U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–945 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 116–4 

THE INVASIVE SPECIES THREAT: PROTECTING 

WILDLIFE, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIKE BRAUN, Indiana 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, 

Ranking Member 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

MARY FRANCES REPKO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Franklin, Slade, Weed and Pest State Coordinator, Wyoming Department 

of Agriculture ........................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 13 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 15 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 16 

Steinwand, Terry, Director, North Dakota Game and Fish Department ........... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 33 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 33 

Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse .................... 34 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Wicker .......................................................................................... 34 

Rogerson, Joe, Program Manager for Species Conservation and Research, 

Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife ............................................................. 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso ......................... 48 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Duckworth ................................................................................... 49 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 51 

(1) 

THE INVASIVE SPECIES THREAT: PROTECTING WILDLIFE, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Cramer, Braun, Sullivan, 

Boozman, Ernst, Cardin, Gillibrand, and Van Hollen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

Today we will consider the scourge of invasive species, the species that threaten our communities and how we can most effectively combat them. This hearing will also continue the Committee’s work to support successful efforts to conserve wildlife, build 

infrastructure, and protect the public health. Invasive species have 

significant impacts on all three of these areas. 

Few issues are more bipartisan than the need to protect our communities from invasive species. Invasives are non-native species 

whose introduction causes harm to the local economy and the environment, and to human health. More than 5,000 invasive species 

exist in the United States. They cause more than $120 billion of 

economic damage each year. 

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘‘every region of 

the United States has invasive species problems.’’ ‘‘Invasive species 

can be found,’’ they say, ‘‘from Alaska to Louisiana and from Maine 

to Texas.’’ They go on, ‘‘They can be found in our forests, fields, and 

wetlands, and in our streams, rivers, and bays, and even off of our 

coastlines.’’ 

Each year, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in an attempt to eradicate invasive species, and each year new threats for 

invasives immerge. 

Like the rest of the Country, Wyoming finds itself coping with an 

extensive and expensive invasive species problem. Cheatgrass consumes vast amounts of water, degrades valuable soil and habitat, 

fuels catastrophic wildfires, and displaces vegetation, turning vibrant prairie communities into monocultures, leaving only cheatgrass as far as the eye can see. 

2 

Russian olive trees take over riparian areas across the State, absorbing massive amounts of water that would otherwise be used for 

wildlife and native species. The West Nile virus is transmitted by 

mosquitoes that infect birds and mammals, including humans. It is 

an invasive species according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

West Nile virus is the leading cause of mosquito-borne illness in 

humans in the United States. In 2018, 2,544 cases of West Nile 

virus were recorded and reported in 49 States, including Wyoming. 

West Nile virus affects horses, dogs, and other animals, and causes 

millions of dollars in losses associated with the treatment of the infection and even death. 

The environmental costs of invasive species are real as well. According to the National Wildlife Federation, 42 percent of threatened or endangered species are at risk because of invasives. West 

Nile virus threatens species like the sage grouse, which Wyoming 

and many other States are working hard to protect. The problem 

of invasive species is rampant and requires action. 

Last Congress, this Committee examined innovative solutions to 

control invasive species, with the goal of improving wildlife conservation efforts. We heard about cutting-edge technologies to more 

effectively control invasive species, from smart fish passage systems to keep invasive species out, to DNA technologies that detect 

invasives earlier. 

Together with Ranking Member Carper and several other Committee members, I introduced the Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver Act, called the WILD Act, to support efforts to combat 

invasive species in several ways, including by reauthorizing the 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and by requiring Federal 

agencies to coordinate when planning and implementing invasive 

species-related activities. The WILD Act also incentivizes the development of cutting-edge technologies by establishing cash prizes for 

technological innovation in invasive species management. 

In 2017, the WILD Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent. 

Last month, we reintroduced the WILD Act and last week we again 

reported this important bill unanimously from the Committee. Yesterday this bill passed the Senate as part of the Omnibus Public 

Lands package. I look forward to seeing it passing in the House 

and being signed into law. 

I look forward to hearing from our three witnesses today on what 

tools will be most helpful in protecting our wildlife, our infrastructure, and public health from the scourge of invasive species. 

I would now like to turn to my friend and Ranking Member, Senator Carper, for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I introduce Joe Rogerson, my staff actually was kind 

enough to Google the Troggs, who came up with a great record 

called Wild Thing. 

Senator BARRASSO. Wild Thing. You owe me $10. I told you he 

was going to talk about Wild Thing today. 

[Laughter.] 

3 

Senator CARPER. And the Troggs’ original name was—— 

Senator BARRASSO. I get $100 if you sing. 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. the Beatles. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Wouldn’t that be great? The Beatles. They 

changed their name to the Troggs. They would never get anywhere 

with that name. 

Senator BARRASSO. We could sing together. 

Senator CARPER. We could? 

Senator BARRASSO. Let’s not. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Never let the Nation’s business get in the way 

of some fun. 

Joe, thanks for joining us. Terry and Slade, thank you all for 

coming today. 

I want to thank our staffs for the work that they have done in 

preparing for this hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, since our last hearing on invasive species in 

March 2017, our Committee has worked across the aisle—most people think we don’t work across the aisle, but we actually do it pretty well in this Committee—to try to address these challenges that 

these species create for our health, create for our infrastructure, 

create for native wildlife. 

The WILD Act, which we reported out from our Committee last 

week, directs Federal agencies to manage proactively for invasive 

species and it creates a new Genius Prize, a Genius Prize to spur 

innovation in managing invasive species. 

I am proud of our Committee’s ongoing work on the WILD Act, 

and a lot of other things, too, and I urge its swift passage and enactment into law by this Congress. 

Our 2018 Water Resources Development Act, which we enacted, 

the authorship of the Chairman and myself, and input from a lot 

of people on this panel and other places, too, affectionately known 

as WRDA, also included provisions to target invasive species in 

specific States, including the Asian carp in the Great Lakes. 

Unfortunately, invasive species are still prevailing and wreaking 

havoc across our Nation. Delaware hosts both aquatic and terrestrial invasive species, such as catfish, crayfish, and insects. Specifically, the Delaware Department of Agriculture has recently reported Spotted lantern flies sightings. These destructive insects 

could harm agriculture industries throughout our region. 

The emerald ash borer also made its way to Delaware in 2016, 

and this kind of jewel beetle—that is what it is called, a jewel beetle—is not a welcomed jewel by those of us in the Diamond State. 

This beetle’s path of destruction is broad, already causing the rapid 

decline of five species of North American ash trees across 35 

States. 

Ash wood is a valuable commodity for many reasons. It is used 

in baseball bats, among other items. This week, as pitchers and 

catchers of major league baseball teams across America are reporting for spring training, given that many of the bats those teams 

will be swinging come from ash trees in the United States, if we 

want to strike a blow for America’s national pastime, we could 

4 

start by making sure that this pesky beetle is called out on strikes 

and tossed out of the game for good. 

Ash trees are also important in their ecosystems. Those trees filter air, mitigate stormwater runoff, sequester carbon, and they provide habitat for native moth, butterfly, and insect species. 

Sadly, ash trees are not the only species that have declined significantly due to invasive species. According to the National Wildlife Federation, invasive species have contributed to the decline of 

over 40 percent of threatened and endangered species, over 40 percent. 

We have to do more to quell the growing threat of invasive species, and that includes addressing root causes. To that end, I would 

be remiss if I did not mention the role of climate change in the 

spread of invasive species. The Fourth National Climate Assessment, issued by 13 Federal agencies just last November, recognizes 

that climate change is causing conditions that may favor invasive 

species over native species. 

As warming temperatures cause native species’ ranges to shift, 

experts believe invasive species may come to occupy many new 

areas. For example, the Asian tiger mosquito, which carries West 

Nile and Zika viruses, may well expand into the Northeast in coming years. Climate change is an existential threat to our Nation 

and to our World, and the spread of invasive species is just one 

symptom of that problem and challenge. 

In addition to considering root causes, there are creative ways we 

can adapt to deal with invasive species. A few months ago, I visited 

an Agricultural Research Service unit on the campus of the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware, where I think Joe was a 

student and I was a graduate. We were both graduate students 

there at different times. He was there before me. 

Researchers at this facility study beneficial insects and are exploring options for releasing these natural predators where 

invasive species are present. The research takes many years to ensure that releasing new species will not have unintended consequences. When this method is successful, we can alleviate the 

need to eradicate invasive species in less environmentally friendly 

ways. 

In conclusion, let me just say that each State is different. We 

face different challenges and hold different ideas regarding how to 

address invasive species, so I want to thank each of our witnesses 

for sharing your perspectives with us today. With your help and 

the help of other stakeholders and colleagues, I hope we can identify some new opportunities for bipartisan collaboration to combat 

invasive species. 

We appreciate your leadership and interest, and I appreciate 

very much your leadership and interest here, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. I want to, if I could, at this time, just give a 

brief introduction of Joe Rogerson. Can I do that? 

Senator BARRASSO. Please do. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

This is the PG version. 

Mr. ROGERSON. Oh, boy. 

Senator CARPER. Joe was born in Maryland. What is it, 

Boonsboro? 

5 

Mr. ROGERSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. In the western end of the State? 

Mr. ROGERSON. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. He couldn’t get into any schools in Maryland; 

he got wait-listed to all those schools, so he had to go to West Virginia University, where the president was Gordon Gee, who is the 

president again. 

Gordon Gee was honored this week. He has been president of 

West Virginia University twice, Ohio State twice, Brown, Vanderbilt, and Colorado, and I think two nights ago, in Washington, DC, 

he was honored as the outstanding college president in America. 

He is so good at raising money, he would walk into a room full of 

alum and they would pull out their wallets. For that and other reasons he has received this honor, and you have been honored to go 

to a school where he was your president and he is again. 

But I am pleased to introduce Joseph to work for the Delaware 

Division of Fish and Wildlife since 2005. Came to Delaware to get 

his master’s degree and found his master, a woman named Alison, 

who is the mother of their two children. They are almost five and 

7 years old. The 7-year-old goes to a charter school that I actually, 

as Governor, helped to create, so it is a small world in Delaware. 

Joseph oversees the implementation of Delaware’s Wildlife Action Plan. He is also active in the Northeast Association of Wildlife 

Agencies in the Atlantic Coast joint venture. He received his bachelor’s at WVU, master’s degree at the University of Delaware in 

wildlife ecology, and we are just grateful that you are all here, and 

thank you, Joseph, for joining us. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

We also have joining us Terry Steinwand, who is the Director of 

the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 

Senator Cramer, I invite you to introduce him, if you would like. 

Senator CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Terry, for being with us today. 

It is a great honor to be able to introduce Terry. I have known 

Terry a long time. We worked together in State government, prior 

to my coming here. 

Terry is the truest of North Dakotans. He grew up on a grain 

farm near Garrison, North Dakota, in McLean County. Garrison is 

important for lots of reasons, not the least of which is it is the 

namesake of the Garrison Dam, which creates what we call Lake 

Sakakawea; people around here call her Sacagawea. Born in the 

outdoors and a fan of the outdoors, and now a protector of the outdoors. 

Terry started his work at the Department of Game and Fish in 

North Dakota well over 30 years ago as a fisheries biologist and 

then eventually becoming the head of fisheries. Then, in 2006, our 

colleague, former Governor John Hoeven, appointed him to be the 

director of the agency. Since then, two more Governors thought it 

was such a good idea, they have appointed him. I don’t know if he 

is going to retire or die there, but we are glad you are there, Terry. 

Terry brings an important perspective as an outdoorsman, a biologist, well educated at the University of North Dakota in fish and 

wildlife management and biology, with a master’s degree in biolVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Apr 24, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\35945.TXT VERNE
6 

ogy. He also brings an important perspective of how important collaboration and cooperation is among agencies and outdoorsmen and 

stakeholder groups. 

We are grateful you are here, Terry. As you can probably tell 

from the earlier banter, we are a friendlier legislature than the one 

you have to go back in Bismarck tomorrow, shall we say. With 

that, I am grateful you are here. Thank you. We welcome you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Cramer. 

To the witnesses, your full written testimony will be made part 

of the official hearing record today, but I ask you to try to keep 

your statements to 5 minutes so that we have time for questions. 

We all do look forward to the testimony. 

I would like, at this time, to introduce the witness from Wyoming 

who is here, Mr. Slade Franklin. He has served as the Weed and 

Pest State Coordinator at the Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

since 2004. In this role, Mr. Franklin has developed statewide 

invasive species management programs that have been integral to 

protecting the health of Wyoming’s ecosystem. 

He organizes, chairs, and facilitates groups concerned about 

invasive species, like the Wyoming Annual Grasses Task Force and 

the Wyoming Interagency Weed and Pest Working Group. He has 

chaired the Western Weed Coordinating Committee and the State 

Weed Coordinators Alliance. 

In 2015, I was pleased that the Secretary of Interior agreed to 

my recommendation to appoint Mr. Franklin to serve as a member 

of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee. As a member of that 

Committee, Mr. Franklin provides information and advice on 

invasive species-related issues to the National Invasive Species 

Council, which coordinates efforts to address invasive species 

issues at the national level. 

Mr. Franklin has represented Wyoming well as a member of the 

Invasive Species Advisory Committee. I know we will all benefit 

from hearing about his extensive experience in fighting invasive 

species in Wyoming and the challenges that they pose to our 

State’s wildlife, our infrastructure, and our public health. 

Mr. Franklin, it is a privilege to welcome you here today as a 

witness before the Environment and Public Works Committee. 

Thank you for traveling to Washington, as well, when the legislature is in session at home. We are delighted to have you here with 

us today. 

Mr. Franklin, please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SLADE FRANKLIN, WEED AND PEST STATE 

COORDINATOR, WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. FRANKLIN. Chairman Barrasso, thank you for the welcome. 

Ranking Member Carper, as well as other members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. As 

mentioned, my name is Slade Franklin. I serve as the Weed and 

Pest Coordinator at the Wyoming Department of Ag. For the past 

15 years I have been working on the issue of invasive species in 

the State of Wyoming, the western region, and the United States. 

Through my experiences, I have gained insight to the difficult 

task of managing invasive species. The extent of the problem is not 

just limited by industry, by location, or by economic impacts. Urban 

7 

communities deal with the issue as much as the rural communities. 

Species like zebra and quagga mussels can impact water supplies 

for livestock and municipalities both. The impacts to the Country 

from invasive species are economically staggering. 

Additionally, we are becoming more aware of the impact to our 

native wildlife. In the State of Wyoming and the Great Basin, 

invasive grasses such as cheatgrass and medusahead rye are altering critical habitat for sage grouse and mule deer by transitioning 

sage brush communities from a 50-year fire cycle to a 3-year fire 

cycle. The Bureau of Land Management reported that in the last 

20 years 74 percent of Department of Interior acres burned were 

on range lands, and 80 percent of those 12 million acres were on 

cheatgrass-invaded range lands. 

In 2016, the Invasive Species Advisory Committee published a 

paper outlining the problem invasive species presents for the Country’s infrastructure. The Committee reviewed four main categories: 

power systems, water systems, transportation systems, and housing. The Committee identified existing potential threats to each of 

the categories due to invasive species that range from mussels to 

insects, to animals such as burrowing iguanas and nutria. ISAC 

concluded that Federal agencies currently lack the authority necessary to effectively prevent, eradicate, and control invasive species 

that impact the human-built environment. 

Invasive species not only impact infrastructure, they utilize it. In 

1896, U.S. Department of Agricultural botanist Lester Dewey was 

requested by Congress to research how western States could eradicate the invasive weed Russian thistle. Russian thistle had been introduced in South Dakota through contaminated flax seed, and it 

quickly established itself throughout the West and Midwest. Some 

of you may recognize Russian thistle as the tumbling tumbleweed 

costarring in every western movie ever made. 

In his report back to Congress, Dr. Dewey noted, ‘‘Next to the 

railroad yards and the waste land in cities and villages, the roadsides are the most important avenues for the introduction of new 

weeds and for the propagation of old ones. They should, therefore, 

be watched with special care.’’ 

Roads and rail lines are still one of the primary avenues by 

which invasive species move. We have watched invasive weeds 

such as yellow star thistle, an invasive plant that has infested over 

14 million acres in California, creep its way east to Wyoming by 

following the interstates and highways. 

Introduced terrestrial pathogens and diseases, such as West Nile 

virus, can have a direct impact on human health. In Wyoming, the 

first confirmed case of West Nile virus was reported in 2002. Since 

then, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota have 

some of the highest average annual incidents of West Nile virus or 

neuroinvasive disease reported to the CDC. The neuroinvasive disease can lead to encephalitis and meningitis, and, in extreme cases, 

death. Between 1999 and 2017, over 2,000 deaths had been reported to the CDC due to the West Nile neuroinvasive disease, 

with an additional 137 deaths reported in 2018. 

As daunting as the task of managing invasive species can be, 

successful management is realistic and achievable through partnerships involving Federal, State, and county agencies, nongovernVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Apr 24, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\35945.TXT VERNE
8 

ment organizations, land grant universities, and, critically important, the private landowner. In the same 1896 USDA bulletin, Dr. 

Dewey states, ‘‘In nearly all cases, the landowner can do the work 

at much less cost than it can be done by public authorities.’’ Federal and State government partners contribute greatly through 

their jobs and are deeply appreciated, but agricultural producers 

are passionate and financially motivated. Their livelihoods depend 

on healthy ecosystems. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners for Wildlife and the 

U.S. Forest Service’s State and Private Forestry Programs are essential tools in rewarding landowners in their habitat and weed 

management efforts that protect critical wildlife. 

We need to continue moving the dialog on invasive species forward as to what role we can play in improving success by identifying what resources are already in place and what additional resources are needed. Just less than 50 percent of Wyoming is managed by Federal agencies, and some of the most concerning infestations of terrestrial weeds occur on these public lands. When crossjurisdictional programs are developed, local experts should be empowered by the respective Federal agencies to make critical timesensitive decisions. 

Capacity can be improved through policy and legislative changes, 

but it also needs to be improved through funding. Invasive species 

programs have often relied on grants and short-term funding 

sources, which are helpful for immediate or initial treatments, but 

do little to assist with long-term program stability. Additionally, we 

need to improve funding for research and development in programs 

such as USDA-ARS and land grant universities such as the University of Wyoming. 

New funding is not the only solution. In 2017, the National Inter- agency Fire Center reported firefighting costs were $2.9 billion to 

fight fires across 10 million acres. This works out to a cost of $290 

per acre. The landscape scale herbicide treatment of cheatgrass 

costs, at most, $60 an acre. Yet, agencies are only treating a fraction of the known infested acres. If the medical adage ‘‘prevention 

is better than the cure’’ is true, it may be time Federal agencies 

review how current firefighting funds are utilized and change the 

paradigm. 

Chairman Barrasso, thank you again for the invitation to speak 

with your Committee. I would like to close by congratulating you 

on receiving the 2018 Wyoming Weed and Pest Council’s Guy Haggard Award. We appreciate all the work you have done in helping 

bring national attention to this issue. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Franklin follows:] 

9 


35945.001

Mark Gordon, Governor 

Doug Miyamoto, Dimtor 

2219 Carey Ave. • Cheyenne, \.'{!):' 82002 

Phone; (307) 777-7321 • Fax: (307) 777-6593 

Web: agriculture.wy.gov • Email: wdal@wyo.gov 

The Wyoming Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the promotion and enhancement of Wyoming's agriculture, natural resources and quality of life. 

Prepared for the u.s. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

The Invasive Species Threat: Protecting Wildlife, Public Health, and Infrastructure. 

Testimony of Slade Franklin 

Weed and Pest Coordinator 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

February 13, 2019 

Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, as well as other members of the committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to speak in front of you today. My name is Slade Franklin and I serve as the Weed and Pest Coordinator for 

the Wyoming Department of Agriculture. For the past 15 years I have been working on the issue of invasive species in 

the state of the Wyoming, the western region, and the United States. My background includes serving as Chairman of 

the Western Weed Coordinating Committee, the State Weed Coordinators Alliance and currently I'm finishing my first 

term as an appointed member of the National Invasive Species Council's Invasive Species Advisory Committee as formed 

under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

Through my experiences in the state of Wyoming and involvement in regional and national working groups, I've gained 

insight and experiences to the unique and difficult task of managing invasive species. Many see the issue of invasive 

species as an agricultural issue, a need to manage weeds in crop production. However, the extent of the problem is not 

limited by industry; by location; or by economic impacts. Urban communities deal with the issue as much as the rural 

communities. Species like zebra mussels can impact water supplies for livestock and municipalities. The impacts of 

invasive species from feral pigs, Burmese pythons; invasive weeds and pests are economically staggering. US losses 

alone were estimated in 2005 at $120 billion annually, a number that is likely well below the current losses. 

Additionalty we are becoming more and more aware of the impacts to our native wildlife. An obvious example is the 

brown tree snake in Guam devouring the native song bird population or feral pig predation on ground·nesting birds and 

sea turtles. Or, as in the state of Wyoming and the Great Basin, invasive grasses such as cheatgrass, medusa head rye 

and ventenata are altering critical habitat for sage grouse and mule deer by transitioning sage brush communities from a 

50 year fire cycle to a 3 year fire cycle. Recently, the Western Governors Association held a series of workshops on the 

issue of invasive species. During one these workshops it was reported by the Bureau of land Management that in the 

last 20 years, 74% of Department of Interior acres burned have been rangelands and 80% of the 12 million acres burned 

have been on cheatgrass invaded rangelands. Additionally they reported that cheatgrass landscapes burn four times 

more frequently than in native vegetation types. In 2015 through 2017 the National Interagency Fire Center reported 

suppression costs exceeded $7 billion dollars. If you do the rough math, that equates to a cost of $5.6 billion to manage 

wildlfires associated with, and likely exacerbated by invasive species. 

JanaGintcr,Districtl • 

Bqw ()ppomwityJ<> BmploymetJt Mid Senices 

BOARD MEMBERS 

YOUTH BOARD MEMBERS 

• MikeRiley,DiJtri~/5 

Kendall Roberts, Southeast • Jared Boardman. Northwest • John ! Ianscn, Southwest • Cameron Smith, Northcas! 
10 


35945.002

In 2016, the Invasive Species Advisory Committee published a white paper outlining the problem invasive species 

present for the country's infrastructure. The committee reviewed four main categories; power systems, water systems, 

transportation systems and housing. The issue of quagga and zebra mussels is one of the threats identified. A threat 

Wyoming has yet to discover in our water systems, but does currently exists in many states near us. Beyond quagga and 

zebra mussels, the ISAC white paper identifies threats such as Raspberry crazy ants to electrical equipment, and 

burrowing nutria and iguanas on flood control levees. Most concerning is the committee's conclusion that federal 

agencies currently lack the authority necessary to effectively prevent, eradicate, and control invasive species that impact 

the human-built environment. This lack of authority prevents rapid response to some of the most damaging invasive 

species and also limits the ability of agencies to prioritize and allocate resources. 

Invasive species can also have a direct impact on public health such as introduced terrestrial pathogens and diseases. 

Zika virus and West Nile virus are both introduced mosquito-borne viruses that directly impact human health. Both 

viruses utilize native bird and mosquito species as hosts and vectors. In Wyoming, the first confirmed case of West Nile 

virus was in 2002, since then Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota have the highest average annual 

incidence of West Nile neuroinvasive disease reported to the Center for Disease Control. West Nile neuroinvasive 

disease can cause inflammation of the brain (encephalitis) and of the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord 

(meningitis). Between 1999 and 2017, over 2,000 deaths have been reported to the Center for Disease Control due to 

this invasive virus with an additional137 deaths reported in 2018. 

The task of managing such a vast, complex issue as invasive species can be staggering if not completely overwhelming. 

In the case of invasive weeds, the threat can sometimes be ignored due to the aesthetic value of some of these plants. 

This is why it is important to be strategic and intentional in how we manage these species across the landscape. An 

approach such Early Detection - Rapid Response to emerging threats is an example of one of these strategic actions. 

Wyoming has taken this approach with the recent discovery and eradication of rush skeletonweed and other species in 

our state. The EORR approach is analogous to the medical field where early intervention with cancer has become a 

standard practice for improving the likelihood of successful treatment. 

Successful management is realistic, achievable, and proven. Partnerships involving federal, state, and county agencies 

as well as private landowners have proven to achieve landscape scale management that is beneficial to agriculture and 

wildlife. In Wyoming we have been successful by ensuring all parties are actively engaged in the issue from a landscape 

scale to a broader state scale. For example, we have multiple groups working in partnerships across federal, state, and 

local agencies in conjunction with private landowners, non-governmental organizations, and the land-grant university to 

cooperatively reduce the impact of invasive species on the variety of ecosystem goods and services provided by our 

wildlands. 

In 1896, US Department of Agriculture botanist Lyster Dewey was requested by Congress to research how the western 

states could eradicate the invasive weed Russian thistle. Russian thistle had been introduced into South Dakota through 

contaminated flax seed and had quickly established itself throughout the west and mid-west. Some of you may 

recognize Russian thistle as the tumbleweed co-starring in nearly every western movie ever made. In his report back to 

Congress, Dr. Dewey noted a couple important points he thought congress should consider when legislating for weed 

management. One of his primary recommendations was, "In nearly all cases the landowner can do this work at much 

less cost than it can be done by public authorities." Federal and state government partners contribute greatly through 

their jobs, but agricultural producers are passionate and financially motivated. Their livelihoods depend on healthy 

ecosystems. In other words, what is good for wildlife is typically good for agriculture. Programs such USFWS Partners 

for Wildlife and the USFS State and Private Forestry programs are essential tools in rewarding landowner efforts and 

allows them to actively contribute to improving habitat for wildlife including those recognized as species of greatest 

conservation need. I urge you to protect and fund these two programs accordingly and appreciate the But this not 

enough. 

JanaGinter, fJistrict f • 

Equol Oppt>ttonitT.in Emj>loymt111t IUJd Senices BOARD MEMBERS 

YOUTH BOARD MEMBERS 

• Mike Riley, Diflrid; 

Kendall Roberts, Southeast • J<ued Boardman, Northwc$t • John Hansen, Southwest • Cameron Smith, Northeast 
11 


35945.003

In the same 1896 USDA bulletin Dr. Dewey states, "Next to the railroad yards and the waste land in cities and villages, 

the roadsides are the most important avenues for the introduction of new weeds and for the propagation of old ones. 

They should, therefore, be watched with special care." Dr. Dewey's comments are still as true today as they were then. 

Roads and rail lines are still one of the primary avenues by which invasive species move. In most cases, when a new 

invasive weed appears in Wyoming, we will find it near a road or rail line. We have watched invasive weeds such as 

yellow starthistle, an invasive plant that has infested 14 million acres in California, creep its way east by following the 

pathways humans have created. That is why when states such as California, Oregon, and Washington tell us they are 

concerned about a new invasive species, Wyoming pays attention. This also puts in perspective how difficult it is to 

manage the Yellowstone National Park and the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem when over 4 million visitors annually 

drive a car through one of the Park's five entrances. 

As the issue of invasive species progresses and expands, we need to continue moving the dialogue forward as to what 

role· we can play in improving success while identifying what resources are already in place and what additional 

resources are needed. Just under 50% of Wyoming is managed by federal agencies, and some of the more concerning 

infestations of terrestrial weeds occur on these public lands. When cross-jurisdictional programs are developed, local 

experts should be empowered by their respective federal agencies to make critical, time-sensitive decisions utilizing the 

best available information without tying their hands with excessive regulation or process-based bureaucracy. It is 

important for the National Invasive Species Council and their staff to identify these roadblocks and remove them, 

thereby increasing the effectiveness of multi-jurisdictional partnerships. Examples of these roadblocks include, the 

National Environmental Protection Act requirements for aerial applications of herbicides inconsistently applied across 

the National Forests in Wyoming. The lack of categorical exclusions for Early Detection - Rapid Response impedes our 

ability to treat high priority infestations in a timely manner. Inconsistent risk assessment protocols for new tools by 

various federal agencies alienates partners abilities to implement landscape scale management. High turnover and the 

overall lack of dedicated invasive species management positions in the land management agencies can leave 

partnerships fragile. We have to increase federal agency capacity. 

Capacity can be improved through policy and legislative changes, but it also needs to be improved through funding. 

Invasive species programs have often relied on grants and short term funding sources which are helpful with immediate 

or initial treatment needs, but do little to assist with long-term program objectives or planning. Effective management 

programs require long-term survey, monitoring and potential re-treatments which can only occur with the knowledge 

that the financial resources will exist. Additionally, we need to improve funding for research and development. 

Programs such as USDA·ARS and land grant universities such as the University of Wyoming have programs and staff that 

can develop new management tools including biocontrol agents while providing assistance to local partnerships with 

implementing scientific sound management programs. 

New funding is not the only solution. In 2017, the National Interagency Fire Center reported firefighting costs were $2.9 

billion to fight fires on 10 million acres. This works out to a cost of $290 dollars per acre. A landscape scale herbicide 

treatment of cheatgrass cost at most $60/acre. If you apply the Department of Interior statistics that 80% of rangeland 

fires are related to cheatgrass to the 10 million acres, that means 8 million acres burned due to invasive annual grasses. 

The cost to treat those 8 million acres before they burn would roughly cost $480 million compared to the $2.3 billion it 

cost to fight fires on the same acreage. Yet agencies are only treating a small fraction of the infested acres, the Forest 

Service reported in 2015, that on average they treat 400,000 acres a year for invasive species. If the medical adage 

"prevention is better than the cure" is true, it may be time federal agencies look within as to how current firefighting 

funds are utilized and change the paradigm. 

JanaGintcr, District I • 

Equol Oppotttutity.is BmploymetAtiU1d Se.nices 

BOARD MEMBERS 

YOUTH BOARD MEMBERS 

MikcRilcy,IJbtrict5 

Kendall Roberts, Southeast • Jared Boardm:m, Northwest • John I lanscn, Southwest • Cameron Smith, Northeast 
12 


35945.004

Invasive species present a daunting task and we will only scratched the surface of the issue today. It also doesn't mean 

success is unachievable. In 2018 the National Invasive Species Council Secretariat's Office published a booklet called 

"Protecting What Matters". It includes fourteen examples of successful invasive species management programs 

throughout the United States and territories. Programs highlighted in the booklet range from the eradication of rats on 

Alaska's island ecosystems, to the management of aquatic weeds in the Erie Canal. In Wyoming, and with many of the 

western states, success is achievable through the leadership of state and county programs. Wyoming requires each 

county to have a weed and pest control district and fund them through local tax dollars. These weed and pest control 

districts are managed by boards consisting of local landowners and are managed by supervisors who are required by law 

to be pass weed and pest college courses offered through the University of Wyoming. Even our states newly elected 

Governor Mark Gordon stated in his first State of the State address, "I plan to work with UW's College of Agriculture and 

Natural Resources, our community colleges and the state's weed and pest districts to put together a program that will 

combine research with management. Aiming to make sure Wyoming is a leader nationally on combating invasive 

species." My point here is simple, if federal agencies need help; the state and county programs are willing and able. The 

issue is too important for western states like Wyoming to ignore. 

Chairman Barrasso, thank you again for the invitation to speak with your committee. I would close by congratulating 

you on receiving the 2018 Wyoming Weed and Pest Council's Guy Haggard Award for your support of the organization 

and its purpose and goals. The Council not only appreciates all your efforts in helping bring national attention to the 

issue, but your efforts to address this issue through Senate File 826 the Wildlife Innovation and longevity Driver Act also 

known as the WILD Act. I look forward to answering any questions the committee may have. 

J:maGintcr,/Ji;·trktf • 

Eqalll OppcnrulityJD Employmest IUJd &nices BOARD MEMBERS 

YOUTH BOARD MEMBERS 

• Mike Riley, DhtrM 5 

Kendall Roberts, Southeast • JaR'd Boardman, Northwest • .John lfanscn, Southwc$t • Cameron Smith, Northeast 
13 


35945.005

Mark Gordon, Governor 

Doug Miyamoto, Direttor 

2219 Cru:ey Ave. • Cheyenne, WY 82002 

Phone: (307) 777-7321 • Fax: (307) 777-6593 

Web: agricultute.wy.gov • Email: wda1@wyo.gov 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "The Invasive Species Threat: Protecting Wildlife, Public Health, and Infrastructure" 

February 13, 2019 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Franklin 

Responses by Slade Franklin 

Submitted March 14, 2019 

Chairman Barrasso: 

1. Wyoming has a complex patchwork of land management authorities. State agencies, federal 

agencies and private landowners often share fence lines but not management strategies. As Weed 

and Pest Coordinator, a large part of your job consists of organizing efforts between state, local, and 

federal agencies to achieve successful outcomes across the landscape. What can you tell this 

committee about the importance of cross~boundary management of invasive species, including 

partnerships with private landowners? 

Response: As mentioned in my written testimony, Wyoming is 48% federal lands (30,013,219 

acres). Those federal lands are managed by a variety of federal agencies including the 

US Forest Service, Bureau of land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and 

Department of Defense. In states like Wyoming, invasive species management does 

not work unless we are capable of analyzing and addressing problems based on 

landscape and invasive species ecology. Management based on invisible boundaries is 

counter-productive and economically impractical. 

This is why it is important to county weed and pest programs to create landscape scale 

working committees that look at the problem, not the ownership. Examples of this 

concept are Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) or Cooperative Invasive 

Species Management Area {CtSMA); both are fixtures in western states and an idea 

that is increasingly being incorporated by eastern states. CWMA and CISMA are 

partnership of federal, state, and local government agencies, tribes, individuals1 and 

various interested groups that manage invasive species (or weeds) in a defined area. 

The North American Invasive Species Network reports there are approximately 300 of 

these partnerships in existence through-out the United States 

(https:/ /www.naisn.org/cwmamap/). Partnerships such as CISMAs and CWMAs allow 

participants to collectively strategize solutions to invasive species issues that may be 

daunting to the individual landowner or manager. It can also decrease the per acre 

cost of treatment while increasing the likelihood of long-term management and 

control. 

Equal Oppo('tur~ity in Employment ~wd Services 

BOARD MEMBERS 

• ,-'\ruanda Hulet, DiJirict .f • hUke Riley, DiJiritf '! 

YOUTH BOARD MEMBERS 

Ken<h.ll Rohert1\. Southeast • Jan.'£! Boardman, Northwest • John tlansen, Southwr.~t • Ctmeron Smith, NortheMt 
14 


35945.006

The concept of CWMAs and CISMAs can also be applied to private landowner 

partnerships and cropping systems. USDA-APHIS reported a similar regional 

cooperative effort was implemented to reduce the prevalence of cotton boll weevil 

and stem the spread of citrus disease. It has also been suggested that the 

establishment of the CWMA concept by farmers and landowners may help slow the 

rate of herbicide resistance (https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2015/04/newapproaches-to-weed-management.html). 

Federal agency representatives participating in CWMAs and CISMAs need to be given 

the proper support and resources from their respective agencies so they can be active 

partners, especially in those collaborative efforts where a significant amount of 

federal land is present. 

2. In your oral testimony, you remarked that a rapid response is critical to controlling invasive species; 

do you find that federal laws encourage, or have no impact on your ability to rapidly respond to the 

eradication of invasive species in your state? 

Response: Although CWMAs and CISMAs try to ignore the issues of boundaries, they certainly 

exist when it comes to policy and implementation of best management practices 

(BMPs) by participating agencies. Early Detection- Rapid Response (EDRR) is not only 

a state approach, it is a concept that is recognized by federal agencies and has been 

incorporated in many of their outreach and management efforts. The Department of 

Interior published a coordinated set of actions to address EDRR invasive species 

(https:/lwww.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/Nationai%20EDRR%20Framework.pdf) in 

2016. The document mentions the need to " ... strengthen, if necessary, Federal legal 

authorities, regulations and policies to conduct EDRR." The National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) is a regulatory barrier that needs to be addressed in order to help 

federal agencies with Implementing the "Rapid Response" portion of EDRR. 

As an example, in Wyoming the discovery of the invasive annual grasses ventenata 

(Ventenata dubia) and medusahead rye {Taeniatherum caput-medusae) was made in 

Sheridan, WY three years ago. These two species are high priority EDRR species for 

agriculture and are a major concern to federal and state agencies for their fire 

potential. The infestation has impacted Bureau of land Management (BLM), 

Department of Defense (DoD) and US Forest Service (USFS) lands. Sheridan County 

created a CWMA with the objective of eradicating all know medusahead rye 

infestations, and the local Forest Service office (Big Horn National Forest) actively 

participates due to infestations on their managed lands. Best management practices 

(BMPs) for the treatment of the annual grasses is through the landscape scale aerial 

application of herbicides. However, the Forest Service cannot participate in the 

treatments due to the lack of proper authority under NEPA. 

Jana Ginter, Difld,;t 1 • 

E'quBi Opportvnity ln Employment and Services 

BOARD MEMBERS 

YOlffH BOARD MEMBERS 

• !'dike Riley, Dirtrict 5' 

Kendall Rnbcrts, Southeast • Jared BoMdman, Northwest • Jolm Hansen, Southwest • Carru::mn Smith, Northeast 
15 


35945.007

To complete the NEPA process, the Big Horn National Forest has estimated it will cost 

$300,000 and could take up to three years. There are eight (8) National Forests in 

Wyoming, and only two ofthem have completed the NEPA process for aerial herbicide 

applications. To complete the NEPA in the 4 remaining National Forests it could cost 

nearly $1.2 million dollars. If the USFS could take that $1.2 million dollars and apply it 

to controlling invasive species it would make a significant impact on their ability to 

protect National Forest System (NFS) lands. 

Congress should direct the federal agencies to be more responsive to invasive species 

by directing them to streamline NEPA through the use of Categorical Exclusion (CE) 

authority so they can resPond to EDRR invasive species threats in a timely manner. 

Additionally, the variation in pesticide risk assessments implemented by federal 

agencies can be a hindrance. In 2005 the US Environmental Protection Agency .(EPA) 

approved the registration of the new active ingredient aminopyralid (Milestone) as a 

herbicide. Aminopyralid (Milestone) is a reduced risk herbicide due to its reduced 

environmental footprint compared to other herbicides such as picloram (Tordon). The 

USFS was able to complete their agency risk assessment two years (2007) after the 

EPA approved aminopyralid (Milestone), the BLM took until 2015 to complete their 

risk assessment. Federal agencies need to streamline pesticide risk assessment 

policies and procedures to reduce the time and cost associated with getting new tools 

on the ground for invasive species management. 

Ranking Member Carper: 

3. As you know, invasive species do not stop at state and federal boundaries. How are you or your 

department consulting with and/or partnering with the two tribal nations in your state to combat 

invasive species? 

Response: The Fremont County Weed and Pest Control District (FCWP) works very closely with 

the tribal nations (Eastern Shoshone & Northern Arapaho) on the Wind River 

reservation and with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The FCWP has a resolution 

from the tribes that supports the invasive plant management programs proposed 

annually by the BIA. FCWP annually files a proposal with the BIA for noxious weed 

control. The BIA approves the plan, creates a cooperative agreement and provides 

funding for the district to manage invasive plants on the reservation. The BIA requires 

a 50% match which the FCWP provides through their county budget. FCWP provides 

invasive plant management on the tribal irrigation systems, roads, and idle lease 

lands, in addition to releasing and monitoring biological control agents. The FCWP is 

willing to provide their funds and services due to the proximity the tribal lands have to 

agricultural and federal lands within the county. Cooperative agreements between 

counties and federal agencies is a simple, effective way for federal agencies to 

improve their invasive species programs while stretching the limited resources. 

Jana. Ginter, Distritt 1 • 

Equal Opportunity in Emplo.;wmmt and Services 

BOARD MEMBERS 

YOUTH BOARD MEMBERS 

Kendall Rl)btrts, Southeast • Jared Boardman, Northwe-~t • John Hansen, Southw\!St • Camemn Sm1th. Northeast 
16 


35945.008

Due to climatic conditions and irrigation practices, Fremont County, WY and the Wind 

River Reservation, have one of the highest incident rates of West Nile virus (WNv) 

within the state. The State of Wyoming has an Emergency Insect Management Grant 

program that helps manage WNv mosquito vectors. FCWP administers the grant 

funds on behalf of the state and assists the tribal nations in implementing mosquito 

management program on reservation lands. 

Senator Whitehouse: 

4. The 2017 Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan discusses climate change's role in expanding 

opportunities for invasive species to overtake native species and their habitats. In the Action Plan's 

climate change chapter, the authors state: 

"As ecosystems and landscapes are altered by changing climate conditions and other 

disturbance, the opportunity for exotic and invasive species to establish populations 

in Wyoming may increase. Terrestrial habitat may be Increasingly affected by invasive 

flora that can outcompete native flora in a warmer climate and in a landscape that is 

more frequently being disturbed by wildlife, insect outbreaks, and drought." 

How is the Wyoming Department of Agriculture preparing for increases in insect outbreaks as 

changes in our climate expand opportunities for these invasive species to overtake Wyoming's 

current plants and animals? 

Response: The 2017 Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP), also identifies several 

recommendations that would complement or improve invasive species programs in 

the state. Although the emphasis on the SWAP is terrestrial and aquatic invasive 

species, several of the recommendations are applicable to the state's response to 

insect outbreaks that may impact the state's native flora and fauna. 

One of those recommendations deals with the need to increase Early Detection Rapid 

Response capabilities. To help facilitate this, the Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

coordinates with the USDA-APHIS-PPQ and the University of Wyoming - College of 

Agriculture in the Wyoming Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) program. The 

CAPS program was designed by USDA-APHIS to provide a framework for planning, 

preparedness, response, and recovery from invasive pests of regulatory significance 

on a national level. 

The University of Wyoming - College of Agriculture also has an extension 

entomologist that works closely with local growers and grower groups in identifying 

pests and potential pest outbreaks in crops, rangelands and non-agricultural settings. 

The extension entomologis also participants in the Wyoming Inter-Agency Weed and 

Pest Working Group (WIAWPWG) meetings held quarterly during the year. This 

working group was created to communicate and collaborate on all issues concerning 

invasive species in the state and consists of representatives from both state and 

Jana Ginter, DiJ!rid 1 • 

Equal Opportunity i'IJ Employment hi'Jd Services 

BOARD MEMBERS 

YOUTH BOARD MEMBERS 

• M;h· Riky, l>i.<ldct > 

Kendall Rob(,rts, Southeast • Jared Boardman, Northwest • John ! Ianscrt, Southwest • C<1.mewn Smith, N<;:~.thcMt 
17 


35945.009

federal government agencies. The USDA - APHIS - CAPS and university extension 

programs play critical roles in protecting agriculture and natural resources in Wyoming 

and other states from the outbreak of invasive insect pests and need to be 

maintained. 

To help compensate any management programs implemented due to invasive insect 

outbreaks, the Wyoming State legislature developed the Wyoming Emergency Insect 

Management program under the leadership of the Wyoming Department of 

Agriculture. This program was developed to provide financial assistance to state 

agencies and political subdivisions such as cities, towns, counties, weed and pest 

districts and special districts. Funding provide through this program helps manage 

emergency outbreaks of insect pests and insect vectors of diseases for the protection 

of human health and safety, animal health including livestock and wildlife, agriculture 

and natural resources. 

5. What examples have you already seen of climate change-driven expansion or new establishment of 

invasive species in Wyoming? 

Response: Below are three examples of newly established invasive species in Wyoming. In all 

three cases, as with most terrestrial invasive species, the interstate and intrastate 

movement of the weeds into new areas of the state can be directly associated with 

human activities. 

In 2004 Viper's bugloss (Echium vulgare) was located 10 miles outside of Cheyenne, 

WY along the Union Pacific railroad. Viper's bugloss is a biennial plant that produces 

alkaloids poisonous to horses and cattle. The plant prefers disturbed waste areas 

commonly associated with railroad right-of-ways. Since its discovery near Cheyenne 

several other locations have been found along the Union Pacific rail line between 

Cheyenne, WYand Evanston, WY (499 miles). The state has been working to eradicate 

the noxious weed, but success has been difficult due to the rough terrain and soil 

conditions associated with railroad right-of-ways. 

In 2007 and 2017 localized populations of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) was 

found in Teton County, Uinta County and Washakie County. Yellow starthistle is 

native to Eurasia and has infested an estimated 10 to 15 million acres in California. It 

forms dense infestations and rapidly depletes soil moisture, thus preventing the 

establishment of other species. It is also poisonous to horses, causing a nervous 

disorder called "chewing disease" (nigropallidal encephalomalacia), which is fatal once 

symptoms develop. All identified populations of yellow starthistle were treated and 

eradicated. The infestation in Uinta County was caused by contaminated 

construction equipment brought into the area from Utah. The Teton County 

infestation was associated with contaminated hay that was brought into the county 

fairgrounds. 

Equsl Opportunity in Employmeflt and Services 

BOARD MEMBERS 

YOUTH BOARD MEMBERS 

DisJrit't-1· • J\tikeRiley,f)iitnCf) 

Kendall Rob<..""tts, Svuthca,~t • Jared Boa.rdman, Norrhwtst • John Hansen, Southwest • Cmneron Smith, Northeast 
18 


35945.010

In 2016 the invasive annual grasses ventenata (Ventenata dubio) and Medusahead rye 

(Taeniatherum caput-medusae) were identified in Sheridan County, WY. Much like 

cheatgrass, both of these annual invasive grasses are native to Eurasia. They are lowvalue forage species for livestock and wildlife due to their high silica content, and it 

has been estimated that the carrying capacity of rangeland for domestic livestock can 

be reduced by 75% after a medusahead invasion. Both species also pose a significant 

risk to rangeland wildfires and critical sage grouse habitat. The state and its partners 

have been working hard in the last three years to identify and eradicate all known 

populations of medusahead rye. In the summer of 2018 an additional infestation of 

medusahead rye was located 196 miles away from Sheridan County in Converse 

County. This new infestation was treated immediately after discovery. In both 

Sheridan County and Converse County the infestations were associated with areas 

utilized for recreation. 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to discuss this issue with the Senate Environmental and Public 

Works Committee. If any member of the committee would like to continue this dialogue through additional 

questions, I would be happy to answer them as requested. 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

Jnn~ Ginter, Disttid I • 

Equal Opportunity in Employme11t :.tnd Services 

BOARD MEMBERS 

YOUTH BOARD MEMBERS 

• Mike Riky, /.)iftrrd 5 

K<.:nJall Robcns, South<.:as.t • Jared Bo:udman. l'<orthwcH • John H:msen, Southwt.._>t • Cuneron Smith, Northtll£l 
19 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. STEINWAND. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY STEINWAND, DIRECTOR, NORTH 

DAKOTA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 

Mr. STEINWAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Carper, and members of the Committee. I didn’t write anything 

down; I like to adlib stuff. I will add right upfront that I am more 

of an expert on the aquatic side of invasives. We do deal with the 

terrestrial side also, but I will let the colleagues on either side of 

me deal with it. 

I wish Ranking Member Carper were here, because he mentioned 

the emerald ash borer as being a devastating insect, and it absolutely is. But I just read an article last week, and I don’t know if 

this is verifiable, if there is research, but out of Minnesota there 

was an article that stated once it hits 20 below, it starts affecting 

the larvae of emerald ash borer, which are right under the bark of 

the tree. Once it hits 30 below, 90 percent of the larvae are killed. 

Well, being from North Dakota, we don’t have emerald ash borer, 

and I would like to say that it is probably because we have 40 to 

50 below temperatures up in North Dakota. That is not necessarily 

true; we have been relatively lucky. 

Also, Mr. Chairman, you also mentioned about the monotypic 

stands, and I think you were probably referring to cheatgrass. That 

is also true in the aquatic world. Eurasian watermilfoil, curly leaf 

pond weed, we do have those in North Dakota, and they form these 

monotypic stands and it hurts the aquatic side of it, too. My colleague, Mr. Franklin here, mentioned about the wildfires with 

cheatgrass. We don’t have wildfires in the aquatic ecosystem, but 

what happens is they take over, they become a monotypic stand; 

it reduces the diversity of the vegetation and therefore reduces the 

forage species, insects for other sports species and other potentially 

endangered species. 

Senator Cramer mentioned I am a farm boy. I am not a boy anymore, I am a lot older than that; I qualify by Social Security, but 

I love what I do, so I don’t plan on taking Social Security for a 

while. But being a farm boy analogy, my dad never planted the 

same crop on the same land year after year, and it was for disease 

issues. I think we can say the same thing. You have that monotypic 

stand, you lose that diversity. 

On any invasive species, if it can be found early, that is when 

your chances of eradicating it or controlling it are absolutely the 

best, or certainly enhanced in most cases. This really takes aggressive and sometimes constant monitoring of the landscape, again, 

whether it is the aquatic or the terrestrial ecosystem. Of course, 

that requires people and funding. 

I just want to give you some examples of what do in North Dakota. We monitor high-value, high-risk areas. Again, Senator 

Cramer mentioned the Lake Sakakawea and Garrison Reservoir. 

We monitor that frequently with our colleagues from the Corps of 

Engineers, local sportsmen’s groups, so on and so forth. 

We also contract with local college students in the eastern part 

of the State to have students go out and check boaters in some of 

these high-risk areas. It is not mandatory check in North Dakota, 

20 

but check them, tell them how to check for vegetation and drain 

their live wells and their bilge water; and, at the same time, educate and inform them, because that has been our attitude. Education and information is maybe the best tool we have. 

I will also give you some examples of what we don’t catch early. 

Everybody has heard of the common carp. It has been in the 

United States since the 1800’s, and my German ancestors brought 

it over because they were homesick for what they had back in Europe. We have problems with that in many places. In waterfall 

areas it can cause problems by rooting up the vegetation in their 

spawning activities. It does the same for the fishery side; they tend 

to take up that biomass, so it is almost impossible to control. We 

have controlled it with rotenone applications to kill it, but it is not 

specific to carp, so it kills the rest of the fish species. 

One we did catch in time is the Eurasian watermilfoil. It was 

first found in a little sidewater of the Cheyenne River, which is in 

east central North Dakota, and we were a little concerned, but 

what we did is we have done surveys on where the highest risk 

areas they come from, and it undoubtedly came from Minnesota at 

that point in time. We had found a small lake in southeastern 

North Dakota that was a real hotspot for Minnesota anglers to go 

to. Within 2 years, we had Eurasian watermilfoil there. What we 

did, we worked with the local water board, we drew down what 

was called Dead Colt Creek, trying to freeze it out because the literature said that will work. Then, the following spring we applied 

it with an herbicide. We did that for 2 years; it was eradicated and 

we have not found it there ever since. 

Another issue we think we have caught in time is silver carp, a 

form of Asian carp. In 2011, there was a tremendous flood all 

across North Dakota. It actually moved up the James River from 

South Dakota into North Dakota and hit a dam, Jamestown Reservoir or Jamestown Dam, and we have been monitoring it very 

closely. We have not found any reproduction. We put some regulations in place that does not allow the public to take small fish out 

of there for bait to use in other waters, and, so far, we have not 

found it in any further places. There are big adults, but they are 

just getting larger. 

Another one we think we have caught in time, and it is not just 

us, we worked with the North Dakota Department of Agriculture, 

is palmer amaranth. The first occurrence in North Dakota was 

found this last August. And if you don’t know anything about palmer amaranth, it is a species of pigweed that grows very aggressively, about 2 to 3 inches a day, can have a stem about that big, 

and produce up to a million seeds in the seed head. We coordinated 

with the Department of Agriculture right around the start of hunting season in North Dakota, and we figured if we could have thousands of boots on the ground in the form of hunters looking for 

those areas, then they could pull them in time, figure out exactly 

what it was; and, to our knowledge, there have been no further occurrences of that in North Dakota. 

Zebra mussel, we do have it in North Dakota. That is one that 

we anticipated it coming because it was coming to a tributary of 

the Red River, which forms the border between North Dakota and 

Minnesota. We had found larvae for about 4 years, just not very 

21 

many of them, the veligers, but in 2016, all of a sudden, we found 

adult zebra mussels. Not much you can do without very, very extensive means to take care of that, but we do know it is there, and 

we put some special regulations in place to ensure that water from 

the Red River does not move anyplace westward further into North 

Dakota. 

I have gone over my time here, but I guess my advice is the sooner we can catch something like that, the better off you are. And if 

you can contain it to a general area, the better off you are. Once 

it gets out of control, spreads and spreads and spreads, it becomes 

more expensive and there is more damage. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steinwand follows:] 

22 


35945.011

TESTIMONY ON INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT AND ACTION 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

February 13,2019 

Submitted by: 

Terry Steinwand, Director 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department 

Invasive species, whether they be aquatic, terrestrial, or microbial have the potential to 

negatively impact recreation, agriculture, human health, and infrastructure to a large degree if 

left unchecked. The first goal of managing for invasive species is prevention and a secondary 

goal is, once introduced into an area, to either eradicate or control the spread to prevent any 

damage, present or future. 

Although I will be addressing both aquatic and terrestrial invasive species work in North Dakota, 

I am much more knowledgeable on the aquatic spectrum and, thus, the majority of this testimony 

will address how we manage aquatic invasive species. 

Aquatic Invasive Species 

North Dakota interchangeably uses the term 'aquatic invasive' and 'aquatic nuisance species' 

(ANS). The North Dakota Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Program sets annual priorities 

based on available staff and resources. These priorities are directed by the North Dakota ANS 

Management Plan (Plan), which was last updated and signed by Governor Doug Burgum in 

December 2018. The Plan is comprised offour objectives: 1) Coordination and Communication, 

2) Education and Outreach, 3) Prevention and Control, and 4) Sampling and Monitoring. Each 

objective has a set of corresponding strategies and actions associated to meet the overall goal of 

preventing the introduction and spread of ANS into and within North Dakota while mitigating 

ecological, economic, and social impacts of existing populations where feasible. 

COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION PRIORITIES 

Aquatic Invasive Species Committee 

The Aquatic Invasive Species Committee (AISC) is an advisory committee that guides ANS 

work throughout North Dakota state agencies. The AISC is comprised of representatives from 

state, tribal, and local agencies as well as public and private interest groups. Further, AISC 

meetings are open to the public, and additional federal, state, and local interests are often 

represented. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department (Department) chairs the AISC and is 

thus responsible for planning meetings and keeping the group apprised of any important updates. 

The AISC is convened twice annually. The spring meeting is generally held between mid-March 

and the end of April prior to field activities, as this meeting is geared toward generating input on 
23 


35945.012

proposed work plans for the year and presenting the final report from the previous year. The fall 

meeting is generally held between mid-October and the end of November to discuss work that 

was completed throughout the season and to review the ANS list. The ANS Coordinator is the 

only staff required to organize and run meetings, as well as distribute any needed updates in a 

timely manner. These activities address Actions l.B.2, l.D.1, l.D.2, l.D.3, and 3.B.I in the Plan 

as shown in Appendix A of this testimony. 

In-state Coordination 

There is a clear need for consistent, coordinated efforts to address ANS issues. Within North 

Dakota, one of the primary focus areas is promoting consistency across statewide efforts to 

prevent the introduction and spread of ANS. As chair of the AISC, the Department provides an 

ANS Coordinator to facilitate coordination of ANS efforts within North Dakota and across 

jurisdictional boundaries. As such, the ANS Coordinator's role is to develop and implement a 

statewide management plan and to coordinate efforts within the state under advisement of the 

AISC. In 2018, the AISC updated the Plan, which is currently in the implementation phase. 

A few needs were identified for the upcoming year for in-state coordination. The first includes 

supporting the State Water Commission as they begin to incorporate ANS into their classroom 

educational efforts. Another identified need is to work with the Corps of Engineers to provide 

ANS information to concessionaires around Lake Sakakawea, as well as supporting their adult 

zebra mussel sampling efforts as needed. Several agencies, including the Department of 

Transportation, the State Water Commission, and the Corps of Engineers include ANS 

requirements as part of their permitting processes. These permit requirements should be 

periodically reviewed and updated as necessary, and the ANS Coordinator should be available to 

support permit requirements such as inspections as needed. As other needs arise, the ANS 

Coordinator will support and guide any efforts as appropriate. This addresses Actions l.A.I, 

l.B.1, and 4.C.2 (permitted equipment inspections) in Attachment A. 

Regional Coordination 

Just as there is a need for consistent, coordinated efforts within North Dakota, regional efforts 

are needed to address ANS issues which transcend socio-political boundaries. Although specific 

jurisdictional approaches can vary, the overall goal of preventing ANS introductions, spread, and 

impacts to the greatest extent possible is the same. By collaborating with neighboring states, 

federal agencies, and other stakeholders, ANS issues can be addressed through pathways and on 

geographical scales that are biologically or ecologically relevant. 

Two main priorities stand out. The first is the involvement and engagement in the late January 

Western Governors' Association Invasive Mussel Forum, an extension of their Invasive Species 

Initiative, which focuses on strategizing across leaderships to combat the spread of zebra and 

quagga mussels in the Western United States. The second is to provide leadership for the 

Missouri River Basin states to address ANS issues within the basin by hosting a meeting of ANS 

Coordinators. This group, the Missouri River Basin Team of the IOO'h Meridian Initiative, meets 

annually to discuss current and upcoming ANS threats to the basin, but did not meet in 2018 due 

to conflicts with an Asian carp management effort. To reinvigorate the group, North Dakota has 

agreed to host the 2019 meeting in August. 

Other ongoing regional efforts include attending the May 2019 Mississippi River Basin Panel on 

ANS meeting and associated Asian carp sampling workshop; engagement in the March meeting 
24 


35945.013

of the Missouri River Basin Asian carp technical committee; and working with the Western 

Regional Panel on ANS as needed. The ANS Coordinator will engage with regional activities 

and attend meetings as necessary and as time allows. These activities address Actions I.C.I and 

I.C.3. 

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PRIORITIES 

Statewide outreach campaign 

Outreach messaging often targets information about what ANS are, potential impacts, how to 

prevent their spread, and any relevant regulations. Effective messaging can inform users, change 

behaviors, and increase regulation compliance. Among other factors, repeated exposure is 

necessary for messages to be effective. In North Dakota, a statewide outreach campaign has been 

in effect for many years. In 2019, the Department contracted with Jason Mitchell Outdoors to 

supplement Department efforts of implementing a comprehensive statewide outreach campaign 

that provides ANS information to water users through a variety of media with repeated exposure. 

Ongoing Department work such as the Department website and educational efforts at the North 

Dakota State Fair serve as part of the outreach campaign. This campaign is evaluated somewhat 

through boater survey information and an annual contractor report. 

The content of messages is critical to ensure effectiveness, and recognition of a message can be 

useful to remind the audience of repeated exposures. The Department utilizes the "Clean, Drain, 

Dry" message that is consistent with many other state, federal, and local agencies across the 

nation. This increases the understanding of audiences that have already been exposed to the 

message. Given recent concerns of increases in violations, the 2019 campaign will also focus on 

messaging that reinforces the regulation that prohibits the importation of live bait into North 

Dakota. 

Messaging typically begins just before the boating season in mid-May and runs through the early 

part of waterfowl season before ice forms. The ANS Coordinator works with the 

Communications Section Leader and any contractors to develop and implement the statewide 

outreach campaign. This addresses Actions 2.A.1, 2.A.2, 2.8.1, 2.8.4, 2.8.5, and 2.D.I as shown 

in Appendix A. 

Targeted campaigns 

Although the statewide outreach campaign is good for providing information to general 

audiences, there is also a need to develop materials specific to a pathway or user group. These 

targeted efforts can engage audiences that are less directly involved or less informed in general 

on aquatic or ANS issues. It can also be used for audiences that are not traditionally targeted by 

ANS messaging. Examples of priorities for North Dakota in 2019 include: classrooms, marinas, 

pet stores, and trappers. 

This will be the first year of engaging classrooms and trappers on ANS issues related to their 

activities. Marinas and pet stores were first engaged on this issue in 2017. Pet stores are supplied 

with materials to hand out through their business. Marinas were not engaged in 2018, though 

there exists a good opportunity to work with the Corps of Engineers concessionaires to re-engage 

Lake Sakakawea marinas and develop additional materials for all North Dakota marinas. 
25 


35945.014

Targeted campaigns can be year-round, such as supplying pet stores on demand or meeting with 

concessionaires in early spring with the Corps of Engineers. However, winter and late summer 

are targeted for outreach efforts generally to avoid conflicts with other ANS efforts. Staff needs 

include the ANS Coordinator, who works with any key partners on this project. This addresses 

Actions 2.8.1 and 2.8.2 (Appendix A). 

Boater surveys 

The IOOth Meridian Initiative has standard boater survey forms that gather information about the 

current knowledge about ANS, where information is obtained, and impacts to the boaters by 

ANS. They also ask about preventative measures taken by the boaters, willingness to take further 

action, and waters in which the boat in question has been used. The I OOth Meridian Initiative 

surveys provide valuable information to managers and are simple enough that the information 

collected can be primarily obtained through a friendly conversation. Surveys are often coupled 

with inspections to increase efficiency of boater interactions. 

Surveys are conducted Memorial Day weekend through August, dependent upon seasonal 

availability. Staff needs include four seasonal employees (contracted through Valley City State 

University) and the ANS Coordinator. This would meet Actions 2.B.l and 2.8.4 (tournaments) 

as shown in Appendix A. 

Staff trainings 

In order to set an example through agency actions on preventing the spread of ANS, it is 

important that Department staff understand ANS issues, ways to prevent their spread, and any 

relevant internal policies or procedures. In addition, game wardens enforcing ANS regulations 

often receive questions about ANS issues, particularly laws in other jurisdictions. To provide the 

best available information to Department staff, trainings will be conducted with emphasis on 

fisheries and law enforcement staff, who receive the most inquiries and are most directly 

involved in preventing the spread of ANS. 

Trainings should be conducted in an efficient manner, at the annual Fisheries Division meeting 

and the annual Law Enforcement in-service training. The ANS Coordinator will work with 

appropriate administration staff to schedule and conduct trainings. This addresses Action 2.C.I 

and 2.C.2 (Appendix A). 

PREVENTION AND CONTROL PRIORITIES 

Boat inspections 

Recreational boaters pose a large threat of spreading ANS such as hydrilla, Eurasian 

watermilfoil, and curlyleafpondweed. The goals ofboat inspections are three-fold: I) monitor 

for any ANS that may be present, 2) educate boaters about regulations and how to remain 

compliant (demonstrate how to inspect own boat), and 3) gather information about risk 

associated with recreational boaters (see boater surveys). 

Boat inspections will take place at varying locations throughout the season based on boater use 

patterns as observed by fisheries and law enforcement staff. There will be two crews: one based 

out of Valley City and the other out of Devils Lake. The Valley City crew will focus on 
26 


35945.015

southeast North Dakota and Lake Oahe. The Devils Lake crew will focus on Devils Lake 

complex, high-use waters across the northern half of North Dakota, and Lake Sakakawea. 

Boat inspectors will work in crews of two and will be trained by the ANS Coordinator at the 

beginning of the season. Training will include proper inspection and decontamination 

procedures, ANS biological and regulation background information, techniques for successfully 

conducting surveys, and agency policies (such as proper uniform appearance, allowed and 

prohibited activities while working, etc.). Training materials will be provided to seasonal 

employees. 

Boat inspections will take place concurrent with boater surveys. Staff needs include the same 

four seasonal employees (contracted through Valley City State University) as conduct the boater 

surveys, LE officers as needed, and the ANS Coordinator. Boat inspections address Actions 

3.B.4. and 4.C.2 (Appendix A). 

Eurasian watermilfoil control 

The first report of Eurasian water milfoil was on the Sheyenne River near Valley City, North 

Dakota in 1999. Approximately two years later it was found in a small tributary impoundment 

which the Department had been monitoring due to surveys showing a larger than normal nonresident boating/fishing activity. The Department subsequently worked with the local water 

resource board to draw down the reservoir in an attempt to 'freeze out' the invasive vegetation 

since literature suggested this might be a control mechanism for the plant. Additionally, the 

following year, herbicide was applied to any remaining plants. It took approximately two years 

but the invasive plant no longer exists in that impoundment. Eurasian water mil foil is still 

present in its original location on the Sheyenne River, however. 

Dependent upon findings in aquatic vegetation sampling efforts of the Sheyenne River, the 

Department may decide to weigh control options for Eurasian watermilfoil in this system. The 

Sheyenne River contains the only known population of Eurasian watermilfoil in North Dakota, 

and in previous years' surveys, only a few plants were present in a single location. Hand pulling 

this invasive aquatic plant may be the best option if surveys reveal a limited number of plants. 

However, care must be taken to prevent fragmentation, which is a means of reproduction for this 

species. Any control efforts would be weighed carefully after the vegetation sampling effort. 

Staff needs will likely require the ANS Coordinator, as well as the Jamestown Fisheries 

Biologist. This addresses Action 3.D.2 (Appendix A). 

Update internal policies 

State agencies have the responsibility of providing leadership on ANS issues within their 

jurisdictions. As such, it is important to periodically review and update internal actions and 

procedures as needed. As part of the preparation to train staff, policies and procedures internal to 

the Department will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary. This will be done by the ANS 

Coordinator, appropriate administrators, and Department staff. This addresses Actions 3 .A.! and 

3.A.2 (Appendix A). 
27 


35945.016

SAMPLING AND MONITORING PRIORITIES 

Asian carp monitoring in the James River 

Although Asian carps are notoriously difficult to sample efficiently, electrofishing appears to be 

the most effective method at detecting the presence of silver carp in a system. The only current 

known population of silver carp in North Dakota is in the James River below Jamestown 

Reservoir and is believed to have moved up the James River from South Dakota during the flood 

of 20 II. In response to that occurrence the Department has instituted a new regulation on the 

James River where it is illegal to gather any aquatic organisms as use for fishing bait. 

The James River is electro-fished annually to assess the current population of silver carp. The 

river is also periodically seined by fisheries staff. Seining backwaters in August would mostly 

target juvenile silver carp, which have not been documented in North Dakota. Any evidence of 

juvenile silver carp should be immediately reported and followed up with additional sampling. 

The ideal time for electro fishing silver carp is September through October, though sampling in 

this system is generally conducted in August. Sampling is generally conducted by Jamestown 

fisheries staff, though the ANS Coordinator will be available to assist as needed. This addresses 

Action 4.8.1 (Appendix A). 

Fish hatchery sampling 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service operates three fish hatcheries in North Dakota: Garrison 

Dam, Valley City, and Baldhill Dam. Although these are federal facilities, the Department works 

closely with these facilities on production and provides some funding for operations. These fish 

production facilities are sampled annually for the presence of ANS through plankton tows and 

visual inspections. Sampling is conducted in July during peak zebra mussel reproduction, and 

when most ponds are dewatered and available to inspect. The ANS Coordinator conducts this 

sampling. This addresses Actions 4.C.I and 4.C.2 (Appendix A). 

Fish import disease sampling 

Any fish imported into North Dakota, whether through a public or private entity, is required to 

have been tested for viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) and other federally-reportable diseases 

and parasites prior to importation. When deemed necessary, fish in North Dakota are also 

sampled by the Department veterinarian for the presence of reportable diseases and parasites. 

Sampling is typically conducted in the spring, when water temperature fluctuations exacerbate 

diseases and make test results more reliable. Staff requirements include the Production 

Supervisor, Department Veterinarian, and fisheries biologists and technicians as needed. This 

addresses Actions 3 .E.2, 4.C.I, and 4.C.2 (Appendix A). 

Statewide lake surveys 

Given the numbers of North Dakota waters sampled by fisheries staff throughout the season, it is 

prudent to include ANS observations within existing surveys. During regular fisheries population 

sampling efforts, fisheries staff make observations and report any newly observed populations of 

ANS, including plants, vertebrates, or invertebrates. These observations typically also extend 

into special population sampling events (i.e. research), and fisheries supervisors or biologists 

sometimes conduct ANS-specific sampling in their waters when time allows. ANS sampling is 
28 


35945.017

generally concurrent with fisheries standard adult population surveys and fall reproduction 

assessments. Assessments are conducted by fisheries staff. This addresses Action 4.A.l 

(Attachment A). 

Vegetation sampling 

Vegetation sampling specific for ANS is typically conducted by Department fisheries staff 

during statewide lake surveys. However, in 2017, an additional effort was conducted to sample 

non-fishing waters for ANS. While no ANS were detected, additional sampling locations have 

been identified for targeted vegetation sampling at non-fishing waters. 

In addition, only a few Eurasian watermilfoil plants have been documented in North Dakota, all 

in the Sheyenne River below Lake Ashtabula. There is potential to sample this population more 

thoroughly in 2019, depending upon water conditions, that involves kayaking the river and 

mapping any Eurasian watermilfoil plants to determine the extent of the population. Such an 

undertaking may result in control or eradication attempts, depending upon findings. 

Vegetation sampling should be conducted in mid-June through mid-July to allow for vegetative 

growth prior to the senescence of curlyleaf pond weed in late summer. Given the life history of 

Eurasian waterrnilfoil, this sampling can be conducted anytime between mid-June through midSeptember. The ANS Coordinator will likely be available for vegetation sampling, and the 

Jamestown Fisheries Biologist has offered to assist with Eurasian watermilfoil sampling. This 

addresses Action 4.A.2 (Attachment A). 

Zebra mussel early detection 

It is important to detect newly established populations of zebra mussels as soon as possible. 

Early detections of newly established ANS populations allow for potential management or 

control options at the time of discovery. Increased outreach efforts during initial discovery also 

aid in containment of the newly discovered population. Given concerns of potential findings in 

2016 in the Missouri River system in Montana and in Dickinson Reservoir by the Bureau of 

Reclamation, dedicated and frequent sampling of these systems is warranted. It's important for 

reports of invasive species that a network of information across socio-political lines is 

maintained to allow for response in the form of monitoring and potential management actions. 

Oblique plankton tows from shore have been documented to be more efficient at capturing zebra 

mussel veligers than have vertical plankton tows from a boat. Oblique tows are also less time 

consuming and require less equipment that may increase the potential of spreading aquatic 

nuisance species during sampling efforts. Oblique plankton tows will be used to sample high-risk 

waters. Sampling will be focused in areas with higher recreational use, especially from nonresidents. Each waterbody is generally sampled once annually in the peak zebra mussel spawn 

window. 

General early detection sampling will begin when water temperatures reach 65°F for at least a 

week and end when water temperatures exceed 85°F for at least a week or drop below 60°F for 

at least a week, with the majority conducted between late June through mid-August. For the 

Missouri River System and Dickinson Reservoir, monthly samples will be collected from May 

through September for three consecutive years (20 17-20 19). If all samples collected from these 

systems during this time are negative for the presence of veligers (larval zebra mussel) and no 

new potential detections arise from external sources, sampling will resume as an annual event. 
29 


35945.018

Sampling will be conducted by Valley City State University personnel (through a contract with 

Andre DeLorme) and the ANS Coordinator. This addresses Action 4.A.2 (Attachment A). 

Zebra mussel monitoring on Red River 

Given that the Red River contains the first known established population of zebra mussels in 

North Dakota, it is beneficial to document establishment rates. Veliger density data from the first 

five years of establishment (20 16-2020) would provide information for managers about timing of 

zebra mussel reproduction in North Dakota that would be useful for focusing sampling efforts 

across other parts of the state. Five years seems appropriate given the high variability in river 

systems. 

Zebra mussel veliger densities will be estimated at three sites along the Red River in North 

Dakota from April through October. Oblique plankton tows will be conducted once a month at 

Drayton Dam, Grand Forks north landing, and Fargo Midtown Dam using a plankton net fitted 

with a flowmeter. Samples will be subsampled to estimate veliger densities at each location for 

each month, then a weighted average (using volume of water sampled) will be used to generate a 

general index of veliger density for the Red River for the month. 

Monthly samples will be collected mid-month from April through October. Samples will be 

collected and analyzed by the ANS Coordinator. This addresses Action 4.B.l (Attachment A). 

Terrestrial Invasive Species 

The North Dakota Game and Fish Department does not have authority on terrestrial invasive 

species across the state but, as with ANS, collaborates heavily with other agencies to combat the 

introduction or spread across the state. As a Department, we work regularly with local weed 

boards to either spray or use biological controls (e.g., flea beetles on leafy spurge) to control 

those invasives. An internal policy is also in place that new vegetation plantings and food plot 

seeds must come from a reputable, certified weed free source. 

There are other species that have become synonymous with lawns in the northern plains and 

other areas of the country and that is Kentucky bluegrass. While a popular choice for lawns it 

has become invasive in many native grasslands in North Dakota. It can be an adequate forage 

for livestock production but its value as wildlife habitat is very low. Once established, bluegrass 

can out compete native grass and forbs, reducing the value as wildlife habitat and replacing 

pollinator habitat for bees, butterflies and other pollinating insects. If a bluegrass infestation is 

reported at early infestation it can be mostly restricted with managed grazing activity but once 

infestations reach 30% or more of the area in which it has invaded, it becomes very difficult to 

control further expansion. Herbicide application is not necessarily a viable control technique 

since the herbicide will also devastate the native vegetation. 

Another species that creates challenges is smooth bromegrass. Again, it can be a popular forage 

supply for cattle but it's characteristic of 'clumping' has less than desirable wildlife habitat 

value. As with bluegrass, early grazing can control it's spread to some extent but eradication is 

very difficult and herbicide application is again not a viable alternative. 
30 


35945.019

The North Dakota Department of Agriculture is the primary entity charged with addressing 

invasive terrestrial species. There are currently 12 species listed as 'noxious weeds' by the 

Department of Agriculture and, once reported, it is the mandated responsibility of the landowner 

or appropriate entity charged with management of that land to eradicate the vegetation on the 

land for which they are responsible. The count or city weed boards do the majority of the work 

and monitoring, but the ND Department of Agriculture regularly assists with financial help. 

North Dakota State University Extension Service provides assistance with public outreach and 

education. As with ANS, collaboration is necessary, if not a prerequisite, to adequately address 

issues associated with terrestrial invasives. An example occurred in August, 2019 when palmer 

amaranth was first reported in North Dakota. This is a tremendously harmful invasive that can 

significantly impact agriculture production as well as wildlife habitat. There are speculations as 

how it came to enter North Dakota; a combine bought in Ohio and came into the state uncleaned, 

out of state hay sources entered the state in 2017 when vast amounts of hay forage were brought 

into North Dakota to address a forage shortage due to a drought, and potential pathway via 

waterfowl. Upon notification of palmer amaranth the Game and Fish Department and 

Agriculture Department met to determine what both could do to help with the situation. Given 

that hunting seasons were near, Game and Fish offered to help disseminate information via our 

website and other education media and to ask help from hunters to report a possible sighting 

while they were out hunting, which meant thousands of individuals could be observing numerous 

areas during a relatively short period of time. 

In conclusion, invasive species can cause great harm to the economy, human health, and 

infrastructure ifleft unchecked. The first priority should always be to prevent the introduction of 

the species but if it does occur, immediate response with a predetermined plan to control the 

spread of the invasive species and finally, if possible, eradicate the infestation with minimal or 

no impact to the public. 
31 


35945.020

ATTACHMENT A 

TABLE OF ANS PLAN OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS. 

.. ..... OBJE~TIVE 1. COORWNATION i\,ND COMMUNICATION .. 

Strategy l.A. Maintain dedicated ANS staff 

Action I .A. I. Hire, train, and maintain appropriate staff levels for overseeing and implementing a 

statewide ANS program. 

Strategy l.B. Coordinate North Dakota efforts 

Action I.BJ Implement an adaptive statewide rplan. 

Actionl.B.2. Host regular meetings of the North Dakota Aquatic Invasive Species Committee. 

Action l.B.3. Guide research within North Dakota. 

Strategy l.C. Actively participate in large-scale ANS efforts 

Action I. C I. Actively participate in regional coordination groups. 

Actionl.C2. Participate in national and international coordination ~{forts. 

Action l.C3. Attend meetings and coryferences aimed at addressing ANS issues. 

Strategy l.D. Communicate ANS activities 

Actionl.D.I. Develop a publicly-accessible annual report. 

Action l.D.2. Develop and distribute informational updates. 

Action J.D. 3. Solicit public input on ANS activities as appropriate. 

0'8JECTJVE 2. EDUCATION AND OUTMACH 

Strategy 2.A. Implement a statewide ANS outreach campaign 

Action 2.A.l. Develop and implement statewide ANS communications strategy. 

Action 2.A. 2. Utilize a recognizable outreach campaign for general audiences. 

Strategy 2.B. Educate stakeholders on ANS 

Action 2.B.I. Provide information to high-risk individuals. 

Action 2.B.2. Focus educational efforts on entities that provide ANS pathways. 

Action 2.B.3. Educate decision-makers on ANS issues. 

Action 2.B.4. Include ANS education in public events. 

Action 2.B. 5. Maintain an updated public il?formation platform. 

Strategy 2.C. Provide training to key staff and partners 

Action 2. C. I. Provide ANS staff opportunities to attend trainings. 

Action 2.C.2. Develop and employ a North Dakota-specific ANS training program. 

Strategy 2.D. Identify and address educational gaps 

Action 2.D. I. Evaluate and adjust educational efforts. 

Action 2.D.2. Use research to guide educational developments. 
32 


35945.021

OBJECTIVE 3. PREVENTION AND CONTROL 

Strategy 3.A. Establish internal ANS prevention policies 

Action 3.A.], Establish internal ANS policies and procedures. 

Action 3.A.2. Review agency activities for potential ANS impacts. 

Strategy 3.B. Institute and enforce comprehensive regulations 

Action 3.B.l. Maintain a list ofprohibitedANS. 

Action 3.B.2. Craft comprehensive statewide regulations. 

Action 3.B. 3. Provide stqffto fully ef?force regulations. 

Action 3.B.4. Facilitate regulation compliance. 

Strategy 3.C. Incorporate ANS preventative actions into permitting processes 

Action 3. C. I. Include ANS regulatory information in permit language. 

Action 3.C.2. Require preventative actions for high-risk permitted activities. 

Action 3.C.3. Ef?force permit ANS requirements. 

Strategy 3.D. Eradicate or reduce ANS populations where feasible 

Action J.D. I. Develop a rapid response planfi>r new ANS populations. 

Action 3.D.2. Conduct ~!forts to reduce or eradicate ANS populations as feasible. 

Strategy 3.E. Identify and incorporate scientifically sound prevention and control methods 

Action 3.E. 1. Research new methods of preventing and controlling ANS. 

Action 3.£.2. Develop and integrate best management practices. 

OBJEcTIVE '4: SAMPLING AND MONITORING 

Strategy 4.A. Conduct statewide early detection sampling for ANS 

Action 4.A. I. Incorporate early detection sampling imo existing activities. 

Action 4.A.2. Conduct targeted high-risk early detection sampling. 

Strategy 4.B. Monitor existing ANS populations 

Action 4.B. 1. Monitor existing ANS populations and document any changes. 

Strategy 4.C. Monitor high-risk pathways for signs of ANS 

Action 4. C.J. Identifj1 and monitor internal high-risk pathways. 

Action 4.C.2. IdentifY and monitor external high-risk pathways. 
33 


35945.022

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "The Invasive Species Threat: Protecting Wildlife, Public Health, and 

Infrastructure" 

February 13, 2019 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Steinwand 

Chairman Barrasso: 

1. Invasive species have widespread impacts. In Wyoming, curly pondweed was found in 

Lake DeSmet in 20 II. In 2012 it was discovered on the North Platte River between 

Seminoe Reservoir and Pathfinder Reservoir as well as New Fork Lake. This pondweed 

inhabits local marinas in your state of North Dakota damaging boat propellers and 

inhibiting swimming. This weed is also a serious health threat. When the invasive 

pondweed dies, it slows down water flows, creating stagnant water that serves as a 

breeding ground for disease spreading mosquitos. How is North Dakota working with 

state, federal and local authorities to address this threat? Response: We have similar 

situations in North Dakota in that man made marinas on the Missouri River have 

created backwaters where water flow has been decreased and curly leafed 

pondweed has been able to establish. When these marinas were established the 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), ND Game and Fish and U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers collaborated on engineering that would decrease the stagnation 

of the water in these marinas, thus reducing the risk of over abundance of any 

aquatic vegetation. This usually includes flow through structure of some sort that 

allows water during normal flow to help circulate the water in the marinas. This 

has worked for the majority of time but there bas been some structures that have 

been blocked and not allowing the structure to function as designed. The permit for 

the marinas are under the authority of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and thus they 

are to make contacts with the permit holders to ensure compliance. This is 

currently being done in cooperation with Game and Fish and DEQ. 

2. In your oral testimony, you remarked that a rapid response is critical to controlling 

invasive species; do you find that federal laws encourage, or have no impact on your 

ability to rapidly respond to the eradication of invasive species in your state? Response: 

At the current time there is no impact from federal laws that prevent a rapid 

response action in North Dakota. We depend on local support and reporting to help 

us respond quickly to such infestations and that has worked well to date. 

Ranking Member Carper: 

3. In your testimony, you indicated that invasive species issues "transcend socio-political 

boundaries." How are you or your department consulting with and/or partnering with the 

four tribal nations in your state to combat invasive species? Response: There is 

tremendous consultation with the four tribes present in North Dakota-not only on 

invasive species but wildlife management and hunting/fishing issues. We've made 

tremendous strides in the last 10 years on collaborating with the tribes. As for 

invasive species, we offer and provide training for combatting invasive species for 
34 


35945.023

tribal nations and other entities across the state. There is currently an Aquatic 

Invasive Species Committee in North Dakota that assists in planning on invasive 

species and tribes sit on that committee. 

Senator Whitehouse: 

4. In your written testimony, you focus heavily on aquatic invasive species. In the state's 

2018 Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan, the words "climate change" are not 

mentioned. Yet, in the state's 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan, invasive species are 

repeatedly listed as concerns under "climate change and severe weather." In Addendum 

G to the report, which specifically covers climate change, the authors write that long-term 

data will be collected and be made "publicly available and invaluable for assessing 

climate change, land usc changes, and invasive species in North Dakota." Given this 

previous recognition of the link between climate change and invasive species, why does 

the 2018 plan not further address these potential connections? Response: This is a good 

question and hopefully I can provide a good answer. The State Wildlife Action Plan 

(SWAP) is partially funded by Congressional approved funds and, as such, is 

required to address climate change. The North Dakota Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Management Plan does not have those requirements. The invasive species 

commonly referred to in SWAP are primarily terrestrial and thus have more 

potential to become problematic under changing climate conditions. Conversely, 

aquatic invasive species are dependent upon water as the name implies and the 

issues we'd look at is risk of introduction if warmer conditions prevail and spawning 

time of zebra mussel, which could be earlier that currently exists (usually July). 

Senator Wicker: 

5. Four non-native carp species are at large in the Mississippi River Basin. Two of these 

species, silver and bighead carp, are already established and have impacted major rivers 

like the Mississippi, Ohio, and Illinois rivers. Flooding has contributed to the spread of 

carp in the United States. Is the impact of flooding and other natural disasters considered 

when dealing with aquatic invasive species? Response: I believe I mentioned exactly 

what is stated here in that silver carp had never been present in North Dakota until 

the flood of 2011 when they moved up the James River (a tributary of the Missouri 

River) and their movement was stopped by Jamestown Reservoir. We put 

regulations in place to reduce the risk of them moving outside the basin and it's 

apparently worked-at least for now. The existing population is aging and we've 

been unable to document any reproduction. The above doesn't answer the question 

posed and the only consideration of flooding in the management plan is 

prioritization of sampling to assess if invasive species have moved and, if so, to 

implement a rapid response plan. The intricacies of the response plan differ 

depending on the system into which the invasive has moved and where it's located. 

6. Additionally, you mentioned in your testimony the need for regional collaboration to 

control aquatic invasive species. What actions could a regional group take to prevent 

carp and other invasive species from spreading during floods and other natural disasters? 
35 


35945.024

Response: This is another great question since it's something we have been 

promoting between upper Midwest states for years, i.e., communication when a new 

invasive species is found in an area where there's a high probability of transferring 

to another area since there is a natural water connection. While the afore 

mentioned communication currently exists between North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Minnesota and Montana there is no formal agreement or process to follow. I don't 

believe once an invasive organism is present and established in a river system that it 

is feasible to totally prevent it from moving-at least not without tremendous cost 

and likely at the expense of other native species in that system (e.g., total 

eradication). 
36 

Senator BARRASSO. Appreciate your testimony. Thank you, Mr. 

Steinwand. 

Mr. ROGERSON. 

STATEMENT OF JOE ROGERSON, PROGRAM MANAGER FOR 

SPECIES CONSERVATION AND RESEARCH, DELAWARE DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 

Mr. ROGERSON. Good morning. I would like to thank each of you 

for the opportunity to visit and meet with you to discuss a very real 

and significant problem that affects our entire Country and not just 

my home State of Delaware: invasive species. My name is Joe 

Rogerson, and I oversee Delaware’s Species Conservation and Research Program within the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Controls Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

My comments today will focus primarily on the impacts of 

invasive species on native wildlife and their habitats, but I would 

remiss if I didn’t point out that the impacts of invasive species 

often equal, and in some instances have more significant impacts 

to, public health and safety, our economy, commercial industries, 

agricultural producers, hunters, anglers, wildlife watchers, and 

many other groups. I have seen reports estimating the total impact 

of invasive species across our Country to exceed more than $100 

billion annually, so this is a very real and significant problem, as 

invasive species affect many facets of our lives. 

Invasive species are a leading driver of biodiversity loss and, in 

many instances, are one of the primary factors that result in a listing of many of the Country’s threatened and endangered species. 

State wildlife action plans serve as the blueprints for conserving 

our Nation’s fish and wildlife and preventing species from becoming endangered. 

In 2005, each State, territory, and the District of Columbia submitted their plan for approval to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

as a condition for receiving funding through the State and Tribal 

Wildlife Grant Program. The plans were recently updated with the 

latest science and information to guide conservation of over 12,000 

species in greatest conservation need across the Country. Along 

with identifying the species in greatest conservation need, each 

State identified threats and associated actions that could be implemented to reverse each threat. 

Recently, the content of each State’s wildlife action plan in the 

northeast region was summarized. Of the 2,918 species of greatest 

conservation need within the region, pollution and development 

were the most frequently cited threats, with invasive species closely following as one of several additional regional threats. States 

currently don’t have sufficient resources to tackle all of the threats 

outlined within their wildlife action plans, so we are unable to fully 

address threats facing fish and wildlife populations from invasive 

species. 

Following an Executive Order signed by then President Clinton 

in 1999 to establish the National Invasive Species Council, the nongovernmental Delaware Invasive Species Council was also formed 

that same year. The mission of the 120-member DISC is to protect 

Delaware’s ecosystems by preventing the introduction and reducing 

the impact of invasive species. 

37 

DISC works closely with natural resource managers, biologists, 

and stakeholders to reduce invasive plants and animals, and to 

promote native habitats. In 2017, I was part of Delaware’s Ecological Task Force, which identified many threats that contribute to 

the decline and, in some cases, extirpation of native fish, wildlife, 

and plants in Delaware. Invasive species are one of the leading 

threats identified by the Task Force, in addition to pollution and 

habitat loss. 

Based on the recommendations of the Task Force, Delaware’s 

General Assembly established the Delaware Native Species Commission in 2018 to bolster State efforts to reverse the trend of native plant and animal decline within our State. Of the more than 

6,500 invasive species known to occur in the U.S., I would like to 

list a few invasive species that are or may become significant challenges in my home State of Delaware. 

Control of invasive species in Delaware and the surrounding region has been initiated in the response to the invasion of 

Phragmites and nutria within our wetlands, northern snakehead 

fish and hydrilla plants within our waters, and Asian tiger mosquitoes that are a threat to transmit Zika and West Nile virus in our 

communities. More recently, efforts have been or soon will be taken 

in Delaware to monitor for lionfish, Spotted lanternflies, and the 

Asian longhorned tick, as well as bats that have been identified 

with a non-native fungus that causes the debilitating White-nose 

Syndrome which has decimated populations of some species of bats 

across the Country, particularly in the northeast. 

Along with a written copy of my oral statement today, I have included an appendix within the written statement that includes 

more in-depth information on the species I just described, but I 

would like to talk about some of the work being done back in Delaware and a very good example of an invasive species control project 

that is occurring currently on the Delmarva Peninsula. 

The control of Phragmites is a major priority in Delaware to reduce the impact of this highly invasive plant that outcompetes and 

replaces our native wetland plants, severely degrading these wetland habitats. An aggressive control program has been initiated in 

Delaware since 1976 and, to date, more than $6 million has been 

spent by my agency to control this species. While far from being 

eradicated, we have been successful at reducing the amount of 

Phragmites in Delaware, which has helped to restore the biodiversity and functions of our wetlands. Control of other invasive plant 

and animal species has required countless hours of agency staff 

time and funding, and the help of volunteers to combat invasive 

species across Delaware, including within our State-owned wildlife 

areas, forests, and parks. 

From where we sit today, we don’t have to travel far to see an 

example of a highly successful program to combat an extremely 

detrimental introduced invasive species. Nutria, a semi-aquatic rodent native to South America, were introduced to the Chesapeake 

Bay region in the mid–1900’s. Prolific breeding habits and a voracious and destructive feeding behavior caused extensive destruction 

of wetlands which, if left unchecked, would have compromised the 

Chesapeake Bay. A federally supported Chesapeake Bay Nutria 

Eradication Project initiated in the early 2000’s helped turn the 

38 

tide of this invasive and destructive rodent, effectively eliminating 

all known nutria populations from over a quarter million acres of 

wetlands on the Delmarva Peninsula, with current efforts focused 

on removal of residual animals. 

A study completed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources reported that, without decisive action, more than 35,000 

acres of Chesapeake Bay wetlands could be destroyed by nutria in 

50 years. The predicted impact of nutria destruction to Maryland’s 

economy was dire, with losses exceeding $35 million annually. 

Maryland watermen would have been hit hardest from the loss of 

tidal wetland fish and shellfish nursery areas that help replenish 

important and productive Chesapeake Bay fisheries. 

The study illustrated the economic costs to the citizens of Maryland and the entire Chesapeake Bay in terms of dollars lost to commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries, hunting, wildlife viewing, 

and related industries. Damage to the ecological services provided 

by healthy wetlands, such as storm protection, flood control, and 

water purification would have made the overall destruction even 

greater than the economic findings indicated. 

As of 2016, all of the known nutria populations have been removed form over a quarter million acres on the Delmarva Peninsula. The project is currently implementing efforts to verify eradication and remove any residual animals. The Chesapeake Bay Nutria Eradication Project is a classic example of how an invasive species can be controlled and, in this case, potentially eradicated with 

adequate funding and staff resources. 

Hopefully, all of us recognize that invasive species are a significant problem facing our Country. There are steps that individual 

States can do and have done to prevent invasive species from becoming established or spreading into new areas, but many of these 

species cause problems across State lines and over large geographic 

areas, which is where the Federal Government could further help 

tackle this problem. 

While not referring to invasive species, Benjamin Franklin’s 

quote ‘‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’’ couldn’t 

ring more true in terms of how we handle invasive species, since 

it is more costly to deal with invasive species once they become established than it is to prevent them from entering in the first 

place. 

A couple examples of proactive species prevention include increased invasive species surveillance on the goods and imports arriving in our Country to prevent their introduction to the wild and 

some States restricting the possession of certain invasive fish and 

wildlife species to minimize the chance of their introduction into 

the wild. Furthermore, some States have restricted and planting of 

certain species of invasive ornamental trees and shrubs that have 

the propensity to rapidly spread in the new areas and outcompete 

native plants. 

Another example of some prevention includes regulations in some 

jurisdictions that establish weed-free forage programs for agricultural producers to minimize the spread of invasive and noxious 

weeds. 

There are many other similar programs to prevent or minimize 

the chance of new invasive species from entering the Country and 

39 

preventing those that are already here from spreading into new 

areas. Unfortunately, the invasive species genie is out of the bottle. 

In addition to needing an ounce of prevention to prevent further introductions, we also need a pound of cure to control these species 

that are already here. Dedicated funding and personnel are needed 

to control and, in some cases, eradicate invasive species. 

I again would like to thank each of you for giving me the opportunity to meet with you today to talk about the important issue of 

invasive species, and I look forward to additional opportunities and 

actions to combat them. 

With that, I would gladly take any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogerson follows:] 

40 


35945.025

WILDLIFE SECTION 

STATE OF DELAWARE 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

DIVISION OF FISH &WILDLIFE 

89 Kings Highway 

Dover, DE 1990 I 

Phone: (302) 739-9912 

Fax: (302) 739-6157 

United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public WorksInvasive Species Impacts 

February 13,2019 

Joe Rogerson, Environmental Program Manager II 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

Division of Fish & Wildlife 

Species Conservation and Research Program 

Good morning, I'd like to thank each of you for the opportunity to visit and meet with 

you to discuss a very real and significant problem that affects our entire country and not just my 

home state of Delaware, invasive species. My name is Joe Rogerson and I oversee Delaware's 

Species Conservation and Research Program within the Delaware Department ofNatural 

Resources and Environmental Control's Division of Fish & Wildlife. My comments today will 

focus primarily on the impacts of invasive species on native wildlife and the habitats, but I'd be 

remiss ifl didn't point out that the impacts of invasive species often have equal, and in some 

instances more significant impacts to public health and safety and our economy, commercial 

industries, agricultural producers, hunters, anglers and wildlife watchers, and many other groups. 

I've seen reports estimating the total impact of invasive species across our country to exceed 

more than $1 00-billion annually, so this is a very real and significant problem as invasive species 

affect many facets of our lives. 

Invasive species are a leading driver of biodiversity loss and in many instances one of the 

primary factors that result in the listing of many of the country's threatened and endangered 

species. State Wildlife Action Plans serve as the blueprints for conserving our nation's fish and 

wildlife and preventing species from becoming endangered. In 2005, each state, territory, and the 

District Columbia submitted their plan for approval to the US Fish and Wildlife Service as a 

condition for receiving funding through the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program. The plans 

were recently updated with the latest science and information to guide conservation of over 

12,000 species in greatest conservation need across the country. Along with identifYing the 

species in greatest conservation need, each state identified threats and associated actions that 

could be implemented to reverse each threat. Recently, the content of each state's wildlife action 

plan in the Northeast region was summarized. Of the 2,918 species of greatest conservation need 

identified within the region, pollution and development were the most frequently cited threats, 

with invasive species closely following as one of several additional regional threats. States 

currently don't have sufficient resources to tackle all of the threats outlined within their wildlife 

We Bring You Delaware's Great Outdoors 

through Science and Service 
41 


35945.026

action plans, so we are unable to fully address threats facing fish and wildlife populations from 

invasive species. 

Following Executive Order (13312) signed by then President Clinton in 1999 to establish 

the National Invasive Species Council, the non-governmental Delaware Invasive Species 

Council (DISC) was also formed in 1999. The mission ofthe 120 member DISC is to protect 

Delaware's ecosystems by preventing the introduction and reducing the impacts of invasive 

species. DISC works closely with natural resource managers, biologists, and stakeholders to 

reduce invasive plants and animals and to promote native habitats. In 2017, I was part of 

Delaware's Ecological Task Force, which identified many threats that contribute to the decline, 

and in some cases extirpation, of native fish, wildlife, and plants in Delaware. Invasive species 

were one of the leading threats identified by the task force, in addition to pollution and habitat 

loss. Based on the recommendation of the task force, Delaware's General Assembly established 

the Delaware Native Species Commission in 2018 to bolster state efforts to reverse the trend of 

native plant and animal decline. 

Of the more than 6,500 invasive species known to occur in the U.S., I would like to list a 

few invasive species that are or may become significant challenges in my home state of 

Delaware. Control of invasive species in Delaware and the surrounding region has been initiated 

in response to the invasion of Phragmites and nutria within our wetlands, northern snakehead 

fish and hydrilla plants within our waters, and Asian tiger mosquitoes that are a threat to transmit 

Zika and West Nile virus in our communities. More recently, efforts have been or soon will be 

taken in Delaware to monitor for lionfish, spotted lanternflies, and the Asian longhorned tick, as 

well as bats that have been infected with the non-native fungus that causes the debilitating 

White-nose Syndrome which has decimated populations of some bats species across the country, 

particularly in the Northeast. Along with a written copy of my oral statement today, I have 

included an appendix within the written statement that includes more in-depth information on the 

species I just described, but I would like to talk about some of the work being done back home in 

Delaware and a very good example of invasive species control that is occurring on the Delmarva 

Peninsula. 

The control of Phragmites is a major priority in Delaware to reduce the impact of this 

highly invasive plant that outcompetes and replaces our native wetland plants, severely 

degrading these wetland habitats. An aggressive control program was initiated in Delaware in 

1976 and to date more than $6-million has been spent by my agency to control this species. 

While far from being eradicated, we have been successful at reducing the amount of Phragmites 

in Delaware, which has helped to restore the biodiversity and functions of our wetlands. Control 

of other invasive plant and animal species has required countless hours of agency staff time and 

funding and the help of volunteers to combat invasive species across Delaware, including within 

our state-owned wildlife areas, forests, and parks. 

From where we sit here today, we don't have to travel far to see an example of a highly 

successful program to combat an extremely detrimental introduced invasive species. Nutria, a 

semi-aquatic rodent native to South America, were introduced to the Chesapeake Bay Region in 

the mid-1900s. Prolific breeding habits and a voracious and destructive feeding behavior caused 

extensive destruction ofwetlands, which, if left unchecked, would have compromised the 

Chesapeake Bay. A federally-supported Chesapeake Bay Nutria Eradication Project initiated in 

the early 2000s helped turn the tide on this invasive and destructive rodent, effectively 
42 


35945.027

eliminating all known nutria populations from over a quarter million acres of wetlands on the 

Delmarva Peninsula, with current efforts focused on removal of residual animals. A study 

completed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources reported that, without decisive 

action, more than 35,000 acres of Chesapeake Bay wetlands could be destroyed by nutria in 50 

years. The predicted impact of nutria destruction to Maryland's economy was dire, with losses 

exceeding $35 million annually. Maryland watermen would have been hardest hit from the loss 

of tidal wetland fish and shellfish nursery areas that help replenish important and productive 

Chesapeake Bay fisheries. The study illustrated the economic costs to the citizens of Maryland 

and the entire Chesapeake Bay in terms of dollars lost to commercial fisheries, recreational 

fisheries, hunting, wildlife viewing, and related industries. Damage to the ecological services 

provided by healthy wetlands, such as storm protection, flood control, and water purification, 

would have made the overall destruction even greater than the economic findings indicated. The 

Chesapeake Bay Nutria Eradication Project is a classic example of how an invasive species can 

be controlled, in this case eradicated, with adequate funding and staff resources. 

Hopefully, all of us recognize that invasive species are a significant problem facing our 

country. There are steps that individual states can do, and have done, to prevent invasive species 

from becoming established or spreading into new areas, but many of these species cause 

problems across state lines and over large geographic areas, which is where the federal 

government could further help tackle this problem. While not referring to invasive species, 

Benjamin Franklin's quote, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" couldn't ring 

more true in terms of how we handle invasive species since it is more costly to deal with invasive 

species once they become established than it is to prevent them from entering in the first place. 

A couple examples of proactive invasive species "prevention" include increased invasive species 

surveillance of the goods and imports arriving in our country to prevent their introduction into 

the wild and some states restricting the possession of certain invasive fish and wildlife species to 

minimize the chance of their introduction into the wild. Furthermore, some states have restricted 

the sale and planting of certain species of invasive ornamental trees and shrubs that have the 

propensity to rapidly spread into new areas and outcompete native plants. Another example of 

some "prevention" includes regulations in some jurisdictions that establish weed-free forage 

programs for agricultural producers to minimize the spread of invasive and noxious weeds. 

There are many other similar programs to prevent or minimize the chance of new invasive 

species entering the country and preventing those that are already here from spreading into new 

areas. Unfortunately, the invasive species genie is out of the bottle. In addition to needing an 

"ounce of prevention" to prevent further introductions, we also need a "pound of cure" to control 

those species that are already here. Dedicated funding and personnel are needed to control, and 

in some cases eradicate, invasive species. The Chesapeake Bay's Nutria Eradication Project is a 

nearby example of what can be accomplished if we have the drive, determination, and resources. 

The longer we wait to tackle this problem, the more pervasive it will become and the more 

difficult and expensive it will be to address. 

I again would like to thank each of you for giving me the opportunity to meet with you 

today to talk about the important issue of invasive species, and I look forward to additional 

opportunities and actions to combat invasive species. With that, I'll gladly take any questions 

that you may have. Thank you. 
43 


35945.028

Appendix 1: Information concerning some ofthe more common invasive species and 

pathogens addressed and managed in Delaware. 

INSECTS 

Asian longhorned tick (Haemaphysalis longicornis) 

Not normally found in the Western Hemisphere, these ticks were reported for the first time in the 

United States in 20 17. Thus far this species has not been found in Delaware but surveys have 

been initiated. Asian longhorned ticks have been found on pets, livestock, wildlife, and people. 

The female ticks can lay eggs and reproduce without mating and thousands of ticks may be 

found at a time, or on an animal. 

In other countries, bites from these ticks can make people and animals seriously ill. However, as 

of October 2018, no harmful germs have been found in the ticks collected in the United States 

but research is ongoing 

Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) 

The Asian tiger mosquito, is a small black mosquito that was accidentally imported into the 

United States in the 1980s. It is about 1/4-inch long and has a white stripe down the center of its 

head and back and white bands on its legs. 

The Asian tiger mosquito presents two major problems. The first problem is that these 

mosquitoes are a nuisance. If you live in an urban area and have a mosquito problem, Asian tiger 

mosquitoes are the most likely culprit. Unlike many other species of mosquitoes, Asian tiger 

mosquitoes are very aggressive daytime biters. The second problem is that Asian tiger 

mosquitoes may pose a health threat. They have been found to be a successful disease vector that 

is able to transmit diseases such as the West Nile and Zika viruses. 

Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) 

The emerald ash borer has been the most destructive forest pest in the history of pest 

introductions. In some of the most heavily infested areas, Ash trees have experienced a 99% 

mortality. Control options for this species include Ash tree removal or insecticidal treatment. 

One community in Delaware estimates that removal and replanting of Ash trees would cost their 

homeowners association $600 thousand. Emerald ash borer was first detected in Delaware in 

20 16 but a population was not found. 

The Delaware Department of Agriculture coordinated work with the United States Department of 

Agriculture to release parasitoid wasps which are natural enemies of emerald ash borer, in an 

effort to control the pest. In 2018, Emerald ash borer was discovered in several other locations 

in New Castle County, and parasitoids will be released in the spring of2019 to control these new 

populations. 

Red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) 

Red Imported Fire Ants are native to South America. They were introduced to Mobile, AL 

during the 1930's and have since spread throughout much of the southeast US. To date, they 

have established in areas as far north as coastal Virginia, however, they are regularly intercepted 

in nursery stock transported from the southern United States into Delaware. In the past I 0 years 

they have been intercepted five times in our state. 
44 


35945.029

Imported fire ants have been estimated to cause $8 billion dollars of impact in the US and Puerto 

Rico. If the Red Imported Fire Ant is introduced to Delaware, economic impacts will be felt in 

Agriculture, as well as tourism, residential areas, golf courses, and nurseries. 

Spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) 

The spotted lanternfly is a plant hopper native to China, India, and Vietnam. The Spotted 

Lanternfly is an invasive insect that was introduced to the US between 5 and 9 years ago to 

Pennsylvania and quickly spread throughout the south-eastern portion of that sate. In 2018, live 

populations were found in Delaware and New Jersey. This insect is a voracious feeder on 

numerous species of plants, including some hardwoods, but of most concern is the impact seen 

on grapes and fruit trees. In the most heavily infested areas of P A, vineyards have seen a 90% 

reduction of harvestable grapes due to Spotted Lantern fly feeding. 

Delaware has a small and growing wine grape industry and a well-established apple and peach 

industry. We have been coordinating with Pennsylvania as well as the USDA and other 

neighboring states to control the population of Spotted Lantern fly in our state with planned 

pesticide applications and host tree removal beginning in 20 19. 

PATHOGENS 

Plum pox 

Plum Pox is a viral disease of stone fruits first described in 1915 in Bulgaria on plums. It has 

since spread throughout the world, having been detected in the US in 1999. In 2006 detections 

were made in New York and Michigan. The Delaware Department of Agriculture has surveyed 

over 120 acres of orchards in Delaware susceptible to Plum Pox and have not found it in our 

state. 

If plum pox were found, infected trees would be destroyed to prevent the spread of the disease in 

the orchard. Delaware's peach industry is worth approx. $1,000,000 in production. 

White-nose syndrome 

White-Nose syndrome (WNS) is a disease causing mass die-offs of bats at hibernation sites in 

the U.S. and Canada (90-100% at some locations). The US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates 

5.6-6.7 million bats have died from WNS in just six years. 

The disease is caused by a fungal pathogen called Psuedogymnoascus destructans, which erodes 

the bats skin tissue. Studies show that WNS causes bats to arouse during hibernation more 

frequently than normal; disrupting physiological processes. Scientists are researching this 

disease, how it affects different bat species, and how to contain or cure it. 

PLANTS 

Common reed (Phragmites australis) 

Phragmites has been present in Delaware's marshes for a long time. In fact, research shows that 

this species has been a part of the wetland ecosystem ofNorth America for over 11,000 years 

but, in the 1950s, Phragmites began to become a problem in North American wetlands. A 
45 


35945.030

certain non-native type of Phragmites that came from Europe began to wreak havoc on 

Delaware's marshes. 

Phragmites is a member of the grass family and spreads through an underground rhizome that 

can extend down as much as one meter and out more than 30 feet. This enables non-native 

Phragmites to spread more quickly than the native vegetation and form a complete monoculture. 

Because of this, Phragmites cannot be controlled by mowing or burning alone-- the rhizome 

allows new shoots to quickly re-establish so a combination of herbicide treatment and preferably 

followed by burning to remove the dead, above-ground, portion of the plant is necessary to allow 

native wetland plants to return to the site. 

Invasive aquatic plauts 

The top three of present concern are: Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), Creeping water primrose 

(Ludwigia pep/aides) and Parrot Feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) 

These plants can become very dense in a short period of time. At high densities, especially 

Hydrilla, can impede angling and boating and impact the ability of gamefish to forage and nest. 

They can also successfully outcompete native plant species. These plants are difficult to control 

using established control methods. A tremendous amount of staff time and resources can be 

expended in trying to control these species in our state ponds. In the past three years, more than 

$600,000 has been spent to remove and control invasive aquatic plants in Delaware. 

Delaware's Aquatic Invasive Species Management: Aquatic invasive species are extremely 

difficult to eradicate or even to control once they become established, thus prevention is key. 

Most efforts are directed towards this end of the spectrum and include outreach/education during 

interactions with the public in the field, by posting signs, making information available on the 

Division's webpage, disseminating information at public events, via press releases, and through 

the Delaware Invasive Species Council meetings and webpage. Targeted removals are conducted 

on a case by case basis but this requires a huge amount of staff time and resources and is not 

always effective or lasting. 

Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum) 

Japanese stilt grass is an annual grass native to Asia and was introduced to North America in the 

early 1900's. The species was likely an accidental introduction; possibly being used as packing 

material. Japanese stilt grass was first reported in Delaware in 1942, from New Castle Co. and 

has since spread to the entire state. This invasive grass is shade tolerant and is capable of 

completely dominating the forest floor of moist woodlands and floodplains. The species is also 

found in non-tidal marshes, ditches and along hiking trails. 

Lesser celandine (Ficaria verna, synonym = Ranunculus jicaria) 

Lesser celandine is a perennial herbaceous plant that is native to Europe. The species was first 

introduced to the United States as an ornamental plant, but now invades moist woods and 

forested floodplains. Lesser celandine is considered a spring ephemeral, blooming in late March 

and early April. The species has an extremely aggressive growth habit and forms dense carpets 

that excludes all other native vegetation. In addition to seed, the plant reproduces vegetatively 

and spreads by underground tubers. The species is known from every Piedmont stream valley in 

New Castle Co. and is spreading to the floodplains of rivers and streams in the Coastal Plain 

province farther south. 
46 


35945.031

Norway maple (Acer platanoides) 

The Norway maple is a deciduous tree native to Europe, reaching a height of 60 to 70 feet. It was 

brought to America in the mid-1700's to serve as a shade tree. It was first reported as an 

introduction to natural areas in Delaware in 1897 from the Piedmont province ofNew Castle 

County. This tree is now know from all three counties of the state, where it invades disturbed 

forests and edges. The species can out-compete native tree species and has the ability to 

dominate the forest canopy to the detriment of native wildlife species that dwell in the forest 

interior. 

Winged euonymus (Euonymus alatus) 

The winged euonymus is a deciduous shrub native to Asia. Introduced to America in the mid19th Century, it is a popular plant in the nursery trade due to its brilliant red foliage in the fall. 

The species has escaped from cultivation and is now widely established in natural areas 

throughout the Piedmont province of New Castle County and is spreading farther south in the 

state. The winged euonymus is shade tolerant and forms dense thickets in moist woods, forested 

slopes and floodplains. The species is spread by birds who consume their fruits and disperse 

seeds to natural areas. 

WILDLIFE 

Blue catfish (lctalurusfurcatus) 

Blue Catfish originated in Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio River drainages. Over the years, this 

species has been introduced in 20 states to provide recreational angling. Virginia stocked them in 

1970s and 1980s and they have since spread in the region. The blue catfish was first documented 

in the Delaware River in 2013 and in Nanticoke River drainage 2013. The abundance of this 

species in the Nanticoke River system appears to have grown rapidly in the past few years. 

The biggest threat of this non-native species is the ability of populations to grow rapidly and 

expand. They are voracious eaters and forage on a variety of food items -they can alter the food 

web via direct predation on important fish species and indirectly by competition for resources. 

They can reach very large sizes (IOO+lbs) in a relatively short period of time and have few 

natural predators once they attain these sizes. 

Flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) 

The flathead catfish originated in the rivers and lakes in the lower Great Lakes and Mississippi 

River watersheds to the Gulf States; Introduced into the James River in Virginia in the late 1960s 

to provide recreational angling and have since spread within the region. In areas where this 

species has been introduced they have severely reduced the abundance and diversity of native 

fish species. Although they feed primarily on invertebrates such as worms, insects, and 

crustaceans when they are young, the adult diet is primarily piscivorous (i.e. consists oflive 

fish). There is a direct effect from predation but also an indirect effect of competition with other 

species that depend on native fish species for prey or to fulfill other ecological functions. They 

grow large (with few predators) quickly and their populations have the potential to expand rather 

rapidly once established (one nest can contain up to 100,000 eggs). 

In Delaware, the first known occurrence of this species came from an angler that reported 

catching one in 2010 from the Brandywine River. Thus far confirmed reports are from the 
47 


35945.032

Christina River system only. This species is abundant in the DE River and Chesapeake Bay 

drainage in surrounding states, so may be just a matter of time before they become more 

abundant in DE. 

Lionfish (Pterois volitans L.) 

The lionfish is native to the South Pacific and Indian Oceans and inhabits offshore reefs, turbid 

inshore areas, as well as lagoons, and harbors. While lionfish have not been found in Delaware, 

primarily because the water temperature within the mid-Atlantic region is too cold for this 

species to survive, things like climate change could make conditions in our portion of the country 

suitable for this problematic species in the future. Lion fish are the only non-native marine fish 

that is known to not only survive, but reproduce along the Eastern seaboard, the Gulf of Mexico, 

and the Caribbean. Lionfish are very aggressive feeders and have the potential to negatively 

impact native reef communities and the commercial and sportfish industry due to the decline in 

certain species that we like to eat such as various species of snapper and grouper. 

Northern snakehead (Chana argus) 

The northern snakehead, originally from China and Russia, was brought to the US as part of the 

food fish market. Illegal stockings and escape from fish farms are a main source of spread. 

Occurrence in DE: First confirmed in the Nanticoke River watershed (established downstream so 

migration to DE was a matter of time) and Becks Pond in 2011 (illegal stocking). Have since 

spread throughout tributaries of the Nanticoke River drainage as well as tributaries of the 

Delaware River (Christina- White Clay, Brandywine, Red Lion Creek, Dragon Run). Also 

occur in numerous impoundments (private and public) in Northern DE-some illegally stocked, 

others through natural spread. 

This species has the ability to survive in poor water quality situations and can spread throughout 

a stream system as long as there are no impediments (dams). There is concern that they can 

outcompete native species, especially those that share similar spawning habitat and foraging 

activities such as Largemouth Bass. More research is needed however to confirm an ecological 

impact. The introduction of this species into habitat that supports a rare fish species, such as state 

endangered Blackbanded Sunfish, may be especially damaging. 

Nutria (Myocastor coy ups) 

Nutria are invasive, semi-aquatic, South American rodents first released into Dorchester County, 

Maryland in 1943. Nutria did not evolve in our wetland ecosystems; therefore, there are few 

predators or natural conditions that control their population. Since their release, nutria have 

destroyed thousands of acres of wetlands through their destructive feeding habitats. In the 

Chesapeake Bay, nutria are primarily limited to the Delmarva Peninsula, where they have been 

found in six Maryland counties and portions of Delaware and Virginia. 

Swamp red crayfish (Procambarus clarkia) 

The swamp red crayfish is native to Northern Mexico, southern and southeast U.S. Believed to 

have been introduced via anglers using live bait, release of classroom pets, escaped from 

aquaculture facilities, and from the live food fish market. 

The swamp red crayfish was first reported in 20 II but have since become pretty widespread in 

private ponds, stormwater management basins, and public waterways. This species outcompetes 

native crayfish species and is a vector for pathogens that can affect these native species. 
48 


35945.033

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "The Invasive Species Threat: Protecting Wildlife, Public Health, and 

Infrastructure" 

February 13, 2019 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Rogerson 

Chairman Barrasso: 

I. In your oral testimony, you remarked that a rapid response is critical to controlling 

invasive species; do you find that federal laws encourage, or have no impact on your 

ability to rapidly respond to the eradication of invasive species in your state? 

Federal laws have made strides in providing assistance for early detection and rapid 

response regarding specific species, but more needs to be done as we continue to 

experience new invaders. The USDA provides great assistance to states to combat new 

and emerging invasive agricultural pests. Federally-issued quarantines have slowed the 

spread of several species, such as the Emerald ash borer, and Federal activities to 

eradicate pests have worked in some instances such as the Asian longhorn beetle. 

Though, over the past few years, the Federal government has been reluctant to impose 

new quarantines, which makes it more difficult to control the spread of species 

effectively. The spotted lanternjly threatens vast agricultural regions in several states, 

and there is no federal law or regulation to contain this pest, and it has been the onus of 

states to impose and enforce quarantines, often with limited authority and staffing 

capacity. Because of this, there are multiple quarantines imposed by several states, each 

with different requirements, which becomes confusing and burdensome to businesses. 

One standard, such as an overall federal quarantine, would be be helpful in combatting 

this pest and other invasive species. 

While federal laws have helped to minimize the introduction of new invasive species, 

existing federal laws do not facilitate the ability to rapidly respond to invasive species, 

especially once a species has invaded an area. There have been cases where the federal 

government has acted strongly to control a new invasive species such as the case with 

zebra mussels and Asian carp, both ~f which had federal Acts that were passed to combat 

these species. Certainly, these acts have helped to provide resources for the control of 

these species, but we currently lack a broader control Act that would help to facilitate a 

swift and efficient response so that control can be enacted more quickly than the extended 

time it takes to pass species-specific legislation. Enactment of new species-specific 

legislation is followed by a lag in implementing control measures due to the necessary 

time to build capacity and a plan to implement control measures. Broader authority 

allowing more timely response to control new invasive species and more resources and 

expertise in place are needed to give us the best chance at controlling invasions and 

reducing overall expenditures. 

Another corifoundingfactor concerning invasive species control, particular in the east 

coast, is that many species occur on private property. Incentives need to be provided to 
49 


35945.034

encourage private landowners to control invasive species and work with government and 

private-sector invasive species managers to control invasive species. 

Senator Duckworth: 

2. Over the next fifty years, natural resource managers will face the increasingly difficult task 

of managing the spread of nuisance and invasive species. Invasive species are already 

causing more than $1.4 trillion annually in global economic and ecological damages and 

more than 180 species are outcompeting native Great Lakes species. Compounding the 

challenge, climate change is expected to shift precipitation patterns, warm water bodies 

and alter fisheries; creating a pathway for invasive species to take over habitats. Once these 

species take a foothold in places like the Great Lakes, they are difficult and costly to 

remove. What tools do invasive species resource managers need to adapt to climate 

change? 

The same tools needed to address and respond to the spread of invasive species not caused 

by climate change are needed to address the spread of invasive species resulting from 

climate change. For example, as certain invasive species expand their range due to climate 

change, broader authority allowing more timely responses to control new invasive species 

and more staff are needed to draft management plans, raise awareness, monitor the threat, 

control invasions, and eriforce invasive species laws. Support should also increase for 

interjurisdictional efforts because invasive species expanding their range in response to 

climate change cross multiple state boundaries, and control can be ineffective without the 

authority to quickly respond as a joint effort. There are interjurisdictional invasive species 

panels and committees, but they are often underfunded and comprised of members that 

participate on a secondary level because they have other job obligations. 

3. As part of your testimony, you shared how Delaware implemented an aggressive control 

program to effectively eradicate Nutria across the Chesapeake Bay Region. This is a 

success we would love to replicate in the Great Lakes where Asian Carp threaten the 

ecosystem's health and could cost upwards of $18 billion to adequately control. When 

developing an invasive species control program, what are the most resource efficient 

methods used to manage and prevent the spread of the various common types of invasive 

species such as aquatic, insect, pathogenic, plant and wildlife? 

Delaware was part of the federally-funded regional effort to eradicate invasive nutria, 

which included removal of nutria expanding into Delaware from surrounding areas. Our 

experience indicates that at the onset, a clearly defined goal must be established. Is the 

goal to eradicate the species or is it to control/minimize its spread? There are many 

considerations in determining which approach to take, such as what the species is, how 

abundant is the species when it was first detected, how large of an area does it occupy, 

what are its life history traits (e.g., is it a prolific breeder), how damaging are its 

impacts, what are the affected industries, which control options are available, funding 

availability, etc. Early detection of and action to address an invasive species is 
50 


35945.035

paramount to reducing overall expenditures as it is less costly to address a few 

individuals that are found in a small area than it is to control many individuals over a 

large geographic area. Jf eradication is the goal, expenses are likely to be higher at the 

onset because the intense and aggressive effort needed to meet that goal, but early 

eradication expenses are likely to be less overall than !fperpetual control or containment 

of invasive species is the goal that requires long-term funding and staffing. It is difficult 

to predict future funding and staffing capacity, so extended control programs often suffer 

from reductions in allocated resources over time that allow for increased range 

expansion of the invasive species and large scale detrimental impacts. 

Successful invasive species eradication requires meeting certain criteria: Every individual 

of the species must be put at risk, mortality must exceed reproduction, there-invasion risk 

must be near zero, techniques must be acceptable, benefits must outweigh the costs and 

most importantly, institutional support must be established at the outset. Compromising 

on any of these criteria jeopardizes success. It is also important to involve the appropriate 

agencies and have clear communication on respective roles and responsibilities. 

For some invasive species, there are no e.ffective long-term control methods without 

continued funding/resources, and control can detrimentally impact non-target species. 

Prevention is key, but typically more effort is expended in reacting to invasions. A more 

efficient use of funds would be to expend more effort on the front end of this issue -more 

staff is needed to draft management plans, raise awareness, monitor the threat of invasions 

and enforce invasive species laws. Interjurisdictional efforts are also needed because many 

species cross multiple state boundaries and control can be ineffective without a joint, 

coordinated effort. There are interjurisdictional invasive species panels and committees, 

but they operate on limited budgets with members that participate on a secondary level 

because they have other job obligations. The spread of invasive species due to illegal 

stocking/introduction can be more efficiently deterred if there are comprehensive laws, 

higher penalties, sufficient enforcement, and prosecution of violators. 

4. Climate change is causing severe economic and environmental harm. As you discussed in 

your testimony, "while lionfish have not been found in Delaware, primarily because the 

water temperature within the mid-Atlantic region is too cold for this species to survive, 

things like climate change could make conditions in our portion of the country suitable for 

this problematic species in the future." If the changing habitat conditions and ecosystems 

are enough for current invasive species to spread, could the changing dynamics cause 

native species to develop "invasive" characteristics? If native species can exhibit these 

characteristics, what monitoring systems are in place to identify and prevent native species 

from committing similar harm? 

The first thing to consider regarding a native species developing "invasive" 

characteristics in a new portion of its range is to determine if it's range expansion is human 

induced. Wildlife populations and how species interact are very complex and range 

expansions can be due to a multitude of reasons such as changes in habitat availability 

(both human-induced and natural changes), loss of a species in a given area providing an 
51 


35945.036

opportunity for a similar species to fill that ecological void, natural weather events such 

as hurricanes or flooding can push species into new areas, climate change, etc. Humans 

are notorious for wanting to keep things the way they used to be, but range expansion of 

native species has always occurred naturally and is no not necessarily detrimental even if 

their presence in new areas causes ecosystem changes. {{range expansion is caused by 

climate change and the native species begins to cause undesirable impacts, the same 

procedures for monitoring, early detection, rapid response, education to the public, 

control, etc. used for a non-native species invasion should be implemented. 

We typically think of range expansion due to climate change as southern species moving 

northward, but range expansion can occur from any direction. In the case of southern 

species expanding their range northward, knowing the characteristics of certain southern 

species would help to identifY those species that may be of concern in the future as the 

climate continues to warm. Monitoring of existing natural areas and conducting 

management when needed may be the only option. 

Senator Whitehouse: 

5. As a fellow coastal state, we face similar risks from invasive species approaching from 

both land and sea. What particular challenges face coastal states in identifying, 

monitoring, and combatting invasive species? 

Coastal states contain areas that are highly attractive for humans to reside. As a result, 

development sprawl causes natural areas to become fragmented, making them 

susceptible to the invasion of non-native invasive species, in particular plants, which 

often "escape" from landscape plantings in adjacent subdivisions. Responsible land-use 

planning that supports sensible conservation design would help in combatting the 

invasion of invasive species. Coastal states, in particular areas along the immediate 

coast often have high human population densities and numerous examples exist where the 

spread of invasive species is linked to humans, whether it is direct plantings around our 

homes, seeds "hitch-hiking" on our clothes or pets and dropped in new areas, or people 

intentionally or unintentionally releasing invasive non-native pets. 

Coastal states are also vulnerable to "hitchhiker" invasive species unintentionally 

transported on ships through interstate and international shipping, with invasive species 

transported in ballast water, on ship hulls, and in cargo. 

6. How is climate change exacerbating the risks invasive species pose to native plants and 

animals, as well as critical infrastructure? 

Many native species are stressed by climate change, whether that is due to changes in 

rainfall patterns, changes in temperature regimes, or salt water intrusion along our 

coasts due to sea level rise. Any stress on a species reduces its ability to survive and 

compete with the other species in the ecosystem in which it lives. Typical characteristics 
52 


35945.037

of many invasive species are high reproductive potential, the ability to spread quickly 

and easily, and a lack of natural controls to keep population growth under control. 

Invasive species adapted to warmer temperatures in parts of the country can get a 

':iump-start" on the earlier growing seasons. allowing them to outcompete native species 

b~fbre they can adapt to the changing environmental conditions. 

The following are several examples of critical in,!rastructure impacted by invasive species 

in Delaware. 

Bridges Phragmites 

Culverts, stormwater, and drainage management Phragmites, invasive trees and 

shrubs 

Right-of-Ways invasive vegetation consisting o.ftrees, shrubs, andforbes 

• Coastal impoundments Phragmites 

• State Department of Transportation mitigation sites- purple loosestrife 

• Dams and water control structures- Phragmites 

A U.S. Army Corps o,fEngineers report on Invasive Species Impacts on Federal 

b?frastructure (20I8 Vissichel/i) highlighted thefbllowing infrastructure impacted by 

invasive species: 

• Water systems irrigation, dams, levees, hatcheries 

• Power systems hydropower, power plants, transmission lines 

• Transportation systems roads, navigation channels, air fields, lock chambers 

• Building systems o,tfices and outbuildings 

The report recommends control methodsfbr those invasive species affecting 

infrastructure such as mussels, weeds, animals, and invertebrates. 

Vissichelli ,<\! (2018) Invasive species impacts onfederal il?/h.Jstructure. Sational lnrasive S'pecies Council 

S'ecretariat, fVashington. DC 
53 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you. 

I appreciate the testimony from all of you. 

Since you quoted Ben Franklin, we will head to Mr. Franklin for 

some thoughts. 

Mr. FRANKLIN. No relation. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, can I just say something? 

Senator BARRASSO. Please. 

Senator CARPER. I apologize to our witnesses. We all serve on a 

bunch of different committees, and the Homeland Security Committee has just been meeting and marking up a bunch of bills and 

nominated, and they needed somebody for a quorum, so I apologize 

for slipping out, but I read your testimony and just look forward 

to asking some questions. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Mr. Franklin, like most of the west, Wyoming has serious problems with cheatgrass. You mentioned it can cause catastrophic 

fires. It has been aggressive in crowding out, sometimes eliminating, native grasses that are important to so many species, including the sage grouse. I think you said in your testimony it has 

taken the fire cycle from 50 years down to 3. It is the first to move 

in after a fire or other disturbance, and it is incredibly hard and 

difficult to get rid of. Conservative estimates indicate that it has 

taken over 100 million acres across the west. 

Can you talk about the environmental ripple effects of when a 

species like this takes over an area? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. The unique thing about cheatgrass and how it 

has been able to really take over those rangelands, is it is a winter 

annual, so what people don’t understand sometimes in that, in the 

winter in Wyoming, November and December, that is when it is 

greening up. Then it becomes dry and dies out in June, when a lot 

of the other native species are just starting to green up, so it is in 

that process, that timeline variation with our perennial plants that 

causes the fire cycle. 

What we find with cheatgrass, and I think you mentioned in 

your question, is it likes fire and it creates fire, so it takes out all 

those native species that sage grouse specifically deals with and 

creates this monoculture, and then that fire cycle is a continuing 

process; and with that continuous process we see the acres increase 

simply because that seed production in that fire is making it go farther out. 

We have seen some mass effects on our sage grouse habitat, 

which is critical to Wyoming and to the Country, and also on our 

mule deer habitat, so what we really try to do is get out there after 

the fires as much as anything and do treatments so we can help 

give those perennials the opportunity to come back that those species are depending on. 

Senator BARRASSO. I would also like to ask about specific economic impacts in terms of ranching in Wyoming. Canada thistle affects almost every county in our State, it degrades the quality of 

forage for livestock by crowding out native vegetation. Ranching is 

so very important to us at home. Can you talk about the economic 

impacts that invasive species are causing to rangelands in Wyoming? 

54 

Mr. FRANKLIN. One of the species the Director from North Dakota and I were talking about before we started this is leafy 

spurge. It is a species that does impact North Dakota and does impact Wyoming; impacts a lot of those Rocky Mountain States. Back, 

I believe, in about 1999 there was a leafy spurge task force that 

looked into the economic impacts of just that single weed, and what 

they came up with is, annually, the States of South Dakota, North 

Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana lose $144 million in production 

and for control costs just from that species alone. 

The unique thing about leafy spurge, or one of the more concerning things, is it is poisonous to livestock, so there are incidents 

where people have been put out of business in the ag industry simply because of this weed being present on their lands. 

Senator BARRASSO. I wanted to turn to West Nile virus. You 

mentioned it was discovered in 1937 and first detected in the 

United States in 1999. It is found today in every county in Wyoming. Per capita, Wyoming is among the highest number of cases 

of West Nile virus in the United States. 

I was just visiting with Senator Cramer about a friend that I 

served in the Wyoming State Senate with and you were working 

for the Department at the time, State Senator Bob Peck. Bob Peck, 

multi-award-winning American politician, journalist, editor, publisher, and Wyoming State Senator; published newspapers around 

the State. The Riverton Rangers and The Family talks about his 

death. The cause of death on March 6, 2007, while I was still in 

the State Senate: West Nile virus. So, one of our State senators 

felled by West Nile virus. 

Can you talk a bit about the invasive species, how they become 

not just an environmental or an economic threat, but also a public 

health threat? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. Wyoming is a small State, and I think if you talk 

to anyone in our State, they know someone who has been impacted 

by West Nile virus. I know a couple people myself who had the 

virus back, I think, somewhere around maybe 2005, 2006, and they 

still have neurological effects from that virus, so it is not something 

that just goes away overnight, and certainly there are deaths that 

lead to it. 

We are a little more unique in Wyoming because we don’t have 

Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, which carry the Zika virus, we just deal 

with the Culex tarsalis mosquito. The program we run in our State, 

the Culex tarsalis is a later summer species, so we are able to, 

through monitoring on the local level, determine when Culex 

tarsalis is mostly prevalent and when the potential for West Nile 

virus is there, so we really try to target that species based on when 

it is going to be most active. 

But it is always a difficult battle because public perception on 

mosquito control programs is, there is variation. When you see an 

airplane, for instance, flying over a municipality, some people just 

don’t like that. In Wyoming, we do a lot of that with larva sighting, 

though, so it is a matter of, I think, with the West Nile virus program and mosquito programs, a lot of education still needs to be 

done in the public. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Franklin. 

Senator CARPER. 

55 

Senator CARPER. Again, thanks so much for joining us and for 

your testimony. A lot of times, here in Washington, the press tends 

to focus on our differences. You would think we never agree on 

anything and never get anything done, but actually I hope this 

week that we will prove them that is not always the case. 

Let me just ask a question with that in mind. In listening to your 

testimoneys and talking to each other a little bit earlier today, 

what are some areas that you see agreement, common ground on 

these issues? 

Slade Franklin, relative, descendant of Ben? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. I think you heard in all three of our testimoneys 

the importance of early detection, rapid response, and the importance of getting on some of these new species as quickly as possible; the economics of saving the money by getting it early, compared to doing what we are doing now with cheatgrass. 

At least in Wyoming, one thing that we are looking at very closely is medusahead rye, which is a big problem in Nevada. A lot of 

people consider it worse than cheatgrass. We found it in our State 

and we are trying to an early detection and rapid response program because we know the economics of doing that now makes 

more sense than waiting until it gets to the point with cheatgrass. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. That is a good point. 

Terry? 

Mr. STEINWAND. I don’t think I can add anything to what Mr. 

Franklin said. 

Senator CARPER. Oh, come on, I bet you can. We have never had 

a witness say that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. STEINWAND. I am never at a loss for words, I guarantee you. 

Senator CARPER. Again, areas of common ground. 

Mr. STEINWAND. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. 

Senator CARPER. Just go ahead and mention one or two. 

Mr. STEINWAND. West Nile virus. I guess I bring that up because 

it is a human health issue, but it is also a wildlife issue. Our sage 

grouse population was doing very good until 2008, when there was 

a West Nile outbreak in our sage grouse population and it just 

crashed. We are actually trying to reestablish that population. 

Senator CARPER. Are you really? Was it wiped out? 

Mr. STEINWAND. Pardon me? 

Senator CARPER. Was it largely wiped out? 

Mr. STEINWAND. No, just drastically reduced. We went to 350 

males to less than 100 within a year. Actually, through the graces 

of Wyoming Game and Fish Department right now, we are actually 

translocating some hens and some chicks and some males into 

North Dakota; have for 2 years and are going to for three more 

years, so there is more to it than that. 

I think it is collaboration amongst everyone, different agencies. 

Wildlife and invasive species don’t know political parties, they don’t 

know sociopolitical boundaries, so I think collaboration is really the 

key. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you, sir. 

Joseph? 

Mr. ROGERSON. I was going to reiterate those two points. 

Senator CARPER. Go ahead, reiterate them. 

56 

Mr. ROGERSON. As I concluded with, early detection is key, and 

a rapid response both from an effectiveness and efficiency from a 

funding standpoint are critical; and I think improved communication not just within individual States, but between States. Invasive 

species can come at us from any different direction in a whole multitude of manners; they can swim upstream, downstream, come 

from the air, they can come from a car, they can come from the bottom of someone’s shoes as they walk in from the last time they 

wore them in another State. 

So oftentimes these species can make great jumps geographically, and if it is a species that, in Delaware, we are not familiar 

with dealing with, having those improved communication lines that 

if that was a Nebraska kind of thing, for us to know how we should 

respond and that kind of thing I think is important, and I think 

we could all agree that we could get this pretty much anyway. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

I think each of you, in your testimony, mentioned funding at 

some point. We are, as you know, wrestling with funding legislation to fund the Federal Government for the balance of the fiscal 

year. I hope we will make some progress on that today and tomorrow. 

Do your States have the financial resources that they need to 

fully address invasive species? Do you believe the Federal Government has a role to play in better meeting your funding needs? 

Joe, I will just go to you first. 

Mr. ROGERSON. I would say, no, we do not have adequate funding 

needs to address all of our invasive species. It seems to be we receive more of them rather than getting rid of them faster than we 

are able to bring new ones in, so constant challenges even from just 

educational capacity and what we should be doing and looking for, 

so, no, we are certainly challenged from a funding standpoint. 

I think the Federal Government does have a role to help with 

that. Many of these species cross State borders. Delaware, as you 

know, is a very small State, and some of these species could come 

from the north down the Delaware River or any way from a port 

from overseas or anything, so I do think the Federal Government 

does have a role to help States, particularly those that cross State 

borders and have large geographic problems. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Terry? 

Mr. STEINWAND. Thank you. Like Mr. Rogerson said, there never 

seems to be adequate funding. We are actually asking for more 

funding through the State legislature, actually through fishing license fees in North Dakota as we speak. 

In terms of does the Federal Government have a role, I would 

say yes, but it is primarily a State role also. The Federal nexus 

that I can think of right now would probably be primarily Corps 

of Engineers. Again, Senator Cramer mentioned Lake Sakakawea. 

A typical reservoir doesn’t stay at a stable level, it goes up and 

down, and as it goes down you have noxious weeds such as Canada 

thistle primarily showing up on shorelines, and there never seems 

to be enough funding for the Corps of Engineers to handle that because it may provide some wildlife habitat, but it certainly provides 

more of a problem for surrounding landowners. 

57 

Senator CARPER. OK, thanks. 

Mr. Franklin, I may come back to you later on the same question. 

Thanks so much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Cramer. 

Senator CRAMER. Thank you. 

Thank all three of you for your testimony and being here. This 

is really quite fascinating. I think what I will do is I will just 

maybe expand a little bit on what you are talking about right now 

on Senator Carper’s questions. 

I will come to you first, Terry. With regard to the Federal Government’s role, if not monetary, and clearly there is some in terms 

of just cleaning up our own house, although I will resist the temptation to talk about the Corps having too much land and perhaps 

they should give you some more of it to do the right thing with, 

but that aside, you talked a lot about collaboration early on, particularly in the context of the amaranth and the collaboration with 

the Agriculture Department obviously using the outdoorsmen as 

the boots on the ground, as you called them, during the hunting 

season and how important that was. 

From a Federal perspective, obviously, you have Federal partners 

that do the very same things you do, or similar, are there things 

we could either do from a policy standpoint, in terms of guidance 

or rules or just behavior that the Federal Government or the Federal agencies you work with could be doing differently to be more 

cooperative; and, as policymakers, especially things that we should 

be changing to help them in that? 

Mr. STEINWAND. Thank you, Senator Cramer, that is an excellent 

segue or excellent question. We do routinely collaborate quite extensively with State partners, Federal partners, private partners, 

one I will say is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for more disease issues, more than anything, at the national fish hatcheries, 

but also we coordinate with the Ecological Services Branch in 

terms of terrestrial vegetation as much as anything. 

I don’t think, at least in North Dakota, we need any policy 

changes because the collaboration is there. 

In terms of the Corps of Engineers, again, on aquatic species, 

particularly zebra mussel monitoring, they help us tremendously. 

We just don’t have enough people to get around and monitor all 

those areas, and the local Corps of Engineers office in Riverdale, 

North Dakota helps out. Whenever they pull out a dock or a fishing 

pier, which you can’t leave in North Dakota because of the ice 

issues, they are checking those; they are going around to municipalities, areas they deal with. The same with the Bureau of Reclamation, which I know this Committee doesn’t deal with, but the 

Bureau of Reclamation equally helps us out. 

So, in terms of Federal agencies, I wouldn’t say more funding 

helps, and I wouldn’t even say policy, because the people that we 

work with in North Dakota are very, very good to work with. 

Senator CRAMER. Thanks for that. 

Mr. Franklin, anything different to add? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. Collaboration is really important in Wyoming 

when you talk about that many acres of Federal land. We have 

58 

BLM, Forest Service, Department of Defense, Bureau of Indian Affairs, so the collaboration is important. What we find is we have 

good people on the ground, but sometimes they don’t have the resources actually to act upon that. 

There are things with NEPA that could be improved. The ability 

to do categorical exclusions for new insipient populations and treatments would be helpful. We also see, for instance, between the Federal agencies on their approval process or risk assessments for new 

herbicides or new management tools, some can do that fairly quickly, some take several years and millions of dollars to do the risk 

assessment. 

These are some of the issues I know we are working on with Federal agencies and trying to mitigate those, but there are some 

places with that policy that we really could use some help to give 

those land managers for those agencies better ability to react. 

Senator CRAMER. And is that more profound in Wyoming because 

I think you stated in your testimony that roughly 50 percent is 

Federal ownership? 

I know, Terry, in North Dakota it is like less than 4 percent, I 

think. That is probably one of the significant differences. 

Mr. FRANKLIN. Right. I would think so. 

Senator CRAMER. Sir, do you have anything to add to that? 

Mr. ROGERSON. I do not. I would say that, in Delaware, we are 

very much a private land driven State; we have not that much Federal land compared to my counterparts to the right. We do have a 

good relationship with our Federal and State partners. Our Delaware Invasive Species Council is a very active group. 

I would say some areas where we are lacking is education and 

understanding from the general public, particularly of the invasive 

plants. It is nice to see a nice grove of Bradford pears that was an 

early successional field, and to think that is a native species in the 

spring, when it is just a monoculture of beautiful white flowers, 

when, in reality, you have outcompeted those species, outcompeted 

the native plants and shrubs that should be there. 

The Spotted lanternfly is an example of a new species that came 

here, so efforts to improve detections of these critters that are coming in from reports and other places I think is still necessary. That 

has the potential to tremendously impact our orchards and peach 

production and grapes around the States. 

So, I think there are areas that we can improve, but we are 

doing the best we can with the resources that we have. 

Senator CRAMER. Excellent. 

Thank you all. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rogerson, it is always nice to have a Marylander on the 

panel, so thank you for being here. I know that Senator Carper is 

claiming you as a person from Delaware, but we will let him do 

that for today. 

I also appreciate the fact that you brought the nutria issue and 

the fact that the investments we made in eradicating the nutria, 

there are still some signs, but basically under control, has returned 

greater dividends for our economy. Nutrias are interesting animals; 

59 

they were originally brought into our region because of their fur 

used for coats, until they recognized they were just big rats and 

women didn’t want to wear rat coats. So, the nutrias were then released into the wild, and they multiplied and destroyed a lot of 

wetlands. Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge is an example of an 

area that was very badly damaged as a result of the nutria population. 

We acted here in Congress, we passed the Nutria Eradication 

Act. It was also well balanced geographically, because they had the 

problems in some of our southern States, Louisiana, so we were 

able to get the right political mix to get that passed and it is a success story, so I want to take what we learned from the nutria, that 

if we invest in dealing with invasive species control, it cannot only 

help our environment, but help our economy as well. 

We are having challenges in the Chesapeake Bay because of the 

salinity of water changing with the amount of rainfall that we have 

had. We find that there are catfish invasive species that are thriving much stronger than they would otherwise be able to do because 

we have warmer seasons. The invasive plants are much stronger 

that we need to deal with. 

The question I have for you is what type of public investment 

should we be making in the Chesapeake Bay region in order to be 

able to duplicate the success that we had on nutria for the other 

invasive species. I understand there are somewhere around 200 

invasive species in the Chesapeake Bay region. Clearly, we have 

challenges in the region on invasive species. 

Mr. ROGERSON. Thank you. And if it earns me any brownie 

points, not only am I from Maryland, I worked on the Nutria 

Eradication Program before I came to Delaware Fish and Wildlife, 

so I was there for about a year. 

I think one of the reasons the nutria project was so successful 

was the original folks involved didn’t set out to just try and control 

nutria, which would then have this long-term, we are going to 

lower populations down, but now we are going to have to fund and 

address this for decades and decades in the future, because if we 

stop there is going to be more of them. 

So, they hit it aggressively and said we are going to get rid of 

nutria from the Delmarva Peninsula. It is going to cost a little 

more money upfront initially to hit it hard with that full-frontal 

force, but, in the end, it is going to pay dividends because they will 

be gone and we don’t have to have long-term monitoring teams and 

stuff out there in the future. 

It has been a couple years since they found an animal, which is 

amazing. Many folks didn’t think it was going to be possible. But 

there are still areas, leaving no stone unturned because of how prolific breeders they are. 

So, I think with the number of species you talked about in terms 

of in the Chesapeake Bay would be prioritizing which ones do we 

think we can get a handle on now, which ones are most detrimental to our resources. You know, nutria impacted the environment not only from our wetland integrity to handle sea level rise 

and storm surges and things like that, but also our economy. If you 

like crab cake sandwiches, you didn’t like nutria, because they 

60 

were going to impact the nursery habitats for our blue crabs and 

stuff like that. 

So, I would say reviewing what species you have and then 

prioritizing where you should focus those efforts, because you are 

probably not going to be able to hit all 200 of them with the same 

force. 

Senator CARDIN. Is there a mechanism in the Chesapeake Bay 

program for doing that with invasive species? I am not aware of a 

ranking as to where we should put our priorities, nor am I aware 

of a real effort being made collectively within the Chesapeake Bay 

region on invasive species. I know we do have programs to eradicate invasive species, but I am not aware of such a coordinated effort. 

Mr. ROGERSON. I am familiar with our Delaware Invasive Species Council, from my State. I would presumably venture to guess 

that there is one in Maryland. It is an unfunded, at least regulated 

by the State standpoint in Delaware, so we have identified our 

most important things. Our challenge in Delaware comes from acquiring all the resources we need to put boots on the ground. What 

we try and do is educate folks to the problem so that then, perhaps, 

they can implement the actions and find the resources that they 

need to be able to handle it. 

Senator CARDIN. I would just point out invasive species do not 

know geographic borders. 

Mr. ROGERSON. Absolutely. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. We will look at whether we can provide some guidance within the watershed on this area. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. ROGERSON. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator BRAUN. 

Senator BRAUN. A subject dear to my heart, back in the late 

1980’s I started investing in timber ground, and invasive species 

was not even mentioned up until probably 15 years ago, and then 

I have stuff like bush honeysuckle start showing up, stealth grass, 

of course, the emerald ash borer for midwestern timber, and I 

think that is 8 percent of all the trees in Indiana, pretty well taken 

them all out. 

I am interested because this seems to be a problem that is so 

massive. Does it make sense and can you bring in natural enemies 

and counterpunches that come from the places where this stuff 

originates, or is that opening up a Pandora’s box of further complications? Because, to me, unless you are kind of have an involvement in it, like I do, most people don’t know the difference between 

a bush honeysuckle and a native plant, or stealth grass and 

grasses that grow here natively. 

What about that idea? Then I want to get one other question. 

Anybody that feels comfortable, weigh in on it. 

Mr. FRANKLIN. We are big supporters of biocontrol in the State 

of Wyoming; we think it is a great opportunity to help balance, 

maybe, in some cases some of these invasive species with the native vegetation. The Wyoming Weed and Pest Council actually puts 

money into research for new biocontrol agents in our State, so we 

61 

are putting county and State funds into that kind of research because we feel it is a great opportunity. 

We were talking, just before this testimony, about leaf beetles on 

leafy spurge, because the herbicides available for leafy spurge are 

minimal and have very little effect in some cases, so the leaf beetle 

actually can go in and do a great job of balancing the leafy spurge 

within those ecosystems. 

So, I would say, from Wyoming’s perspective, that is one place 

we really could support and expand, is the biocontrol agents. 

Senator BRAUN. And is that finding a native biocontrol? Is all 

this stuff unchecked, where it comes from? Like cheatgrass, does 

that dominate the landscape from wherever it originates? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. It does not. So, what we do is our research, what 

Wyoming funds for research is actually in Switzerland, and they go 

out and actually look in the native landscapes where these plants 

are and look for native bugs that impact them or eat them. And 

then it is a pretty lengthy process in terms of researching whether 

it will work or not, and also to get those biocontrol agents approved. So, it is not simply a matter of going over, finding it, and 

bringing it back, you know, on a boat; there is an approval process. 

Speaking of the genie getting out of the bottle, there is a pretty 

lengthy approval process to help monitor that. 

Mr Steinwand. Mr. Franklin did a tremendous job, but I would 

add to that that biocontrol is a preferred method over herbicides, 

but you have to be careful of the unintended consequences. And, 

again, Mr. Franklin kind of alluded to the fact that there needs to 

be research. Using the flea beetle and leafy spurge as an example, 

there was a tremendous amount of research done on that, because 

what happens when they control or eradicate the intended plant? 

What are they going to go to next, an unintended plant and get 

something you really don’t expect? So there has to be some background and some research before we go that route totally. 

Mr. ROGERSON. I agree that biocontrols do have their merits. I 

know the University of Delaware Ag Department does quite a bit 

of research on biocontrols. And to your point earlier about these 

species, where they come from, are they pervasive and out of control over there, if you think about the natural world that is here, 

and the plants and animals and insects that are all connected together, every plant has a group of insects that it supports; it also 

has some insects that feed on it, and everything works together. 

When you take these species that aren’t native to those areas 

and drop them in, they lack, oftentimes, those controls that keep 

them in check here, so then they are able to dominate our landscapes that are here, and that is why, when you see these animals 

moved around these great distances, you see them kind of potentially explode, given the right species and the right condition. 

Senator BRAUN. Thank you. 

Have you found that these species naturally climax or start to 

feather out, or do they just keep exploding into the local environment? And have we had many instances of where something here 

actually that is native starts to knock it back, or would that be the 

exception rather than the rule? For anybody. 

Mr. FRANKLIN. I think you are specifically asking about invasive 

species, right? 

62 

Senator BRAUN. Yes. 

Mr. FRANKLIN. So, there are invasive species that come in that 

have value to some degree. I think some of the non-native grasses 

that do have a grazing value to them, so maybe we are less likely 

to focus on them as we are the ones that have no value. So, there 

are a lot of invasive species out there and there are some that are 

lower priorities and should be prioritized lower than the ones that 

have that economic or agricultural impact. 

Mr. STEINWAND. I would add that the hallmark of an invasive 

species is typically tremendous, tremendous growth of that population if left unchecked to begin with, and then stabilizes to some 

level below that somewhere in the future. I would hopefully not 

contradict what you are saying, but, to some extent, Kentucky bluegrass, which is a great ornamental grass for lawns across the Nation, has created a little bit of a problem in North Dakota when 

it invades our native prairies. We have found that if we get heavy 

grazing pressure when it is still less than 30 percent of that landscape, we can control it, but, if not, once it gets above 30 percent, 

it tends to take over that native prairie, thus reducing pollinator 

diversity, so on and so forth, and very little wildlife value. 

Mr. ROGERSON. And I will mention that not every non-native species that comes here is invasive and causes problems. For example, 

where nutria were introduced in Blackwater and Cambridge area, 

during that same time period sika deer were brought over from 

Thailand I believe is where they are from, and certainly they do 

impact the agricultural producers and farmers over there from a 

crop damage standpoint. They did not have the same ecological impacts that nutria did. 

So, it depends on the life history traits of that species that is 

brought over here and things like that that is going to determine 

whether it becomes an invasive species and becomes a problem for 

us. 

Senator BRAUN. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Braun. 

I have one last question to Mr. Steinwand. We talked about 

invasive mussels and things that are happening underwater. The 

quagga and the zebra mussels have had enormous destructive powers, from clogging pipes and reservoirs to destroying the motors of 

private recreational boats. We have here a poster board of zebra 

mussels on a motor. 

Can you share some advice that you might have to inform Wyoming in terms of our future efforts to prevent the spread of quagga 

and zebra mussels based on your experience in dealing with this 

in North Dakota? 

Mr. STEINWAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe I mentioned it in my written testimony and my oral testimony. As good 

as Wyoming Game and Fish Department is, I am guessing they already do this, but I don’t know, again, given limited resources, first 

of all, try to find out where the pathways, what are the most likely 

high-risk pathways for that to come into Wyoming and then concentrate your forces on them. If you can prevent it from coming in, 

again, I think we have all said that that is the best route to go. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

63 

Senator CARPER. I have one question for Joe and then a question 

for our panel to close it out. 

I mentioned in my opening statement, I talked a little bit about 

climate change. I think most people, when they think about climate 

change, in Delaware we think about sea level rise. We are a small 

State. We are sinking and the oceans around us, as Joe knows, are 

rising. Not too far from where I live, my neighbor here, Ben 

Cardin, to my left, from Maryland, one of the places he represents 

is Ellicott City. We saw a lot of rain in Delaware last year, probably twice as much as we normally get, and damaged our crops 

quite a bit. A lot of the farmers ended up just plowing their crops 

under because we had so much rain. They just kept planting and 

replanting, and finally kind of gave up and turned to crop insurance. So, we think about that. 

We think about wildfires, all these wildfires out west, where one 

of my sons lives, wildfires bigger than Delaware. But we don’t often 

think of invasive species and what effect, if any, climate change 

has on invasive species, and I would just ask Mr. Rogerson whether or not climate change is a consideration in the Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental Control’s management of 

invasive species. And, if so, would you share some thoughts with 

us on how Delaware might be adapting and some examples of possible implications in our State and maybe even implications for 

other States? 

Mr. ROGERSON. Yes. At DNREC, we take climate change into a 

whole host of considerations that we are working on, not just 

invasive species, due to many of the reasons you just pointed out. 

Just a quick example, as I said earlier, invasive species can come 

at us from any different direction, not just necessarily as we think 

of things getting warmer and stuff. As an example, lionfish, lionfish 

are a tremendous problem in offshore reefs and places particularly 

more in the southern part of the Country. Currently, our water 

temperatures in the wintertime seem to be too cold for that species 

to persist here, but they have been found as far north as Rhode Island and north of us, so just proactive monitoring efforts, knowing 

that things are going to move and increased coordination with our 

southern counterparts. 

Asian tiger mosquito, as pointed out, having the potential to 

carry Zika and West Nile. I can attest that I have had invasions 

over the years of tiger mosquitos in my neighborhood, and they are 

voracious predators and feeders out in the yard, and you can’t play 

outside with the kids, so we do have a very modern and—— 

Senator CARPER. Do repellants work with those? 

Mr. ROGERSON. Say that again? 

Senator CARPER. Repellants, the kind of repellants we use for 

most mosquitos? 

Mr. ROGERSON. They seem to, at least in my yard, when they are 

out and around, I am inside kind of thing, or certainly wearing 

long-sleeved barriers kind of thing to get through. I mean, they are 

much larger than our normal mosquitos, and their feeding habits 

and such, they are not a fun one to have around; not that any of 

them are. 

Furthermore, with climate change, sea level rise, the host of factors that come with it, those all put stresses on our native plant 

64 

and animal communities; and you throw in invasive species on top 

of them, which typically the ones that we see aggressively get out 

of hand or be strong competitors are the ones that dominate those 

sites and areas that have been disturbed where our native plants 

don’t do as well, so I think that can lend itself to being a further 

problem in the future. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Last question, if I could, on regional collaboration. In Delaware, 

we are big on the four Cs, communicate, collaborate, cooperate, and 

civility, in order to get us to consensus. That is what we try to do. 

I was encouraged, with that in mind, by some of the regional collaboration that you all have mentioned here today to us, including 

the Chesapeake Bay Nutria Eradication Project and the Western 

Governors Association Invasive Mussel Forum. 

How do you think Congress and the Federal Government could 

better support these regional efforts and others? Go ahead. 

Mr. STEINWAND. If I might, you did mention the Western Governors Association. Of course, that is North Dakota and to the 

west. I think supporting the policies that that group has come up 

with, which is truly a bipartisan effort, supporting those policies 

and working together. We serve, not myself, but staff serves on a 

minimum of three regional invasives council to more share information such as we are doing here, to innovate to the extent possible. I don’t mean this as a denigrating remark, but if we can get 

by with not having to spend any Federal money on this and just 

cooperation and policy, to me, that would be the greatest win. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. 

Others, please, Franklin and Joe? We will close it up. Slade? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. I would reiterate the Western Governors Association just did a bunch of workshops on invasive species, and they 

are working on some ideas on policies, and I think there is a place 

maybe for Congress to look at what those ideas coming out of that 

are. 

Certainly, ISAC, the committee I am on, works on some policy 

ideas that would be well work Congress looking at. ISAC has been 

around for, I think, 10, 15 years, and there are some great 

whitepapers discussing not just the funding issue, but a lot of the 

policy issues that may be worthwhile looking at. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. 

Joseph, you get the last word. 

Mr. ROGERSON. I agree, I think any kind of improved coordination between the States, particularly Delaware, where we are, as 

I said before, being small. The Spotted lanternfly is yet another example of nobody expected it to come here and it showed up, so I 

think the Government can help us with keeping species out 

through better inventory of goods and things coming into the Country, as well as the fact that these species, many of them do cross 

State borders and State lines and stuff, being facilitators, perhaps, 

between the States to work together. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that is dividing my staff sitting 

behind me is the Spotted lanternfly. The S in Spotted lanternfly is, 

of course, capitalized, but the question is how about that L in 

lanternfly. Some say capitalize; others say not. What do you say? 

65 

Mr. ROGERSON. I would have to look at my testimony to see what 

my Department of Agriculture folks said to me. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Well, to be continued. Those will be questions 

for the record. 

Thank you all. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you, Senator Carper. 

Thank you to the witnesses. 

As you had mentioned, Senator Carper, there are so many different conflicting committees going on today that some of the members weren’t able to get here, so they may submit written questions, so I would ask that you please respond to those. The hearing 

record is going to be open for 2 weeks, but I think all of us want 

to just thank all of you for your time and your testimony today. It 

has been a tremendous hearing. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, could I ask for a unanimous consent request to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 

written testimony and letters from stakeholders, as well as other 

supplemental materials? 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

66 


35945.038

February 27,2019 

Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: Letter for the Record for the Hearing on "The Invasive Species Threat: Protecting Wildlife, 

Public Health, and Infrastructure" 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, the signed organizations respectfully submit 

this letter for the record of the Committee's February 13, 2019, hearing on "The Invasive Species 

Threat: Protecting Wildlife, Public Health, and Infrastructure." 

Invasive species are a serious and growing threat to our environment and our economy. We concur 

with the hearing witnesses that more capacity is needed to monitor and address invasive species. We 

also strongly agree that more must be done to address anthropogenic climate change, which can 

facilitate the spreading of invasive species and perpetuate unnatural ecological disturbance. 

We vehemently disagree, however, with one witness's recommendation to roll back environmental 

review and categorically exclude certain invasive treatments from consideration under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Responses to invasive species inevitably come with risks and 

often have very serious side effects. Even when the invasive threat is well-established and fastspreading, we must ensure we have a safe, reliable solution that also minimizes repercussions. NEPA 

serves this role. It requires federal agencies to review the best available science, consider reasonable 

alternatives, and inform the public of a treatment's potential impacts. In short, NEP A reviews are 

essential to a safe and effective invasive species program. 

History is replete with examples of well-intentioned attempts to "fix" invasive species problems that 

only made matters worse. One notorious example is the release of mongooses in Hawai'i as a 

strategy to eradicate non-native and invasive rat populations. Not only did the diurnal mongoose not 

reduce the nocturnal rat population, but the mongooses proceeded to prey on native birds and turtle 

eggs on Maui, Oahu. and Molokai. A more recent example, also from Hawai'i, was the transplant of 

the cannibalistic rosy wolfsnail to address invasive African land snails. Unfortunately, native 

Hawaiian molluscs are now at a greater risk of extinction because of that invasive "treatment." As 

many of the witnesses testified, using biological agents requires extensive consideration before 

application. NEPA reviews are an important part of that process. 

The risk is not just with biological responses. The aerial application of pesticides, for example, can 

be effective in eliminating some invasive species, but can also contaminate drinking water and crops. 

This risks the health and well-being of human and wildlife communities alike. It is why 

environmental review of the specific treatment in a specific location is so important. 

Furthermore, invasive species problems often involve complicated interactions with native wildlife 

and human communities. One of the hearing witnesses described invasive viruses carried by native 

wildlife populations. This is a good example of how difficult it can be to isolate an invasive species 
67 


35945.039

without hanning native species and native ecosystems. NEP A reviews help to ensure that these 

complications are addressed rather than ignored. 

In addition to its safety net role, NEPA provides important information and insights. A NEPA 

review can help identify contributing factors to the spread of invasive species which in turn can be 

helpful for both current and future upstream management (i.e., treating the cause, not just the 

symptom). This was the case when NEPA review helped to establish that recreational vehicle use 

was contributing to the spread of invasive species thereby flagging the need to address management 

issues in addition to physical treatment. The NEPA alternative process can help assess different 

combinations of responses from mechanical to chemical to management changes that might 

produce the best outcome with the least unintended consequences for a specific location. In 

addition, NEPA is instrumental to the collaborative process that multiple witnesses credited with 

essential work across private, local, state and federal jurisdictions. NEPA provides the forum for 

public comment and it provides the information on impacts and alternatives that facilitate that 

collaboration. 

We caution that rushed responses to invasive species can prove disastrous. At the hearing, Mr. Slade 

Franklin described the importance of taking early action to address invasive species, using the 

analogy of early treatment in cancer. Certainly, early action on invasive species is important. But 

speed is not the only consideration. Ensuring that the response is informed, effective, targeted and 

mitigated is even more important. Hurried, misguided responses may only multiply the problems 

that must be addressed. 

Mr. Franklin's subsequent suggestion that invasive treatments be categorically excluded from NEPA 

review, and that new herbicides be fast-tracked through approval review, is even more dangerous. 

To take his analogy of treating cancer, excluding a NEPA review for invasive species response 

would be akin to telling doctors that, in the name of expedience, they should not take the time to 

evaluate the size of the tumor or the relative health and condition of the patient before detennining 

the dose or starting with chemotherapy treatment. Derailing NEPA reviews, and specifically their 

public information aspect, also would be akin to telling doctors to not discuss with the patient the 

fact that chemotherapy could endanger their lives by killing healthy tissue. NEP A helps to ensure 

that the application of a treatment is evaluated for a specific situation and location, that alternatives 

are considered and that communities are made aware of impacts. 

Even actions potentially beneficial to the environment, wildlife, and people such as Habitat 

Conservation Plans under the Endangered Species Act are and should be benefitting from NEPA 

reviews. These reviews provide an essential safety check where these decisions are not easy and can 

come with large implications for communities and the environment. 

While cutting NEP A is an unhelpful, even counterproduc!ive, response to the need for early action 

on invasive species, that need is real. To help, Congress can and should improve funding for NEPA 

implementation so that the agencies have the staff and resources to get this important work done in 

a timely fashion. 

In summation, we thank you for addressing the important issue of invasive species and encourage 

the committee and the Congress to provide for a robust invasive species program but also to ensure 

that it fully complies with essential environmental safeguards such as NEP A. 
68 


35945.040

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Environmental Law & Policy Center 

League of Conservation Voters 

National Parks Conservation Association 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Sierra Club 

Southern Environmental Law Center 

Western Watersheds Project 
69 

Senator BARRASSO. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ