamassa, I would welcome Senator 

Risch and I know you have an opening statement. 

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

IDAHO 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I do. 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing on a very important 

issue. I think those of us who live in Western states, particularly, 

have had some pretty difficult experiences in the area that we are 

talking about today. The invasive species, be it aquatic or be it 

land, have been a real and growing problem. 

I have a detailed opening statement that I would like to submit, 

and I would ask unanimous consent that it be placed in the record. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
6 
7 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Senator Risch. 

Mr. Casamassa. 

STATEMENT OF GLENN CASAMASSA, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY 

CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Chairman Barrasso and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today on the role of the Forest Service in protecting forests and 

grasslands from invasive species. 

The Forest Service is committed to the prevention, detection, control, management and eradication of invasive species and to restoring the structure and function of affected aquatic and terrestrial 

ecosystems on all lands. As such, the Administration supports the 

Federal Lands Invasive Species Control Prevention and Management Act. 

Invasive species are among the most significant environmental, 

economic threats facing our nation. Aquatic and terrestrial invasive 

plants, pathogens, vertebrae, invertebrae, algae and fungi have become established on millions of acres across North America. 

These infestations degrade watersheds, reduce forest and rangeland productivity, increase the risk of wildfire and soil erosion, negatively impact human health and safety, threaten native fish and 

wildlife populations and their associated habitats and undermine 

the economy at all levels. 

Invasive species cause billions of dollars in damage each year in 

the United States. With internationally recognized land management and scientific expertise, the Forest Service is well-suited to 

address the many challenges of invasive species. The Forest Service 

continues to play an important national and international leadership role in advancing the understanding of invasive species’ problems. 

The wide-ranging authorities of the Forest Service allow us to 

work with partners and to combat invasive species across all lands, 

public and private. We also develop methods, tools and approaches 

through which these harmful exotic species can be detected, prevented, controlled and eradicated. 

The Forest Service has a responsibility for the stewardship of 

over 193,000,000 acres of public lands within the National Forest 

System. This vast system extends from Alaska to the Caribbean 

and includes examples of nearly every type of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem in North America. These lands and waters are 

under tremendous pressures from aquatic and terrestrial invasives. 

Effective management of these harmful exotic species that cripple 

part of the agency’s land stewardship responsibility. 

The Forest Service invasive species management performance is 

outcome driven with the focus on treating and destroying priority 

areas to improve watershed condition and reduce long term impacts. We typically treat nearly 400,000 acres of priority aquatic 

and terrestrial invasive species infestations annually. Since 2007 

the Forest Service has restored more than 2,000,000 acres of national forest lands and waters with very high treatment success 

rates each year. 
8 

To accelerate the expansion of our on-the-ground efforts, an 

invasive species’ management policies for the National Forest System was issued in late 2011. The policy defines and clarifies the 

authority, scope, roles and responsibilities associated with the National Forest System management activities against aquatic and 

terrestrial invasive species. 

The Forest Service provides a wide range of technical and financial assistance to state natural resource and agricultural agencies, 

tribal governments and other Federal land management agencies 

to respond to and manage forest pests that threaten the nation’s 

851,000,000 acres of rural and urban forest through programs such 

as our urban and community forestry program. In 2014 the Forest Service program provided about $1.8 million 

in essential matching funds and technical assistance to state governments to combat economically significant weed threats to state 

and private forest lands. 

Since the turn of the century the Forest Service, working in partnership with states and other federal agencies, have implemented 

a national slow-to-spread strategy to minimize the rate of which 

gypsy moth spreads into uninfested areas. The program has reduced the spread of gypsy moth more than 60 percent from the historical levels of 13 miles per year. In only 12 years this program 

has prevented impacts on more than 100,000,000 acres. 

In Fiscal Year 2015 the Forest Service research and development 

branch delivered 258 invasive species tools which included a decision support model that estimates the suitability of preemptive 

quarantine across multiple counties that surround areas infested 

with the Emerald Ash Borer. 

In addition, the Forest Service research and development scientists demonstrated that a fungal pathogen, known commonly as 

black fingers of death, is very effective in eliminating the cheat 

grass carryover seed back. 

Addressing the invasive species issue is a high priority for the 

U.S. Forest Service. We believe our collaborative, all lands approach to invasive species management enhances our ability to 

work together by building on each other’s strengths and authorities. 

I’d like to thank the Committee and Chairman for your interest 

in invasive species management, and I welcome any questions you 

may have at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Casamassa follows:] 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Before going on to Mr. Pool, I would like to invite Senator Gardner to make an introduction. 

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

COLORADO 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

the witnesses for your time and testimony today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Franken, for holding this 

hearing. 

I would just like to take a few minutes to introduce Dr. Beck, 

George Beck, a great professor at Colorado State University (CSU), 

my alma mater as well. A professor, at the head of the Department, in the Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management at CSU. A Professor of Weed Science can take on different 

meanings in Colorado these days, but you have been in this business longer than the others have been. 

So thank you very much for the opportunity to be here and certainly, Mr. Chairman, whether it is Dalmatian toad flax or the 

Douglass-fir tussock moth, we have significant invasive species to 

be concerned about throughout the West. 

Thank you, Dr. Beck, for being here. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Gardner. 

Mr. Pool. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE POOL, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR 

OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. POOL. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and 

Members of the Subcommittee. I’m Mike Pool, the BLM’s Acting 

Deputy Director for Operations at BLM. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this very important issue of invasive species and 

management across public lands. 

The Department shares the sponsor’s goal of improving the management and control of invasive species on lands and waters that 

it manages and appreciates changes made in the bill since similar 

legislation was introduced in the House. 

BLM manages over 245,000,000 acres of public lands, primarily 

located in 12 Western states, and is deeply committed to preventing the introduction and spread of invasive species that threaten the nation’s economy, environment and human health. 

Invasive and noxious weeds, like cheat grass, star thistle, Medusa head and salt cedar, exist on over 79,000,000 acres of BLMmanaged lands and require significant effort to control and manage. 

The formidable challenges imposed by invasive species must be 

addressed for the BLM to effectively protect and preserve natural, 

cultural, historic and tribal resources, safeguard traditional uses of 

public lands, facilitate new economic opportunities and build ecological resilience to national disasters. 

The key to invasive species control is addressing the threat in a 

comprehensive and coordinated manner. Prevention early, detection and rapid response, also known as EDRR, control, coordina-
18 

tion, education and outreach, research and restoration are critical 

elements for effective management of invasive species. 

To prevent and control invasive species, the BLM partners with 

state and local government agencies, tribes and the private sector 

to carry out this work. The BLM is proud to have played a role in 

working with Federal departments, agencies, states and tribes to 

develop the recently released interdepartmental EDRR framework, 

and we’ll continue to work with all partners to implement the recommendations outlined in the report. 

The BLM is implementing many projects on public lands across 

the West to combat the spread of invasive species. For example, in 

Colorado the BLM has worked with stakeholders since 2001 to remove over 30 miles of salt-cedar and restore native vegetation 

along the San Miguel River. 

In 2005 the BLM launched the Restore New Mexico initiative to 

restore disturbed lands on a landscape scale. Through that effort, 

the BLM has worked with state and local partners to restore over 

3,000,000 acres of public land across New Mexico that had been 

previously denigrated by invasive species and woodland encroachment. 

The BLM has also worked on immediate rehabilitation efforts in 

the aftermath of major wildland fires each year such as the recent 

Soda fire which burned over 280,000 acres in 2015. These BLM 

post fire activities include erosion control, soil stabilization efforts, 

seeding, planting and area closures to protect the recently burned 

areas. Effective rehabilitation of these areas, including establishment of planted vegetation, can help combat invasive weed species. 

Throughout these and numerous other projects BLM has treated 

millions of acres to address invasive species, concerned threatened 

and endangered wildlife lands and rehabilitate and restore public 

lands following natural disasters. These actions result in significant benefits including more desirable recreating conditions, 

healthier habitat for fish and wildlife, decreased infestation of on 

both private and public land downstream and educational opportunities with adjacent landowners and outdoor recreationists to address larger scale noxious weed control efforts. 

We believe that the BLM does tremendous work on the ground 

with available resources, and we are always looking for opportunities to better work with our partners to increase our effectiveness 

and efficiency. 

The Department of the Interior—the Department supports the 

goals of S. 2240, to facilitate Federal efforts to address invasive 

species across public lands and waters and appreciates the changes 

included from the earlier iterations of the legislations. We have 

identified areas in the bill where additional clarity and further discussion with the sponsor and Subcommittee would be helpful. 

For example, we would like to work on language to maintain administrative flexibility to allow agencies to prioritize actions to address the most harmful species and adapt a new challenge on some 

public land. 

The Department does not support such an expansive categorical 

exclusion; however, we would both eliminate an important opportunity for public—which would also eliminate an important oppor-
19 

tunity for public involvement, environmental and cultural review 

and land management decisions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I 

look forward to answering any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pool follows:] 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks so much for your testimony. 

Mr. Miyamoto. 

STATEMENT OF DOUG MIYAMOTO, DIRECTOR, WYOMING 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. MIYAMOTO. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Senator 

Franken, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today about this important topic. 

My name’s Doug Miyamoto. I’m the Director of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture, and this topic is particularly pertinent to 

me because almost half of the land mass of the State of Wyoming 

is federally administered and invasive species have as much impact 

on agriculture as they do any other sector. 

I’m here to talk about S. 2240, the Federal Land Invasive Species 

Control Prevention and Management Act. And I really want to emphasize my remarks on four critical components of this legislation 

that I think, based on our experience, will optimize its chances for 

success. 

First and probably foremost, this proposal mandates local leadership. In my experience farmers and ranchers have a vast amount 

of knowledge regarding the natural resources in which they live 

and work. They’re also more impacted by any policy decisions that 

are made regarding those resources. I can point to local communities that have worked tirelessly in Wyoming to draft locally-developed plans for natural resources used ranging from sage grouse 

habitat to septic system remediation and projects for improved 

water quality. These agricultural producers are the exact people 

that time and time again volunteer to serve on their local Weed 

and Pest District Boards and their local Conservation District 

Boards to address these problems. I can also point to a huge local 

commitment from Wyoming. In 2015 alone, the State of Wyoming 

invested $19 million in local weed and pest programs. My agency 

alone, the Department of Agriculture, contributed an additional 

$570,000 through grants and collaborative invasive species management programs. 

The second key tenant that I wanted to emphasize today is a 

consistent commitment that this legislation would provide for our 

federal partners. Invasive species management simply demands an 

ongoing presence by all the partners, and S. 2240 provides a realistic level of certainty that our federal partners can maintain a 

presence and finish the job that they’ve started. 

The third key component is that this is a goal-oriented proposal. 

The goal of a net five percent reduction in invasive species is identifiable and is trackable, at least to the maximum extent possible. 

There’s also a strategic planning requirement in this proposal 

that’s an essential part of the bill and it identifies specific actions 

and timing for optimal coordination with other federal agencies, 

state agencies and local jurisdictions, which I know, will increase 

our return on investment. 

The fourth key component that I would like to highlight, specifically addresses one of our biggest and albeit inadvertent problems 

and that’s the National Environmental Policy Act. And I’ll give you 

a local example to highlight. 
26 

In June 2012 there was a fire that started about 30 miles southwest of Laramie, Wyoming called the Squirrel Creek Fire. It 

burned about 11,000 acres. Ninety percent of those acres were on 

Forest Service-administered lands. 

Prior to the fire starting satellite imagery showed that less than 

ten percent of the cover was cheat grass. Forest Service initiated 

the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at that time, and the 

problem is that it took four years for that EIS to be completed. In 

the four years since the fire started cheat grass occupancy has 

more than doubled, and so we’re now looking at total coverage of 

more than 25 percent in cheat grass. 

I want to contrast that to a fire that ignited just last summer in 

Northern Wyoming, the Sheep Creek Fire. This fire occurred on 

mostly state-managed lands, and the topography and land use between these two fires is similar. The topography is the same and 

the land use is the same. Riverside treatments for cheat grass in 

the Sheep Creek Fire were applied within four months of the fire 

and cheat grass is, today, less prevalent than it was before the fire 

started. The categorical exclusion language of the bill is extremely 

important. Sometimes these actions require a timeliness that, so 

far, has been a challenge for us in some instances. 

Invasive species simply demand a high degree of collaboration 

across jurisdictional boundaries. In the case of the Squirrel Creek 

Fire, Forest Service committed seven percent of the funding despite 

having jurisdiction for 90 percent of the land. In Wyoming we eagerly await the opportunity to collaborate with our federal partners 

in an effort where the common goal is invasive species control, prevention and management. I know that these will be universally 

supported, and I know it will also provide us yet another opportunity to prove that locally led and collaborative conservation 

works best. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today 

about this important topic. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miyamoto follows:] 
27 
28 
29 
30 

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

Dr. Beck. 

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE BECK, PROFESSOR OF WEED 

SCIENCE, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. BECK. Chairman Barrasso and honorable members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today. 

I’m George Beck, and I’m a professor of Weed Science at Colorado State University. Today I represent the Healthy Habitats Coalition. We are a diverse alliance dedicated to improving invasive 

species management in our country. 

In spite of almost three decades of efforts by many organizations 

working to persuade the Federal Government to do a better job of 

controlling and managing invasive species, not nearly enough 

progress has been made. 

Zebra mussels are in the Great Lakes, and Asian carp are poised 

to invade. Cheat grass, knapweed, and tamarisk abound in the 

West. Burmese pythons, melaleuca and hydrilla are wreaking 

havoc in Florida. The emerald ash borer is another invasive force. 

Insects are invading the Northeast and Midwest, and Hawaii is 

simply overrun with invasive species. All these problems are spurting rapidly in every state as invasive species without exception. 

Cheat grass alters habitats so significantly that it is clearly 

linked to the decline of the greater sage grouse habitat. We possess, however, the knowledge and ability to recover cheat grass infested sage grouse habitat if we would just seize the initiative to 

do so. For example, Colorado State University weed scientists recently completed a comprehensive study to demonstrate such success. And we have also developed approaches to target and eliminate the cheat grass soil seed reserve which then will provide the 

greatest opportunity to recover native species habitat. 

The invasive species conundrum in our country is not necessarily 

due to a lack of knowledge rather it is because of chronically poor 

federal land management agency performance around managing 

invasive species, and this is a reflection of chronically poor administrative leadership concerning this problem. 

Leadership from the National Invasive Species Council is practically non-existent. The recent charge by the Department of the 

Interior from NISC and their staff to lead the implementation of 

a national early detection and rapid response program is a significant error. NISC and their staff do not possess the appropriate 

knowledge base to implement EDRR and their leadership capacity 

will instantly be in question. 

It is highly unlikely the federal agencies will take direction from 

NISC staff regarding EDRR because staff are not authorized to 

provide such correction. Quite frankly, NISC could be dissolved and 

the funds used to operate that body be spent on decreasing population abundance of invasive species and recovering native species 

habitat. 

This poor federal performance is due to several reasons: Inconsistent budgets and non-transparency in the invasive species budgeting process; lack of collaboration, prioritization and on-the-ground 
31 

performance with state and local governments; using NEPA as an 

excuse for an action or justification to postpone making timely 

management decisions; and, poor administrative leadership leading 

or developing appropriate invasive species public policy and management and budgetary action. 

The solution to these problems have been introduced as bills. S. 

2240 works in the Senate and H.R. 1485 in the House. These are 

entitled the Federal Lands Invasive Species Control, Prevention 

and Management Act. The bills focus on the major land management agencies. The bills require agencies to develop a strategic 

plan and foster cooperative agreements with state and local governments, have categorical exclusions that will protect high value sites 

from invasive species and fully supports and facilitates EDRR. The 

bills will end years and years of analysis to approve management 

tools and requires invasive species populations to be decreased a 

net five percent annually to stay ahead of expansion rates, and it 

changes spending parameters. Seventy-five percent must go on the 

ground, not more than 15 percent on education and awareness or 

excuse me, awareness and research and up to ten percent on administration. 

We have multiple supporters for these efforts including an 

Invasive Species resolution from the Western Governors Association and direct support from Governor Otter of Idaho, former Governor Andrus of Idaho, Governor Martinez from New Mexico and 

the State of Wyoming. 

There’s no federal administrative leadership on invasive species. 

It is up to Congress to provide that leadership and pass S. 2240 

and H.R. 1485. Doing so will place our country on the road to begin 

solving our invasive species problems. 

Honorable members, we must stop kicking this can down the 

road. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to share the Healthy Habitats Coalition’s thoughts on invasive species management and our 

country. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Beck follows:] 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Dr. Beck. 

Dr. Campbell. 

STATEMENT OF DR. FAITH CAMPBELL, VICE PRESIDENT, 

CENTER FOR INVASIVE SPECIES PREVENTION 

Dr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and other Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to speak with you today 

about invasive species management. 

I do have a written statement that I’ve asked be included in the 

record. 

I represent the Center for Invasive Species Prevention and the 

Natural Areas Association. We believe everyone in this room agrees 

that invasive species cause enormous damage, that the nation 

needs a comprehensive invasive species program and that needed 

federal leadership has fallen short. 

The invasive species threat does not have a Teddy Roosevelt or 

a John Muir, but you can be the John Lacey, the Member of Congress who moves it forward. You can use your powers as Senators 

to promote strong and comprehensive programs that will praised 

100 years from now. 

And I’m going to suggest some immediate practical steps that 

you can take. 

First, you can work with your colleagues to amend the Lacey Act, 

which I just praised John Lacey. One hundred sixteen years ago it 

was a very forward looking bill, but everything changes in 116 

years. The Fish and Wildlife Service needs new authority to apply 

scientific risk assessments, to act quickly when confronted by an 

emergency, to regulate imports of all kinds and interstate movement of all animal taxa to deal with wildlife diseases such as West 

Nile virus and to have clear authority over the regulation of movement of these animals among the 49 continental states. 

A second action that you can help on is appropriations. None of 

the agencies, none of the land managing agencies, nor APHIS, the 

lead agency on prevention, has adequate funding to carry out its 

tasks. 

You could also conduct oversight hearings at which you bring in 

the secretaries and assistant secretaries and undersecretaries and 

ask them about their efforts. I think we all agree that they’re the 

ones with the authority to ramp up these programs, but they don’t 

get the pressure that they should be getting about this. 

I suggest three specific topics that you might ask them about. 

Has the Forest Service implemented its 2011 internal directive 

amending its manual to integrate invasive species activities across 

national forest programs, National Forest System programs? Why 

has neither the Forest Service nor the National Park Service adopted a nationwide regulation governing movement of firewood? And 

why has the Council on Environmental Quality not, over the last 

15 years, met with the National Invasive Species Council to develop NEPA guidance which would solve, I think, many of the problems that have been enumerated here? 

And finally, in less than a year you will be holding confirmation 

hearings for new secretaries, undersecretaries and assistant secretaries at USDA and U.S. Interior Department and I ask you to en-
42 

sure that questions about their plans for managing invasive species 

are prominent in those hearings. 

I do welcome your interest in the invasive species topic, and I 

congratulate the Healthy Habitat Coalition for a lot of hard work 

that’s brought us to this point. Unfortunately, I do not agree that 

S. 2240 will provide the necessary changes. 

I’ve outlined some problems with the funding allocation, especially when combined with the five percent reduction goal. I fear 

that it creates even more overlapping reporting and coordination 

requirements that might further delay needed actions. I believe 

that the priorities for dealing with invasive species on national 

lands should be—should reflect national perspectives, not perspectives of individual state governors. And finally, I think that the 

NEPA categorical exemption outlined in the bill would expose the 

environment to additional damage. 

I’m ready to answer any questions you might have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Campbell follows:] 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

Senator BARRASSO. Well thank you so much for your testimony, 

Dr. Campbell. 

Mr. Miyamoto, thanks for being here. Thanks for traveling from 

Wyoming to Washington. I appreciate the commitment and the 

proactive approach that you and the rest of the Wyoming agencies 

have taken to control invasive species and to prevent ecological 

damage. 

In your testimony you provided an example of an unintended 

consequence of a slow, cumbersome NEPA process. You talked 

about the cheat grass and going from 10 percent to over 25, waiting 

four years. It is clear that a 48-month delay in applying necessary 

treatments like the one that you mentioned is unacceptable in any 

circumstance, but particularly when it is clear that invasives will 

soon cause catastrophic damage to the ecosystem. 

So in your experience do you believe that agencies, like the one 

that you oversee, would actually overuse this categorical exclusion 

in this bill? 

Mr. MIYAMOTO. Chairman Barrasso, I do not believe that agencies would overuse a categorical exclusion. When you’re an agency 

such as the Wyoming Department of Agriculture or others like it, 

one of the responsibilities that you have to undertake is you have 

to know what the consequences of your actions will likely be in addressing some of these natural resource problems. These are oftentimes complicated situations, and you have to get multiple experts 

in the room to try to determine if what you’re going to do is going 

to have a net benefit on the resource. 

So I think that is undertaken, particularly in the case where 

you’re responding to something like fire. All of the outcomes are 

weighed, and you’re simply managing as best you can to avert disaster. So I don’t think the categorical exclusion would be used to 

a fault. 

Senator BARRASSO. Okay. 

Mr. Pool, your agency has published an estimate that invasive 

species spread approximately, I think, 4,600 acres a day on federal 

lands alone in the Western United States. Is that accurate? 

Mr. POOL. Mr. Chairman, I would have to confirm that figure, 

and I will be glad to do so. 

[The information requested was not provided as of the time of 

printing.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Okay, that would be great because I appreciate that the Department of the Interior recently published their 

new Early Detection and Rapid Response Plan. A key part of that 

protocol is the response is rapid. That is the rapid response component of this. The document reads, ‘‘The comprehensive set of 

EDRR, Early Detection and Rapid Response, actions from coordination and planning, to monitoring and eradication must be effectively and efficiently implemented.’’ 

We would all agree with that desire. 

If one or more actions are not implemented or implemented inadequately, examples as the response is too slow, then the Early Detection and Rapid Response activities will fail and the invasive species will continue to spread, and that is what we have seen. So in 

reality the BLM and other agencies should have been responding 

quickly and efficiently all along. 
52 

Can you talk a little bit about when does the BLM plan to implement this Department of the Interior’s new EDRR recommendations and how does the agency plan to decrease reaction times? 

Then I am going to ask Mr. Casamassa the same question. 

Mr. POOL. Mr. Chairman, I think a tool that’s worked very effectively for the BLM, given the number of acres that are affected by 

noxious plants, we felt that our NEPA process which is basically 

a programmatic environmental assessment that can cover a large 

province, that involves the public, that explains alternatives, that 

talks about various method treatments, has been a very effective 

tool for us. 

So we can address large areas with that one tool, and should we 

move into any type of application then we can simply go, for what 

we call, a determination of NEPA adequacy. It’s not a laborious 

analysis. It’s pretty much check the box and based upon what we 

plan to do. That tool has served us well in cooperation with our 

state, government entities, working with tribes, working with industry, working with our grazing permitees and working with the 

conservation/environmental community. It served us well. 

Just to reflect a little bit on use of the—for example on many of 

our fuel reduction projects to reduce catastrophic wildfire. We were 

challenged in the courts, and it was determined that the degree of 

our environmental analysis was inadequate. 

We turned that around, we, the BLM. We trained our practitioners in the field to improve upon the preparation, a programmatic environmental assessments more comprehensive. We 

think it’s more informative with the public, and those tools have 

served us well in carrying out large project type application in 

terms of reducing invasive upon public land. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Casamassa, same thing from the standpoint of the Forest Service? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Yeah, Chairman Barrasso, the Forest Service 

uses, for one thing, I’d start out with as far as an emergency response. Underneath the burned area emergency response, we do 

take actions immediately after a fire on those more significantly 

burned areas to ensure that invasive species and erosion of highly 

steep toils is taken care of. So I think we have that tool in our tool 

belt to actually be able to address some immediate, specific needs. 

We do have the wherewithal through the early detection and 

rapid response to have more of a consistent approach when it 

comes to looking at specific populations of invasives on the forests 

and using our forest plan as the umbrella to guide us when it 

comes to the management area of prescriptions and the stand ins 

and guides by which we would apply any kind of pesticide is that 

something that we have in place right now. 

We do recognize that under some categorical exclusions right 

now in our present authorities we’ve been very effective in focusing 

efforts on restoration, and we could support a call for rulemaking 

to establish, perhaps, an appropriate, necessary categorical exclusion for invasive species. This would enable us, I think, to kind of 

fill in the gap between those categorical exclusions that we have 

presently versus the ones that we would need specifically for 

invasive species. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Franken. 
53 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for this 

hearing. 

I want to ask about a couple things. Climate change is one of 

them, and I noticed that in the testimonies there was very little 

discussion of that. I think Mr. Pool was the only one in your written testimonies to briefly acknowledge the connection between climate change and invasive species. 

It is no secret that climate change has strong, well-established 

connections to invasive species on land and in water. Climate 

change is creating more favorable conditions, helping them spread 

in new areas, environments, and it seems to me that any plan to 

combat invasive species must also address the effects of climate 

change. It is concerning to me that that was more or less ignored 

in your testimony. 

So I would ask Mr. Casamassa and Mr. Pool, what are your 

agencies doing to address these concerns about climate change and 

invasive species? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Yes, Senator Franken, we do recognize that the 

climate is changing and that it is having an impact on the National 

Forest System lands as well as all lands. We do know now that on 

average each fire season is probably around between 70 and 80 

days longer than it has been in the past. 

We are presently looking at ways to change, perhaps, our management prescriptions to ensure that there is more restoration and 

resilient forests that we’re managing. 

Senator FRANKEN. You are spending so much of the budget fighting the fires that you have less budget to maybe do that kind of 

management. 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Well certainly that in addition to, perhaps, the 

ever increasing fire season, the cost of fire suppression continues 

to increase. And it does take up over 50 percent of our operating 

budget which provides us with less funding to allocate toward restoration and ensuring that forests are resilient against climate 

change. 

Senator FRANKEN. Mr. Pool. 

Mr. POOL. Yes, Senator, I share the same views as the Forest 

Service and the Department of the Interior. We recognize that 

there are climate change influences that are affecting Western 

rangelands. We also evaluate large scale conditions and trends. 

More recently, we’re working in various prescriptions, adaptability, mitigation into some of our sage grouse policies in terms of 

improving upon habitat conservation and the sustainability of 

those populations. 

So we want to be adaptable as we work through trending conditions, and we want to come up with the right set of mitigations 

that can hopefully preclude the negative influences and trends of 

climate change. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay, thank you. 

I want to bring up the NEPA review process because Dr. Campbell brought it up and Dr. Beck brought it up and Mr. Pool, you 

brought it up. So just go ahead and discuss it, you three. 

Dr. Campbell, what are your concerns regarding this legislation 

in terms of NEPA review? 
54 

Dr. Beck, you brought that up as sometimes you were saying 

that is an excuse. You feel like the NEPA review is an excuse, if 

I heard you correctly. 

Mr. Pool, you discussed the NEPA review as a necessary tool. 

I will start with Dr. Campbell because you expressed your concerns. 

Dr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

The procedure, the methods, that one uses to control any 

invasive species and I spend most of my time on tree killing insects 

and pathogens, not invasive plants, but it’s true in all cases all 

those activities carry their own environmental downsides. And it is 

the belief of the organizations that I represent that those analyses 

need to be done so as to make sure that the cure is not worse than 

the disease to begin with. 

I do think that agencies can find ways to streamline this process. 

The large programmatic Environmental Impact Statements have 

served not just the land management agencies but others, APHIS, 

for example, quite well in setting up situations so that they can 

move quite quickly when a new outbreak is detected somewhere. 

They’ve already laid out the options and the pros and cons of them. 

It is very frustrating, I’ve been in this business almost as long 

as George has, that the Council on Environmental Quality has 

stonewalled efforts by the Invasive Species Council to come up with 

some government-wide guidance and the Council staff is not in a 

position to force EQ to cooperate. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, I hope I didn’t open a can of worms here, 

but it seems like a can of worms if it is worth exploring for the 

other two? 

Senator BARRASSO. If you would like, go ahead. 

Senator FRANKEN. I do not want open—— 

Senator BARRASSO. Then we will go to Senator Hirono. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, sorry. 

Senator BARRASSO. No, go ahead, finish what you wanted. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well I just would like a comment from Dr. 

Beck and from Mr. Pool. 

Dr. BECK. Thank you for that question, Senator Franken. 

NEPA is a very important process, but when the process gets in 

the way of biology that’s very difficult to accept. And but I think 

Wyoming has one of the best examples of unintended consequences 

associated with that. 

And a lot of times things sound very good on paper. We’re going 

to take time. We’re going to do this, but when you need to act now. 

I mean, if there’s a fire, you’re not going to do a NEPA analysis 

to make sure you’re doing everything correct. You’re going to get 

in there and get the job done. 

What we’re saying is invasive species is a very similar process, 

and clearly in Senator Barrasso’s bill this is outlined with categorical exclusions is a very small area that is being considered for an 

exception to NEPA so this job can be done. So early detection and 

rapid response is done correctly. And that’s incredibly important 

because prevention is probably one of the most important things we 

have going for us, well for invasive species management. So when 

NEPA either by design or by use becomes a stumbling block that 

becomes unacceptable. 
55 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Pool, do you have anything to add? 

Mr. POOL. Sure. 

So I mentioned previous there’s two—there is which we address 

NEPA. There’s the non-fire restoration type, prevention or actions 

and then there’s the areas where we are responsive to the catastrophic effects of wildfire. 

As it relates to the catastrophic effects of wildfire, we have strike 

teams. It’s an immediate response to get into the area and there 

is no NEPA requirement there. 

Now, if we’re going to treat the area longer term, 280,000 acres 

or longer, then we would come back in and address the appropriate 

NEPA analysis and mitigations and actions we need to take. But 

when you get into non-fire related project management we’re talking hundreds, if not thousands, of acres similar to what happened, 

what New Mexico undertook. You want to inform the public. You 

want them to be part of the solution. And so you address a range 

of alternatives. For any given province we may elect to go with mechanical treatments, we may go with chemical applications and we 

may also use prescribed fire. All of those can have different consequences in trying to address infestations and the mitigations associated with it. 

So we have, over a number of years, working with partners, we 

think we’ve been successful using NEPA as a very effective tool. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay, thank you. 

And I apologize. 

Senator BARRASSO. No, no, that is quite alright. 

Senator Hirono? 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you very much. 

A question for Mr. Casamassa. 

The bill that is before us, S. 2240, mandates that no less than 

75 percent of funds appropriated be used for on the ground control 

management and management of no more than 15 percent be used 

for investigations, outreach and public awareness and no more 

than 10 percent be used on administrative costs. So these are pretty prescriptive. 

Let me just cite what is happening in Hawaii with regard to 

Rapid Ohia Death. It is a pathogen on Hawaii Island that is currently ravaging our native Ohia trees. It is so new that the majority of the expenditures to date have been directed toward research 

on both the identification and spread of the disease, as well as public outreach to contain the pathogen to Hawaii Island. As you know 

we have a chain of islands, and we hardly need to have this spread 

to the other islands. We do not currently have known treatments 

or control options. 

Do you see the program funding allocations identified in this bill 

supporting work on Rapid Ohia Death under the circumstances 

that I have described and other new forest diseases? Do you think 

that the funding allocations allow agencies to collect the necessary 

intelligence to control invasive species or do you think that more 

flexibility is needed to work on invasive species on a case-by-case 

basis? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Well Senator, certainly the way that the allocation is prescribed in the Senate bill 2240, is something that is a 
56 

bit prescriptive. We have looked at the way that our funding now 

goes to and is allocated to various components of the overall program, and it is somewhat in line with those numbers. 

However, it would be advantageous, given the fact that on certain situations we may need to do something different than that allocation prescribes, and it would be advantageous for the agency to 

have the flexibility to allocate the resources where we think would 

be most appropriate. 

Senator HIRONO. Does anyone else want to weigh in on this particular aspect of the bill? 

Dr. BECK. Yes. 

Senator HIRONO. Dr. Beck. 

Dr. BECK. Yes. 

As I look at the bill there’s, kind of, like reading the back of the 

page first. If you look at the back of the bill it clearly states in 

there that this, these new bills, would not usurp any previous 

invasive species, I guess, it’s not statutes, but the ability for other 

agencies, for example, to do what they’ve been doing all along. So 

at Interior, USGS is typically considered to be the research arm, 

and in USDA it’s usually the Agricultural Research Service. So to 

answer your question about these pathogens there’s at least two 

entities there that could be doing the research independent then of 

what the Forest Service would be doing to help solve—— 

Senator HIRONO. Excuse me, my time is running out. 

So basically my concern was that the provisions of the percentages were really prescriptive and may not help in a particular situation, that was my question, because we all want the same thing. 

We want to get rid of the invasive species. So that was my question. Okay, let me move on. 

Mr. Pool and/or Mr. Casamassa, S. 2240 directs the secretaries 

to choose the least costly option to effectively control and manage 

invasive species. It further exempts the secretaries from conducting 

an environmental assessment, or an EIS. 

A number of you have already talked about the NEPA concern. 

I have a concern that the least costly option would often time result in the use of pesticides, and in Hawaii we have major concerns 

about the use of pesticides on our islands. Our fear is that exempting certain activities from having to do any EA or an EIS would 

jeopardize the health and well-being of the public. 

Mr. Pool, do you have a sense of the amount of pesticide required 

to achieve a five percent reduction in invasive species that cover 

lands owned and/or managed by BLM? 

Mr. POOL. Yeah, I don’t have a sense, Senator, as to the analogy 

that you present on why. I think I could take those questions back 

to both Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, and I think 

they could provide you probably more information on that. 

Senator HIRONO. The major concern is that the least expensive 

often will be something like use of pesticides, and the people in my 

state would be very concerned about that. 

Ms. Campbell, if you do not mind, Mr. Chairman, if I could 

just—— 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes, please go right ahead, Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you so much. 
57 

Ms. Campbell, the bill also requires a strategic plan for invasive 

species programs to achieve an annual five percent net reduction 

of invasive species populations. That sounds like a worthy goal except that we may not be able to really objectively get to that. 

There are a lot of insects such as the red imported fire ant and 

coconut rhinoceros beetle as well as forest pathogens such as the 

Rapid Ohia Death where estimating the population is challenging. 

Do you have any concerns about the agency’s ability to define populations, measure said populations, measure a five percent reduction 

in populations and verify those measurements as required by the 

strategic plan under this bill? 

Dr. CAMPBELL. Aloha, Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Aloha. 

Dr. CAMPBELL. Thank you for the question. 

The issue of dealing with invasive species that move around, insects, as you mentioned and the pathogen, particularly this very 

alarming one attacking Ohia trees. And I think it’s probably true 

of the aquatic ones as well. 

Trying to find them, as you said, detect them, to delimit, as 

APHIS would say, the extent of the infestation is often beyond the 

scientific capabilities of the agencies for several years, much less 

than finding tools that will actually contain them or control them. 

So I do think that it’s unrealistic to expect to be able to reach a 

five percent reduction. 

I think it also needs to be said that all these land managing 

agencies are confronted by hundreds of different kinds of invasive 

species, that are at different stages of invasion, at different parts 

of the lands and waters that they manage and the appropriate 

tools may or may not be available if science takes a while to come 

up with these. 

And I’m afraid that a five percent reduction requirement will put 

a lot of pressure on the agencies to focus on those that are—for 

which we have tools and which are more easily measured which 

might be the invasive plants and take resources away from other 

invaders that are at least as damaging and which we could get a 

handle on if there were adequate research and strategic planning. 

And if I might divert just a moment. ARS and USGS do a lot of 

really useful research but so does the Forest Service, and I would 

hate to see it reduced. 

Thank you. 

Senator HIRONO. Well I know that there are scarce resources for 

all of our agencies. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Beck, I could not help but note that in your testimony you 

quote someone from Hawaii for the—to give the example that the 

federal workers are not committed to protecting us from invasive 

species. So I just would like to say that I do not think that represents the majority of federal employees. 

Thank you. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Hirono. 

Well Dr. Beck, additional follow up. 

You raise some, I felt, alarming figures in the testimony regarding the role that a lack of agency accountability can play. So I appreciate that you said there is a reason for hope. 
58 

You indicated that there is a body of knowledge to recover landscapes overrun by invasive populations by using the technology requires an initiative that federal agencies sometimes do not apply. 

It seems that the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) has 

failed in its coordination role. Despite promises to a House Committee last year the National Invasive Species Council has still not 

released an updated national management plan. 

Are you familiar with the Department of the Interior’s new 

EDRR plan? 

Dr. BECK. Chairman Barrasso, I have read a little bit about it, 

probably as much as there’s been released to the public. 

EDRR is an exceptionally important on prevention again, it is 

the cornerstone of invasive species management. Another part of 

prevention that sometimes doesn’t get observed is brought up in 

your bill and that is the containment of something that’s already 

here also is preventing it from spreading elsewhere. 

I think the Early Detection and Rapid Response is so critically 

important that within the bounds of our country, I think that the 

states probably best suited to take the lead on that. But the Federal Government has a very, very important, a critical role for 

things coming in from abroad and frankly, that is not done very 

well. 

I was on an Invasive Species Advisory Committee for six years 

and one of our tours was in addition to Hawaii, but we went to a 

port in Miami and that was just the standard theme is that there’s 

not enough inspection. We don’t catch enough, so the opportunity 

for prevention is not working as well. 

So the leadership on EDRR is very important, but I just don’t see 

it happening out of the National Invasive Species Council. I think 

there’s conflict between NISC and the agencies. 

Senator BARRASSO. Okay, because I am just thinking about your 

significant experience both at the state and the federal level, and 

you are questioning, the opinion you have in the Department of the 

Interior’s new plan if it is going to really make them any more effective. 

Dr. BECK. The potential certainly is there. It could be made more 

effective. There’s not enough being done now to give more on a 

charge like this. 

I think what will end up happening is that’s all that will be done. 

And not enough prevention of movement elsewhere of things that 

we already have will take it on the chin, if you will. 

Senator BARRASSO. Okay, thank you, Dr. Beck. 

Senator Hirono, do you have any additional questions? 

Senator HIRONO. Oh yes—— 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes, but if you would like to go at this point. 

Senator HIRONO [off mic]:—— 

Senator BARRASSO. Okay. 

I appreciate you staying, but Senator Hoeven has arrived and I 

think he does have some questions, if it is okay with you? 

Thank you. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to 

thank all of the witnesses for appearing today. 

I hope I pronounce your name right having just arrived. Is it 

Casamassa? 
59 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Yes, that’s correct, Senator. 

Senator HOEVEN. Alright. 

So our North Dakota cattle ranchers are constantly having to 

battle invasive species and noxious weeds like leafy spurge, Canadian thistle, toad flax are real problems on the grasslands and of 

course, that affects our cattle ranchers who are raising their herds 

out there. 

So can you talk about the Forest Service’s efforts to collaborate 

with our North Dakota ranchers on those grasslands to fight these 

invasive species and preserve the health of the grasslands? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Yes, Senator. 

The, you know, certainly working with the Grazing Association 

and the individual permitees on specific pastures within specific allotments and over, over a large area that is the grasslands both on 

the Dakota prairie grasslands and a number of different grasslands 

in Colorado and Wyoming, is part of the overall way that we ensure that we reduce the impacts of invasive species and that we are 

ensuring that there is adequate forage both now and into the future. 

So the livestock industry, the Grazing Association and individual 

permitees play an important role in ensuring that we’re working 

across the mixed ownership to combat invasive species. 

Senator HOEVEN. How do you see Chairman Barrasso’s bill assisting in that collaborative effort, working with the locals? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. I certainly think that, you know, the ability to 

collaborate and leverage resources across all lands is critical and 

key to our ability to either control or eradicate invasive species. 

That is a key critical cornerstone to the way that we’re going to, 

at least, arrest some of the impacts to invasive species. 

Senator HOEVEN. Do you see working through that with MOUs 

between the ranchers and U.S. Forest Service or how would you 

implement that? How would you do it? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. I’d certainly start with right now the 

foundational piece of how we work with the Grazing Association is 

through allotment management plans, our forest plans, potentially 

Memorandums of Understanding, collection agreements with local, 

county, state and other federal entities that have some ownership 

within a particular grassland based on the mixed ownership. So it 

could be a wide array of methods and tools that we would use to 

ensure that we’re collaborating and that we are, you know, we’re 

working toward common goals. 

Senator HOEVEN. Mr. Pool, a question to ask you in regard to 

BLM. What reports are you currently submitting to Congress and 

with what frequency and what are the delays that you are seeing 

and what are the primary causes of those delays? 

Mr. POOL. I would have to get back with you, Senator, on the reports that we’re providing at this level in Congress. 

[The information requested was not provided as of the date of 

printing.] 

Can you clarify the other part of your question? 

Senator HOEVEN. Well basically as it regards to this legislation 

and how you would be trying to expedite or address some of the 

reporting issues on BLM lands. 
60 

Mr. POOL. I think we’re going to have to work with you and the 

Committee and Subcommittee members and talk about our reporting requirements. I mean, we want to be responsive. We have a 

wealth of data that we can easily compile and provide to you. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay. Well, that is fine. If you would get back 

to me on that, that would be great. 

Mr. POOL. Sure. 

[The information referred to was not provided as of the date of 

printing.] 

Senator HOEVEN. Alright, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. 

If there are no further questions, I just think it is important to 

note, Dr. Campbell, that I think your perspective in the tools that 

this bill provides are not mutually exclusive or even at odds. I 

think it is clear that prevention is the least costly and the most effective way to address new invasive species. 

Prevention is a key part of S. 2240, a concept which is included 

in the mandated funding for control and management programs. 

In their letter of support of this bill, the National Association of 

Conservation Districts urged inclusion of other relevant secretaries 

and departments to ensure that port activity and foreign invasive 

species could be appropriately managed. They said that preventing 

introduction is only one piece of the puzzle. The established population of invasive species must be contained and reduced. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for your time and your testimony today. 

If there are no further questions members may submit written 

follow up questions for the record. The hearing record will be open 

for two additional weeks. 

Senator BARRASSO. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(61) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 

Æ