U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

80–982 PDF 2014

INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT 

ON FEDERAL LANDS

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS

AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Serial No. 113–18

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

(

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

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Chris Stewart, UT 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Vacancy 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Chris Stewart, UT 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio

(III)

CONTENTS 

Page

Hearing held on Thursday, May 16, 2013 ............................................................. 1

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Horsford, Hon. Steven A., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Nevada ....................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses: 

Beck, Dr. K. George, Professor of Weed Science, Colorado State 

University ...................................................................................................... 10

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12

Questions submitted to ............................................................................. 25

Dye, Randy C., West Virginia State Forester, President, National 

Association of State Foresters ...................................................................... 28

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29

Questions submitted to ............................................................................. 32

Fearneyhough, Jason, Director, State of Wyoming, Department of 

Agriculture ..................................................................................................... 34

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36

Questions submitted to ............................................................................. 38

Hughes, Debra, Executive Director, New Mexico Association of 

Conservation Districts .................................................................................. 40

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 42

Ogsbury, James D., Executive Director, Western Governors’ Association .. 43

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 45

Ries, Paul, Associate Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry, U.S. 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture ........................................ 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

Additional materials submitted for the record: 

FY09 National Invasive Species Council Invasive Species Expenditures 

Compilation ................................................................................................... 16

The Idaho Invasive Species Strategic Palan 2012–2016 ............................... 50

The Nature Conservancy, Letter Submitted for the Record ......................... 64

Western Governors’ Association Policy Resolution 10–4 ............................... 48

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘INVASIVE SPECIES 

MANAGEMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS’’

Thursday, May 16, 2013

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 

room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bishop, Lummis, Stewart, Cramer, 

Holt, Horsford, and Garcia. 

Mr. BISHOP. Noticing that there is a presence of a quorum, the 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation is 

meeting today to hear testimony on the invasive species management on Federal lands. 

So, under the rules, only the Ranking Member and the Chairman 

are allowed opening statements, but I ask unanimous consent to 

include any Member’s opening statement in the hearing record if 

submitted to the clerk by the close of business today. And hearing 

no objections, it will be so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. This morning the Subcommittee is exercising its role 

in good government by taking a look at a growing issue facing our 

Federal lands. The proliferation of invasive species on our public 

lands is impacting the health, the landscape, and it is increasing 

the risk of wildfire, affecting wildlife habitat, impacting the viability of land for multiple use, and perhaps most troubling, it is undermining the efforts of their neighboring land owners, who, unlike 

the Federal Government, are often taking proactive steps to reduce 

the threat of invasive species on their lands. 

This hearing is intended to take a first look at this issue. We are 

going to hear from the Forest Service about their efforts to tackle 

the growing threats to the 193 million acres that it manages. The 

Department of the Interior, unfortunately, chose not to talk to us 

about the 400 million acres that they manage. 

We will also hear from other stakeholders about what they think 

is and is not working, and how scarce public resources can be better utilized. 

Invasive species management is a complex and difficult issue. 

And, from my perspective, there are certainly more questions than 

answers as to what is being done, and what could be done better. 

Many, who will be represented by our panel, have raised concerns 

with Federal funds actually reaching the on-ground effort to eradicate the invasive species, and have asserted a fact that became a 

common theme with land management, that actually State and 

2

local and private entities are superior to their Federal counterparts 

when it comes to managing lands and resources. 

Therefore, this hearing is a much-needed fact-finding mission to 

hear from experts on how the Federal Government can operate 

more effectively to work with those who are willing and able partners to start catching up with the invasive species that have invaded our land since the late 1700s and are impacting State and 

private property at the same time. 

We thank our witnesses for being here. We look forward to hearing about their efforts to try and make sure that the money that 

we are spending on invasive species actually gets on the ground so 

it does what it was intended to do. And I look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROB BISHOP, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

This morning the Subcommittee is exercising its role in good government by taking a look at a growing issue facing our Federal lands. The proliferation of invasive 

species on our public lands is impacting the health of the landscape, increasing the 

risk of wildfire, affecting wildlife habitat, impacting the viability of the land for multiple-use, and finally—perhaps most troubling—undermining the efforts of neighboring landowners who, unlike the Federal Government, are often taking proactive 

steps to reduce the threat of invasive species on their land. 

This hearing is intended to take a first look at this issue. We will hear from the 

Forest Service about their efforts to tackle the growing threats to the 193 million 

acres it manages, the Department of the Interior unfortunately could not join us to 

talk about the other 400 million acres. We will also hear from other stakeholders 

about what they think is and is not working, and how scarce public resources can 

be better utilized. 

Invasive species management is a complex and difficult issue, and from my perspective there are certainly more questions than answers as to what is being done 

and what can be done better. Many—represented by our panel—have raised concerns with Federal funds actually reaching the on-the-ground efforts to eradicate 

invasive species, and have also asserted a fact that has been frequently heard by 

this Subcommittee that States are better situated to utilize funding to implement 

more effective control measures. 

Therefore, this hearing is a much-needed fact finding mission to hear from experts 

on how the Federal Government can operate more efficiently and work with these 

willing and able partners to start catching up with the invasive species that are invading Federal lands and impacting State and private property. 

Mr. BISHOP. So I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Horsford, for 5 minutes for any opening statement he 

wishes to give. Actually, you’ve got as much time as you want for 

an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVEN A. HORSFORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and witnesses. I am pleased to be standing in for Mr. 

Grijalva today, and I thank you all for participating in this hearing. 

I think we can agree on a number of things. Invasive species are 

a growing problem across millions of acres of Federal land. The 

spread of invasive species costs billions of dollars and negatively 

impacts agriculture, commerce, water quality, and wildlife habitat. 

Invasive species monitoring control and eradication is time-conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\04PUBL~1\04MY16~1\5-16-1~1\80982.TXT MARK
3

suming and expensive. And we can probably use our resources better. 

In my home State of Nevada, we have a massive invasive species 

issue. My congressional district, covering both a rural part of the 

State, one of our worst is the invasion of the Quagga Mussel, cheatgrass, and other noxious weeds, are increasing fire risk and impacting sage grouse habitat. So this has been our experience in Nevada, 

my experience in our congressional district. And I look forward to 

hearing from the Healthy Habitat Coalition, which, unfortunately, 

does not include any Nevada representation, but I hope to learn 

more about how your efforts on noxious weed might help translate 

to some of our concerns, as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from 

our expert panel this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horsford follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVEN A. HORSFORD, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and witnesses. Thank you for participating in this hearing today. 

I think we can agree on a number of things.

• Invasive species are a growing problem across millions of acres of Federal land. 

• The spread of invasive species is costing billions of dollars and negatively impacts agriculture, commerce, water quality, and wildlife habitat. 

• Invasive species monitoring, control, and eradication is time consuming and expensive. 

• We can probably use our resources better.

In my home State of Nevada, we have massive invasive species issues, the worst 

being the invasion of the quagga mussel. Cheatgrass and other noxious weeds are 

also increasing fire risk and impacting sage grouse habitat. 

This is my experience. I look forward to hearing from the Healthy Habitat Coalition, which unfortunately does not include any Nevada representation, to learn more 

about how their efforts on noxious weeds might translate to our concerns. 

Thank you again. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. We welcome the panel that we have up 

here in front of us. Let me introduce just—I hope from left to 

right—Mr. Paul Ries, who is the Associate Deputy Chief from the 

Forest Service and the Agriculture Department; Dr. George Beck 

from Colorado State University, part of the Healthy Habitats Coalition; Randy Dye, who is President of the National Association of 

State Foresters; Jason Fearneyhough—I hope I said that right—

who is the Director of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture; 

Debra Hughes, the Executive Director of the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts; and James Ogsbury, who is the Executive Director of the Western Governors’ Association. 

Before we ask you to testify, I would like to ask Mrs. Lummis 

if she would have a desire to introduce Mr. Fearneyhough, who 

happens to be one of her constituents. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I definitely would, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And 

thank you, Ranking Member, for holding this hearing. 

Director Fearneyhough has been the director of Wyoming’s Department of Agriculture for the past 4 years, which means as an 

appointee, and a political appointee at that, he has served both for 

a Democrat Governor and a Republican Governor. And I think that 

speaks volumes to how he is received and thought of. He is very, 

4

very well respected in Wyoming—not only in Wyoming, but also 

among his fellow directors of agriculture, because he is also the 

current Chairman for the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. 

We have known each other for a long time. He is a committed 

partner with Federal agencies in tackling invasive species. And as 

we all know in our Western States, the Federal presence is so significant, so commingled with private and State land, that we have 

to have these partnerships in order to make things work. He knows 

their policies, he knows what works well, and he knows what 

doesn’t work well. And he has got an extensive pool of experience. 

Invasive species, like cheatgrass, have great implications for wild 

fires and Wyoming’s efforts to prevent the listing of the sage 

grouse, a huge issue for us right now. So, any solution in a State 

like Wyoming, and more so with yours, Mr. Chairman and Mr. 

Ranking Member, because of the tremendous amount of Federal 

land ownership, has to involve an effective Federal commitment, 

which we need more of. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member. 

And welcome, Mr. Fearneyhough; we are delighted to have you 

here. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Representative. To all the others, we 

would have equal kind of introductions, but you are not from Nevada or Utah. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. So screw it, you know, you are just real people. But 

I appreciate it. 

I am assuming—many of you have been here before—you understand the system. Your written testimony is already part of the 

record. We would ask you to add to it in your oral testimony. The 

clock you see in front of you starts ticking down at 5 minutes. 

When it goes yellow, that means you have a minute left, so please 

hurry up. And when it is red, we wish you to stop, even in midsentence. 

So, you each have 5 minutes. Let me turn, first of all, to Mr. 

Ries. We thank you for being here. Make sure you pull the mic as 

close to you—and have it on. And we would recognize you for 5 

minutes for your testimony, please. 

That is why you need to have it really closer to you. 

Mr. RIES. Is that better? 

Mr. BISHOP. A little bit. 

Mr. RIES. How is that? 

Mr. BISHOP. Good enough for government work, yes. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL RIES, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. 

FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

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

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

grasslands from invasive species. The work that we do is accomplished with and through partners. Those partners include States, 

counties, communities, conservation districts, and weed boards. 

They also include our Federal agencies, colleges and universities, 

and non-profits. We, the collective we, together, deliver a comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\04PUBL~1\04MY16~1\5-16-1~1\80982.TXT MARK
5

prehensive, integrated program across the land, in our waterways, 

from the air, and even overseas. We, together, implement that program across Federal, State, private, and tribal lands. 

Our program, like all comprehensive invasives programs today, 

includes four universal components of invasive species management. One is prevention. Two is early detection and rapid response. 

Three is control and management. Four is restoration. So I will 

talk briefly about each one of those and provide an example or two. 

First, prevention. The most cost-effective action that any of us 

can take in invasive species management is to prevent species from 

ever getting here. We are heavily involved in prevention. We use 

our research branch, our international program authorities, and 

our relationships to work with foreign countries to stop invasives 

at their source. As an example, we have been successful in establishing science-based treatment of wood-based packing materials to 

avoid them becoming a vector for invasive species introductions. 

We have also been successful working with foreign countries 

such as Korea and even China, and having those standards implemented to eliminate invasives before they leave their countries of 

origin. Prevention has kept the Asian Gypsy Moth out of the Western United States. Prevention has kept Sudden Oak Death out of 

the Eastern Hardwood Forest. 

Number two is early detection combined with a rapid response. 

When prevention fails, early detection and a rapid response is the 

second most cost-effective action you can take to control invasive 

species. We are continually looking for more effective ways to detect invasives early, when populations are small, so that they can 

be effectively eliminated through a rapid response. 

Since most invasives do not initially become established on Federal lands, we use our State and private forestry authorities to implement successful early detection rapid response programs on private lands. Early detection with rapid response eliminated Asian 

Longhorn Beetle in Chicago, and Sacramento, and, as was announced yesterday, in Manhattan. An early effort in Maryland successfully eradicated one of the first Emerald Ash Borer populations 

found on the east coast. We are currently working with the Nature 

Conservancy in Chattanooga, Los Angeles, and New York, to jointly 

develop better systems for early detection. We want to find new 

pests in the United States and detect known pests in new locations. 

When prevention and early detection/rapid response fail us, then 

we move into the third program element: control and management. 

Again, we use our collected researchers, entomologists and pathologists, to develop the most effective control and management measures. In some cases, we even license and pay for the manufacturing 

costs of pesticides in order to make them available for use across 

all ownerships. One such agent, BT, Bacillus Thuringiensis, has 

been extremely effective in slowing the spread of gypsy moth in the 

East. We estimate 100 million acres have been kept free of gypsy 

moth, as a result of Slow the Spread. 

We work to locate and introduce biological control agents, often 

by bringing them from their home countries of origin. Bio-control 

agents, for example, have been very effective and significant in reducing the stranglehold that Musk Thistle and Knapweed have on 

many of our range lands. We have been successful enough in some 

6

cases that we can spend our funds on restoration, rather than on 

control. We are currently working on bio-control agents for cheatgrass, Emerald Ash Borer, Rush Skeletonweed, and a host of other 

invasives. 

Education and science are a big part of each of these elements. 

We work to educate boat owners about the dangers of Quagga and 

Zebra Mussels to our waterways. Our scientists work to determine 

the right cleansing agents and hot water temperatures that are 

needed to keep mussels from being transported. We have helped 

fund washing stations and boat inspections. We have worked to develop policies around weed-free hay, and we have helped develop 

dozens of cooperative weed management areas across the West. 

And that is why it is not uncommon to see county trucks spraying 

weeds on national forests, or Forest Service crews spraying weeds 

along State and county roads. 

In closing, I will say that I realize I am out of time. Thank you 

for letting me join you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ries follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL RIES, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, STATE AND PRIVATE

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

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify before you today on the role of the Forest Service in protecting forests and 

grasslands from invasive species. The Forest Service is committed to the prevention, 

detection, control, management and eradication of invasive species, and to restoring 

the structure and function of affected aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems on all 

lands. 

Background

Invasive species are among the most significant environmental and economic 

threats facing our Nation. Aquatic and terrestrial invasive plants, pathogens, 

vertebrates, invertebrates, algae, and fungi have become established on millions of 

acres across North America. These infestations are degrading watershed condition 

and ecosystem functionality, reducing forest and rangeland productivity, increasing 

the risk of wildfire and soil erosion, causing declines in recreational use and enjoyment, negatively impacting human health and safety, threatening native fish and 

wildlife populations and their associated habitats, causing declines in property values, and undermining the economy at all levels. Invasive species cause billions of 

dollars in damage each year in the United States. Pimentel et al. (2001) estimated 

damage from invasive species world-wide totaled at more than $1.4 trillion per year. 

Burgeoning global trade and transportation have facilitated the spread of many 

species among continents well beyond their native range. With the number of people 

living in, enjoying, and using forests, grasslands, and water resources continually 

increasing, the likelihood of invasive species spreading through transportation and 

recreational activities is also rising. As a result, many species of invasive plants, 

pathogens, vertebrates, invertebrates, and other harmful exotic species have been 

introduced to our Nation’s aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Many of these have 

become established within these ecosystems. 

Responsibilities and Capabilities of the Forest Service

The Forest Service plays an important role in the Nation’s efforts to address the 

threat of invasive species across the landscape through our National Forest System, 

State and Private Forestry, Research and Development, and International program 

areas. In this testimony we will explore how individually and collectively these programs work together to address invasive species threats. 

With internationally recognized land management and scientific expertise, the 

Forest Service is well suited to address the many challenges of invasive species. The 

Forest Service continues to play an important national and international leadership 

role in advancing the understanding of the invasive species problem. The wide ranging authorities of the Forest Service allow us to work with partners to combat 

invasive species across all lands, public and private. We also develop methods, tools, 

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

7

At the national, regional, State and local levels the Forest Service works extensively with county, State, tribal, Federal, and private stakeholders to proactively implement invasive species management activities across the broader landscape. 

Through an ‘‘all lands approach’’ the Forest Service provides a wide range of technical and financial assistance to help manage invasive species. The Forest Service 

works closely with State forestry agencies to implement State Forest Action Plans 

to protect forest from threats. 

The Forest Service has also been a major financial supporter for the establishment of Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs) and Cooperative Invasive 

Species Management Areas (CISMAs) for nearly two decades, under the National 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s ‘‘Pulling Together Initiative’’ grant program. This 

Federal grant program lead to the establishment and sustainability of dozens of 

CWMA and CISMA areas across the Nation to expand public and private partnerships against invasive species. 

In each region of the country, the Forest Service is also a partner in implementing 

priority invasive species management actions identified in State invasive species 

management plans, supporting the implementation of the invasive species components of State Wildlife Action Plans, helping to develop local and regional invasive 

species management strategies, and providing local support to prevent the spread 

of invasive species. As an example, the Forest Service plays several important roles 

in implementing the USDA obligations and priorities under the national QuaggaZebra Mussel Action Plan (QZAP), developed through the interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force to prevent and control the spread of these high-risk 

invasive mussels across the United States. These partnerships help achieve our 

agency watershed restoration and protection goals. 

The Forest Service also provides interagency leadership and support as a member 

of the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic 

Weeds (FICMNEW), and the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management 

of Invasive Terrestrial Animals and Pathogens (ITAP). In addition, the Forest Service serves as an active member of the Invasive Species Committee of the Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). Through these partnerships the Forest Service continues to expand national and State efforts to address the invasive species 

threat. 

FOREST SERVICE INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

As one of the largest Federal land management agencies in the country, the Forest Service has the responsibility for the stewardship of over 193 million acres of 

public lands within the National Forest System. This vast and nationally significant system extends from Alaska to the Caribbean, and includes examples of nearly 

every type of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem in North America. These lands and 

waters are under tremendous pressures from aquatic and terrestrial invasive plants, 

algae, pathogens, fungi, vertebrates, and invertebrates. Effective management of 

these harmful exotic species which threaten the National Forest System and all 

lands is a critical part of the agency’s land stewardship responsibility. 

The recognition that national forests and grasslands play a key role in the local, 

regional, and national battle against aquatic and terrestrial invasive species is reflected by the annual expansion of on-the-ground management efforts to address a 

wide range of invasive species challenges. To accelerate this expansion, a new national Invasive Species Management Policy for the National Forest System was 

issued to the field in late 2011. It is viewed as a comprehensive national policy for 

invasive species management in the Federal land management sector. The new policy defines and clarifies the authorities, scope, roles, and responsibilities associated 

with National Forest System management activities against aquatic and terrestrial 

invasive species. 

Forest Service invasive species management performance is outcome driven, with 

a focus on treating and restoring priority areas to improve watershed condition and 

reduce the long-term impacts of invasive species. To achieve this, national forests 

and grasslands typically treat nearly 400,000 acres of priority aquatic and terrestrial invasive species infestations annually using an integrated management approach. Since 2007, more than 2 million acres of lands and waters have been restored to protect against aquatic and terrestrial invasive species across National 

Forest System lands and waters. 

Forest Service State and Private Forestry programs provide a wide range of 

assistance to States, tribes, and others to better manage private and other public 

natural resources. The Forest Service provides technical and financial assistance to 

State natural resource and agricultural agencies, tribal governments, and other Federal land management agencies to respond to and manage forest pests that threaten 

the Nation’s 851 million acres of rural and urban forests of all ownerships. The 

8

Urban and Community Forestry Program works with community partners in the detection, monitoring, containment, and when possible, eradication of invasive species 

and provides funding and technical assistance to States to support canopy restoration and management. 

We also work closely with sister USDA agencies to coordinate prevention and 

management of invasive species across all lands. USDA has the largest Federal role 

in invasive species management because of its responsibility to (1) conduct port-ofentry inspections and offer technical assistance to responsible agencies who quarantine goods coming into the country, (2) manage more than 192 million acres of 

national forests and grasslands, (3) conduct research, and (4) provide technical assistance to the private sector and in large agricultural pest control projects. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 

conducts research in extremely diverse areas involving prevention, control and management of invasive species. For example, ARS provides research in support of action agencies such as the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), to 

reduce the rate of introduction of invasive species, and to rapidly detect, identify 

and eradicate incipient species. 

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is a multi-faceted Agency with a broad mission area that includes protecting and promoting U.S. agricultural health, regulating genetically engineered organisms, administering the Animal 

Welfare Act and carrying out wildlife damage management activities. APHIS’ mission has expanded over the years to include protection of public health and safety 

as well as natural resources that are vulnerable to invasive pests and pathogens. 

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has become a conservation 

leader for all natural resources, ensuring private lands are conserved, restored, and 

more resilient to environmental challenge. NRCS helps private landowners tackle 

invasive species problems in four major ways: (1) technical and financial assistance 

to manage invasive species and pests; (2) conservation initiatives that work at a 

landscape scale to address natural resource concerns, including invasive species; (3) 

Conservation Innovation Grants with partner entities to support development and 

implementation of innovative approaches and strategies to address invasive species; 

and (4) Plant Materials Center research geared toward invasive species management and restoring areas where invasive species have been removed. 

The Forest Service Forest Health Protection programs direct and implement 

measures to prevent, detect, contain, and suppress unwanted native and invasive 

insects, pathogens, and plants affecting trees and forests. In FY 2012, State and Private Forestry programs provided $1.4 million in essential matching funds and technical assistance to State governments to combat economically significant weed 

threats to State and private forest lands. 

Forest Health Protection and partners from cooperating States conduct an annual 

collaborative forest pest survey on over 400 million acres of forest land. We recently 

completed high resolution maps for over 250 forest tree species in the United States 

that will be used to guide these surveys in the future. Additionally, we have developed a program called the ‘‘Forest Disturbance Mapper,’’ a near real-time web portal 

that uses remote sensing to detect disturbances caused by forest pests, and an interagency database to detect and track thousand cankers disease of walnut and other 

pests. 

In FY 2012, Forest Service Research and Development delivered 169 invasive 

species tools including the identification of key pathways for invasion by new forest 

pests; methods for detecting, monitoring, and controlling the walnut twig beetle; release and recovery guidelines for biological control agents for emerald ash borer; and 

an assessment of the potential impacts of hemlock woolly adelgid predators. 

The Forest Service International Programs also work to protect our forests 

from invasive species damage. For example, the program works with Chinese counterparts who have partnered with us to address one of the most destructive invasive 

forest pests, the emerald ash borer (EAB). The Forest Service continues to work 

with the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to better understand why the 

borer is so resilient and pervasive. This will help predict and prevent potential future outbreaks by related wood boring beetles. With an aim of identifying biocontrol 

mechanisms, a partnership was formed between the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station, the ARS and counterparts in China. With support from International Programs, the team is working to find natural enemies of EAB in its native 

range. 

Strategic Approach to Invasive Species Management

To ensure the continued production of needed goods, services, and values from our 

Nation’s terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, the Forest Service takes a strategic approach for managing invasive species across all program areas. This approach inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 X:\04PUBL~1\04MY16~1\5-16-1~1\80982.TXT MARK
9

cludes four main elements: (1) prevention, (2) detection, (3) control and management, and (4) restoration and rehabilitation.

Prevention

The most effective strategy to protect forests, waterways, and grasslands from 

invasive species is to prevent invasive species introduction and establishment. Containing known infestations is also important for blocking the spread of invasive species from infested lands to surrounding areas. We coordinate with Federal and State 

regulatory agencies to understand pathways for introductions, implement quarantine regulations, survey for invasive species, and educate the public about 

invasive pest threats and how to prevent the spread of invasive species. 

Forest Service researchers in partnership with APHIS are working with industry 

partners to reduce the introduction of invasives into the United States through shipments of wood products and packaging and the live plant trade. Additionally, Forest 

Service scientists and managers at the Eastern and Western Threat Centers are 

working closely with domestic and international partners to develop a comprehensive database for prediction, prevention, and proactive management of invasive 

plants. A public education campaign developed by the Forest Service in partnership 

with Wildlife Forever recruits hunters, anglers, and recreational boaters to help prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species such as quagga and zebra mussels and 

Eurasian milfoil. 

Detection

The Forest Service develops and implements efficient survey and monitoring tools 

and technologies to facilitate early detection of invasive species, including in urban 

areas, and rapidly assess their potential impact on forest and grassland health. As 

necessary and appropriate, the Forest Service coordinates these activities with Federal and non-Federal cooperators across all lands. 

The Forest Service has supported development of a mapping system used nationally by cooperating agencies and weed management organizations to document distribution of invasive weeds. Additionally, Forest Service scientists developed a test 

capable of detecting the fungal pathogen that causes white-nose syndrome (WNS) 

in bats. The test is being used to identify infested caves, so that Forest Service and 

other land managers might selectively restrict access to those caves and mines to 

help slow the spread of WNS. 

Control and Management

The Forest Service directly intervenes to manage populations of invasive species 

that threaten forest and grassland health and sustainability. Rapid response following early detection is used to eradicate new infestations. If eradication is not feasible, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and adaptive management techniques are 

implemented to help maintain ecosystem function. This includes research and management to increase the resilience of threatened ecosystems to mitigate the impacts 

of pests. In cooperation with external stakeholders, the Forest Service conducts research to characterize infestations, to identify factors conducive to infestations, and 

to develop tools and techniques to cost-effectively eradicate or manage priority 

invasive species. 

For example, the Jackson and Buffalo Ranger Districts of the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming include the majority of the land within the Jackson Hole 

Weed Management Association, where the Forest Service identified approximately 

7,000 priority acres for detection and immediate eradication efforts. In total, the 

Forest Service successfully eradicated 15 priority species from those 7,000 acres. 

Since 2000, the Forest Service, working in partnership with States and other Federal agencies, has implemented a national Slow the Spread (STS) strategy to minimize the rate at which gypsy moth spreads into uninfested areas. The STS program 

has reduced the spread of gypsy moth more than 60 percent from the historical level 

of 13 miles per year. In only 12 years, this program has prevented impacts on more 

than 100 million acres. When oak trees started dying in the San Francisco Bay Region, the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station developed a collaborative research response that helped identify the cause—a water mold previously 

unknown to science. The combined efforts of the Forest Service with APHIS and numerous partners via the California Oak Mortality Task Force have reduced the 

human-assisted spread of Sudden Oak Death and helped communities in the 14 infested coastal counties in California and Oregon deal with the infestation. 

Restoration and Rehabilitation

Restoring landscapes that have been impacted by invasive species or associated 

management activities is necessary for improving ecosystem integrity and function 

and may reduce vulnerability to invasive species establishment in the future. ReVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 X:\04PUBL~1\04MY16~1\5-16-1~1\80982.TXT MARK
10

storing and maintaining the health, functions, and productivity of areas affected by 

invasive species is consistent with management guidance on restoring national forests and the effective use of native species. 

For example, In order to restore cutthroat trout populations to streams, non-native trout are replaced with genetically pure cutthroat populations. After a decade 

of restoration efforts, Cherry Creek, on the Gallatin National Forest, now contains 

the largest genetically pure population of this cutthroat trout subspecies in the 

upper Missouri River drainage area. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the invasive species issue is considered a high priority by all program areas of the U.S. Forest Service. We believe the Forest Service collaborative 

approach to invasive species management enhances our ability to work together by 

building on each other’s strengths and authorities. In addition, our Forest Service 

personnel works with local, county, and State governments; Cooperative Weed Management Areas; Cooperative Invasive Species Management Areas; our departmental 

partners NRCS, ARS and APHIS; and other organizations in the public and private 

sectors to promote a collaborative approach to mitigate, manage, and if necessary, 

adapt to invasive species threats across the landscape. 

I would like to thank the committee members for their interest in invasive species 

management, and I welcome any questions you may have for me at this time. 

Mr. BISHOP. No, thank you. I appreciate your testimony, looking 

forward to asking questions. And how you managed to get the bagpipes as background music was truly—that was a master stroke. 

I don’t know how you did it, but congratulations. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Next to Dr. George Beck from the Colorado State 

University on the Healthy something Habitat. 

Dr. BECK. Coalition. 

Mr. BISHOP. Whatever it is. Happy to have you here, and you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. K. GEORGE BECK, PROFESSOR OF WEED 

SCIENCE, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, HEALTHY 

HABITATS COALITION 

Dr. BECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Bishop, Ranking 

Member Horsford, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Dr. George 

Beck, and I am a professor of weed science at Colorado State University. Today I represent the Healthy Habitats Coalition. We are 

a diverse coalition dedicated to improving invasive species management in our country. 

In spite of almost three decades of effort by many organizations 

working to persuade the Federal Government to do a better job 

controlling and managing invasive species, little progress has been 

made. The list of invasive species is long, but quite manageable. 

The Healthy Habitats Coalition collective experience is with 

invasive weeds, and I will focus on them to show the need for substantial improvement by the Federal Government. 

The data on this particular slide show the number of infested 

acres in 2009, acreage treated and restored and the increase of infested acres for six Federal agencies that have a responsibility to 

manage invasive species. Only 3.2 percent of existing infested acres 

were treated and restored in 2009. Weed scientists indicate that 

invasive weeds typically spread at a rate of 12 to 16 percent annually. Treating and restoring only 3.2 percent of infested acres annually, coupled with a 12 percent increase, indicates that Federal inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\04PUBL~1\04MY16~1\5-16-1~1\80982.TXT MARK
11

fested acres will double by 2017 and will surpass 100 million acres 

at that time. 

Federal agencies are acquiring about three-and-a-half times more 

acres of invasive weeds annually than they are treating and restoring. This plan decidedly will never be successful and will continuously produce more and more infested acres, thus preventing realization of land management goals and objectives. Just as importantly, however, these ever-expanding acres of invasive weeds on 

federally managed lands will serve as a constant source of 

propagules to disperse to new locations. 

These data show the National Invasive Species Council budget, 

which is assembled by asking the agencies for what they have 

done, and putting those figures into one of these seven budget categories. The Federal Government spent $1.563 billion in fiscal year 

2009 on invasive species management, stating that $642 million 

was spent on control and management. HHC members have years 

of experience designing weed management plans, and our calculations differ substantially from the Federal data. 

Agencies indicated they treated and restored 1,603,805 acres in 

2009. Our calculations suggest the following when early detection/

rapid response is budgeted at $1,000 per acre, restoration at $300 

per acre, and controlled herbicide at $100 per acre. As you can see, 

our calculations indicate that far less appears to have been spent 

on control and management than that stated by the Federal agencies. 

This figure shows our recalculated budget, and there remains 

about $305 million that cannot be readily placed into one of the 

next budget categories. It appears, then, that agencies are spending 

more money per acre to control invasive weeds than is necessary. 

The Healthy Habitat Coalition recommends that Federal agencies must treat and restore at least 15 percent of infested acres annually to overcome this management deficit. The data in this table 

show that within 10 years, 19.2 million acres would be treated and 

restored using this plan, which represents a 39 percent decrease of 

infested acres, as opposed to over 120 percent increase using their 

current approach over the same time period. 

In addition to treating and restoring many more acres annually 

than Federal agencies currently do, they also must be more efficient and effective with taxpayer dollars. Many university extension professors have spent considerable effort over the past 25 

years educating and training Federal personnel about invasive 

weeds and their management. The inadequate Federal performance 

in spite of this extensive educational effort by so many also suggests, then, that their efforts are likely insufficient. We, as a Nation, are digressing, rather than progressing, on invasive species 

management. 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Horsford, and members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify 

at today’s hearing and presenting the facts related to invasive species. I will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Beck follows:]

12

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

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Dr. George 

Beck and I am a professor of weed science at Colorado State University. I am appearing before you today representing the Healthy Habitats Coalition, a diverse coalition of land managers, conservation organizations, private companies, and academics such as myself, focused on how local management is the best practice for 

natural resources management including invasive species. I would like to walk you 

through the growing problem related to invasive species as well as some of the research HHC has conducted on dollars spent to control and manage invasive species. 

Invasive Species Overview and Situation to Date 

Invasive species is an insidious and occasionally sinister economic and environmental issue—it is not new. Canada thistle, for example, was first declared noxious 

in the United States in 1795 in Vermont. A little overgrazing by one user, in this 

instance, opened the door for invasion of the common area by Canada thistle, which 

in turn decreased everyone else’s ability to raise the sustenance needed to survive. 

It was the tragedy of the commons where one person’s use of the environment influenced the next person’s use and invasive species continue to plague us in this fashion to this day. 

In the 1980s, many Western States public and private land managers were highly 

dissatisfied with how Federal land management agencies were managing noxious 

and invasive weeds. The Intermountain Noxious Weed Advisory Council (INWAC) 

was formed in 1987. INWAC was a grass roots organization whose goal was to educate Federal agency decision makers and Congress about the problems associated 

with noxious and invasive weeds and the need for much enhanced management by 

Federal agencies in particular. In 1990, INWAC helped write and secure passage 

of section 2814 of the Federal Noxious Weed Act, which requires all Federal agencies to manage noxious weeds in cooperation with State and local governments. Furthermore, the law specifically requires that any National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) assessment that must be produced be completed within 1 year and section 

2814 presently remains the law of the land. Some Federal agencies have not yet 

complied with section 2814. 

In 1996, INWAC along with several noted invasive species scientists from across 

the United States met with President Bill Clinton’s Science Advisors to voice their 

dissatisfaction with the management of invasive species by Federal agencies. The 

Administration at that time disagreed but a letter of protest about invasive species 

management in the United States signed by 500 scientists was an outcome of that 

meeting and found its way to the highest Administrative offices. As a result, Executive Order 13112 was issued by President Clinton in 1999. The National Invasive 

Species Council (NISC) was formed, which was comprised of eight of the President’s 

Cabinet Secretaries and co-chaired by the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and 

Interior. E.O. 13112 created the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) which 

along with NISC staff created all the National Invasive Species Management Plans 

over the past 13 years. ISAC also wrote and published a guidance paper for all Federal agencies clearly defining what constitutes an invasive species—i.e., what is, and 

just as importantly, what is not an invasive species (see Addendum). 

The National Invasive Weed Awareness week in Washington, D.C. started in 2001 

and evolved recently into the National Invasive Species Awareness Week. The goal 

was to heighten the awareness about invasive species among Federal agency decision makers and Members of Congress. We were successful and our elected leaders 

in particular understand that invasive species indeed is an insidious issue albeit, 

a competing priority that has fallen short of the action that is clearly needed. 

Current Status and Necessary Steps To Take 

In spite almost three decades of work with the Federal Government to control and 

manage invasive species, little progress has been made and what progress that has 

occurred is grossly insufficient on a national scale. A multitude of taxa require our 

immediate management attention; zebra and quagga mussels, New Zealand 

mudsnails, Burmese pythons, feral hogs, emerald ash borers, gypsy moths, Asian 

carp, snakehead fish—the list of invasive species is long but manageable. The 

Healthy Habitat Coalition’s collective experience, however, is with invasive weeds 

and we will focus on the continued growth of various weed species and the need for 

better control and management measures on lands and waterways throughout the 

country. The data in Table 1 outline the amount of infested acres, the amount of 

acres treated, and the increase of infested acres for the six major Federal Agencies 

who have jurisdiction over invasive species.

13

Table 1.—Magnitude of Federal Agency Invasive Weed Management Fiscal Year 2009

[Data provided to Healthy Habitats Coalition directly from Federal Agencies] 

Agency

(Big 6) Infested Acres Treated &restored acres 

Percent

T&R 

New Acres

Annually ∗ ∗

Total Net

Infested Acres 

BLM .................................................. 35,000,000 375,000 1.1% 4,155,000 38,780,555

USFS ................................................. 7,000,000 390,000 5.6% 793,200 7,403,200

NPS .................................................. 2,600,000 66,000 2.5% 304,080 2,838,080

DOD ∗ ............................................... 2,500,000 200,000 8% 276,000 2,576,000

APHIS ............................................... 81,709 27,805 34% 6,469 60,372

FWS .................................................. 2,300,000 345,000 15% 234,600 2,189,600

Others .............................................. Not 

available 

200,000 Not 

available 

Not 

available 

-

Totals ...................................... 49,481,709 1,603,805 3.2% 5,769,349 53,847,807

These data clearly show that only 3.2 percent of existing acres infested with 

invasive weeds were treated and restored in 2009. Weed scientists indicate that a 

typical rate of spread for weeds is 12 to 16 percent annually (Duncan and Clark 

2005). Treating and restoring only 3.2 percent of infested acres annually coupled 

with a 12 percent increase indicates that the FY09 infested acres on Federally managed lands will double by 2017 and will surpass 100 million acres by 2018 (Table 

2). Because the rate of invasive weed spread apparently is not recognized or at least 

accounted for, Federal agencies are acquiring 3.5 times more acres of invasive weeds 

annually than they are treating and restoring. This is a plan that decidedly will 

never be successful and will continuously produce more and more infested acres 

thus, preventing realization of land management goals and objectives. Just as importantly, these ever-expanding acres of invasive weeds on federally managed lands 

will serve as a constant source of propagules to disperse to neighboring lands and 

those distant to the infested site! HHC recommends that Federal agencies treat and 

restore at least 15 percent of their infested acres annually to successfully decrease 

acres of invasive weeds on lands they manage on behalf of the American public. Additionally, our Nation must create a borderless collaboration among Federal agencies, States and their land management agencies, private enterprise, and private 

land owners and land managers for invasive species management. Invasive species 

do not recognize political borders and we must overcome the barriers that prevent 

borderless collaboration to be successful.

Table 2.—Performance Assessment of Invasive Weed Management by Federal Agencies Over a 

10-Year Period 

Year Elapsed Years Beginning

Infested Acres 

Acres Treated & 

Restored (3.2 

percent of Begin) 

Infested Acres 

After Treatment 

12 Percent

Annual Increase 

Year End

Infested Acres 

2009 ................... 1 49.48 ¥1.60 = 47.88 + 5.75 = 53.63

2010 ................... 2 53.63 ¥1.74 = 51.89 + 6.23 = 58.12

2011 ................... 3 58.12 ¥1.89 = 56.23 + 6.75 = 62.98

2012 ................... 4 62.98 ¥2.04 = 60.94 + 7.31 = 68.25

2013 ................... 5 68.25 ¥2.21 = 66.04 + 7.92 = 73.96

2014 ................... 6 73.96 ¥2.40 = 71.56 + 8.59 = 80.15

2015 ................... 7 80.15 ¥2.60 = 77.55 + 9.31 = 86.86

2016 ................... 8 86.86 ¥2.81 = 84.05 + 10.09 = 94.14

2017 ................... 9 94.14 ¥3.05 = 91.09 + 10.93 = 102.02

2018 ................... 10 102.02 ¥3.31 = 98.71 + 11.85 + 110.56

FY09 NISC Budget 

The National Invasive Species Council staff assembled an annual ‘‘invasive species budget’’ by collecting data from Federal agencies and placing that information 

into one of seven categories that are associated with the National Invasive Species 

Management Plan. In FY09, the Federal Government spent $1.563 billion (Figure 

1) on invasive species stating that $642 million was spent on control and management, which is one of the NISC budget categories. HHC members have years of experience helping to design weed management strategies and systems and our calculations differ substantially from the Federal data. From Table 1, Federal Agencies 

indicate they treated and restored 1,603,805 acres infested with invasive weeds in 

FY09. Our calculations suggest the following when Early Detection and Rapid ReVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 X:\04PUBL~1\04MY16~1\5-16-1~1\80982.TXT MARK
14

sponse (EDRR) is budgeted at $1,000/acre, restoration at $300/acre, and control with 

a herbicide at $100/acre:

$291,000,000 spent on EDRR ÷ $1000/acre = 291,000 acres EDRR treated; 

$50,520,000 spent on restoration ÷ $300/acre = 168,400 acres restored; 

1,603,805 acres—291,000 EDRR treated-acres—168,400 acres restored = 1,143,505 

acres remaining for direct weed control. Calculating at $100/acre to control invasive 

weeds with a herbicide equates to $114,350,500 spent by Federal agencies to decrease their population abundance, which is the first logical step in any weed management system. Based on HHC calculations, far less appears to have been spent 

on control and management than the data stated by the Federal agencies (Figure 

2).

Figure 1. NISC FY09 invasive species budget.

Figure 2. HHC’s recalculated NISC budget impacts based on average cost analysis.

APHIS projects to control invasive insects and taxa other than invasive weeds 

comprise about two-thirds of the control and management budget categories. There 

remains about $305 million that cannot be readily placed into one of the NISC budget categories and it is highly likely that Federal agencies are spending more per 


80982.001.eps 80982.002.eps
15

acre to control invasive weeds than is necessary because they are not using the most 

cost-efficient tools and have high labor expenses. 

Solution to Federal Agency Performance Managing Invasive Weeds

Table 3.—A Positive Outcome if Federal Agencies Treat and Restore at Least 15 Percent of Acres 

Infested With Invasive Weeds Annually 

Year Elapsed Years Befinning

Infested Acres 

Acres Treated & 

Restored (15 

percent of Begin) 

Infested Acres 

After Treatment 

12 Percent

Annual Increase 

Year End

Infested Acres 

2009 ................... 1 49.48 ¥7.42 = 42.06 + 5.1 = 47.16

2010 ................... 2 47.16 ¥7.07 = 40.09 + 4.81 = 44.90

2011 ................... 3 44.90 ¥6.73 = 38.17 + 4.57 + 42.74

2012 ................... 4 42.74 ¥6.40 = 36.34 + 4.35 = 40.69

2013 ................... 5 40.69 ¥6.10 = 34.59 + 4.15 = 38.74

2014 ................... 6 38.74 ¥5.80 = 32.94 + 3.95 = 36.89

2015 ................... 7 36.89 ¥5.53 = 31.36 + 3.76 = 35.12

2016 ................... 8 35.12 ¥5.26 = 29.86 + 3.58 = 33.44

2017 ................... 9 33.44 ¥5.01 = 28.42 + 3.41 = 31.83

2018 ................... 10 31.83 ¥4.77 = 27.06 + 3.25 + 30.30

Federal Agencies must treat and restore at least 15 percent of existing infested 

acres in any given year to overcome their management deficit to date (Table 3). 

Table 3 is similar to Table 2 but is based upon treating and restoring 15 percent 

of infested acres annually. Within 10 years, 19.2 million acres would be treated and 

restored, which represents a 39 percent decrease of acres infested with invasive 

weeds on federally managed lands as opposed to their current thrust where over 100 

million new acres would be infested (Table 2) over the same time period! In addition 

to treating and restoring many more acres annually than Federal agencies currently 

do, they also must be more efficient and effective with taxpayer dollars. A paper addressing this issue is included in the addendum. 

Invasive Species Management by Federal Agencies 

It is abundantly clear that the management of invasive species by Federal agencies is not sufficient to slow the growing problem. The very nature of invasive species is to increase their populations in their new home seemingly without bounds 

until habitats are saturated (Figure 3). Invasive species management is not an option.

Figure 3. Typical population growth curve for invasive species.


80982.003.eps
16

Many university professors with extension appointments have spent considerable 

time over the past 25 years educating and training the Federal land management 

workforce about invasive weeds and their management. To be sure, there are some 

shinning lights within the Federal system with regard to invasive species management. For example, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spent about 42 percent of 

their FY09 ‘‘invasive species budget’’ to control and manage invasive species and the 

National Park Service spent 100 percent of their FY09 ‘‘invasive species budget’’ on 

control and management, and the majority of these monies were spent on invasive 

weeds. So it is clear that if an agency or department desires to manage all taxa associated with this insidious problem, they can do so! The Healthy Habitats Coalition 

has a proposed solution to our national invasive species problem, but it will take 

Congress, the States, local governments, Federal land managers, private enterprise, 

and private landowners working together to implement a solution. The time for action is upon us—we must stop kicking this can down the road! 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you again for the opportunity 

to testify at today’s hearing and present the facts related to invasive species. I am 

happy to answer any questions. 

FY09 NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL INVASIVE SPECIES EXPENDITURES

COMPILATION

Economics of Invasive Weed Control: Chemical, Manual/Physical/fire,

Biological, Doing Nothing

K. George Beck

Professor of Weed Science

Colorado State University 

Financial Costs/Acre and Impacts to Budgets 

Regardless of whether working for private enterprise or government, land management personnel must stretch limited budgets yet be effective simultaneously. 

Labor most often is the most expensive portion of any weed management project. 

It is incumbent upon land managers to use methods that minimize labor costs and 

this is especially so with public land managers because they are dependent upon 

tax dollars to execute their programs. 

Using herbicides or biological control agents to decrease the population abundance 

of a target invasive weed represent those approaches that utilize the least labor to 

effect initial/continued reduction of targets species. Biocontrol is developed with public funds and this is the primary reason that it seems inexpensive to the end user, 

including Federal agencies. Biocontrol is a very attractive and highly useful approach to control invasive weed species but success has been inconsistent in space 

and time. There are numerous successful biocontrol endeavors and the literature 

has many examples. The Fire Effects Information System Web site managed by 

USDA-Forest Service is one of the best and most complete information sources for 

the biology and management of many invasive weed species (http://www.fs.fed.us/

database/feis/). Another outstanding source of information on managing invasive 

weeds recently became available—Weed Control in Natural Areas in too describes 

where and upon what species biocontrol has been successful and extensively outlines 

all management options. If biocontrol is the method of choice, land managers must 

carefully research choices for their effectiveness. The spatial and temporal variation 

associated with biocontrol performance can be due to many genetic and environmental reasons from habitat preference by the biocontrol agent to the production of 

new genotypes from previously geographically separated genotypes now growing in 

proximity to one another, and many as yet to be discovered reasons. 

Fire too can be a good tool to decrease populations (DiTomaso et al. 2006) of some 

invasive weeds, most notably annual grasses and forbs such as cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum) or medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and yellow starthistle 

(Centaurea solstitialis). As with other integrated management systems for weeds, 

use of fire to manage invasive weeds must be integrated with other tools such as 

seeding to provide competition to ward off recovering weed species and allow completion of land management goals and objectives. Burning mixed brush-cheatgrass 

stands destroys some to many weed seeds and allows for about one season to establish desirable vegetation before cheatgrass re-establishes and dominates the site 

again (Evans and Young 1978; Young and Evans 1978; Young 2000). Establishing 

competitive perennial grass species may successfully keep cheatgrass from re-establishing. If, however, the system is left alone after burning, cheatgrass or 

medusahead will re-invade. Burning stands of yellow starthistle also will provide excellent population control if combined with herbicide treatment and seeding 

17

(DiTomaso et al. 2006b). Burning stands of perennial weeds such as Canada thistle, 

leafy spurge, Russian and other knapweeds, or tamarisk rarely is effective because 

of the plants’ capability to re-grow from its root system and dominate a site again. 

These and other similar invasive weeds may recover soon enough after a prescribed 

burn to preclude establishment of seeded species. If fire is used to control perennial 

forbs or grasses, herbicides likely will have to be integrated into the management 

system to allow sufficient suppression of the target weed for a long enough time to 

give seeded species the opportunity to establish. 

Of all the methods used to decrease weed population abundance, herbicides are 

the most researched and arguably the best understood. In the course of their development, consistent performance in space and time is an extremely important consideration for a product to reach the consumer. Because of known performance developed from extensive research and the decreased labor associated with their use, herbicides often represent the most cost-effective means to use taxpayer dollars to decrease invasive weed populations so land restoration or rehabilitation may proceed. 

The decision to do nothing seems inexpensive and harmless on the surface but 

nothing could be farther from reality. The problem with invasive species is their 

populations always seem to expand and cause harm, albeit, a species can be problematic in one location or setting and not another (Beck et al. 2008). Most invasive 

species and certainly invasive weed populations develop in a sigmoid curve pattern 

and after a lag time following introduction, their populations increase exponentially 

until site saturation when their populations are limited by resource availability 

(Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The problem is one never knows where on the curve the population at any given 

population lies. Even with cheatgrass, the invaded location/site might be new and 

at the bottom of the curve when population control is most easily obtained or it 

could be at beginning of the exponential phase but it is difficult at best to make 

such a determination. The best response is to NEVER DO NOTHING because 

doing nothing can be the most expensive decision one can make due to the subsequent population growth by the invasive weed and the resulting havoc it wreaks 

upon the native plant community and the animals it supports! Doing nothing simply 

yields the site to the invasive species. 


80982.004.eps
18

Importance of Prevention, Early Detection and Rapid Response/Eradication 

Prevention often is thought of as the most powerful form of weed management 

and indeed, the least expensive weed to control is the one that is not present—however, prevention is not free. The perception that prevention is simply steps taken 

to keep stuff out that currently does not exist in a particular location is accurate 

for certain and possibly represents the greatest cost savings to taxpayers. Cleaning 

equipment between uses and locations seems a logical prevention approach along 

with using certified weed seed-free hay, forage, mulch or gravel, and careful screening of ornamental and agricultural introductions can be of tremendous benefit in the 

battle against invasive species. Prevention, however, can be expensive when it arbitrarily impedes trade and benefit: risk assessment is an important if not an essential component to screening programs so decisions that impact trade are transparent, logical, and acceptable. 

Prevention also means decreasing population abundance of existing weed infestations so they are not a source for new ones to develop some distance—close or far—

from the infested site. It is quite appropriate to think of extending prevention as 

a management strategy to efforts that decrease target populations in an infestation 

that is part of a project area. In fact, this may be the best ‘‘first light’’ under which 

to examine prevention efforts; i.e., how to keep current infestations from serving as 

sources for others. The silo or stovepipe approach to any weed management project 

is dangerous and invasive species management always should be thought of as a 

continuum among the strategies and methods used to manage such species. All this 

must be kept in mind because prevention and EDRR are the first lines of defense 

against invasive species. 

Economics and Pest Expansion Models Can Help Set Program Priorities 

Almost every person recognizes that it is much simpler to pull a single, newly 

found noxious weed than let it go and try to eradicate the large infestation that undoubtedly will occur over time. It is puzzling then that people tend to wait because 

‘‘that weed is not causing me a problem . . . now’’ knowing well that it inevitably 

will do so. The sooner an incipient patch of an invasive weed is controlled, regardless of proximity to the source, the less expensive it is to control, the greater the 

success will be, and most likely one will have eradicated a new or small, dispersed 

population. Data in Table 1 shows the increasing control cost associated with waiting in a hypothetical example of a newly found patch of spotted knapweed. The data 

also compare the decision to control manually vs. using an herbicide and both include seeding costs.

Table 1.—Cost Comparison of Controlling Spotted or Diffuse Knapweed Physically or Chemically, 

Demonstrating the Importance of Early Detection and Rapid Response 

Initial patch size Herbicide 

cost a

Application 

cost a

Time for 

handpull or 

dig a

Handpull or 

dig cost Seed cost 

Total cost 

herbicide + 

seeding 

Total cost 

handpull/dig 

+ seeding 

10 ft2 b $0.003 $0.20 0.25 h $3.00 $0 $0.20 $3.00

100 ft2 $0.03 $0.40 0.5 h $6.00 $0.46 $0.89 $6.46

1 acre $14 $20 145 h $1,742 $200 $218 $1,742

10 acres $140 $200 1,450 h $17,420 $2,000 $2,340 $19,420

100 acres $1,400 $2,000 $20,000 $23,400

a Cost comparisons based upon: Milestone herbicide $300/gal; $20/A application cost; labor $12/h; seed cost $200/A. 

b For 10 and 100 ft2 initial patch size, application method spot spray; only labor calculated. 

These data clearly show that the decision to wait to respond to a new weed infestation can be very costly. Regardless of the method, the cost of management increases several thousand times but the cost of manual control exceeds the cost of 

using an herbicide by 800 to 1,500 percent! This example shows the value of monitoring to find incipient invasive weed populations so they can be effectively controlled or eradiated at a fraction of the expense compared to waiting for impact and 

havoc to occur. These data also show the dramatic fiscal savings associated with 

using an herbicide compared to handpulling or similar manual methods of control. 

The decisions to act quickly when new or small infestations are found and to use 

19

an herbicide to affect target weed population decrease represent efficient and responsible use of taxpayer dollars and the stretching of limited budgets. 

While this example is hypothetical, Tables 2 and 3 present data comparing the 

costs (late 90s) associated with different methods to decrease target weed populations on Colorado and Montana rangeland. Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) 

was targeted in Colorado where handpulling twice annually was compared to mowing three times annually, to mowing twice followed by herbicide in fall, to herbicide 

application alone. Control of diffuse knapweed rosettes and bolted plants was best 

1 year after treatments were exerted where a herbicide was used alone or in combination with mowing compared to mowing alone or handpulling. Herbicides alone 

were about 1 percent of the total cost of handpulling and the latter was completely 

ineffective.

Table 2. Cost of Different Control Methods for Diffuse Knapweed on Colorado Rangeland in 1997 

and Subsequent Control 1 year After Original Treatments Were Applied 

(Sebastian and Beck 1999) 

Treatment Rate 

Percent

Control

rosettes 1

Percent

Control 

bolted 1

Hours Rate/hr or 

acre 2 Cost/acre Totalcost/acre 

Handpull 2 times/year 0 c 0 d 8.2 $9/Hr $2,643 $2,643

Mow 3 times/year 0 c 0 d 1.6 $50/A $150 $150

Mow + 

Tordon 2 times + 1 pt/A 84 a 100 a 1.1 + 0.4 $50 + 31/A $100 + 31 $131

Mow + 

Transline 2 times + 1 pt 43 b 100 a 1.1 + 0.4 $50 + 22/A $100 + 22 $122

Tordon 1 pt 74 a 96 b 0.4 $31/A $31 $31

Transline 1.3 pt 8 c 94 bc 0.4 $23/A $23 $23

Banvel + 

2,4-D 1 + 2 pt 0 c 89 c 0.4 $22/A $22 $22

Control 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

1 Compare means within a column; means followed by the same letter are similar (α=0.05). 2 Rates/costs based upon the following: $9/hr labor; mowing $50/A; Tordon $86/gal; Transline $31/gal; Banvel + 2,4-D $90/gal; $20/acre 

all ground herbicide applications (each plot 300 ft2, 4 reps=1,200 ft2 total/treatment). 

The second experiment (Table 3) was conducted in Montana on spotted knapweed 

and was similar to the Colorado experiment except biocontrol also was evaluated 

and the treatments were exerted for 2 years and data collected shortly (1 to 2 

months) thereafter. Handpulling kept 100 percent of plants from going to seed 

(bolted plants were targeted for pulling), but controlled only about one-half of spotted knapweed plants. Herbicides alone kept 93 to 100 percent of plants from going 

to seed and controlled 79 to 100 percent of spotted knapweed plants. Mowing in 

combination with herbicides or handpulling combined with herbicide use produced 

similar results to herbicides alone. Biocontrol was ineffective but insufficient time 

had passed to allow their successful establishment much less spotted knapweed population decrease. As with the Colorado study, the use of herbicides alone was less 

than 1 percent of the cost associated with handpulling and controlled almost twice 

as much knapweed. 

Both of these experiments show the strong monetary and weed control advantages 

associated with using herbicides to decrease target weed populations. All government land managers, regardless of the level of government, must demonstrate fiscal 

responsibility to taxpayers and that not only translates into total dollars spent but 

also what benefit or return was realized from the expenditures.

20

Table 3. Cost of Different Control Methods Invoked for 2 Consecutive Years for Spotted Knapweed 

in Montana and Subsequent Control 1 Year After Initial Treatments Applied and 1 Month After 

Final Treatments 

(Brown et al. 1999) 

Treatment Rate Plant growth 

stage 

Application 1997 Dates 1998

8/4/98 1 per- cent decrease 

in flowering 

8/4/98 1 per- cent control 

of plants 

Cost/acre 2 for 2 years 

Handpull Twice Early & 6/20 & 7/20 6/20 & 100 a 56 d $13,900.00

(bolted plants) late bud 7/22

Tordon + handpull 0.5 pt + Bolt 6/2 --- & 100 a 98 ab $97.50

(rosettes + mature) once late bud 7/21

Mow Twice Early &

late bud 

6/20 &

7/20

6/19 &

7/17

99 a 0 f $200.00

Mow + Tordon Once + Late bud 7/20 --- 100 a 100 a $75.37

0.5 pt Fall 

regrowth 

9/29 ---

Mow + Curtail Once + Late bud 7/16 --- 100 a 93 a $77.67

1 qt Fall 

regrowth 

9/29 ---

Tordon 0.5 pt Fall

regrowth 

9/29 --- 100 a 96 ab $25.37

Curtail 1 qt Fall

regrowth 

9/29 --- 100 a 79 c $27.67

Tordon 1 pt Bolting 6/2 --- 99 a 98 ab $30.75

Curtail 2 qt Bolting 6/2 --- 93 b 93 b $35.37

Cyphocleonus 30/plot Flowering 8/27 --- 0 d 0 d $90.00

achates

Tordon + 0.5 pt Bolt 6/2 --- 46 c 46 e $113.58

Cyphocleonus +

achates 30/plot Flowering 8/27 ---

Untreated 0 d 0 d $0.00

1 Compare means within a column; means followed by the same letter are similar (p=0.05). 

2 Costs based upon the following: handpulling $9.00/hr; Cyphocleonus achates $1.00/weevil; mowing $50/acre; Tordon $86/gal; Curtail $30.70/gal; ground application $20.00/acre. 

Control Risks v Harm Caused by Invasive Weeds 

Duncan and Clark (2005) cite numerous examples of the environmental and economic impacts caused by invasive weeds. Pimentel et al. (2005) calculated that 

invasive species impact the U.S. economy by more than $120 billion annually and 

$36 billion of this was caused by invasive weeds. The problems associated with 

invasive weeds are very clear and very expensive. The harm, real or potential, from 

invasive species is always a much greater risk than the tools used to control any 

invasive taxa but especially invasive weeds. If this was not the case, the species in 

question would not be considered invasive. Invasive species alter evolved relationships among organisms that share a habitat or ecosystem, which is highly significant biologically, ecologically, and economically! 

Herbicides are the most efficacious, most economical, and most consistent means 

of decreasing the population abundance of invasive weeds. A common theme is readily apparent when attempting to recover an infested habitat; i.e., a land manager 

must first decrease the population of the invasive weed before beginning any seeding operation or the latter effort will fail. Other site characteristics also may be in 

need of attention to fully realize restoration and these too should be addressed before expecting establishment of seeded species. Many of these characteristics could 

be very expensive to repair and thus, all the more reason to use the most economiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 X:\04PUBL~1\04MY16~1\5-16-1~1\80982.TXT MARK
21

cally viable tool to decrease invasive weed populations to use taxpayer dollars to the 

greatest extent possible. 

One serious concern about using herbicides to decrease target invasive weed populations is their effect on native plants, especially native forbs and shrubs. Many people believe that using an herbicide that will control invasive weedy forbs will strongly select for grasses and eliminate native forbs and shrubs, which are essential components of any native plant community. This is in fact not the case and the weed 

research community is developing databases to define the injury to native grasses, 

forbs, and shrubs caused by herbicides used to control invasive weeds. Erickson et 

al. (2006) sprayed Paramount (quinclorac) or Plateau (imazapic) directly onto the 

western fringed prairie orchid (Platanthera praeclara) in fall when it was senescing 

to mimic when these herbicides would be used to control leafy spurge (Euphorbia 

esula) and data were collected on orchid survival and fecundity 10 and 22 months 

after treatments (MAT) were applied. Neither herbicide influenced orchid survival. 

Plateau decreased orchid height by 43 percent at 10 MAT but this effect was no 

longer apparent at 22 MAT. Plateau also decreased raceme length by 58 percent and 

flower number by 70 percent 22 MAT. Quinclorac, however, had no such effects on 

the orchid and the researchers concluded that it was safe to use Paramount to control leafy spurge in the presence of the western fringed prairie orchid and while Plateau caused temporary stunting and decreased fecundity of the orchid, most of these 

symptoms disappeared the second year following treatment. 

Rice et al. (1997) studied the effects of plant growth regulator herbicides 

(picloram, clopyralid, and clopyralid + 2,4-D) on native grasses, forbs, and shrubs 

applied to control spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa; C. stoebe) in Montana 

over an 8-year period at four sites. Herbicides were applied once in either spring 

or fall to control spotted knapweed in 1989 and re-treated again in 1992 to control 

the recovering invasive weed. Plant community data were collected annually over 

the 8-year period and compared back to the floristic composition of each study site 

determined before initiation of the experiments. Herbicides controlled spotted 

knapweed very well (98–99 percent control) and shifted the plant community to 

dominance by grasses but the depression on plant community diversity was small 

and transient. By the end of the 3rd year after initial treatment, there were no differences in species diversity among treatments and some herbicide-treated plots 

began to surpass untreated plots in plant community diversity measurements. They 

also found that late-season herbicide application after forbs had entered summerdrought induced dormancy minimized the impact on plant community diversity. The 

effects of the pyridine herbicides (picloram and clopyralid) on the native plant community diversity were small and temporary and minimal compared to the reported 

impacts caused by spotted knapweed on the plant community (Tyser and Key 1988; 

Tyser 1992). 

University researchers worked with Dow AgroSciences to test a new pyridine herbicide, Milestone (aminopyralid), effects on native grasses, forbs and shrubs (http:/

/techlinenews.com/ForbShrubTolerancetoMilestone.pdf) at 14 locations throughout 

the Western United States. Individual tolerance rankings were established for 90 

native forb and 19 native shrub species to Milestone applied at 5 or 7 fl oz/acre in 

spring, late summer, or fall. Of the 90 forb species studied in this experiment, 23, 

14, 19, and 34 were ranked as susceptible (more than 75 percent stand reduction), 

moderately susceptible (51–75 percent stand reduction), moderately tolerant (15–50 

percent stand reduction), and tolerant (less than 15 percent stand reduction) 1 year 

following application. Many of these forbs recovered by the end of the second year 

following application and only 19 of the 90 forbs were ranked either as moderately 

susceptible or susceptible at that time. Interestingly, shrubs generally were more 

tolerant of Milestone than were forbs. Of the 19 shrubs in the study, 74 percent 

were ranked as moderately tolerant or tolerant 2 years after herbicides were applied 

and Rosaceae shrubs were generally the most susceptible species. These data also 

demonstrate the transitory nature of injury to native forbs and shrubs caused by 

herbicides used to decrease the populations of invasive weeds. 

Aminocyclopyrachlor is a new herbicide developed by DuPont and can be used to 

control susceptible invasive weedy forbs and woody species. It is a reduced-rate herbicide (typical maximum rate for selective weed control is 2 oz active ingredient/

acre) that was placed on a fast-track registration by U.S.–EPA. An experiment was 

conducted on a rangeland site north of Denver, CO (Sebastian et al. 2011) to assess 

the establishment of native forbs and shrubs after using aminocyclopyrachlor 

(AMCP) to decrease the population abundance of Russian knapweed (Acroptilon 

repens). The herbicide was applied at 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 a.i./a on May 14, 2009 

and 10 native forbs, 4 native shrubs, and 2 native, cool-season perennial grass species were drill-seeded in April 2010 and data were collected in fall 2010. Data for 

a penstemon species, gayfeather (Liatris punctata), and blanketflower (Gaillardia 

22

pulchella) showed the highest establishment at the highest herbicide rate where 

Russian knapweed control was greatest (Figure 2) and the same effect was observed 

for the average of all forbs; blanketflower, however, appeared more susceptible to 

the herbicide residue than did the penstemon species and gayfeather. Shrubs in general seemed to be more susceptible than forbs to AMCP soil residues (Figure 3). 

Greatest establishment of all seeded shrubs was realized at the 1 oz ai/a rate of 

AMCP. Louisiana sage (Artemisia ludoviciana) established best at the 1 oz rate of 

AMCP but winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) and fourwing saltbush (Atriplex 

canescens) established similarly at the 1 and 2 oz rates of AMCP and all three species established better than in plots where the Russian knapweed was not controlled. The latter is a key response and our research results are very clear regardless of the target species and herbicides used to decrease its populations—the target 

weed species populations must be decreased to give seeded species the opportunity 

to establish or failure of the latter will ensue! Overall summary of this experiment 

showed that 50 percent of grasses, 8 percent of forbs, and no shrubs established in 

the untreated controls whereas 100 percent of grasses, 93 percent of forbs, and 88 

percent of shrubs established in plots treated with 2 oz ai/a of aminocyclopyrachlor 

where Russian knapweed control was maximized.

A similar studied was conducted at a foothills location west of Longmont, CO but 

on an established plant community (Sebastian et al. 2012). It is a harshsite with 

thin topsoils and a very robust native plant community that was invaded by Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica). Aminocyclopyrachlor was applied at 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 

and 2.0 oz ai/a in May 2009 and data were collected in fall 2010. Dalmatian toadflax 

adults were controlled well at 1.0 and 2.0 oz/a (Figures 4 and 5) but a flush of 

toadflax seedlings was apparent suggesting that the herbicide residue was insufficient to control these germinants (data not shown). The mean density of all native 

forbs (Figure 4) decreased 22, 18, and 40 percent at the 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 oz/a AMCP 

rates, respectively. Native shrubs appeared more sensitive to Aminocyclopyrachlor 

than forbs; mean shrub densities decreased 33, 42, and 75 percent at the 0.5, 1.0, 

and 2.0 oz/a rates (Figure 5). Overall, native forb richness by species decreased 22–

44 percent and shrubs decreased 33–75 percent but neither native functional group 

was eliminated by Aminocyclopyrachlor. Warm season grass abundance increased 

227 percent (data not shown) over the course of the experiment likely in response 

to increased summer precipitation that occurred in 2010. The harsh conditions at 

this site, i.e., thin soils and typically dry climatic conditions replaced by abundant 

summer precipitation—appeared to have influenced results and this experiment is 


80982.005.eps
23

currently being repeated at three additional sites nearby and we will continue to 

monitor changes at all four sites for at least 4 years following herbicide application 

to detect temporary and permanent shifts in the native plant community.

Continual monitoring for incipient patches or introductions is of critical importance for successful invasive species management. Bear in mind that invasive species have earned such declaration and their populations almost always increase and 


80982.006.eps 80982.007.eps
24

often exponentially so. New ecological relationships vary drastically from their 

points of origin—there are over 20 hypotheses associated with invasion success but 

they all share the common theme that the invasive species populations, regardless 

of species, increase dramatically in new homes. Invasive weed populations throughout the United States should be managed assertively by all land managers but especially by public land managers that are managing large tracts of land for the benefit 

of the American public. Management systems developed to help restore or reclaim 

infested habitats should be effective and efficient and one of the most important aspects associated with being effective and efficient is the decrease in the population 

abundance of invasive weeds that must occur before seeded species can successfully 

establish. Herbicides represent the most effective and fiscally efficient means to decrease target invasive weed populations. Databases are under development that 

carefully define the injury to native grasses, forbs, and shrubs caused by herbicides 

used to control invasive weeds to provide all land managers with the appropriate 

information to design ecologically-based, IPM systems that include herbicides yet 

allow recovery of productive native plant communities so land management goals 

and objectives can be realized. 

LITERATURE CITED

Beck, K. George, Kenneth Zimmerman, Jeffrey D. Schardt, Jeffrey Stone, Ronald, 

R. Lukens, Sarah Reichard, John Randall, Allegra A. Cangelosi, and John Peter 

Thompson. 2008. Invasive Species Defined in a Policy Context: Recommendations 

from the Federal Invasive Species Advisory Committee. Invasive Plant Science and 

Management 1:414–421. 

Brown, Melissa L., Celestine A. Duncan, and Mary B. Halstvedt. 1999. Spotted 

knapweed management with integrated methods. Proc. Wes. Soc. Weed Sci. 52:68–

70. 

DiTomaso, J. M., G. B. Kyser, J. R. Miller, S. Garcia, R. F. Smith, G. Nader, J. 

M. Connor, and S. B. Orloff. 2006b. Integrating prescribed burning and clopyralid 

for the management of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Weed Sci. 54:757–

767. 

DiTomaso, Joseph M., Matthew L. Brooks, Edith B. Allen, Ralph Minnich, Peter 

M. Rice, and Guy B. Kyser. 2006. Control of invasive weeds with prescribed burning. Weed Technol. 20:535–548. 

DiTomaso, J.M., G.B. Kyser, S.R. Oneto, R.G. Wilson, S.B. Orloff, L.W. Anderson, 

S.D. Wright, J.A. Roncoroni, T.L. Miller, T.S. Prather, C. Ransom, K.G. Beck, C. 

Duncan, K. A. Wilson, and J.J. Mann. 2013. Weed Control in Natural Areas in the 

Western United States. Weed Research and Information Center, University of California. 544 pp. IBSN 978–0–692–01922–1. 

Duncan, Celestine L. and Janet K. Clark, eds. Invasive Plants of Range and 

Wildlands and Their Environmental, Economic, and Societal Impacts. 2005. Weed 

Science Society of America, Lawrence, KS. 222 pp. 

Erickson, Ann M., Rodney G. Lym, and Don Kirby. 2006. Effect of herbicides for 

leafy spurge control on the Western Prairie Fringed Orchid. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 59:462–467. 

Evans, Raymond A. and James A. Young. 1978. Effectiveness of rehabilitation 

practices following wildfire in a degraded big sagebrush-downy brome community. 

Journal of Range Management. 31(3): 185–188. 

Pimental, David, Rodolfo Zuniga, and Doug Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United 

States. Ecol. Econ. 52:273–288. 

http://techlinenews.com/ForbShrubTolerancetoMilestone.pdf. 

Rice, Peter M., J. Christopher Toney, Donald J. Bedunah, and Clinton E. Carlson. 

1997. Plant community diversity and growth form response to herbicide applications 

for control of Centaurea maculosa. J. App. Ecol. 34:1397–1412. 

Sebastian, James R. and K. George Beck. 1999. The influence of various control 

methods on diffuse knapweed on Colorado rangeland. Proc. Wes. Soc. Weed Sci. 

52:41–43. 

Sebastian, James R., K. George Beck, Scott Nissen, Derek Sebastian, and Sam 

Rodgers. 2011. Native species establishment on Russian knapweed infested rangeland following pre-plant herbicide applications. Proc. Wes. Soc. Weed Sci. 64:16–17. 

Sebastian, James R., George Beck, and Derek Sebastian. 2012. Using 

aminocyclopyrachlor to control Dalmatian toadflax and promote native plant community recovery and diversity. Proc. Wes. Soc. Weed Sci. 65:51–52. 

Tyser, R.W. 1992. Vegetation associated with two alien plant species in a fescue 

grassland in Glacier National Park, Montana. Great Basin Naturalist 52:189–193. 

25

Tyser, R.W. and C.W. Key. 1988. Spotted knapweed in natural area fescue grasslands: an ecological assessment. Northwest Science 62:151–160. 

Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1978. Population dynamics after wildfires 

in sagebrush grasslands. Journal of Range Management. 31(4): 283–289. 

Young, Jim. 2000. Bromus tectorum L. In: Bossard, Carla C.; Randall, John M.; 

Hoshovsky, Marc C., eds. Invasive plants of California’s wildlands. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press: 76–80. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO DR. K. GEORGE BECK

Question. Please share some examples of plants and plant pests that move in 

interstate and foreign commerce that have become problems for State inspection, 

quarantine, agriculture, and natural resource authorities. 

Answer. Arunda donax; common name giant reed; imported as an ornamental in 

many U.S. States and now being considered for biofuel production. 

Pennisetum setaceu; fountain grass; imported as an ornamental and now one of 

Hawaii’s most damaging invasive plant species. 

Imperata cylindrica; cogongrass; used as packing material and imported for forage 

and erosion control. Now an aggressive invasive species problem in the Southern 

and Eastern United States as far north as Michigan. 

Anoplophora glabripennis; Asian longhorned beetle; accidentally introduced in 

wood packing materials; destructive wood boring pest expanding its range in the 

United States. 

Agrilus planipennis; emerald ash borer; arrived accidentally in cargo from Asia; 

first discovered in Michigan in 2002 and since spread to 17 other States in upper 

Midwest and Northeast. 

Lythrum salicaria; purple loosestrife; introduced as an ornamental but now prohibited in most States. Considered by some to be the poster child for invasive species. 

Sturnus vulgaris; European starlings; introduced into New York 1890s and have 

since spread across continental United States and may even be helping to spread 

other invasive species such as Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia).

Question. What are some examples of associated costs to States for invasive species that have arrived via interstate and foreign commerce and then become established in States? 

Answer. Emerald ash borer in Ohio projected costs for landscape value losses, tree 

removal and replacement range from $1.8 to $7.6 billion (in Ohio alone) (Sydnor et 

al. 2007). Data from nine U.S. cities (Atlanta, GA; Baltimore, MD; Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Jersey City, NJ; New York, NY; Oakland, CA; Philadelphia, PA; and Syracuse, NY) indicates maximum economic impact potential of losing 1.2 billion trees 

from attack by Asian longhorned beetle is $669 billion. Estimates were based upon 

losses accrued to date. (Nowak et al. 2001). Economic impact by purple loosestrife 

in 19 Eastern and Northcentral States was estimated to be $229 million annually 

because of decreased value of wetlands, hay and pasture, fur harvest, migratory bird 

hunting, and wildlife observation and photography. (Duncan et al. 2004). 

Question. What limitations and opportunities are there for State agriculture and 

natural resource authorities to guard against new pest introductions at borders and 

other entry points? 

Answer. States are limited by authority when managing pathways of invasive species introductions, particularly those pathways that involve foreign commerce. The 

Federal Government (Homeland Security/Customs and Borders and USDA–APHIS) 

possess the authority to inspect cargo/shipments for the occurrence of invasive species whereas States do not have this authority. Therefore, States are limited by Federal involvement and further limited by the inadequacy of Federal involvement. 

Documentation in this questionnaire indicates that Hawaii State inspectors intercepted numerous (16 pages of reports) incidences of ants in cargo between 2002–

2013 whereas Federal agents did not intercept a single case over that same period. 

An opportunity exists to use funding made available to States through the proposed Healthy Habitats Coalition (HHC) legislation that would redirect $200 million 

annually to all 50 States and territories for invasive species management. In our 

legislation, prevention is part of management including management of introduction 

pathways (e.g. intercepting invasive species unintentionally included in cargo). It is 

critically important to manage introduction pathways but this must be balanced 

with managing existing problems so the latter do not continue to serve as sources 

to disperse to new locations. States like Hawaii could form a partnership with Federal authorities and use some of the funds provided through HHC’s proposed legislaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 X:\04PUBL~1\04MY16~1\5-16-1~1\80982.TXT MARK
26

tion allowing State and Federal personnel to work together cooperatively to dramatically enhance inspections at ports of entry. 

Question. Are there opportunities and limitations on the ability of Federal and 

State agriculture inspection and natural resource authorities to share real time data 

at ports of entry on potential high-risk pests, products and pathways moving between and into States? 

Answer. There apparently is a fundamental problem with communication among 

levels of government concerning inspection of cargo at ports of entry and the reporting of intercepted invasive species. The preamble that accompanied these questions 

implies that Federal and State personnel that inspect cargo do not communicate 

their findings and this is a clear limitation. Whether the Federal Government has 

the sole authority to intercept and hold cargo that harbors invasive species is irrelevant if the intercepted problem is not reported to appropriate States (and appropriate entities within any State). It would be a fairly simple chore to create a communication network among State and Federal authorities at ports of entry and then 

to appropriate natural resource authorities in a State using smart phones and other 

computer technology that enhances simultaneous and instant communication. This 

is a human problem that can be corrected by stimulating cooperation. 

The opportunity to overcome this apparent problem resides in the proposed 

Healthy Habitats Coalition legislation. Re-directed funds to a State could be used 

to create a communication network among Federal and State authorities such that 

information on tainted cargo could be shared immediately via this network so State 

authorities can maintain a watch on susceptible habitats for the occurrence of the 

new interloper. Additionally, Federal port of inspection authorities can apply for 

funds re-directed to States so to augment their efforts at ports of entry, which is 

yet another route that can be exploited to improve interception of high-risk or other 

invasive species. 

Question. Please provide examples, opportunities and limitations to Federal and 

State agriculture inspection and natural resource authorities engaging in real-time 

sharing of information and even being co-located at ports of entry. 

Answer. I am not aware of any examples of Federal and State inspectors engaging 

in real-time sharing of information or being co-located at ports of entry. The problem seems obvious and relatively easy to cure by taking advantage of language in 

the Healthy Habitats Coalition proposed invasive species legislation that encourages 

partnerships between State and local governments to manage invasive species including preventing new species from arriving in our country. Invasive species is a 

borderless issue because only humans respect political boundaries so it seems most 

logical to create a borderless approach to resolving importation of new invasive species by forming partnerships between Federal and State governments so each body 

is helping the other do the job of preventing new species from establishing in our 

country . . . State by State. MOUs and Cooperative Agreements are required in our 

proposed legislation to carefully spell out roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in the venture and re-directed funds to States will help stimulate such partnerships. 

Question. What are some examples of impacts to invasive species control anticipated due to reductions in Federal funds made available through the U.S. Forest 

Service’s State and Private Forest Health Program? 

Answer. There should be no impacts to invasive species control programs regardless of funding cuts to the State and Private Forest Health Program. Invasive species tend to be a competing interest for some decision makers and HHC’s proposed 

legislation to create a borderless and gap-free invasive species management program 

throughout all 50 States and U.S. territories will solve this apparent problem. 

States will have greater opportunity for shared responsibility to manage invasive 

species and the ability of Federal agencies to be more directly involved with States 

will stimulate Federal decision makers to prioritize invasive species management 

over other competing priorities because of funding made available through HHC’s 

legislation. 

Question. Can there be opportunities to utilize funds from the State and Private 

Forest Health Program to control ungulates that impact forest health? 

Answer. I am not certain whether State and Private Forest Health funds could 

be used to control ungulates that damage forests but the funds associated with 

HHC’s proposed legislation certainly could be used for that purpose. Our proposed 

legislation clearly places the Governor of each State in charge of that State’s 

invasive species program and the desire to manage feral goats, hogs, or any other 

species that damage forests or any other habitat is a decision that will be made at 

the State level. Our legislation also will stimulate improved Federal agency cooperation and coordination with States as they will prepare a strategic plan for their 

27

invasive species management responsibilities in any State or region. They also will 

have to demonstrate measurable outcomes associated with the use of public money. 

Question. Different regions across the Nation face different invasive species challenges due to factors such as climate, elevation, etc.; this is particularly the case 

for the tropical, isolated, island State of Hawaii. Biocontrol development for the 

highest priority pests nationally is not likely to benefit the unique challenges faced 

by individual regions. Are there any examples of efforts to account for the unique 

conditions of various regions in developing biocontrol priorities? 

Answer. USDA–ARS is the primary agency charged with developing biocontrol for 

the United States and ARS has installations throughout our country and almost all 

States, including Hawaii, have such installations. I have had the opportunity to 

evaluate ARS invasive species programs on several occasions as an ad hoc reviewer 

and member of evaluation teams and it was quite clear that their charge is to interact locally to help resolve local issues. Perhaps all that is necessary is to meet with 

ARS scientists to explain the control/management—biocontrol in particular—needs 

for the specific invasive species problems in Hawaii. 

USDA-Forest Service also has a substantial research group and agenda including 

developing biocontrol around local needs. This may be yet another opportunity to 

meet with Forest Service scientists to acquire their expertise to help on this important issue for Hawaii. Again, jointly prioritizing issues and working across agencies 

and States will lead to a shared effort with better outcome. 

Question. The Hawaii Invasive Species Council was modeled after the National 

Invasive Species Council (NISC) to recognize the importance of cabinet-level leadership and interagency coordination, planning, and prioritization in effectively addressing invasive species. A Hawaii representative from the State Department of 

Agriculture also serves on the national Invasive Species Advisory Committee 

(ISAC). When was the last time Council members of NISC or ISAC met and how 

often do they meet to fulfill the intent of Executive Order 13112 and support improved Federal, State, and regional coordination? 

Answer. I served on ISAC for 6 years (2002–2008) including serving as vice-chair 

and chair of the committee. Once during that time, Secretary of Interior Norton visited with ISAC during a scheduled meeting and no other cabinet-level members ever 

visited with ISAC from 2002–2008. Clearly, this was one of my deepest concerns 

while serving on ISAC, i.e., a lack of strong leadership for the Federal agencies and 

it seems that this deficiency stood in the way of getting agencies to cooperate and 

work together to create a borderless, gap-free approach to managing invasive species. In fact, the opposite seems to remain the case today—agencies work in isolation and have a piecemeal approach to resolving the invasive species issue in our 

country. NISC staff worked diligently to breakdown barriers to agency cooperation 

during my term on ISAC but they had no authority to foster such cooperation. The 

three NISC co-chairs should not only meet regularly to develop a coordinated and 

cooperative approach to managing invasive species within the Federal system, their 

leadership to foster the same strategy to coordinate Federal, State, and local government efforts with private landowners and land mangers is absolutely necessary to 

demonstrate the necessity to effectively contend with this insidious issue. 

I cannot comment as to when, if ever, one or more of the NISC cabinet-level cochairs attended an ISAC meeting or engaged with the advisory committee since 

2008, much less provide strong directives to agencies so they coordinate and cooperate with State and local governments and private landowners to effectively manage 

invasive species across the United States. 

HHC’s proposed legislation will stimulate greater leadership from the co-chairs 

because at least one of the Secretaries will be leading the funds re-direction effort 

to States and evaluate Federal agency overall progress on this issue as well. While 

the NISC/ISAC concept seems plausible, given the lack of authority, insufficient 

leadership, and annual cost, one must ask what is the actual benefit for the effort 

to manage invasive species. 

LITERATURE CITED

Duncan, Celestine A., John J. Jachetta, Melissa L. Brown, Vanelle F. Carrithers, 

Janet K. Clark, Joseph M. DiTomaso, Rodney G. Lym, Kirk C. McDaniel, Mark J. 

Renz, and Peter M. Rice. 2004. Assessing the Economic, Environmental, and Societal Losses from Invasive Plants on Rangeland and Wildlands. Weed Technology 

18:1411–1416). 

Nowak, David J., Judith E. Pasek, Ronaldo A. Sequeira, Daniel E. Crane, and Victor C. Mastro. 2001. Potential Effect of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: 

Cerambycidae) on Urban Trees in the United States. J. Economic Entomology 94(1): 

116–122.) 

28

Sydnor, T.Davis, Matthew Bumgardner, and Andrew Todd. 2007. The Potential 

Economic Impacts of Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis) on Ohio, U.S., Communities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2007. 33(1):48–54. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. 

We will now turn to Mr. Dye, who is representing the State Foresters. 

Mr. Dye? 

STATEMENT OF RANDY C. DYE, WEST VIRGINIA STATE 

FORESTER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE 

FORESTERS 

Mr. DYE. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 

Horsford, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today on behalf of the National Association 

of State Foresters. 

Programs delivered by State forestry agencies are on the front 

lines of eradicating, slowing the spread, and addressing the enormous collateral damage of invasive species. My comments this 

morning highlight recommendations for the 2012 farm bill endorsed by State Foresters that support the conservation and management of the Nation’s forests. 

Invasive species know no boundaries. They span landscapes, land 

ownerships, and jurisdictions. Their consequence costs the American public an estimated $138 billion each year and, therefore, are 

a significant drain on the national economy. The Federal Government has a direct authority to manage over 200 million acres of national forest, parks, and grasslands, many of which harbor invasive 

species. It also has the authority to provide technical and financial 

assistance for all the Nation’s 731 million acres of forest land, including urban, State, private, and tribal lands. 

In 1999, Executive Order 13112 established the National 

Invasive Species Council, chaired by the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce, and includes six other Federal agencies. 

This Committee was charged with providing coordination, planning, and overall leadership for the Federal invasive species program and reaching out to States, tribal, local, and private partners. 

Coordination is not only critical between agencies of the Federal 

Government, but also with State and local entities. Recent efforts 

to create national management framework have helped coordinate 

U.S. Forest Service, APHIS, NASF, and the National Plant Board 

and their missions, expertise, and available resources, to effectively 

respond to three priority invasive species: Sudden Oak Death; Emerald Ash Borer, and Thousand Cankers Disease. 

NASF recommends the following strategies to be considered in 

any comprehensive invasive species legislation. Number one, Federal agencies such as APHIS should coordinate with appropriate 

State agencies, as well as their traditional State agricultural agency partners, in addressing forest invasive pests. State agencies 

should be provided the option to have a lead role in deciding what 

programs, regulations, and initiatives are needed and best suited 

to protect forest resources within their respective States. In most 

cases, State agencies have better knowledge and contacts with local 

29

stakeholders and community-based organizations at the Federal 

level. 

Number two, where Federal forests dominate ownership at a 

local or regional level, Federal agencies should partner strategically 

with State forestry agencies to minimize the potential of spread between adjoining private or State forest land, and identify opportunities for cost-effective treatment. 

Support efforts to enhance forest-invasive species response, management, and restoration in areas and communities that have been 

impacted by harmful, non-native forest insects and disease. Development of procedures that resolve jurisdictional and other disputes 

in an effort to improve coordination of Federal agencies, as well as 

Federal and State agencies. 

Increase research capacity in efforts to quickly assess impacts of 

potential invasive species. Identify tests and deploy bio-control 

agents. Develop management tools for mitigation and suppression 

and genetic and breeding programs designed to enhance resistance 

of high-priority tree species. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today, and stand 

ready to answer any questions or provide any further information. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dye follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANDY C. DYE, WEST VIRGINIA STATE FORESTER, 

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS

On behalf of the National Association of State Foresters, I thank Chairman 

Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today. The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) represents the 

directors of the State forestry agencies of all 50 States, 8 territories, and the District 

of Columbia. State Foresters manage and protect State and private forests across 

the United States., which make up two-thirds of the Nation’s forests, and work 

closely with our Federal partners to respond to invasive species issues. 

The impacts of invasive forest insect and disease species on our Nation’s forests 

have become an increasing concern for the National Association of State Foresters 

(NASF). NASF’s programs and stewardship actions are on the front lines of eradicating, slowing the spread, and addressing the enormous collateral damage of 

invasive species. 

Forested landscapes cover approximately one-third of the total land area of the 

United States, including 100 million acres in urban environments. Every American 

benefits from forests, whether in the form of wood products for construction or 

paper, neighborhood amenities, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, clean water 

and air, and even our spiritual well-being. Many Americans’ jobs are linked to trees. 

The U.S. forest products industry employs nearly 900,000 people; it is among the 

top 10 manufacturing sector employers in 47 States. Jobs associated with production 

of non-wood forest products are estimated to be in the tens of thousands. 

Invasive species know no boundaries; they span landscapes, land ownerships, and 

jurisdictions. The damage they cause costs the American public an estimated $138 

billion each year, which makes them a significant drain on the national economy.

• Private landowners and small communities are some of the hardest hit by 

invasive species infestations. 

• Invasive species can be exceptionally damaging in urban environments where 

ecological systems are already stressed. Invasive species threaten the quality of 

life and the property values of millions of metropolitan residents across the 

country. 

• Currently, 42 percent—400 of 958—of the plant and animal species listed by the 

Federal Government as threatened or endangered have been negatively affected 

by invasive species. 

• Invasive species populations have depleted water supplies, poisoned wildlife and 

livestock, and directly impacted thousands of acres of native forests and rangelands. 

30

• Public recreational opportunities and experiences have become severely degraded by rapid infestations of invasive species, in many cases hampering access, reducing recreational quality and enjoyment, and decreasing the aesthetic 

values of public lands

Some of the most damaging Invasive species include Asian Long-horned Beetle, 

Emerald Ash Borer, Gypsy Moth, Sudden Oak Death, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, and 

Cogon grass. Municipal governments across the country are spending more than 

$1.7 billion each year to remove trees on city property killed by these pests. Homeowners are spending $1 billion to remove and replace trees on their property and 

they are absorbing an additional $1.5 billion in reduced property values. The scope 

of the impacts of these pests is demonstrated by a brief description of the threats 

they pose:

• The Asian Longhorned Beetle kills trees in 15 botanical families—especially 

maple and birch which constitute much of the forest reaching from Maine to 

Minnesota and urban trees worth an estimated $600 billion. 

• Emerald Ash Borer occupies more than 200,000 square miles in 18 States. More 

than 200 million ash trees in the Plains States and additional trees in the 

South are at risk to this pest. Homeowners and municipalities collectively will 

pay more than $10 billion over the next 10 years to remove dead ash trees that 

would otherwise fall and could cause property damage or even loss of life. 

• Hemlock Woolly Adelgid has killed up to 90 percent of hemlock trees in the Appalachians from Georgia to Massachusetts. Loss of hemlock groves threatens 

unique ecosystems and watersheds. 

• Goldspotted Oak Borer has killed up to 80,000 California live oak and black oak 

trees in San Diego County in less than 15 years. The insect threatens oaks 

throughout California, including close to 300,000 oak trees growing in greater 

Los Angeles and Yosemite Valley. 

• Sudden Oak Death affects 143 different plant species and continues to spread 

in California’s 14 impacted counties as well as Curry County, Oregon. In 2012 

alone, nearly 400,000 trees were lost to Sudden Oak Death in California.

The Federal Government has several unique characteristics that compel it to play 

a primary role in the fight against invasive species. It has the direct authority to 

manage over 200 million acres of national parks, forests and grasslands, many of 

which harbor infestations of invasive species. It also has the authority to provide 

technical and financial assistance (primarily for insect, disease, and invasive plant 

suppression) for all the Nation’s 731 million acres of forest lands, including urban, 

State, private, and tribal lands. 

In 1999, Executive Order (EO) 13112 established the National Invasive Species 

Council (NISC), co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce. NISC members include the Secretaries of Transportation, State, Defense, 

Homeland Security, Treasury, and Health and Human Services; the Administrators 

of the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration; as well as the Director of the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Trade Representative. NISC was charged with providing coordination, planning and overall leadership for Federal invasive species programs 

and reaching out to State, tribal, local and private partners. 

Coordination is not only critical between agencies of the Federal Government, but 

also with State and local entities. Recent efforts to create national management 

frameworks have helped coordinate U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Animal Plant 

health Inspection Service (APHIS), National Association of State Foresters (NASF), 

National Plant Board (NPB), and their missions, expertise and available resources 

to effectively respond to three priority invasive species threats: Sudden Oak Death, 

Emerald Ash Borer, and Thousand Canker Disease. 

Actions at the local level are also critical. I’d like to highlight some efforts in my 

home State of West Virginia. The Potomac Highlands Cooperative Weed and Pest 

Management Area (CWPMA) is a partnership between Federal, State, and local 

agencies, community associations, non-profit organizations, and private land owners 

aimed at coordinating efforts and programs for addressing the threat of invasive 

species. The mission of Potomac Highlands CWPMA is the prevention and management of invasive species in the headwaters region of the South Branch of the Potomac River in West Virginia and Virginia. They are dedicated to decreasing the impacts of invasive species on native plant and animal communities, public and private forests, private and agricultural lands, and local economies through public 

awareness, education, professional improvement and environmental awareness. 

Projects include volunteer work days, landowner education, and youth events at 

schools. 

31

Other efforts like those in Georgia are essential in the fight against invasive species such as Cogon grass. The Georgia ‘‘Cogon grass Task Force’’ has provided training to resource professionals throughout the State, and its educational campaign 

continues to help landowners identify and remove the plant. The Georgia Forestry 

Commission spearheaded an effort to bring a total of 23 State, Federal and private 

partners to establish the entire State of Georgia as a Cooperative Weed Management Area for Cogon grass in May 2008. The combined effort of this group should 

have far reaching impacts to help educate the public about Cogon grass as well as 

help locate all infested sites. 

Legislation and program implementation is needed to increase the Nation’s current protection system for invasive species, which is currently piecemeal and lacks 

adequate rigor and comprehensiveness, virtually ensuring that invasive species will 

continue to arrive and spread. Federal Government involvement with States is critical as specific Federal legislation (e.g. interstate commerce, plant protection) limit 

certain State actions. A successful forest invasive species prevention and control 

program must address the complexity and wide-ranging agency and community 

needs at the regional, State, and local level. The National Association of State Foresters believes that:

• Federal agencies (e.g., USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) 

should coordinate with appropriate State agencies as well as their traditional 

State agricultural agency partners in addressing forest invasive pests. If desired, State agencies should be provided the option to have a lead role in deciding what programs, regulations and initiatives are needed and best suited to 

protect forest resources within their respective States. In most cases State agencies have better knowledge and contacts with local stakeholders and community-based organizations that have developed tactics and programs to combat 

invasive species at the local level (e.g., county representatives, utilities). 

• Where Federal forests dominate ownership at a local or regional level, Federal 

agencies should partner strategically with State forestry agencies to minimize 

the spread of invasives between adjoining private or State forest land and identify opportunities for cost-effective treatment. 

• A Federal program should include initiatives that are non-regulatory and incentive driven, support and build capacity at the State, regional, and community 

level, and encourage voluntary cooperation of affected private entities and communities. 

• Investments to support local, State, and regional partnerships, which are prepared to take immediate action against known priority invasive species, will 

provide valuable lessons for others and promote innovations and efficiencies in 

protection and public outreach strategies. By sharing their progress, these partnerships will, in turn, help identify the policy and legal obstacles to success as 

well as build a constituency for more effective invasive species prevention and 

control programs in other areas.

NASF recommends the following strategies to be considered in any comprehensive 

invasive species legislation: 

• Establishment of a State-level rapid response capacity that can quickly eradicate priority forest invasive species. 

• Non-regulatory and incentive-driven national programs, with specific focus on 

encouraging voluntary cooperation. 

• Adoption and enforcement of workable national regulatory programs to address 

key pathways such as firewood movement where non-regulatory approaches are 

not in place, effective or, simply, to serve as a ‘‘backstop’’ for those voluntary 

approaches. 

• Support efforts to enhance forest invasive species response, management and 

restoration in areas and communities that have been impacted by harmful nonnative forest insects and diseases. 

• Development of procedures that resolve jurisdictional and other disputes in an 

effort to improve coordination of Federal agencies, and between Federal and 

State agencies. A network of partners is needed with agreed upon authorities, 

responsibilities, and roles. 

• Increase research capacity in efforts to quickly assess impacts of potential 

invasive species; identify, test, and deploy bio-control agents, develop management tools for mitigation and suppression, and genetic and breeding programs 

designed to enhance resistance of high priority tree species; and 

• An increased percentage of funds delegated to the States and their cooperating 

entities. In most cases, State agencies have better knowledge and contacts with 

local stakeholders and community-based organizations.

32

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to offer perspectives shared by State foresters regarding the impacts of invasive species on the 

Nation’s forests. I would like to thank the Subcommittee for its continued leadership 

and support of active, sustainable management of all forest lands. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO RANDY C. DYE

Question. Please share some examples of plants and plant pests that move in 

interstate and foreign commerce that have become problems for State inspection, 

quarantine, agriculture and natural resource authorities. 

Answer. There are numerous examples of high priority pests arriving via foreign 

commerce through airport and harbor hubs. Wooden pallets, used in transporting 

goods have been especially problematic in introducing wood borer insects (e.g. Asian 

Long-horned Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer). These pests are now being spread through 

a variety of local pathways, with firewood as a major vector. The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) has encouraged the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) to move expeditiously to provide a standardized treatment and certification 

procedure for the interstate movement of all firewood. The firewood industry is 

largely unregulated, with little or no national regulatory guidelines outside of pestspecific quarantine areas and states. This lack of Federal regulation has led many 

States to seek or pass their own firewood regulations for specific pests. 

Cogon grass, a noxious weed infesting pastures and forests first appeared in Alabama as an escape from orange crate packing in 1912. It was intentionally introduced from the Philippines into Mississippi as a possible forage in 1921 and then 

introduced into Florida in the 1930s and 1940s as a potential forage and for soil 

stabilization purposes. It now extends as far north as South Carolina and west to 

Texas. 

The devastating example of the Brown Tree Snake, introduced to Guam during 

military operations in WWII in Guam is internationally known. Accidental introductions of Brown Tree Snakes continue to threaten Hawaii, and if established would 

result in major economic and environmental damage. 

Question. What are some examples of the associated costs to States for invasive 

species that have arrived via interstate and foreign commerce and then become established in States? 

Answer. The Asian Long-horned Beetle kills trees in 15 botanical families—especially maples and birches which constitute much of the forest reaching from Maine 

to Minnesota and urban trees worth an estimated $600 billion. Emerald Ash Borer 

occupies more than 200,000 square miles in 18 States. More than 200 million ash 

trees in the Plains States and additional trees in the South are at risk to this pest. 

Homeowners and municipalities collectively will pay more than $10 billion over the 

next 10 years to remove dead ash trees that would otherwise fall and cause property 

damage or even loss of life. 

Question. What limitations and opportunities are there for State agriculture and 

natural resource authorities to guard against new pest introductions at borders and 

other entry points? 

Answer. Budget reductions are a key limitation, especially State agency capacities 

due to lay-offs and attrition. New State findings of invasive species bring about additional duties with no or diminished response resources. Federal sequester cuts 

present additional limitations. 

The opportunities for State agriculture and natural resource authorities to guard 

against new pest introductions at borders and other entry points are based on the 

degree that there is: (1) Coordination among Federal agencies; (2) communication 

with relevant State agencies; and (3) public leadership roles in identifying and committing to action. 

Coordination and information sharing between Federal and State inspection agencies can be improved by: (1) Sharing of import manifests and interception data between Federal (USDA and Border Patrol) and State regulatory agencies and (2) promoting and committing to joint inspection facilities for cargo at airports and harbors. 

In certain cases, States are hampered in their ability to effectively address Statespecific invasive species threats due to Federal laws (i.e. U.S. Commerce Clause and 

Plant Protection Act). These laws deal with the Federal preemption, where States 

cannot establish regulations stricter than existing Federal statutes. For examples 

Federal preemption limits a State’s ability to establish rules on incoming plants and 

animals, prevent species that are not on a Federal actionable list, and receive notification from Federal inspection agencies. 

33

Under section 436 of the Plant Protection Act, which is administered by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) no State may regulate the 

movement in interstate commerce of any plant product in order (1) to control 

a plant pest (2) to eradicate a plant pest; or (3) to prevent the introduction or dissemination of a plant pest. The only exceptions to this prohibition are when a State 

imposes regulations which are consistent with and do not exceed the regulations or 

orders issued by the Secretary of Agriculture, or when the State demonstrates to 

the Secretary, and the Secretary finds, that there is a special need for additional 

prohibitions or restrictions based on sound scientific data or a thorough risk assessment. 

Question. Are there opportunities and limitations on the ability of Federal and 

State agriculture inspection and natural resource authorities to share real time data 

at ports of entry on potential high-risk pests, products and pathways moving between and into States? 

Answer. The opportunity to build joint inspection facilities at both airports and 

harbors represents the most cost effective approach to increase the capacity of Federal and State agriculture inspection and natural resource authorities to share real 

time data at ports of entry on potential high-risk pests, products and pathways moving between and into States 

One limitation is that even though airports pose a serious biosecurity risk through 

the movement of passengers and cargo, the FAA does not recognize inspections as 

a core airport function, and there is no responsibility for mitigation or requirements 

to provide inspection space and support. 

Question. Please provide examples, opportunities and limitations related to Federal and State agriculture inspection and natural resource authorities engaging in 

real-time sharing of information and even being co-located at ports of entry. 

Answer. A joint inspection facility was constructed at Kahalui Airport on the island of Maui, Hawaii. A joint facility is being planned for the Honolulu airport as 

part of a public/private partnership. Cargo services have found that joint inspection 

facilities have reduced the time of inspection as well as costs incurred from spoilage 

of fresh produce. 

Question. What are some examples of impacts to invasive species control anticipated due to reductions in Federal funds made available through the U.S. Forest 

Service’s State and Private Forest Health Program? 

Answer. Reductions in Federal funds made available through the U.S. Forest 

Service’s State and Private Forest Health Program could impact the Gypsy Moth 

Slow-the-Spread Program. This program has reduced the spread rate of gypsy moth 

by 60 percent along a 1,000 mile long project area from North Carolina to Minnesota, and has delayed the need for increased expenditures by Federal, State, and 

local governments as well as landowners. In 2012, this program treated more than 

526,000 acres in eight States. Without the Slow-the-Spread about 50 million more 

acres would be infested. Reduced Federal funds (both USDA APHIS and USFS) 

could impact the ongoing eradication of Asian Long-horned Beetle in Massachusetts 

as efforts to ongoing management efforts to address the spread of emerald ash 

borer, sudden oak death, oak wilt, thousand cankers disease, and Hemlock Wooly 

Adelgid. 

Oak wilt is the single most important disease affecting oaks in the eastern half 

of the Nation. The Forest Health program supports suppression efforts in the Great 

Lakes and Texas, including root graft disruption and spore tree removal. The Hemlock Wooly Adelgid remains a significant threat to the health of hemlock forests in 

the Eastern United States, and the Forest Service has contributed to an integrated 

multi-agency effort focused on management of high value hemlocks (using biological 

and chemical controls) and continued research and methods development to better 

manage hemlocks across their range. 

Question. Can there be opportunities to utilize funds from the State and Private 

Forest Health program to control ungulates that impact forest health? 

Answer. We defer to the USFS, but believe that funds can be used for certain 

components of an ungulate control program (e.g./fencing). 

Question. Different regions across the Nation face different invasive species challenges due to factors such as climate, elevation, etc; this is particularly the case for 

the tropical, isolated, island State of Hawaii. Biocontrol development for the highest 

priority pests nationally is not likely to benefit the unique challenges faced by individual regions. Are there any examples of efforts to account for the unique conditions of various regions in developing biocontrol priorities? 

Answer. Biological control is one of the few tools proven effective in controlling 

widespread invasive plants. Successful biological control agents can provide continuing and expanding control while reducing dependence on pesticides. However, 

because ecosystems are complex it is important to consider the effects on all the 

34

other organisms within the community, not just the pest and biological control 

agent. This necessitates that specific regional aspects are considered. Work on biological control agents for important rangeland weeds, such as cheatgrass, leafy 

spurge and dalmatian toadflax are being undertaken in the West—Chinese privet, 

an important riparian weed in the South, and—strawberry guava, an invasive forest 

pest in Hawaii. 

Insect pest biological control is currently focused on priority pests, such as emerald ash borer, hemlock wooly adelgid, asian gypsy moth, and Douglas-fir tussock 

moth.

Question. The Hawaii Invasive Species Council was modeled after the National 

Invasive Species Council (NISC) to recognize the importance of cabinet-level leadership and interagency coordination, planning, and prioritization in effectively addressing invasive species. A Hawaii representative from the State Department of 

Agriculture also serves on the national Invasive Species Advisory Council (ISAC). 

When was the last time the Council members of NISC or ISAC met and how often 

do they meet to fulfill the intent of Executive Order 13112 and support improved 

Federal, State and regional coordination? 

Answer. The Invasive Species Advisory Council (ISAC) usually meets twice a year. 

Unfortunately, the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) has not met for the 

past 3 years. While the many Federal agencies within the six Federal departments 

set their own budget and program priorities, the National Invasive Species Council 

can encourage a coordinated and cost-effective Federal investment to ensure that 

the various agency efforts are collaborative, rather than being overlapping or insufficient. They could also develop procedures that resolve jurisdictional and other disputes in an effort to improve coordination of Federal agencies, and between Federal 

and State agencies as well cooperative sharing of information through a centralized 

web-based system. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Fearneyhough from the Department of Ag in Wyoming, 

please. 

STATEMENT OF JASON FEARNEYHOUGH, DIRECTOR, STATE 

OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 

Horsford, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Again, I am Jason Fearneyhough. I am 

the Director of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture. Along 

with this, as Congresswoman Lummis stated, I currently serve as 

the Chair of the Natural Resource Committee for the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and I am the immediate past chair of the Western Association of the State Departments of Agriculture. 

Wyoming initiated its first noxious weed law in 1895, targeting 

Russian thistle, commonly recognized as tumbleweed. Today, each 

Wyoming county has a weed and pest control district that assists 

land owners and managers with local workshops, cost share incentives, and coordinated landscape-scale planning. Because of these 

programs, the State has eradicated Yellow starthistle, a toxic plant 

that covers over 12 million acres in California. Additionally, we 

have kept our waterways clear of Eurasian watermilfoil and 

quagga mussels, a species that are extremely harmful to our water 

resource. 

Many Western States have similar invasive species programs. 

Keys to the successes of these programs include prevention and 

educational programs, coupled with control and management effort. 

In addition, many States have university and/or USDA ARS experiment stations to improve the understanding of invasive species and 

improve understanding of cost-effective ways we can manage them. 

35

Natural resource managers have a broad understanding of the 

negative impacts invasive species play on our ecological systems, 

communities, agriculture interests, recreation, and human health. 

The economic impact, by some estimates, is in excess of $120 billion annually, up to $138 billion annually. This recognition has created multi-faceted efforts. It has brought together local agriculture 

producers, natural resource agencies, and non-government representatives to work collectively on short and long-term management goals. It has also created the Consolidated USDA APHIS 

Plant Protection Act, protecting the national and international 

pathways from invasive species, and some on-the-ground successes 

such as the recent eradication of Asian Longhorn Beetle from New 

Jersey. 

In Wyoming, the Federal Government manages 48 percent of our 

land. Like many Western States, our invasive species program success is heavily influenced by cooperation with Federal agencies. 

Local Federal representatives typically understand and share the 

same concerns, as do the regional and national offices. The U.S. 

Forest Service lists the introduction and spread of invasive species 

as a Top Four threat to the national forests and grasslands. The 

Bureau of Land Management Web site states that the rapid expansion of weeds across public lands is one of the greatest obstacles 

to achieving ecosystem health. Even the Department of Defense 

has a Web site to address the growing ecological and economic 

damage caused by invasive species. 

In many cases, local, State, and Federal agencies have the right 

knowledge, information, and people to make a positive difference. 

However, we lack the ability to fully implement management 

projects. We are subject to short-term grants, limited local and 

State funding sources. We are confined to detection and planning 

while strapped with unsuccessful management control and followthrough. Where various Federal agencies manage adjoining land 

masses, the problem can be compounded by the variation in agency 

funding, policy, and priorities. 

For example, in Teton County, Wyoming, which is situated in the 

northwest corner of the State, and is approximately 3 million acres 

in size, or slightly smaller than the State of Connecticut, the majority of land is managed by Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton 

National Park, the National Elk Refuge, and Bridger-Teton National Forest. This natural resource draws in millions of tourists 

annually to hike, take horses into the back country, or simply drive 

through America’s first national park to see its majestic beauty. 

Visitors come from all corners of the world, potentially bringing 

weeds and non-native insects with them. To protect the natural resources from invasive weeds, Teton County organized the Jackson 

Hole Weed Management Association. 

This association is implemented through an agreement with the 

Federal, State, and local agencies, in addition to nonprofit organizations. The association has identified invasive weeds as the greatest threat to the ecosystem, and has identified the high-priority 

areas. Each partner is willing to participate, but when it is time 

to put things on the ground we have a problem, due to lack of funding. 

36

Each State has its own set of invasive species issues management needs. I have heard countless examples from my fellow directors and commissioners of the invasive species issues in their 

States. These concerns have resulted in WASDA and NASDA recently—recent actions in policy to address this national issue. 

There simply needs to be more on-the-ground implementation of 

control and management in the effort. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fearneyhough follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JASON FEARNEYHOUGH, DIRECTOR, STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, as well as other members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jason 

Fearneyhough and I have served as Director of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture for the past 4 years and as Deputy Director of the Department before that. 

Along with this, I currently serve as the chairman for the National Association of 

State Departments of Agriculture—Natural Resource Committee, and I am the past 

chairman of the Western Association of State Departments of Agriculture. I’m 

pleased to appear before you today to discuss the impacts invasive species have on 

our Nation’s natural resources and the challenges we face with their management. 

Wyoming began its battle with invasive species in 1895 with its first noxious weed 

law targeting Russian thistle, or what many of you may recognize as the western 

tumbleweed. At that time, homeowners were limited in their ability to identify the 

plant and lacked the resources to control the spread of the species. This made it 

easy for Russian thistle to establish itself throughout the State and the West in 

spite of the legislature’s well intended efforts. While the law didn’t stop the Russian 

thistle, it created the foundation for the State’s current weed and pest program. 

Today, we are able to assist land owners and managers with locally funded educational workshops, cost-share incentives, and coordinated landscape based planning 

through the efforts of the State’s weed and pest control districts. Because of these 

programs, the State has eradicated Yellow starthistle (a toxic plant that covers more 

than 12 million acre in California) and we have kept our waterway clear of Eurasion 

watermilfoil and the invasive quagga mussel. 

Many of the Western States have similar invasive species programs to Wyoming 

that match, or surpass our own, in their preventative, educational and management 

efforts, and funding. In addition to these programs, many of the Western States 

have Universities and USDA—ARS experiment stations that are continually improving our understanding of the invasive species issue and the cost effective ways 

we can manage them. This is no longer just an agricultural issue. We have a broader understanding of the impacts these species play on our ecological systems, communities, recreation, and human health. This broader recognition has created multifaceted efforts with a unified call for action and has brought together local agriculture producers, natural resource agencies, and non-government representatives 

to work collectively on short and long-term management goals. It has also created 

the consolidated USDA–APHIS Plant Protection Act, education programs such as 

the National Firewood Task Force, and have made on the ground successes like the 

recent eradication of Asian longhorn beetle from New Jersey possible. 

In Wyoming, the Federal Government manages more than 48 percent of the lands 

in our borders. Like many Western States, our invasive species program success is 

heavily influenced by the cooperation of the Federal agencies. The local Federal representatives, along with regional and national offices, typically understand and 

share the same concerns on invasive species. The USFS lists ‘‘the introduction and 

spread of invasive species’’ as a top four threat to the national forests and grasslands. The Bureau of Land Management Web site states that the ‘‘rapid expansion 

of weeds across public lands’’ is one of the greatest obstacles to achieving ecosystem 

health. The Department of Defense has a Web site that addresses the growing ecological and economic damage caused by invasive species on defense installations. 

Along with this, a National Invasive Species Council was created by Executive order 

and the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic 

Weeds to assist Federal agencies in the collaborative invasive species efforts. 

In most cases, the local, State, and Federal agencies have the right knowledge, 

information, and people in place to make a positive difference on invasive species. 

While we have this positive situation, we lack the ability to fully implement what 

they know. We rely on short term grants, limited local or State funding sources, or 

37

intra-agency generosity and simply do not have the fiscal resources to implement 

long-term, landscape scale control. Consequently, we are confined to successful detection and planning but fall short on implementation. In the West, where various 

Federal agencies may manage adjoining land masses, the problem can be compounded by the variation in agency funding, policy, and/or priorities. 

For example, Teton County Wyoming is situated in the northwest corner of the 

State and it is approximately 3 million acres in size. Within its boundaries, the majority of land is managed by Federal agencies who oversee Yellowstone National 

Park and Grand Teton National Park, the National Elk Refuge, and the BridgerTeton National Forest. The county’s natural resources draw in millions of tourist annually with visitors from all corners of the world who are potentially bringing noxious weed seeds or non-native insects in their luggage, as hitchhikers on their cars, 

or as food. To protect the natural resources from invasive weeds, Teton County organized The Jackson Hole Weed Management Association in 1998 through an agreement with non-profit organizations and the Federal, State, and local government 

agencies. The association has identified the invasive weeds that pose the greatest 

threat to the ecosystem, and have prioritized treatment areas based on the threat. 

Many of those high priority areas are highways, wildlife corridors, and public access 

points located on Federal lands. The Association attempts to pool resources to mitigate the threat in these areas and strengthen each agencies response to their respective lands through the collective approach. While each party was a willing participant on paper, the Federal agencies response is limited or fragmented due to 

lack of funding and resources when the window of opportunity for treatment is open. 

Without the proper resources to manage the invasive species threat, the Association 

can only hope to slow the spread of invasive weeds through selective control rather 

than reducing the impacted acres through prioritized management. 

A good regional example of insufficient on the ground support is cheatgrass. Wyoming and many Western States have been working diligently to avoid the listing 

of the sage-grouse as an endangered species and a primary threat to the species is 

sage brush degradation due to invasive grasses. Cheatgrass matures quicker then 

native grasses, is highly susceptible to fire and recovers from fire quicker than native grasses. Sage brush communities historically experience wildfires on a 50 year 

or more cycle, but cheatgrass can reduce that cycle to 5 years or less which makes 

it difficult for native sagebrush to re-establish. Simply stated, with no sagebrush 

there is no sage-grouse. In 2007, the Governors of Wyoming, Nevada, Idaho and 

Utah signed an agreement to coordinate efforts on cheatgrass and other wildfire 

issues. The agreement looked for cooperative efforts on management of cheatgrass 

beyond jurisdictional State boundaries. Unfortunately, the agreement has served 

very little purpose. The participating States were ready to act, but their best intentions were hampered by the inability to manage invasive species beyond the agency 

or State boundaries. 

These examples are based on my experiences as Director of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture, but the issue of lacking resources for invasive species in not 

limited to my State or the West. Each State has its own set of invasive species 

issues and management needs. In the Southeast it may be giant African snail or 

Burmese python; in the Midwest it may be Asian carp or Asian longhorn beetle; in 

the Southwest it may be feral pigs or fire ants. Looking at these few examples, it’s 

easy to see how invasive species are costing the United States nearly $120 billion 

in losses annually. This includes the litany of new invasive plants, insects, and animals USDA–APHIS works to stave off at our harbors and ports each year. I’ve 

heard countless examples from my fellow directors and commissioners of the 

invasive species issues their States face. These concerns have resulted in NASDA’s 

current invasive species policy which request the Federal Government to, ‘‘assert 

primary jurisdiction and assume a more dynamic leadership role in the interdiction 

and eradication of destructive invasive species.’’

I would like to close by respectfully offering some recommendations for your committee to consider as they look towards national solutions to invasive species. First, 

review and improve Federal agency funding for invasive species management. Look 

at what is being allocated in each agency budget for invasive species, track where 

that funding is going, and evaluate if the funds are used effectively. 

Secondly, support localized, State, and regional programs with funding to meet 

short-term and long-term management needs. The technical knowledge of these 

groups is superior in their ability to decide what should be done and what is practical. Along with this, centralize a funding source that is easily understood and accessible but demands results. Emphasize direct mitigation, without discounting the 

need for education, administration, and research. Make the rate of compensation 

sufficient to do the job properly, especially on incipient populations. It should also 

support a ‘‘color blind’’ approach to agency land management boundaries. 

38

Finally, hold Federal, State, and private entities fiscally responsible for any and 

all Federal dollars spent. Review the successes and failures of the programs and disseminate that information to other professionals in the field so they might learn and 

adapt their programs based on the data. Use those reports to help determine when 

costs exceed the benefits. 

I appreciate the opportunity your Committee has provided today and look forward 

to answering any questions you might have. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO JASON FEARNEYHOUGH

Question. Please share some examples of plants and plant pests that move in 

interstate and foreign commerce that have become problems for State inspection, 

quarantine, agriculture and natural resource authorities. 

Answer. Many of the invasive species Wyoming deals with were introduced 

through intra-State or foreign commerce. Wyoming lists 25 plant species as State 

priority weeds. Some of these plants such as Dalmatian toadflax and Russian olive 

were deliberately introduced as ornamental plants or trees and have escaped cultivation. Some weeds and pests such as Hoary cress, cheatgrass and emerald ash 

borer were introduced through packing materials. Other weeds such Russian 

knapweed and quackgrass likely made their way into the United States through 

contaminated seed. Many of the aquatic invasive species such as quagga mussels 

and Eurasian watermilfoil were likely introduced through ballist water discharge or 

through the aquarium trade. 

According to the Hawaii Department of Agriculture they share some similar 

invasive species issues, in addition to some State specific concerns. They noted 

varroa mites which were accidentally introduced on the island of Oahu in 2007 from 

California. The varroa mites have been a significant issue for the contiguous United 

States since 1987. The introduction to Hawaii is notable as prior to 2007 the State 

represented a unique location within the United States to produce honey bees without the threat of varroa mites. Some of the more State-specific issues Hawaii deals 

with include little fire ants and coqui frogs introduced through imported plants, and 

siam weed and fireweed that were likely introduced through contaminated seed. Little fire ants and coqui frogs are also present in Florida, but are not currently found 

throughout the contiguous States. 

Question. What are some examples of the associated costs to States for invasive 

species that have arrived via interstate and foreign commerce and then become established in States? 

Answer. The costs of invasive species are staggering from the impacts side. The 

following is a small collection of the economic impacts from various invasive species. 

• Leafy spurge costs producers and taxpayers an estimated $144 million/year in 

just four States alone (MT, WY, ND and SD). 

• It is estimated that $16–$44 million dollars of hydropower generation is lost annually due to the salt cedar invasion in the United States. 

• Purple loosestrife is responsible for $45 million/year in agricultural losses for 

the United States. 

• Colorado wheat farmers estimate loses from cheat grass and jointed goatgrass 

to be near $24 million annually. 

• U.S. agriculture loses $13 billion annually in crops from invasive insects, such 

as vine mealybugs. 

• An aquatic invasive plant, Eurasian watermilfoil, reduced Vermont lakefront 

property values up to 16 percent and Wisconsin lakefront property values by 

13 percent. 

In Wyoming, the local Weed and Pest Control Districts collectively spend over $15 

million annually for the management of invasive species. Besides direct management, this includes salaries, equipment and other administrative costs. The State 

of Wyoming also allocates an additional $350,000 for the management of invasive 

weeds and another $1.5 million annually for the management of the invasive vectorborne disease West Nile virus. The Wyoming Game and Fish spends $426,000 annually on the inspection of boats for aquatic invasive species. None of these figures 

include the costs associated with State quarantines, nursery stock inspection and 

seed inspection programs that assist in preventing the introduction of new invasive 

species in Wyoming. 

Question. What limitations and opportunities are there for State agriculture and 

natural resource authorities to guard against new pest introductions at borders and 

other entry points? 

Answer. Borders and entry points not only play a significant role in the international movement of weeds and pests, but as important of a role in minimizing the 

39

interstate movement as well. States bordering Wyoming such as Utah, Idaho and 

Colorado have invasive plant infestations that are not yet established in Wyoming. 

These species include Yellow starthistle, Medusahead grass and quagga and zebra 

mussels. To help protect Wyoming’s borders we utilize quarantines on non-certified 

hay and much, and utilize boat inspections at our interstate port-of-entries. Neighboring States such as Montana, Colorado and Idaho utilized boat inspection programs also to help stop the spread of the aquatic nuisance species. As successful 

as these programs are, there are often difficulties in funding staff at the interstate 

port-of-entries, and getting all vehicles to stop as required by law. The Rocky Mountain State Department of Agriculture’s have created a system of communication to 

help track and report boats that have not been inspected is they travel across the 

regional States. Several infested boats have been stopped from launching into 

uninfested waters due the cooperative efforts of the States. 

Question. Are there opportunities and limitations on the ability of Federal and 

State agriculture inspection and natural resource authorities to share real time data 

at ports of entry on potential high—risk pests, products and pathways moving between and into States? 

Answer. Currently there are restrictions on information sharing between Federal 

and State agricultural inspectors resulting from the Federal preemption clause of 

the Plant Protection Act of 2000. Because States may not regulate foreign commerce 

and may not create restrictions on plants or plant pests that are not regulated by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal agricultural inspectors are not prohibited to alert State agriculture inspectors of the discovery in foreign or interstate 

commerce plants or plant pests that may be of State concern but are not federally 

regulated. Encouraging joint inspection facilities that house both Federal and State 

agricultural inspectors, allowing information sharing between Federal and State agricultural inspections, and providing more flexibility in Federal preemption would 

provide opportunities for enhanced biosecurity. 

Question. Please provide examples, opportunities and limitations related to Federal and State agriculture inspection and natural resource authorities engaging in 

real—time sharing of information and even being co—located at ports of entry. 

Answer. A joint inspection facility was built at an airport in Kahului, Maui as 

part of a required mitigation effort. 

Question. What are some examples of impacts to invasive species control anticipated due to reductions in Federal funds made available through the U.S. Forest 

Service’s State and Private Forest Health Program? 

Answer. Wyoming has received State and Private Forestry funds from the U.S. 

Forest Service for an Invasive Plant Management grant annually for 10 years. The 

program has been very successful for the State and its partners for the simplicity 

with which it is administered. In our case, the State of Wyoming has minimized 

their administration costs associated with the grant to no more than 2 percent. That 

means 98 percent of the Federal funds allocated to the State are used for actual 

‘‘on the ground’’ invasive weed management. This program is a model for how States 

can adequately administer and implement programs through partnerships with Federal agencies and get funds on the ground. In most cases, Wyoming has utilized the 

funds from the program for State or private forests lands that neighbor Forest Service lands, thereby providing the National Forests an invasive weed buffer. 

In 2004 Wyoming received $173,000 from the program which we matched with 

$486,000 of local, State and private funds in managing over 20,000 acres for 

invasive weeds. Wyoming, and most of the participating Western States, have 

watched the amount provided through the State and Private Forestry program decrease annually. This year Wyoming will only receive $49, 250 from the program 

and the result will be a significant reduction in the amount of acres we can treat. 

Question. Can there be opportunities to utilize funds from the State and Private 

Forest Health program to control ungulates that impact forest health? 

Answer. Our agency has been told that the funds provided to the Wyoming Department of Agriculture through the USFS—State and Private Forestry Health program are intended for the management of invasive plants. I am not aware if this 

is a Regional or National policy within the U.S. Forest Service, nor am I aware if 

any other State program is utilizing these funds for ungulate control. 

Question. Different regions across the Nation face different invasive species challenges due to factors such as climate, elevation, etc; this is particularly the case for 

the tropical, isolated, island State of Hawaii. Biocontrol development for the highest 

priority pests nationally is not likely to benefit the unique challenges faced by individual regions. Are there any examples of efforts to account for the unique conditions of various regions in developing biocontrol priorities? 

Answer. Wyoming recognizes the value bio-control provides for the long-term success of invasive species management and that high value crops receive precedence 

40

in the research of new bio-control agents. Therefore the Wyoming Weed and Pest 

Council created a Wyoming Bio-control Steering committee that supports research 

into bio-control agents that meet the unique needs of our State. The committee allocates over $250,000 annually of State and county funding into regional, national and 

international bio-control research. The committee allocates the funding using 

invasive specie specific grants for research into bio-control agents targeting those 

species the committee and State see as priorities. The prioritized species the committee target are often independent to those USDA–APHIS and other States might 

have. The committee and their funding played a significant role in supporting the 

research of two bio-control agents (Aulacidea acroptilonicais and Jaapiella 

ivannikovi) which were approved in 2011 by USDA–APHIS for the management of 

Russian knapweed. 

After conferring with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture personnel, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture has a biocontrol program under its Plant Pest Control Branch that develops regionally specific biocontrol projects. This includes exploratory biocontrol efforts for which staff travel to similar tropical climates to 

search for appropriate biocontrol agents that can be tested for specificity on the 

invasive species in question. 

Question. The Hawaii Invasive Species Council was modeled after the National 

Invasive Species Council (NISC) to recognize the importance of cabinet—level leadership and interagency coordination, planning, and prioritization in effectively addressing invasive species. A Hawaii representative from the State Department of 

Agriculture also serves on the national Invasive Species Advisory Council (ISAC). 

When was the last time the Council members of NISC or ISAC met and how often 

do they meet to fulfill the intent of Executive Order 13112 and support improved 

Federal, State and regional coordination? 

Answer. I am aware of both the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) and the 

Invasive Species Advisory Council (ISAC). Wyoming does not have a representative 

on ISAC, but there are two individuals currently representing the Rocky Mountain 

region on ISAC. According to NISC staff the NISC Policy Liaisons meet on a monthly basis; the most recent meeting of the NISC Policy Liaisons occurred on June 6, 

2013. The last full meeting of NISC was August 8, 2008, to approve the 2008–2012 

National Invasive Species Management Plan. The two most recent meetings of ISAC 

were cancelled due to administrative and budget constraints; therefore the last actual meeting of ISAC was May 22–24, 2012 in Portland, Oregon. When discussing 

the current status of ISAC with a current committee member, they indicated they 

are willing to meet by teleconference if needed to fulfill their advisory duties. 

The success of NISC and ISAC in supporting improved Federal, State and regional coordination is difficult to gage. Although NISC staff runs a supportive Web 

site, it’s difficult to determine current activities or objectives of either committee. 

I would recommend a re-structuring of their current Web site to make the recommendations of ISAC, and the NISC responses easier to follow. 

Please feel free to contact with any further questions or clarification needed. The 

State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Department of Agriculture looks forward to 

working with Congress on a solution to the invasive species issue. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you for being here. 

We will next turn to Ms. Debra Hughes. Now, your sign says you 

are the Association of Conservative Districts. ‘‘Conservative’’ is a 

good word. I realize you are actually ‘‘Conservation.’’ But, regardless, we are happy to have you here. You have 5 minutes, please. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF DEBRA HUGHES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW 

MEXICO ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 

Ms. HUGHES. Thank you very much. Chairman Bishop, Ranking 

Member Horsford, and members of the Committee, I do want to 

thank you for the opportunity. And, as was stated, I am the Executive Director of the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts. But, in addition to being the director of NMACD, my husband and I also own and operate a ranch and hunting business in 

the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico. And we 

41

have been putting best management practices on the ground on our 

ranch for almost 40 years. 

NMACD is a nonprofit organization and it is made up of the 47 

soil and water conservation districts in New Mexico. Soil and water 

districts have a very unique opportunity nationwide, because they 

are the only local government entity that actually can work on any 

type of land ownership, be it private, State, Federal, or even tribal. 

Through different agreements and also through our statutory authority. 

New Mexico is the Land of Enchantment. We have diverse ownership. And 40 percent of New Mexico is owned by the Federal 

Government, with 33 percent being owned by private land owners. 

Most ranches in the West include ownership and management of 

all these different types of land ownership. We have a diverse wildlife population, we have deserts, we have mountains. But we also 

have several prominent candidate species, such as the Dune Sand 

Lizard and the Lesser Prairie Chicken. 

But since 2005, NMACD, with Federal, State, and private partners have worked together to create what we call Restore New 

Mexico. Prior to Restore New Mexico, our BLM was treating 10 to 

15,000 acres of any type of land—restoring that in New Mexico. Restore New Mexico is this very aggressive partnership. We are working on woodlands, grasslands, riparian areas, to try to get it to a 

healthy, productive condition. As most of you are aware, when we 

had this fragmentation in the different land ownerships, it makes 

that very hard to work on a landscape scale. But we are doing it 

in New Mexico, regardless of the ownership. We strive to be colorblind, when it comes to the ownership and management of these 

State, Federal, and private lands. 

Restore New Mexico represents this broad partnership, and the 

key players are our association, NMACD, BLM, NRCS, our Department of Game and Fish, the State university, and numerous other 

partners. And both BLM and NRCS of New Mexico both have the 

same visions for trying to just restore the health of the land. 

Furthermore, we are working—I think what is making it work 

is they work with the local managers and the local ranchers to determine the most pressing projects, the best applications to accomplish these goals. This locally led process has enabled great success. And let me tell you about it. 

Since the program’s inception just less than 8 years ago, 2.1 million acres in New Mexico have—they were impaired habitat, and 

they have been treated, and now we have started that transition 

to a healthy ecological state. This expansive effort has been possible due to a strong relationship between NMACD, BLM, NRCS, 

and all our other partners. The way we have done it is NMACD 

has a cooperative agreement with BLM and the conservation districts, and we serve as the contracting agent, or have served, for 

over $14.4 million from BLM. Since that same time, the NRCS has 

contributed $11 million. And then other funds coming from private 

and all kinds of partners have been $17.8 million. 

The part I am probably the most proud of, while treating over 

2 million acres, is that we function at a very high efficiency rate. 

The Restore New Mexico has placed over 93 percent of all of these 

dollars on the ground. This is possible because we have a very low 

42

overhead to administer it, and we have figured out that when you 

do landscape-scale treatments, the economies of scale, you can 

treat more acres, you can lower that cost, and you can get it done 

much cheaper and much more efficiently. 

Our proactive partnership improved enough habitat to keep the 

Dune Sand Lizard from getting listed. This is unprecedented success. It doesn’t happen. But it has happened, and we have done it. 

We went from 10,000 acres to 2 million acres in under 8 years. And 

we have some slides with pictures. 

But, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Horsford, I just 

want to thank you for this opportunity to be able to present our 

wonderful success story in New Mexico. We are very proud of it. 

And we appreciate your time, and I will be glad to try to answer 

any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hughes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBRA HUGHES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW MEXICO

ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Debra Hughes, Executive Director of the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts. In addition to serving 

as NMACD’s executive director, my husband and I operate Hughes Brothers Ranch 

& Hunting business in the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, NM. We have installed best management practices on our land for the past 40 years. 

NMACD is a non-profit association whose members include the 47 New Mexico 

Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD’s). NMACD provides support to the 

local SWCD’s on State and national issues, and works with the New Mexico Legislature, Congressional Delegations, and related governmental agencies. Conservation 

districts in New Mexico and nationwide are focused on empowering those at the 

local level to determine what is best for the natural resource concerns in a specific 

area. It is our belief that the local leadership has the best understanding and can 

have the greatest impact with the least expense. Soil and Water Districts are the 

‘‘only governmental agency’’ that has the ability to work on private, State, Federal 

and tribal lands through agreements and our statutory authority!

New Mexico is the Land of Enchantment with diverse ownership and uses. Forty 

percent of our land is owned by the Federal Government—predominately by U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS) at 20 percent and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

at 17 percent; 17 percent is owned by the State; 10 percent by the tribes; and 33 

percent by private landowners, but most ranches in the West include ownership and 

management of private, State and Federal land. NM land uses include ranching and 

agriculture, oil and gas, and recreation, to name a few. We have diverse wildlife 

habitat from deserts to mountains; home to deer and elk and much more, including 

several prominent candidate species such as the Dune Sage Lizard and the Lesser 

Prairie Chicken. 

Conservation districts are very concerned with the health of our State’s beautiful 

landscape. Conservation districts work on threatened and endangered species, insect 

and disease concerns, wildfire prevention and rehabilitation, drought and water concerns, and, of course, invasive species. Since 2005, NMACD, along with Federal, 

State, private partners, and fellow non-governmental organizations have worked to 

create Restore New Mexico.

Restore New Mexico is an aggressive partnership to restore woodlands, grasslands, and riparian areas to a healthy and productive condition. In the West, as 

many of you are aware, the fragmentation of the landscape due to checkerboard 

land ownership and jurisdiction makes landscape level restoration efforts difficult. 

Restore New Mexico works to overcome those boundaries and have a positive impact 

on the land on a landscape level, regardless of ownership—Federal, State, tribal, or 

private. We strive to be ‘‘colorblind’’ when it comes to land restoration efforts and 

treatments across multiple jurisdictions and ownerships. 

Restore New Mexico represents a broad partnership—the key players include 

NMACD, BLM, and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), along with the 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, and the New Mexico State University 

Jornada Experimental Range. Both BLM and NRCS have matching visions for improving the health of the land, lending significant strength and credibility to the 

43

success of Restore New Mexico. Furthermore, Restore New Mexico works with the 

local land managers—conservation districts supervisors, BLM field staff, NRCS conservationists, and State officials to determine the most pressing projects and the 

best applications to accomplish those goals. This locally led process has enabled 

great success. 

Since the program’s inception, more than 2.1 million acres of impaired habitat 

have been treated, starting the transition to healthy ecological States. This expansive restoration effort has been possible due to the strong relationship between the 

BLM and NMACD. NMACD has a Cooperative Agreement with BLM, enabling us, 

the conservation districts, to serve as the contracting agent for over $14.4 million 

in BLM dollars to distribute on the ground. Since 2008, BLM’s contributions to Restore New Mexico have made up between 12 and 19 percent of the overall habitat 

treatments conducted by the BLM nationwide. Additionally, NRCS has made over 

$11 million available for conservation projects. The resources provided by BLM and 

NRCS, coupled with $17.8 million from other partners, have enabled Restore New 

Mexico to thrive to the successes we have seen today. 

The part I am most proud of is that while treating over 2 million acres, we function at a very high efficiency level. Restore New Mexico places over 93 percent of 

the dollars on the ground for treatment. This is possible given that there is only 

a small overhead needed to administer the program. We also believe landscape level 

restoration is efficient because of economies of scale; treating more acres per project 

lowers the cost per acre of treatments. 

Thanks to our partners and relationships throughout the State, we have been able 

to monitor results on grasslands, thanks to the Jornada Experiment Station; soil 

moisture, thanks to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; conduct forest inventories, thanks to New Mexico Highlands University; photos for all treatment 

sites, post-monitoring to rereading the initial plots, and other post-treatment monitoring as necessary, all thanks to the BLM. 

On a local conservation district level, 10 conservation districts have financial assistance agreements with the BLM for noxious and invasive weed treatments and 

weed education programs. The conservation districts include Otero, Socorro, San 

Juan, Upper Hondo, East Rio Arriba, Sierra, East Torrance, Cuba, Carlsbad, and 

Chaves. 

Specific projects Restore New Mexico has been responsible for include Salt Cedar 

restoration work along the Delaware River, Creosote Restoration in Last Chance 

Canyon, Sagebrush and Juniper treatment south of Cuba, New Mexico, reclamation 

of the Sulimar Oil Field, Henery Tank Mesquite treatments, and Sagebrush shaving 

adjacent to the Taos Field Office. These are just a few of the examples of the capabilities of Restore New Mexico and the significant impact that is capable of local 

land management. 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you again for the opportunity 

to present the successes we have had in New Mexico locally managing natural resources concerns, including invasive species. I am happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that. And our final witness 

is Mr. Ogsbury, right? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. From the Western Governors’ Association. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES D. OGSBURY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION 

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

members of the Committee, my name is James D. Ogsbury, I am 

the Executive Director of the Western Governors’ Association, and 

I felt that the plaintive bagpipe hums provided the perfect background for this somber topic. So, Mr. Chairman, if you are inclined 

to turn them back on, I would be obliged. 

The WGA represents the Governors of 19 Western States and 3 

U.S. flag islands. Our association is strictly bipartisan, and I am 

honored to appear before you today to briefly summarize my written testimony. I will necessarily defer to the very impressive subject matter experts that you have assembled on this panel when it 

44

comes to technical aspects of invasive species or the efficacy of 

overall operation of the current Federal programs. 

I can, however, confidently represent on behalf of the Western 

Governors that, one, the problem with invasive species is substantial and growing in the Western United States; two, the issue is, 

on a bipartisan basis, a top priority of Western Governors; three, 

Western Governors are prepared to work with the Federal Government in an authentic partnership to develop and execute a more 

successful strategy to control, eradicate, and prevent introduction 

and proliferation of invasive species; four, the Western States have 

considerable competence and expertise with respect to addressing 

invasive species, and the application of their ability and their local 

knowledge must be a part of any effective solution; and, five, despite their expertise and skill, the States cannot adequately tackle 

this massive problem on their own. For one thing, invasive species 

do not respect the political/jurisdictional boundaries separating the 

States. For another, States lack the kind of resources that the Federal Government commands to implement on-the-ground solutions. 

Governors are well aware of the negative impacts of invasive species, including threats to native plants, birds, reptiles, and mammals, many of which are endangered; electrical power outages; interference with water supply systems; increased wild fire vulnerability, especially from non-native grasses; and economic damages 

to lands and communities. 

A couple of examples will illustrate the case. In Guam, an invasion of Brown Tree Snakes introduced to the island by U.S. Army 

Jeeps during World War II has resulted in the extinction of 12 native bird species. Non-native feral pigs introduced from the Philippines and rats continue to pose a health hazard to human residents of the island. Zebra and quagga mussels are spreading into 

more western water bodies each year. These organisms often settle 

in massive colonies that can block water intake and threaten water 

supply, agriculture, and power production. Western utilities and 

their customers are spending millions of dollars annually to clean 

out zebra mussels from intake facilities and then additional funds 

to retrofit those facilities to prevent future invasions. 

Cheatgrass is an aggressive invader of western range land and 

forest areas. It grows and reproduces rapidly, overtaking native 

grasses, reducing available forage, degrading wildlife habitat, and 

increasing wild fire risks. 

Western States and Pacific Islands are responding as best they 

can to the threat of invasive species. Colorado, for example, has 

launched the ‘‘Lend a Hand for Your Lakes and Lands’’ project, 

which is raising awareness about the problem of invasive weeds, 

such as Tamarisk, and engaging volunteers in control solutions. 

Governor Bullock and the Montana Legislature took action this 

year to strengthen State laws regarding the control of aquatic 

invasive species, and committed a substantial boost in funding to 

support those efforts. 

Idaho has long been at the vanguard of invasive species management, and has published a 5-year invasive species strategic plan. 

I respectfully request that a copy of the plan be included with our 

written testimony in the hearing record. 

45

Pursuant to WGA policy resolution 10-4, ‘‘Combating Invasive 

Species,’’ Western Governors are on the record calling for a better 

coordinated nationwide effort to control and manage invasive species. The Governors support a more focused and streamlined Federal approach to the invasive species problem, implementation of 

aggressive Federal invasive species control programs that result in 

more on-the-ground prevention, management, and eradication of 

invasive species, and improved governmental coordination, communication, transparency, and accountability with respect to invasive 

species programs and the expenditure of available taxpayer resources. 

I will conclude by emphasizing the willingness of the Western 

States to engage in meaningful partnerships with the Federal Government to attack the problem. The Restore New Mexico partnership illustrates the potential of just such collaboration and Ms. 

Hughes has described the program and suggested its promise for 

other areas of the West. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members of the Committee, the WGA applauds you and the Subcommittee for your examination of this critical problem, and we would be pleased and 

honored to serve as a resource and a partner as you develop legislative solutions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ogsbury follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES D. OGSBURY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WESTERN

GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for providing the opportunity for the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) to testify today. My name 

is James D. Ogsbury and I am the Executive Director of the WGA. WGA is an independent, non-partisan organization representing the Governors of 19 Western States 

and 3 U.S.-flag islands. 

Western Governors are encouraged that the Subcommittee is focusing this oversight hearing on the insidious problem of invasive species, which poses a serious 

and growing threat to our region. Over the years, the Federal Government has invested substantial taxpayer resources to address this problem. Nevertheless, 

invasive species continue to proliferate. 

Aquatic and terrestrial invasive species are causing extensive damage across 

western landscapes, coastal areas and Pacific Islands—and have been doing so for 

some time. In California alone, over 1,000 non-native species have been identified. 

All over the region, invasive species are harming natural environments and habitat, 

recreational uses, shore and marine uses, industrial and municipal uses, grazing, 

and timber harvests. 

Invasions of non-native species are resulting in:

• Decreased biodiversity of native plants, birds, reptiles, and mammals; 

• Increased vulnerability of native species, some of which are endangered and 

threatened species; 

• Electrical power outages and disruptions; 

• Physical disruption of water supply systems and increased flood damage; 

• Increased wildfire severity (especially from non-native grass); 

• Reduced value of Federal, State and private lands; and 

• Economic harm to communities.

Let me illustrate the Governors’ concerns with several specific examples of 

invasive species that are now creating challenges for the West: 

Aquatic Mussels 

Aquatic invasive species (such as zebra and quagga mussels) are spreading into 

more western water bodies each year. Western States are on high alert to contain, 

control, and prevent their proliferation. The most common sources for the introduction of these species are recreational watercraft and materials sold by aquatic plant 

and animal suppliers. 

46

Invasion of these mussels result in impairments to water supplies for drinking, 

energy production, and irrigation. The economic consequences are severe. For example, the operators and customers of large power plants and water users are spending 

millions of dollars to clean out zebra mussels from water facilities and additional 

funds to retrofit those facilities to prevent future invasions. In addition, native fish 

and wildlife habitat are negatively impacted when these species become established 

in streams, lakes, estuaries and other water bodies. 

Western States have committed significant resources to man watercraft inspection 

and decontamination stations for invasive species, but this tactic cannot be the only 

line of defense. California currently dedicates over $7 million annually to prevent 

the spread of quagga and zebra mussels into and within State. Decontaminating 

quagga/zebra mussel fouled watercraft at their source, especially federally managed 

water bodies, such as Lake Mead National Recreation Area, is essential, or we will 

continue to witness the spread of quagga and zebra mussel to new areas in the 

Western United States. 

These growing costs do not include local reservoir prevention program or control 

expenses for water agencies in southern California, including the Metropolitan 

Water District, which currently spends millions of dollars annually to treat infested 

Colorado River water. Interception—whether at the source or at the borders—is critical for California, where water project control costs can run as high as $40 million 

dollars annually if mussels infest the system. 

Cheatgrass 

Cheatgrass is an aggressive invader of ponderosa pine, mountain brush, and other 

rangeland and forest areas in the West. Its ability to rapidly grow, reproduce and 

overtake native grasses makes it especially troublesome on ranges, croplands, and 

pastures. Where it becomes dense and dominant, cheatgrass can make wildfires 

even more severe because they burn easily. After a wildfire, cheatgrass thrives and 

out-competes native shrubby seedlings such as antelope bitterbrush. 

Cheatgrass can also diminish recreational opportunities, reduce available forage, 

degrade wildlife diversity and habitat, and decrease land values. It is important to 

note that managed grazing practices have historically helped to reduce large, highintensity range fires and, consequently, the spread of invasive species like cheatgrass. As grazing has become less prevalent on Federal lands, cheatgrass has had 

more opportunity to thrive. 

Western States and Pacific Islands are responding as best they can at the local 

and State levels. For example:

• New Mexico’s ‘‘Restore New Mexico Partnership’’—working with the State of 

New Mexico, USDA–NRCS, and BLM—has now treated over 2 million acres of 

invasive species, including Russian Olive and Salt Cedar (Tamarisk) in the past 

8 years. 

• Colorado is piloting a collaborative effort between State, county and municipal 

governments to tackle land-based invasive weeds, such as tamarisk. The ‘‘Lend 

a Hand for Your Lakes and Lands’’ project is raising awareness about this significant natural resource challenge while engaging youth and other volunteers 

in management solutions. 

• Island ecosystems and economies are particularly vulnerable to invasive species 

impacts. For example, Brown Tree snakes brought to Guam in U.S. Army Jeeps 

during the World War II have resulted in the extinction of 12 native bird species. The Pacific Invasives Partnership promotes coordinated planning and assistance from regional and international agencies to meet the invasive species 

management needs of countries and territories of the Pacific. 

• Montana Governor Bullock and the 2013 Montana legislature strengthened 

State laws regarding the control of aquatic invasive species (AIS) and provided 

a substantial boost in funding to support those efforts. The new law establishes 

a statewide management area to prevent new AIS introductions through 

watercraft and equipment inspection stations at State borders. The Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is the lead agency, with the Montana 

Departments of Transportation and Natural, Resources and Conservation also 

tasked with major responsibilities. The agencies are currently providing training for watercraft inspectors and establishing 20 highway watercraft inspection 

stations. 

• In California, invasive aquatic plants, such as water hyacinth and other 

invasive plants have proliferated to the point that they: obstruct navigation and 

create hazards for boats and other watercraft; impair recreational uses such as 

swimming, fishing, and hunting; damage water delivery and flood control systems; alter water quality; and degrade the physical and chemical characteristics 

47

of fish and wildlife habitat. California’s aquatic weed control activities cost over 

$6 million annually. 

• The 100th Meridian Initiative is a cooperative effort among local, State, provincial, regional and Federal agencies to prevent the westward spread of zebra and 

quagga mussels and other aquatic nuisance species in North America, as well 

as to monitor, contain, eradicate and control zebra mussels and other aquatic 

nuisance species if detected. 

• Idaho has long been at the forefront of invasive species management. Most recently, the State released the Idaho Invasive Species Strategic Plan, 2012–2016.

WGA respectfully requests that the plan be included with our written testimony 

in the hearing record. 

Despite best efforts, Western States and territories cannot adequately prevent or 

reduce the spread of invasive species on their own. Federal agencies own and manage more than 40 percent of the land in the West. 

In 2010, Western Governors called for a better coordinated, nationwide effort to 

control and manage invasive species. WGA urged that available Federal funding be 

focused on the worst problems, regardless of land ownership, and targeted at the 

ground level on Federal and non-Federal lands to reduce invasive species. I am providing a copy of WGA policy resolution 10–4, Combating Invasive Species, as part 

of my testimony today. 

Unfortunately, it seems little progress has been made at the Federal and regional 

level since 2010. Western Governors sent a letter to the leadership of House and 

Senate natural resources committees supporting new invasive species management 

legislation. The Governors urged the legislation to ensure:

• A more focused and streamlined Federal approach to the invasive species problem; 

• Implementation of aggressive Federal invasive species control programs that result in more on-the-ground prevention, management, and eradication of invasive 

species; 

• Opportunities for collaboration with States and Pacific Islands to prevent the 

spread of invasive species populations, avert new unauthorized introductions, 

and work together to set priorities for invasive species management; 

• Improved intergovernmental coordination and communication regarding 

invasive species infestations in order to facilitate the most effective, cooperative 

and rapid response; and 

• Increased transparency and accountability regarding how Federal funds are allocated and used for the prevention, control and management of invasive species.

We believe that those Federal agencies that have jurisdictional responsibility for 

land and water resources (i.e., Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Insular Affairs, U.S. Forest Service, and Army Corps of Engineers) 

must work with the States and territories to: implement aggressive invasive species 

control programs; provide grant resources for monitoring, intrastate interdiction and 

containment; and establish a rapid response to early detection of invasive species. 

New Mexico’s partnership program provides a great example of how effective this 

kind of Federal-State-local coordination can be when treating invasive species on 

public and private lands. The New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts has 

administered the funds for the BLM and has completed coordinated management 

plans for over 143 private ranchers. The NMACD has also executed and managed 

contracts for very large landscape scale treatment projects. The ability to do landscape scale treatment projects (with matching Federal, State, and private dollars) 

has resulted in lower per-acre cost of treatment. 

Western Governors are keenly aware of the fiscal constraints under which Congress and the Federal agencies are currently operating. We believe, however, that 

an effective response to the economic and ecological devastation caused by invasive 

species can be achieved, if existing resources are deployed more wisely and efficiently. 

As the Committee begins its work to draft invasive species legislation, Western 

Governors urge you to concentrate your efforts on what can make a difference where 

it matters: on the ground. States, in partnership with Federal agencies, have the 

expertise to run effective invasive species eradication programs. 

Again, Western Governors urge the Subcommittee to pursue and champion 

invasive species legislation during the 113th Congress. Thank you for the opportunity to be a part of today’s hearing on an issue of great importance to the Western 

States and Pacific Islands. 

48

Western Governors’ Association Policy Resolution 10–4

COMBATING INVASIVE SPECIES

A. BACKGROUND 

1. The National Invasive Species Council (Executive Order 13112) defines an 

invasive species as ‘‘an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.’’ The rapid spread of 

invasive species remains one of our country’s biggest environmental problems, a situation complicated by the sheer number of invasive species, lack of a coordinated 

and comprehensive effort to prevent introductions, monitor and survey for new introductions, and the remarkable ability of invasive species to adapt, reproduce and 

ultimately overtake entire ecosystems. 

2. Invasive species are a global problem. The annual cost of impacts and control 

efforts equals 5 percent of the world’s economy. The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency estimates the country spends at least $138 billion per year to fight and control invasive plant and animal species, such as the emerald ash borer beetles that 

have destroyed millions of trees in the East and Midwest. Invasive species influence 

the productivity, value, and management of a broad range of land and water resources in the West, ultimately limiting the direct and indirect goods and services 

these ecosystems are capable of producing. Over 100 million acres (an area roughly 

the size of California) in the United States are suffering from invasive plant infestations. 

3. On a scale of biodiversity destruction, the EPA reports that invasive species 

rank second only to urban development. In addition, invasive species have been 

identified by the Chief of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service as one 

of the four significant threats to our Nation’s forest and rangeland ecosystems. 

4. The Western Governors recognize that the spread of invasive species results 

from a combination of human behavior, susceptibility of invaded environments, and 

biology of the invading species. These characteristics are not dictated by geopolitical 

boundaries, but rather by ecosystem-level factors, including climate change, which 

often cross State borders. Scientists and land managers across the West have expressed the need to develop a strategy for more aggressive invasive species prevention, early detection, and management. 

5. Invasive species have significant negative economic, social, and ecological impacts which include, but are not limited to:

a. Reduction of the value of streams, lakes, reservoirs, oceans, and estuaries for 

native fish and wildlife habitat; 

b. Degradation of water resources for human uses including drinking water, energy production, irrigation systems and other water uses; 

c. Decreased real estate property value and increased costs of property development; 

d. Detraction from the aesthetics and recreational value of wildlands, parklands, and other areas; 

e. Degradation of ecosystem functions and values, including populations of desirable species; 

f. Reduction of the yield and quality of desirable crop and forage plants that 

are important in production of our food supply; 

g. Reduction of native biodiversity, resulting in a growing number of threatened, 

endangered and extinct species (Note: invasive species have contributed directly to the decline of 42 percent of the threatened and endangered species 

in the United States); 

h. High cost of control; and 

i. Reduction of preferred native vegetation important to native fish and wildlife 

as well as livestock.

6. Aquatic invasive species such as the zebra mussel, quagga mussel, and Eurasian water milfoil are spreading into more western water bodies each year. The 

most common sources for the introduction of these species in the West are recreational watercraft and materials sold by aquatic plant and animal suppliers. This 

is a regional, interstate issue and no Western State can independently implement 

programs to adequately prevent or reduce the spread of invasive species. The economic and environmental damage from aquatic invasive species will continue to rise 

in Western States without a well-organized and adequately funded effort to survey 

and monitor for invasive species as well as implement prevention, control, and 

eradication programs in each State to complement coordinated multi-State efforts. 

49

7. Many of these invasive species were introduced, or their distribution was expanded, due to inadequate implementation of Federal regulations dealing with 

international trade and/or interstate commerce. 

B. GOVERNORS’ POLICY STATEMENT 

1. Western Governors support coordinated, multi-State management and eradication actions to limit or eliminate intentional and unintentional introductions and 

improve control of invasive species. The principal objectives should be to maintain 

properly functioning natural systems and their associated native fish and wildlife 

populations, ensure agricultural productivity, enhance resource and environmental 

protection, and protect human health. Control programs should be economically 

practical in relationship to the long-term impacts an invasive species will cause. 

2. Programs for the control and/or eradication of invasive species must incorporate 

education, prevention, and early detection and rapid response techniques. 

3. Western Governors strongly encourage all natural resource management agencies, local governments, universities, nonprofit organizations and the private sector 

to collaborate and form partnerships with States to prevent the spread of invasive 

species, avert new unauthorized introductions, and work together to find creative 

new approaches for protecting and restoring natural, agriculture, and recreational 

resources. 

4. Western Governors urge full funding support for invasive species management 

programs on Federal lands as well as financial assistance for state invasive species 

management, including the National Invasive Species Act and programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and funding support for State 

invasive species councils These programs provide valuable services in the detection 

and elimination of invasive species as well as coordination and communication, and 

their participation is essential for States relying on these services to maintain 

strong trade and export functions. 

5. Western Governors encourage the federal government to: 

a. Assume responsibility and a direct partnership role with States in interstate 

interdiction of invasive species; 

b. Substantially increase grant funding to the States for monitoring, intrastate 

interdiction and containment; and 

c. Implement aggressive invasive species control programs within the Federal 

agencies (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. 

Forest Service, Army Corps of Engineers) who have jurisdictional responsibility for land and water resources. 

d. Establish rapid response spending authorization for States responding to 

early detection of invasive species. 

6. Western Governors support a coordinated regional approach to invasive species 

management. Of particular importance will be: a. Developing scientifically based 

and coordinated species lists between the States; 

b. Developing efficient coordination and communication mechanisms to share information promptly with each other and the Federal Government to allow for the 

most effective cooperative and rapid response; 

c. Establishing consistent and effective policies and procedures to prevent transport, sale and dispersal of undesirable species, particularly those under eradication 

in specific states; and 

d. Increasing awareness and support for effective public outreach and education 

throughout the Western States. 

C. GOVERNORS’ MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 

1. This resolution shall be posted on the Western Governors’ Association Web site 

and shall be referenced and used as appropriate by Governors and staff. 

2. Western Governors’ Association staff shall coordinate within existing WGA 

committees, such as the Climate Adaptation Workgroup and the Forest Health Advisory Committee, to promote coordination and cooperation of invasive species management across agencies. 

3. The Western Governors’ Association shall seek financial and human resources 

to work with appropriate partners to facilitate the development and coordination of 

strategies to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive aquatic, riparian, and 

terrestrial species. 

4. WGA shall support increased pass-through funding for invasive species management to States including funding for the Federal Highway Administration to 

support of State Department of Transportation invasive species management efforts. 

50

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, sir. And if you provide us with an Idaho 

plan we will add that as part of the record. 

Mr. OGSBURY. Thank you, sir. 

[The Idaho Invasive Species Strategic Palan 2012–2016, provided 

for the record by Mr. Ogsbury, has been retained in the Committee’s Official files and can also be found at http://

www.agri.state.id.us/Categories/PlantsInsects/NoxiousWeeds/Documents/Idaho%20Invasive%20Species%20Strategy%202012-

2016.pdf.] 

Mr. BISHOP. With that, we will turn to questions of our panel. 

Let me turn first to Representative Lummis, if you have any questions of these witnesses. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I do. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Before I begin, I have a confession to make to Dr. 

Beck. When I was a student at the University of Wyoming College 

of Agriculture. I was involved in a vast right wing conspiracy that 

did spirit the CSU ram from his pen and placed him in a pen at 

the University of Wyoming with Cowboy Joe, our pony. I was subsequently dragged into the President’s office, along with some other 

ag students, and we did return the ram to CSU, unharmed. But I 

do have that history with regard to CSU. We are happy to have 

you here today, by the way. 

My questions, first, are for Director Fearneyhough. Now, you are 

in charge of invasive species control in the State of Wyoming, is 

that correct? 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. That is correct. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And you testified briefly before about the variety 

of Federal agencies that you have to deal with in Wyoming. It is 

not just the BLM or just the Forest Service. It is multiple Federal 

agencies, is that correct? 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. That is correct. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. When you are trying to respond to invasive species 

threats on a statewide basis, what kind of challenges arise when 

you are dealing with these separate agencies with separate budgets, separate species management philosophies? 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. Congresswoman Lummis, we work very 

closely with our Federal partners, and I want to make that clear. 

However, Ms. Hughes talked about the color-blind approach and 

seeing the different colors on the map. The biggest challenge that 

we have, from my perspective, is exactly that. You mentioned policies and budgets and all of those things. We need a consistent way 

to act on lands as if they are just lands. We have heard today that 

invasive species do not recognize political boundaries, they don’t 

recognize any of those budgets, any of those policies. They go where 

they want to go. We need to be able to be nimble and get on to 

the ground as quickly as we can to stop the threats that we have. 

So, those are the challenges that you laid out right there, are 

that, that we have different sets of policies, different budgets that 

we are working with all the time, and the species just keeps promulgating itself. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. There have been some regional approaches that 

have been discussed at this hearing. Could you elaborate on that, 

and how that is working? 

51

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. Yes, Congresswoman. I can give you two examples, one of an invasive species—and this one isn’t working—

and one that—or hasn’t worked very well—and one that is not an 

invasive species, but a threat to Wyoming that is. And I will start 

with the one that is working on the cheatgrass. 

We have four States. I am in the western part of the United 

States, where the Governors had come together and they had 

signed an MOU to work together to stop cheatgrass because of the 

issues that we have with sage grouse. Because of what we just 

talked about a moment ago, the different budgets, policies, the 

problems that we encounter there, that MOU, that plan, is sitting 

on a shelf. It is not being able to be implemented. And the opportunity still lies there. We need, I guess, a mechanism to get it off 

the shelf and on to the ground. So there is a problem that isn’t 

working. 

On the Eastern side of Wyoming, we have the beetles, the Pine 

Beetles. We have the issue that is in two States, multiple counties, 

we are dealing with the BLM, with the Forest Service, the State 

of South Dakota, the State of Wyoming, and several counties. We 

have been able to utilize the Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

through the generosity of the State legislature in Wyoming, and 

also like members in South Dakota, with partnership with the Federal Government to get on the ground and start taking care of that 

problem. So——

Mrs. LUMMIS. You have talked, then, about prioritizing direct 

mitigation of these species, but you also mentioned research funding to be valuable. What type of research programs have helped 

you make a difference on the ground? 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. Congresswoman, again, I think all of that 

is important, all of the things that we have talked about. It is not 

just research, it is not just on the ground. It is a combination of 

doing it all. Because we have to use the research, though, to be applied. We have to get to a point where we can take what we are 

learning in the academic world and get it on the ground to deal 

with the species. This problem is broad-ranging, and we need to—

I can’t give just specifics from Wyoming because, as I mentioned, 

we have the different problems in different States throughout the 

country. But we need to make sure that research goes to the next 

step, where we have application, and get things on the ground. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I will defer now back to you, Mr. Chairman. So—

will we have a second round? Excellent. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Ask questions—do you have any Ram stories? 

Mr. HORSFORD. I actually do. 

Mr. BISHOP. Oh, great. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Not Thelonious, but——

Mr. BISHOP. Well, see, CSU and Wyoming are in different conferences now, so I don’t care. But go ahead. I recognize Mr. 

Horsford for questions. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My wife actually got 

her undergrad from CSU. And having attended the University of 

Nevada Reno, whenever there is a big game I always let her know 

that we often beat the Rams. So go Wolfpack. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HORSFORD. I never stole a ram, though. 

52

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HORSFORD. I appreciate very much the panel. And as I said, 

this is a very important topic. The Healthy Habitats Coalition and 

some of the testimony seems focused on noxious weeds. But as we 

indicated, we have a problem with cheatgrass in Nevada. We also 

have a problem with quagga mussels. 

So, does it make a difference whether it is an aquatic species or 

a noxious weed, when we talk about funding for prevention versus 

control for the various panel members, if you could respond? 

Mr. RIES. I can speak for the Forest Service and say that it does 

not. The big issues for us is identifying the various invasives that 

are out there, taking a look at the threats that they pose, evaluating our treatment options. What are the possible ways we can 

control that? And how effective might they be? 

And then, in every situation I am aware of, we are working with 

our partners, both at the State and local level, to set priorities together so that we can move forward on those. So in some parts of 

the country we are involved in cheatgrass. And we are also involved in developing biological controls for it. In other parts of the 

country we have been very active and aggressive with our partners 

in looking at quagga mussels, as well as zebra mussels and other 

aquatic invaders. 

Dr. BECK. All of the organisms are problematic and important. 

They all need to be dealt with. And we need a balanced approach 

to do so. We shouldn’t favor one over another, maybe—unless it is 

something brand new and arrived, then that should be taken care 

of immediately. But otherwise, they are all bad. It is not just noxious weeds, and it is not just the mussels, it is not just the Burmese Python, it is all of them together. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you. One other area that you talked 

about, obviously, is effectively eradicating an invasive species, and 

particularly having a rapid response when it is first detected. 

State agencies often view the new invader from the perspective 

of their own boundaries. How would you suggest that State and 

Federal agencies coordinate their responses to a new invader, when 

the ultimate impact might be widespread, but the initial responsibility to respond falls only to one State? Often times States have 

inadequate resources. 

Dr. BECK. To make that, the system, work, early detection and 

rapid response, you obviously need a local set of eyes keeping track, 

because they are familiar with the area, and they live there, they 

are out, looking around. But ultimately, it needs to be borderless, 

it needs to be collaborative. We need everybody communicating, 

open lines of communication to address this very issue, just as you 

suggest. 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. Congressman Horsford, I would agree with 

that. I think that it is important that we work together. We have 

opportunities. And, of course, in Wyoming, our biggest issues tend 

to be insects and weeds. We do have some of the—we are trying 

to keep quagga mussels out. 

But I think if you have the opportunity to even work with another State to keep a weed, for instance, or an invasive species that 

is in that State from coming into your State, it ultimately reduces 

53

the pathway of that invasive species to move across the country. 

I think that prevention is done through rapid response. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Anyone else? 

[No response.] 

Mr. HORSFORD. Governors’ Association, maybe? 

Mr. OGSBURY. I think that we should develop a model where the 

State governments, the Federal Government, the conservation districts, private interests, are all at the table to develop broad-scale 

strategies, kind of on a landscape-basis, much like what they have 

done in New Mexico. 

So, when the rapid response is required, people have already 

kind of talked that through and they are on the same page, and 

there is a much more—a better common-sense of the problem, and 

a more collaborative solution that has already been kind of deliberated upon. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Stewart, according to theme here, 

is it going to be a Utah State story? In fact, I don’t even know 

where you went. If you say BYU, you don’t even get to ask questions, but——

Mr. STEWART. OK. Well, I am going to excuse myself at this time, 

then. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STEWART. I went there for a year, until I almost got kicked 

out, but it wasn’t for ram-stealing. I would like to make that clear. 

I am assuming, Mr. Chairman, that it is my time, then? Thank 

you. 

Like many of us here, I am from a Western State, and I appreciate this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your expertise. And 

for those of you, service to your Nation, service to your States, and 

your expertise. And I would like to use this opportunity to actually 

educate myself, rather than pretend that I am an expert in this, 

because I am not, and ask some questions that some of you may 

think, well, those are silly, or maybe I should know that. But I 

really would appreciate some clarification. 

Invasive species are alien species that can cause economic or environmental damage. I understand that. But I am wondering, are 

you concerned about native species, as well, that can also cause 

economic or environmental concern? Do you spend any efforts on 

what we would, I guess, scientifically consider a native species? 

Some of you are nodding your head, I guess. Would you mind 

jumping in and say yes, you do? Or where is that on your priorities? 

Mr. RIES. And I can start that, speaking from the perspective of 

the Forest Service. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. 

Mr. RIES. And a really good example that we see throughout the 

West is with Mountain Pine Beetle. 

Mr. STEWART. Is what? 

Mr. RIES. Mountain Pine Beetle. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, OK. Yes, absolutely, yes. 

Mr. RIES. And we have had instances, significant losses of spruce 

to Spruce Beetle in Utah. 

Mr. STEWART. Right, right. 

54

Mr. RIES. And those are natives. And we do spend a significant 

amount of resources, really, along the same lines as we do for 

invasives. We look for an early detection of a new outbreak of a native species when it begins to do harm, and gets out of the background. We apply direct control measures. We work on biological 

control measures, and we also look at restoration work once——

Mr. STEWART. Many of the same things, then. 

Mr. RIES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STEWART. And so, I am noticing again many of you shook 

your heads. I recognize this hearing is on invasive species, but that 

is not the only problem. You also have to deal with the natives, as 

well. And you deal with them, I am assuming, in much the same 

way, as far as mitigating the harm, the processes are much the 

same. Is that true? Yes, OK. Thank you. 

Then again, we have heard a number of examples. You have 

talked about the aquatic mussels or the cheatgrasses or some of the 

native species, the Bark Beetle, which many of us are concerned 

about. And I think, from a visual perspective, it is one of the more 

obvious ones. The mussels, for example, you may not be as aware 

of because of that. 

But recognizing that these are very different species, very different economic or environmental remedies to them, that they concern different constituents or different groups for different reasons, 

are there any that seem to rise to this is the number-one priority, 

or this is the greatest danger that we face right now? Is there any 

consensus among you at all that this is our primary concern? Or 

maybe two, top one or two. 

Dr. BECK. Well, Representative Stewart, I actually was asked 

that question earlier this week, and it is very difficult to pin down 

a top one, top two, or top three. But every State and every county 

within the State will have a priority group that they will work on. 

Typically, when something is new, then that receives priority immediately through early detection and rapid response for the obvious reason. We do not want it to become a cheatgrass, or something of that nature. So it is not a moving target, but the priorities 

are adjusted as necessary. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. So among you, maybe those who haven’t responded—yes, I am sorry, Ms. Hughes? Yes. You seem to want to 

answer that. If you would. 

Ms. HUGHES. Well, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stewart, it really depends on the location, and it depends—I mean because we 

have done a large amount of just Mesquite treatment, which is a 

native, but it was invading so bad, and it was affecting the habitat 

area of the Dune Sand Lizard and Lesser Prairie Chicken. So, 

therefore, it was a priority, even though it—so it is going to depend 

on the location and what all the other species are. 

I mean Pinyon-Juniper invasion, even though they are native, is 

a huge factor because of wild fire and drought issues. Salt Cedar 

is a huge problem because of water issues. So every State and 

every locale——

Mr. STEWART. Has its own challenge. 

Ms. HUGHES [continuing]. Is going to have its own challenges. 

Mr. STEWART. So, I think if you were to ask most people in my 

State, for example, most of them would think of the Bark Beetle, 

55

because it is most visual. But the reality is, A, it is not invasive, 

it is native. Same problem, have to deal with it. And, B, it doesn’t 

seem to be the most worrisome to you at all. There are many others that you are at least equally concerned with. Is that true? 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. Congressman, if I may? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. I believe that, yes, it depends, as Ms. 

Hughes just stated, the issues that face Florida and California are 

very different than the issues that face Wyoming, and those are 

different than the issues that even face my neighbor, Utah, in 

many cases. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. So it is a very location-based problem. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. And I view that as being good news and bad 

news. I mean the good news is there is not one major problem that 

seems so overwhelming that everyone has agreed this is the priority for us now. The bad news is that there is a wide range of 

other problems that are so different, there is no real concerted effort to take care of it. And it is going to take the efforts of a lot 

of people from a lot of different backgrounds to do that. OK. Thank 

you for your questions and your responses. 

Mr. Chairman, having run out of time, I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate it. Let me ask a couple question in here. 

And there will be another round for everybody if there are more 

questions. 

Mr. Ries, first of all, you cited several different acronyms of 

invasive species partners and efforts under which you work. So, my 

question is, who is in charge, as far as the Federal Government’s 

agencies, to coordinate these efforts to address this issue? Who actually is in charge? 

Mr. RIES. There is an Invasive Species Council composed of Federal agencies that oversees the work that all of us do. It helps us 

set priorities and assures that we are operating consistently. 

Beyond that, as we move into individual locations, we in the 

Forest Service are responsible for the National Forest System and 

BLM, of course——

Mr. BISHOP. Let me just take one step further. The council to 

which you refer has been there for quite a while, a couple administrations, at least. And it is made up of multi-agencies and districts. 

Do they—does that Council, though, have authority to make decisions, or do they generally try to coordinate and make recommendations? 

Mr. RIES. They coordinate, they make recommendations. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. 

Mr. RIES. They——

Mr. BISHOP. We still have a diffuse authority that is out there. 

What authorities does your agency have to let State and local entities manage invasive species on national forest land? 

Mr. RIES. We operate under a couple of different authorities, but 

primarily through cooperative agreements, my experience is with 

cooperative weed management areas in Idaho. When we all got together in an area similar to what Ms. Hughes describes in New 

Mexico, that group determines what their priority invasives 

are——

56

Mr. BISHOP. I understand cooperative agreements. Do you have 

the authority to let State and local governments take lead and take 

charge of this program? 

Mr. RIES. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. BISHOP. How much does it cost the Forest Service per acre 

to do invasive species treatment? 

Mr. RIES. Our costs vary significantly, depending on the species 

and the location. In remote wilderness areas in Idaho and Montana, where we are packing herbicide in on horseback, costs can be 

as high as $1,000 an acre. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. 

Mr. RIES. And if we are spraying for Gypsy Moth, costs can be as low as $25 to $35 an acre. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Mr. Beck, if I could ask you a couple of questions now. Ms. Hughes said 93 percent of their revenue actually 

gets on the ground. Your coalition, I understand, has made some 

estimates of what the Federal money actually gets on the ground. 

And I understand it is as low as 7 percent. Is that a ballpark figure? 

Dr. BECK. For weed control, yes, Mr. Chairman, that is a close 

ballpark figure. If you put in the other monies from, like, APHIS, 

for example, it does go up. 

Mr. BISHOP. How effective has the invasive species management 

plans produced by this National Invasive Species Council been? 

Dr. BECK. Sadly, I would have to say that it has not had the effect that we would desire. When I served on the Invasive Species 

Advisory Committee, that was one of the frustrations. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, thank you. Let me ask Mr. Dye a couple 

of questions, if I could, then. 

Your testimony mentioned the billions of dollars being spent by 

municipalities and private property owners to address invasive species. Can you talk about their success rate in curbing invasive species? 

Mr. DYE. As we have heard here today, it is a very challenging 

problem. It requires the effort of many agencies. And to say that 

we have been totally successful, we would be hard-pressed, except 

for those relating to the Asian Longhorn Beetle that you heard reference to earlier. 

The important thing is that we work closely together. And most 

importantly is to stop the invasive species at our shores, before 

they arrive. That is the most cost-effective method to address the 

problem. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank you. Let me turn to Ms. Hughes for a second, if I could. 

You said that 40 percent of New Mexico is Federal land. I wish 

ours was that low. I will trade you 27 percent, if you would like 

it. How much of that is infested by the invasive species, relative 

to State and privately owned land, the 33 percent you were talking 

about? 

Ms. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have an exact number. But 

in working with the BLM, before we started the Restore, they estimated that 5 million acres of just BLM land needed some kind of 

treatment. And we have done 2.1 million. So just the BLM, I would 

estimate at least another 3 million acres. I don’t have numbers for 

57

the Forest Service; I would expect it to probably be even higher. 

But I do think on the private land we have probably done a lot better job, because we have been working with them for years through 

the farm bill. 

Mr. BISHOP. Right. 

Ms. HUGHES. And there is less on the private land. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am out of time, I apologize. But you did say that 

the BLM was treating, like, 10 to 15,000 acres. You are now doing 

2.1 million acres. Thank you. 

There will be another round. Mr. Horsford, do you have other 

questions? 

Mr. HORSFORD. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, 

each of you quickly, if you could, tell me. In your experience, is a 

focus on pathways or vectors of introduction a more effective approach in trying to prevent introductions of a particular species? 

[No response.] 

Mr. HORSFORD. Quickly, because I have only got 5 minutes. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RIES. Yes, it is the most cost-effective thing we can do. 

Dr. BECK. Pathways management is very powerful, but we need 

a balanced approach for the whole problem. 

Mr. DYE. I totally agree that we must address the pathway. It 

is the most cost-effective way to do that, and stop the invasion. 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. I am in agreement that the pathways are 

important. But we also have to remember, Congressman, that we 

have these invasive species here, in many instances, already. So, 

they have come down the pathway in many places, so we need to 

address them where they are, as well. 

Ms. HUGHES. I think we have got to pay attention to the fact 

that a lot of these are coming off of our Federal lands and affecting 

our private land owners. So the pathway is—they are already in 

our State and they are coming off our Federal lands. If we don’t 

work together, we have more problems. 

Mr. OGSBURY. The Western Governors have not endorsed any 

specific strategies for invasive species control, but they have enacted broad principles to address the problem. 

Mr. HORSFORD. If I can get a copy, maybe, of those broad principles separately, or through the Committee. 

The USDA Forest Service adopted in December 2011 an internal 

directive to Forest Service Manual 2900 for invasive species management: ‘‘The final invasive species directive will provide 

foundational comprehensive guidance for the management of 

invasive species on aquatic and terrestrial areas of the National 

Forest System.’’ Have each of you reviewed how this policy will address some of the problems that you have identified? And specifically, how this could be part of the coordination among our local, 

State, and Federal partners? 

[No response.] 

Mr. HORSFORD. Just jump in there Mr. Dye or someone. When 

you—it counts against my time when you are not responding. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DYE. Excuse me, sir, but I am not totally familiar with the 

manual that you mentioned. I am sorry. 

58

Mr. RIES. And, of course, I have reviewed it. And it is really designed to better coordinate our efforts internally and set the tone 

for working with partners externally. 

Mr. HORSFORD. So how is that shared, then? He is the State Association of State Foresters. How are they not informed about a 

manual that is supposed to improve coordination, when they don’t 

know about it? 

Mr. RIES. And that manual is the direction to our forest supervisors and district rangers, our folks in the field. So we don’t routinely provide a copy of our internal policy to State Foresters. But 

my hope is that all of our partners will notice the difference. 

Mr. HORSFORD. OK. So, regarding how to get agencies to work 

better together, I mean we hear about this all the time in this 

Committee in particular, and some of you have some demonstrated 

successes. How can the land-managing agencies effectively manage 

the many pathways of introduction by which new invasive species 

are introduced to lands and waters under their management? Any 

suggestions? Ms. Hughes? 

Ms. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Horsford, I just 

think it is all about partnerships. When you work together, you 

have got more people out there, we are working across different 

landscapes. We actually are in the process of doing a master service agreement with the Forest Service, so that we can do the same 

kind of thing as we are with the BLM, because the local people on 

the ground are the ones that know this and see these things. And 

I think that is part of the answer: more partnerships at the local 

level. 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I would agree 

with that. I think that some of the examples that I gave, where we 

had some successes were based in partnership. But in that partnership you need an avenue to get everybody to work together. So 

partnerships are key. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one of the 

questions I will just ask—maybe if you can all respond to separately at some other point—is the sustainability of partnerships. It 

is one thing to get them going, but how do you sustain them over 

time, particularly when we are talking about different types of species that happen at different points? And while there might be an 

interest today, how do you sustain that in a future process? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Stewart, do you have more questions? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. Maybe I will just do this briefly. And we will 

go down the row, if we could. Are there Federal policies in place 

right now that make what you are trying to do more difficult? 

Mr. RIES. From our perspective, no. 

Mr. STEWART. No? 

Mr. RIES. We believe we have what we need, and——

Mr. STEWART. OK. You don’t feel like there is any Federal policies or laws that tie your hands in trying to respond to these 

invasive species in an appropriate way. 

Mr. RIES. Well, in terms of forming partnerships to do that, and 

establish local priorities, and work together, no. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. Any others? Do you feel like your hands are 

tied, or it is made harder because of some Federal policies? 

59

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I think that 

a specific policy is probably not the obstacle that we see, from a 

State perspective, it is often that there are several conflicting policies or, for instance, Forest Service operates one way, BLM operates another, Department of Defense operates another. Trying to 

work through that often times is the obstacle. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. Yes, Ms. Hughes? 

Ms. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stewart, the whole 

NEPA process can be an obstacle. But what we have learned to do 

is do bigger, and include everybody at one time, instead of going 

out there and doing a clearance on private land, a separate one on 

State, and a separate one on BLM. We do it together. And it is 

much more cost-effective, and it helps us get through that very difficult process much more economically. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. Does the NEPA process frustrate you sometimes in trying to deal with these things? 

Ms. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stewart, yes, it does. 

But we have learned to work within it, and we know it is a requirement, and we just make it happen together. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. Anyone else want to respond to that? 

[No response.] 

Mr. STEWART. Oh, you cowards. You may be the only people in 

America who would look at that question about does Federal policy 

make my life more difficult or what I am trying to do more challenging and not want to answer that question. 

Let me ask it in a slightly different way, then. Other than asking 

for more money, which, of course, is, in some perspectives, the answer to everything, what is it that we could do to help you? What 

would you ask Federal regulators—which isn’t us, necessarily—or 

those who have some input on that? What could we do to help you 

in your goal to contain or to mitigate the impacts of some of these 

invasive species? Any thoughts or suggestions? Again, Ms. Hughes. 

Ms. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stewart, I just think 

if more of the funds could be directed—if the Federal agencies 

could be directed to work more locally with the States and the local 

governments. I mean, yes, they are required to do it in NEPA, but 

they don’t necessarily always do it. 

We have found out that we can actually take part of our farm 

bill dollars, spend it on Federal land, we can spend some of the 

Federal dollars on private land through the Wyden Amendment. 

There are ways, there are avenues to do it if you really want to. 

But just a little carrot, a little incentive to every State, all 50 

States and territories, to take some of this invasive money and get 

it down to that local level, I think, brings people together. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. 

Ms. HUGHES. Those incentives——

Mr. STEWART. I appreciate your response on that. I think that is 

probably right. Anyone else, as far as what we could do to help 

you? Yes? 

Mr. DYE. I would like to point out a partnership that we have 

in the State of West Virginia, the Potomac Highlands Weed and 

Pest Management Area. We cooperate with all of our Federal partners, NRCS, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and then 

the State Department of Agriculture the Division of Forestry, and 

60

we bring in the Nature Conservancy. We do not stop at the West 

Virginia State line. It extends into Virginia. That has been one of 

the best programs, bringing everyone together on the ground at the 

ground level. The program was initiated by the U.S. Forest Service. 

I applaud the step they took to bring the group together. And I am 

amazed at how it functions as a team together to address the 

issues as they come. I see that as a wave of the future in the Eastern portion of the Nation. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Dye. Yes, Mr. Beck? 

Dr. BECK. Representative Stewart, I think strong leadership also 

would be helpful. Therefore, what I am saying, we need someone 

saying, ‘‘You need to do this,’’ the you being the Federal agencies. 

And I will use a case that happened in Colorado a couple of years 

ago, where an invasive species coordinator for one of the forests at 

a State—a Noxious Weed Advisory Committee meeting suggested—

well, he didn’t suggest, he said that invasive species simply weren’t 

a priority for the forest. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, OK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Ogsbury, if I could ask a simple question. The 

impact of the spread of invasive species on Federal land, how does 

that impact efforts on State and local management? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If one neighbor, whether it is the State or the Federal Government or a private land 

owner, treats for an invasive species and an adjoining neighbor 

does not, then the chances are really good that the treatment dollars will be wasted because of the spread of the species from the 

non-managed area. An entity can spend an enormous amount of 

money treating invasive species on its land, only to have that species travel from nearby lands—through air or human or vehicle 

transport—back to the previously treated area. 

So, I think the problem is particularly acute in the West, given 

the large amount of land that is in a checkerboard pattern. And it 

really calls, again, for more cooperative management on a larger 

landscape scale, much as they have done in New Mexico. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate that. So, Dr. Beck, you were saying that 

the issue, then, is we are growing the infestation area at three-anda-half times what we are solving. Was that the slide that I saw? 

Dr. BECK. Yes, Chairman Bishop. We are acquiring many, many 

more acres than we are treating and restoring, correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. So we are in the wrong trajectory with this issue. 

We are just going in the wrong direction in this issue. 

Dr. BECK. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, Ms. Hughes, how did you get 93 percent of your 

funding to get on the ground? And why are you able to do this 

when obviously the Federal Government is not putting that high 

of a percentage of the money dedicated to this issue on the ground? 

Ms. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, it probably includes several things. 

One is working through the local soil and water conservation districts. They are elected officials, but they are not paid. So we have 

some of that administration happening there. We are doing such 

large landscape-scale projects that it is taking the cost down per 

acre. We have been hiring retired Federal employees as contractors, which also helps take the cost down. So it is a whole various 

amount of things that are going on, and the private land owners 

61

are matching the dollars, oil and gas companies are matching the 

dollars. Just a lot of people are coming together because we all 

have the same goal. 

Mr. BISHOP. And you are doing it with—didn’t you say it was a 

ground-up—locally led process was the word that you used. 

Ms. HUGHES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Fearneyhough? I am still mispronouncing that, 

aren’t I? 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. You are fine. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Can you just talk about the success of your 

State invasive species management program, versus your experience with the Forest Service and BLM in Wyoming? 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. Mr. Chairman, again, we work with them 

very closely. I think that the dollars that we are afforded that come 

through the Federal system, we are far more efficient with. Now, 

we receive funding through the Department of Agriculture. There 

are also monies that go straight to the counties. But for similar 

reasons to what you just heard, when we get those monies we are 

able to put them on the ground at a greater rate of efficiency. I 

would say that we do that as well with our State funds that we 

have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, there are several States—Wyoming is one, 

Utah, others—that have devoted considerable State resources to 

improve habitat, so you can avoid the onus of the Federal—actually, my staff said Federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife. I had a different 

adjective in front of that one, but we will go with ‘‘Federal.’’

So they won’t be listing the sage grouse under the Endangered 

Species Act. Do you feel the efforts to improve sage grouse habitat 

by getting rid of or eradicating cheatgrass is being undermined by 

the lack of a similar action on the Federal lands in Wyoming? 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. I think in trying to control cheatgrass, I 

think—as I spoke to earlier—the issue is the variety of policies that 

you end up having to deal with. Now we are throwing U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service into the mix, along with the actual land management agencies. The policies that you deal with there are very 

hard to overcome. And that is whether you are dealing with just 

the NEPA, or if you are dealing with the actual trying to get something applied on the ground. It is very difficult to overcome 

those——

Mr. BISHOP. Well, then let me follow up with that—with the last 

question that Representative Lummis wanted to ask you, and did 

not have time to do it. She wrote, ‘‘I understand that there were 

several layers of approval for the use of pesticides on public lands, 

starting with the EPA and then going through the different processes employed by each agency. Do you think streamlining that 

process is something Congress should be looking’’—she ended in a 

preposition; I can’t do that. We should be looking at that? 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. Mr. Chairman, yes. I think that you should 

be looking at it. The example, as I understand it, in that instance, 

where we are talking about pesticides specifically, you have a pesticide that is approved by EPA. Then it also has to go through an 

approval process through BLM. Then it has to go through an approval process for the Forest Service, and on down the line. 

62

So, it would be great if we had an opportunity that, once something is approved by a Federal agency that should be concerned 

with those pesticides, that everyone else accepts that, and we can 

get it on the ground. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Horsford, do you have other questions? 

Mr. HORSFORD. If I could just follow up to the last question you 

asked, Mr. Chairman. 

So, your last response to the Chairman’s question. What happens 

when the approval only deals with one type of species, and then a 

different Federal agency has a interest or a scope or responsibility 

in another. When you say just to approve something, you could be 

closing off the opportunity to address another invasive species. Correct? 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. Ranking Member Horsford, I understand 

the question. I think that possibility does exist. But in the examples that we are seeing, we are seeing it is approved for Plant X 

on BLM—or through the EPA. So BLM then has to go through a 

process to approve it for the same plant, or the same insect, and 

then on down the line. 

Certainly I think when you have that approval process, it should 

be very robust. You should make sure that the chemical or whatever the agent is that you are using is a viable and safe agent. 

However, once it gets approved for a species, I believe that it 

should be accepted by others. 

Mr. HORSFORD. So just to clarify, then, your response is that the 

approval among different Federal agencies should be based on addressing an invasive species, not to mitigate other factors which 

may need different approval processes. Correct? 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. Ranking Member Horsford, yes, that is correct. 

Mr. HORSFORD. OK. And then, Mr. Hughes, I really appreciated 

your perspective and the work that you are doing with Restore 

New Mexico. And I think it comes down to leadership. It sounds 

like you have a can-do attitude and you bring the stakeholders to 

the table. And that probably helps push that envelope. And it 

sounds like you are being very creative about how to deploy those 

resources. 

I am interested in knowing how much Federal land is there in 

New Mexico, as a percentage? 

Ms. HUGHES. Congressman Horsford, we have 40 percent Federal 

land——

Mr. HORSFORD. OK. 

Ms. HUGHES [continuing]. In New Mexico. 

Mr. HORSFORD. So most of this is being done with State and private land activity. In my State of Nevada, we are over 80 percent 

Federal land. So——

Ms. HUGHES. Yes, sir. With this Restore New Mexico, it has been 

all types of land included: State, Federal, private, all together. 

Mr. HORSFORD. And I completely agree with your approach, 

bringing everybody together, regardless if they are State, private, 

Federal, to work on projects in an inclusive manner. Even though 

it may not be a particular area’s interest today, it will be tomorrow. 

63

So the more that you can keep them engaged in understanding 

the big picture—but I do think, Mr. Chairman, there is a bit of a 

disconnect sometimes because in some States the ability to act or 

react, like in New Mexico, is very different than in a State like Nevada, or another State that has so much Federal land, to where we 

are reliant on those Federal agencies doing their job, because we 

can’t do that on our own. And I think that has to be taken into account with these Federal policies. 

Let me just end by asking—all of you talked about the need to 

work together better and to create comprehensive solutions to 

invasive species. And it is not new, right? And we have heard this 

many times, and we continue to hear similar concerns. Why has 

there been limited progress in national efforts to work together and 

to take on the bigger problem? And what is the one thing that you 

would recommend to help improve that? 

Ms. HUGHES. Congressman Horsford, the BLM, after they started working with us, they told us themselves that their contracting 

process was their worst enemy. In other words, it took them forever 

to actually just get an RFP out and get money on the ground. And 

once they signed the overall agreement with us, that the money 

could go to the local level, and we could do the RFP, we actually 

are getting those same Federal dollars on the ground within a couple of months, where it might take them a year to 2 years. 

Mr. HORSFORD. OK. 

Ms. HUGHES. So——

Mr. HORSFORD. Contracting? If everybody else could quickly answer that, just one recommendation that would help improve the 

process. 

Mr. OGSBURY. Well, one recommendation I might offer is to look 

for other models where this kind of collaboration has been successful. And the one that I would cite would be the Western Region Cohesive Wild Land Fire Management Strategy, which brings together a diverse array of Federal, State, and private partners. Everybody is at the table developing common goals and strategies and 

objectives for the prevention and control of wild fires. 

Mr. DYE. I wouldn’t give up on the National Invasive Species 

Council. There is a framework there with coordination, communication, just a continued emphasis among those Federal agencies. And 

for them to focus on partnerships at the ground level, like I described in the Potomac Highlands Cooperative, it can be very effective. 

Mr. FEARNEYHOUGH. Mr. Chairman, with permission, I think 

that making sure—again, we have heard the word ‘‘partnership’’ a 

lot today. But I think that we need those partnerships. We also 

need a mechanism to make sure that the people that are in different locations have the opportunity to say, ‘‘This is where we 

need to focus our resources today.’’

And as I mentioned earlier, the east coast is different than it is 

in Wyoming and in California. So I think that we need to have a 

very strong local input, wherever that is. 

Dr. BECK. Mr. Chairman and Representative Horsford, I think, 

again, very strong leadership beginning back here in Washington, 

D.C. is very important. But that leadership, the voice of leadership, 

64

has to be felt through the entire system, all the way down to the 

ground, to assure that we work together. 

Mr. RIES. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Horsford, two 

parts to your question. One was why haven’t we made more 

progress on this. And I think we continue to learn. But as Dr. Beck 

described, this is a huge problem. This is significant all across the 

country. And I think the common theme toward solution is one that 

you have heard around this table over and over again, and that is 

that we need to work together. We need to partner up. And we 

need to cooperate locally to identify priorities and work together to 

deal with them. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate all of you being here. I appreciate your 

testimony, as well. There may be other questions that Members 

have that we would submit to you, and the record will be held open 

for 10 days for those responses, if possible. 

I think today is one of the first times I know this Committee has 

actually looked on this particular issue. And I think there is a couple of things that are very clear from the testimony that you have 

given. One is we are spending a great deal of money on an issue 

but we are not necessarily getting the money on the ground to the 

problem that has to be there, and solving that problem. 

The second is we are doing all sorts of coordination efforts, but 

sometimes those are too many and too complex and at differing approaches to it. We have a structural problem in actually going after 

this in a reasonable way over several different kinds of jurisdiction 

lines. And I think the positive aspect is we have seen how some 

local entities have been able to actually solve this problem and deal 

with it very effectively, if we change the structural issues and we 

also change some of the spending habits that we have. And this is 

a problem that is not going to go away. 

And, as Dr. Beck indicated, this is a problem that is growing, 

even though we are spending more money at it. We are not solving 

it. So we have to start having a basic paradigm shift here, that we 

have to look at this in a different way, because it’s not working in 

what we are doing. As much as we would like to work together in 

a wonderful way and coordinate our efforts, we are not doing it. We 

have to do something drastically different. And I appreciate your 

testimonies and your input. 

If there is nothing else—I guess it is just us. If there is nothing 

else, right? This Subcommittee will stand adjourned, and I appreciate, once again, your willingness to be here. 

[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additonal Material Submitted for the Record]

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

4245 N. FAIRFAX DRIVE, 

SUITE 100, ARLINGTON VA, 

22203–1606, MAY 16, 2013.

65

The Honorable ROB BISHOP, Chairman,

The Honorable RAUL GRIJALVA, Ranking Member,

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, D.C. 20515. 

DEAR REPRESENTATIVES BISHOP AND GRIJALVA, 

The Nature Conservancy (The Conservancy) appreciates the attention that the 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation is devoting to the important threat posed by invasive species. We would like to take this opportunity to 

add our thoughts to your deliberations. We hope thus to contribute to thoughtful 

innovations aimed at improving the efficacy of programs intended to reduce the 

damage caused by invasive species. 

The Healthy Habitats Coalition (the Coalition) has identified serious shortcomings 

in our Nation’s response to the damage caused by invasive species and brought Congressional attention to the important task of managing invasive species on Federal 

lands. The Conservancy applauds the Coalition for achieving this progress. However, the Conservancy feels that the language provided by the Coalition stops short 

of addressing the pathways by which additional invasives enter the country. Until 

these pathways are closed, managing established populations will be a never-ending 

burden due to constant new introductions. The Conservancy would like to offer our 

suggestions on the structure of an effective, comprehensive invasive species program. 

Our Recommendations

(1) Implement a mechanism for coordinating federal invasive species programs 

and ensuring that priorities and strategies are aligned across agencies. 

(2) Grant appropriate agencies authority to manage invasive species that currently fall outside any agency’s jurisdiction. 

(3) Where agency authority is inadequate to managing invasive species or pathways of introduction, enact strengthening amendments; e.g., the Lacey Act. 

(4) Provide sufficient resources to agencies to enable them to carry out their responsibilities for preventing introduction and spread and managing established populations of invasive species. 

(5) Support research and outreach programs essential to improving programs’ efficacy. 

(6) Adopt metrics for gauging program efficacy that measure success in preventing 

introduction and spread, closing off pathways of species movement, and resulting in 

long-term control or removal of invasive species. 

Background

The Problem 

The Conservancy agrees with the Healthy Habitats Coalition that: 

(1) Invasive species impose huge costs on our resources and our economy; 

(2) The Federal Government effort has increased compared to 20 years ago, but 

agencies still have too little capacity and authority. Nor are efforts sufficiently coordinated; 

(3) There is a need to increase agencies’ accountability, improve measurements of 

programs’ efficacy—and make changes where programs are not effective; 

(4) It is helpful to build support and capacity at the State, regional, and community level, and encourage voluntary cooperation of affected private entities and communities.

The problem is not new; the Office of Technology Assessment 20 years ago observed U.S. Government programs that address invasive species are scattered 

among a myriad of agencies and authorized by numerous statutes. It would be beneficial if all these programs applied the same principles. 

Coordination 

Currently, the responsibility for coordinating Federal agencies’ programs and encouraging action by other parties falls to the National Invasive Species Council. The 

Council has lacked sufficient authority to ensure coordination across the member 

agencies. The Conservancy supports efforts to re-invigorate programs aimed at coordinating invasive species strategies and activities, while we remain open to ideas 

on how best to achieve this goal. 

66

Preventing Introduction and Spread 

Several Federal agencies have responsibility for prevention programs targeting 

various types of species, based on the agencies’ legislatively mandated responsibilities: 

• USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)—invasive plants; 

plant pests; parasites & diseases of livestock and poultry. 

• USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)—invasive vertebrate animals and some 

invertebrates. 

• Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency—organisms transported in 

ballast water. 

• Centers for Disease Control—human health threats. 

• DHS Customs and Border Protection—general authority over all incoming people, goods, and vehicles; has formal collaborative agreements with some agencies, e.g., APHIS.

Authority for regulating introduction and spread of some types of potentially 

invasive organisms is unclear. These include: 

• Diseases of wildlife that don’t attack livestock or poultry, e.g., whitenose syndrome of bats; chytrid fungus of amphibians. 

• Invertebrates that are not plant pests and that are not currently listed under 

the Lacey Act, e.g. horseshoe crabs. 

• Pests that attack only dead plants, e.g., termites. 

• Pests that are nuisances to humans but do not spread disease or attack agricultural plants; for example, APHIS originally classified the brown marmorated 

stinkbug as a nuisance species and therefore declined to attempt to contain its 

spread. 

• Invasive marine animals and plants. 

• Hull-fouling organisms.

None of the existing ‘‘prevention’’ programs is succeeding in preventing introductions of damaging invasives. APHIS has strong and broad authorities under the 

Plant Protection Act, and has the most resources of any agency with invasive species responsibilities. Nevertheless, APHIS staffing and funding are still inadequate 

to implement fully programs for which the agency is responsible. The FWS Lacey 

Act program is an example of a program hampered by weak legislative authority 

and completely inadequate resources. 

A Comprehensive Approach 

Regarding invasive species program components and priorities, the Nature Conservancy continues to emphasize policies and actions intended to prevent introductions of additional non-native species to the United States or to North America more 

broadly. We include under this umbrella actions that enable early detection of new 

invaders and rapid response to eradicate or contain them. Our experience has led 

us to focus on pathways or vectors of introduction as a more effective approach than 

trying to prevent introductions of particular species. Once a species has been detected inside the United States or in North America, eradication and control methods need to combine measures addressing both pathways of movement (e.g., firewood, boat trailers) and species-specific attributes (e.g., detection methods; biocontrol agents). 

To create strong and effective invasive species programs, the Congress should ensure that agencies tasked with preventing introductions or eradicating or containing 

early-stage invasions have adequate funding and the following attributes:

Prevention Programs: 

(a) Statutory authority to regulate both potentially invasive organisms and the 

pathways or vectors by which they are moved. This authority should include the 

power to set conditions for importation, inspect incoming articles, detain or destroy 

non-compliant articles, and inspect and quarantine premises that receive imports. 

It is best if the agency is also authorized to regulate interstate movement.

(b) Sufficient resources to enable timely completion of the following tasks: 

(i) Evaluate potential introductions and pathways; 

(ii) Conduct risk assessments and other analyses; 

(iii) Adopt appropriate actions to prevent those introductions or close those 

pathways; 

(iv) Promulgate regulations and comply with the National Environmental 

Policy Act; 

(v) Carry out other program responsibilities, e.g., inspection of shipments, 

interactions with affected businesses and stakeholders to identify practical 

67

1 It is unclear to us whether the Healthy Habitats Coalition proposal now addresses aquatic 

organisms and waters under Federal jurisdiction. The Conservancy supports a comprehensive 

approach. 

approaches, enforcement (including investigations, preparation of cases, 

holding hearings, legal prosecutions, etc.); 

(vi) Conduct outreach and extension programs in support of the program 

(e.g., to encourage compliance); 

(vii) Carry out research needed to improve risk analysis, prediction, detection, and control measures;

Early Detection and Rapid Response programs: 

(a) Research capacity to develop 

(i) Detection and control tools (e.g., pheromone traps); 

(ii) Understanding of principal pathways and vectors so as to target detection and enforcement efforts where they will provide the greatest return on 

investment; 

(b) Detection networks deploying appropriate tools and targeting appropriate 

pathways or vectors. This must include engagement by 

(i) Entities engaged in moving articles that can transport the pest of concern (e.g., shippers using crates, pallets, or other packaging made of wood); 

(ii) Concerned public; 

(c) Official reporting and communicating capacity; outreach capacity; 

(d) Lead agency with clear authority for responding to incursion and a command 

structure to manage the response; working relationships with collaborators (Federal, 

State, local, non-governmental). Over the years, several models for such programs 

have been suggested, including the Interagency Fire program, Centers for Disease 

Control, and oil spill emergency response.

Most introductions of new species to the United States occur in cities and suburbs—where imported goods arrive and are disseminated; or at ports, estuaries, and 

the Great Lakes. Federal land-managing agencies (e.g. USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management) do not have jurisdiction over either these geographic 

areas or the pathways of introduction. Congressional support for invasive species 

programs will be most effective when it is focused on agencies (e.g. National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, Coast Guard, APHIS, FWS) with jurisdiction over 

pathways and authority to operate in these geographies. 

Role of Land Management Agencies 

While the Conservancy believes the highest priority is to prevent additional introductions, we agree that it is important to establish and fund programs aimed at 

minimizing damage caused by the thousands of invasive species already in the country. Numerous entities implement such programs, including a half dozen or more 

Federal land-managing agencies, State agencies, county weed districts, and private 

property owners. Effective invasive species control programs should aim to: 

1. Prevent introduction to lands or waters 1 under their jurisdiction of new potentially invasive species; 

2. Detect presence of and respond rapidly to control new potentially invasive species; 

3. Prevent spread of invasive species on lands or waters under their jurisdiction; 

4. Prevent spread of invasive species from lands or waters under their jurisdiction 

to others’ properties; 

5. Reduce or eradicate invasive species populations while encouraging recovery of 

native species and maintaining or restoring the utility of the lands or waters for 

intended purposes; 

6. Educate people associated with the lands or waters about invasive species to 

gain their cooperation (and possibly enhance their invasive species control and stewardship efforts more generally).

Components of effective invasive species containment programs operated by landmanaging agencies should include: 

1. Prevention (see relevant sections above; statutory or regulatory authority is 

usually limited to the lands or waters under the agency’s jurisdiction); 

2. Early detection programs and rapid response powers (see relevant sections 

above; include appropriate staffing and funding); 

3. Staff and funding dedicated to management of established invasive species to 

conceive, plan, and oversee actions; sometimes, to carry out those actions; 

4. Research and development (in-house or external) focused on understanding the 

invasion process, developing detection and management tools, monitoring, etc. apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:17 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 X:\04PUBL~1\04MY16~1\5-16-1~1\80982.TXT MARK
68

propriate to the invasive species that threaten the lands or waters under the agency’s jurisdiction.

It is to the advantage of resource and land-managing agencies that agencies 

charged with preventing introductions are as effective as possible. Therefore it is appropriate that land-managing agencies assist or support prevention agencies’ efforts. 

For example, the USDA Forest Service has conducted research into Asian 

longhorned beetle biology and provided staff (smoke jumpers) to carry out tree canopy searches for the beetle. 

Need for Sustained Effort 

Management of any specific invasive species or group of species requires a longterm effort. Management of pathways or vectors of introduction and spread requires 

a perpetual program. Long-term programs function most efficiently when they enjoy 

long-term stability of funding and are guided by expert staff. Research and outreach 

to stakeholders are vitally important components of effective invasive species prevention and control programs. The Conservancy is therefore concerned that the Coalition’s proposal to restrict funding to these activities (set at 5 percent each) will undermine programs’ efficacy. Funding should be driven by priorities and program effectiveness based on performance metrics, rather than by a percentage allocation. 

Metrics 

The Conservancy agrees that programs should be held accountable for performance. Developing appropriate metrics will be difficult. ‘‘Acres treated’’ is easy to understand, but is not very meaningful and, in a comprehensive program insufficient 

because: 

1. It does not enable assessment of the most important activity—preventing species’ introduction and spread; 

2. It does not measure activities that target pathways or vectors rather than invaded areas; 

3. It does not measure whether the treatment was effective in eradicating or reducing the target invasive species.

The Conservancy proposes some alternative metrics—although we recognize difficulties in applying all of them: 

• Rate of new invasions; possibly categorized by type of invader or geography; 

• Acres infested and change over time (e.g., range expansion or contraction of targeted species); 

• Economic impact of invasive species; 

• Number of species intercepted. 

Moving Forward 

The Conservancy is interested in innovative suggestions for improving invasive 

species efforts at all levels of government. In this paper we describe some of our 

ideas for a comprehensive invasive species program. We think that the Healthy 

Habitats Coalition has started a discussion that should be pursued in the context 

of addressing the whole invasive species problem. Even if everything cannot be accomplished immediately, the entire system can be envisioned, priorities set, and 

strategic progress made. There may be better uses for the existing resources, but 

these should be carefully evaluated with the goal of improving overall program effectiveness.

Æ