U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

99–595 PDF 2016

EXAMINING INVASIVE SPECIES POLICY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE INTERIOR 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 1, 2015 

Serial No. 114–58 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

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

http://www.house.gov/reform 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

JENNIFER HEMINGWAY, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCGRATH, Interior Subcommittee Staff Director 

RYAN HAMBLETON, Senior Professional Staff Member 

MELISSA BEAUMONT, Professional Staff Member 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming, Chairman 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

KEN BUCK, Colorado, Vice Chair 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan, Ranking 

Member 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on December 1, 2015 ........................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Jamie Reaser, Ph.D., Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Mr. Scott J. Cameron, President, Reduce Risks from Invasive Species Coalition, Washington D.C. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Alan D. Steinman, Ph.D., Director and Professor, Robert B. Annis Water 

Resources Institute, Grand Valley State University, Allendale Charter 

Township, Michigan 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

K. George Beck, Ph.D., Professor of Weed Science, Colorado State University, 

Fort Collins, Colorado 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 35 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 37 

APPENDIX 

Responses prepared by Dr. Jaime Reaser to questions submitted by Chairman 

Lummis and Rep. Gosar ...................................................................................... 64 

Responses prepared by Mr. Scott J. Cameron to questions submitted by 

Rep. Gosar ............................................................................................................ 70 

Questions prepared by Mr. George Beck to questions submitted by Rep. 

Gosar ..................................................................................................................... 72 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

EXAMINING INVASIVE SPECIES POLICY 

Tuesday, December 1, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:36 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Cynthia Lummis [chairman of 

the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lummis, Gosar, Buck, Palmer, Lawrence, and Plaskett. 

Also present: Representative Hurd. 

Ms. LUMMIS. The subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

Today the Subcommittee on the Interior will examine the problem of invasive species in the U.S., and the effectiveness of the 

Federal government’s attempts to control and eradicate invasives. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service specifically defines an invasive 

specie as an exotic species whose introduction into an ecosystem in 

which the specie is not native causes or is likely to cause environmental or economic harm or harm to human health. There are currently almost 50,000 such species living in the United States today. 

We promise there will not be a test on how many of those you can 

name. 

The impact of invasive species is hard to ignore. They are one of 

the leading causes of population decline and extinction in native 

plants and animals. They cause billions of dollars per year in damages across the country. Recently the Department of the Interior 

estimated that it spends $100,000 million annually on invasive species management. 

In response to this significant and growing problem, President 

Clinton created the National Invasive Species Council in 1999. This 

Council is co-chaired by the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, 

and Commerce. Its mission is to coordinate the work of numerous 

agencies to address and eradicate invasive species. 

Part of the Council’s job is to produce a national management 

plan every two years for the treatment and eradication of endangered species. Since 1999, the Council has only released two plans, 

one in January 2001 and nearly 8 years later in 2008. A review of 

the 2001 plan by the Government Accountability Office found problems with coordination, delays, and setting clear long-term goals. 

In the past several years, there has been relatively little oversight of the Council’s work and success in managing the invasive 

species problem. Questions continue to be raised about whether the 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

Council and other Federal agencies are effectively treating certain 

invasive species. 

The spread of these nuisances is startling. Two years ago, Dr. 

George Beck testified before the House Committee on Natural Resources about the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of the Council 

and the Federal government in treating invasive weeds. Dr. Beck 

warned that invasive weeds were spreading at a far faster pace 

than they were being eradicated. He questioned the government’s 

claims about the amount of land infested with non-native weeds 

that it successfully treated in previous years. He also cast doubts 

on whether the Council was using the most cost-effective means of 

fighting invasive species. This hearing will allow the Council to update us on its progress. 

In addition, we will look at the impact of three invasive species 

that have caused significant and costly headaches for my home 

State of Wyoming as well as Ranking Member Lawrence’s home 

State of Michigan. Mr. Hurd will also raise some issues in his district in Texas. The nuisance and dangers of these particular nonnative species provides startling illustrations of the harmful effects 

of endangered species and the need for capable treatment efforts. 

Our witnesses today bring a broad and diverse knowledge of 

invasive species and the havoc they wreak on our country. We will 

hear from the executive director of the Council on its work. We will 

also hear from three experts who have studied the risks of invasive 

species in America, and can provide insight into the importance 

and urgency of addressing this issue. 

As the problem of invasive species in America worsens, we must 

continue to revisit and reassess the situation and our treatment 

and eradication efforts. I look forward to the hearing, and I look 

forward to our witnesses’ testimony, and I want to thank you for 

being here today. 

I also want to thank the ranking member, Ms. Lawrence, for 

being the impetus and driving force behind holding this hearing 

today. And I now recognize Ms. Lawrence, the ranking member of 

the Subcommittee on the Interior, for her opening statement. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. I want to say that it is a pleasure, Madam 

Chairman. I thank you for helping me bring this issue forward and 

for your leadership. I want to thank all the witnesses here today 

for appearing, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

You have heard some of the statistics that I am sure, the witnesses, you are very familiar with. One of the concerns we have is 

that what is our plan. The amount of money that we are paying 

to address invasive species to me should not be spent without a 

comprehensive plan. I recognize that, Dr. Reaser, you are new, and 

so we are looking forward to hearing what your vision and what 

the plan is. 

Invasive species pose serious problems to our environment, and 

we understand that, but it is also a significant challenge to the conservation of native fish and wildlife. No habitat or region is immune from the threat of invasive species. As our chair mentioned, 

we spend over $125 billion each year controlling these plants and 

animals and repairing the damage they inflict on our property and 

our natural resources. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

As we talk about our environment, you cannot leave out the impact that invasive species has. In Michigan, I want to talk about 

that, and one of the reasons why this is so important to me, zebra 

mussels are a serious economic threat to our recreational fishing 

and commercial activity in the Great Lakes. And we in Michigan 

are passionate about our Great Lakes and our water, and so when 

you start seeing the impact of these invasive species, this rises to 

a level of being a very serious concern. The zebra mussels alone has caused more than $1 billion in damage by clogging the pipes and the filtration equipment of municipalities and industrial water systems. They have also damaged 

boats and decks, and it costs Michigan more than $250 million a 

year to clean those affected pipes and machinery. We are also facing a threat from the Asian carp, which can devastate recreational 

fishing if not controlled. 

According to the University of Michigan Sea Grant Institute, rec- reational and commercial fisheries contribute in excess to $4 to $7 

billion to the economy each year. Recent reports show that these 

invasive fish have already caused significant problems in our Ohio 

and Mississippi River Basins. 

Only a few weeks ago, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Natural Resources confirmed the existence of two new invasive species in water, and in 

2014 the Administration reports it allotted an estimated $2.3 billion across the range of Federal agencies and activities to control 

and eradicate these species. I recognize that this issue requires a 

long-term plan, and that is what I want to hear today. Also I understand that scientists are working around the clock to create a 

remedy for this problem. 

Since the plan has not been revised since 2008, even though the 

regulations, it is required to issue and update every 2 years, one 

of the things that I am looking for is a commitment for compliance, 

and that is something that as part of this committee I will be looking for in the future. 

While we have not updated our plan, we know that the invasive 

species problem has worsened, and I feel strongly that a lack of a 

comprehensive plan on how to deal with this is contributing to the 

impact. I hope to get some answers today on this issue so that important safeguards can put into place to manage this ever-increasing problem of invasive species. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LUMMIS. I thank the ranking member. I will hold the record 

open for 5 legislative days for any member who would like to submit a written statement. 

Ms. LUMMIS. The chair also notes the presence of the gentleman 

from Texas, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Hurd, a member of the full 

committee. We thank you very much for your interest in the topic 

today. And without objection, we welcome Mr. Hurd to participate 

fully in today’s hearing. 

We now recognize our panel of witnesses. We are pleased Dr. 

Jamie Reaser, who is newly minted as the executive director of the 

National Invasive Species Council at the U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Welcome, Dr. Reaser. Mr. Scott Cameron, president of the 

Reduced Risks from the Invasive Species Coalition. Thank you, Mr. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

Cameron. Dr. Alan Steinman, you are the director as well as a professor at the Robert B. Annis Water Resources Institute at Grand 

Valley State University. Am I correct? 

Mr. STEINMAN. [Off audio.] 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you Dr. Steiman. And Dr. George Beck, professor of weed science at Colorado State University. I studied weed 

science at the University of Wyoming under a colleague of yours, 

probably one that was teaching me before you were born. But welcome today, Dr. Beck. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. LUMMIS. Pursuant to the committee rules, all witnesses will 

be sworn in before they testify, so please rise and raise your right 

hands. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

[A chorus of ayes.] 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you. Please be seated. Let the record reflect 

that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Now, in order to allow time for discussions, please limit your oral 

testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be 

made part of the record so we will have the advantage of it in case 

it is longer than 5 minutes. 

We will begin with Dr. Reaser. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Turn your mic on. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF JAMIE REASER, PH.D. 

Ms. REASER. Madam Chairman, members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to participate in the hearing on behalf 

of the National Invasive Species Council, NISC. With me today is 

Ms. Anne Kinsinger, U.S. Geological Survey’s associate director for 

ecosystems. I will summarize my written testimony, which has 

been provided for the record. 

NISC was created by Executive Order 13112, known as the 

Invasive Species Executive Order, on February 3rd, 1999, to serve 

as an independent coordinating body for the Federal government’s 

efforts to address invasive species. As you have noted, the Secretary of Interior serves as a co-chair of NISC along with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce. The Secretary of Interior also 

hosts and oversees NISC staff. At this time, 10 additional departments and agencies are members of NISC. They are listed in my 

written testimony. 

As you may be aware or are aware, I started as executive director of NISC staff just 9 weeks ago. That said, I am not new to the 

invasive species issue. My work has largely focused on invasive 

species since 1999, not coincidentally the year in which the executive order was signed. 

But in actuality, my interaction with the invasive species issue 

goes back much further than that. My grandmother taught me to 

fish as a young girl. I can remember being frustrated by the fact 

that I could not catch anything other than carp. I desperately 

wanted to see pretty sunfish up close. Because the feeding habits 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

of the carp muddied the water, I could not even see a sunfish near 

the dock. 

I did my doctoral work in the Great Basin in Nevada, specifically 

at the southernmost extent of the species range of the Columbia 

spotted frog. During my time in the field, I became aware of numerous adverse shifts taking place in the lands and waters of the 

sagebrush ecosystem: the invasion of annual grasses, cheatgrass, 

and medusahead, and the introduction of non-native amphibians 

and tropical fish, to name a few. Invasive species clearly warranted 

concern and concerted action. 

Since that time, I have worked on various aspects of the invasive 

species issue in more than 40 countries, frequently helping other 

governments institutionalize their capacities to address the 

invasive species issue. In the course of my work, I have seen firsthand how invasive species can devastate the lives and livelihoods 

of people who depend on local resources. 

Invasive species impact everyone on a personal level, although 

we may not equally or fully recognize the extent to which they do. 

If we care about food security, water security, human health and 

well-being, animal welfare, employment and the economy—in 

short, national security—we need to pay considerably more attention to this often subtle, yet nevertheless pervasive and costly 

issue, invasive species. 

The invasive species issue is dynamic and complex. Coordinating 

activities of Federal agencies and working with non-Federal stakeholders to prevent, eradicate, and control invasive species throughout the U.S. and abroad is a substantial challenge. Thankfully, 

challenges can be overcome. 

Two examples of successes to NISC’s leadership include provision 

of expert advice for more than 100 individuals who have served on 

the non-Federal Invasive Species Advisory Committee, also created 

by the executive order. This advice has strengthened Federal programs and initiatives, such as our work on biofuels. And the implementation of the two national invasive species management plans 

that together contain more than 170 action items. Additional examples can be found in my testimony. 

As you are well aware, we are operating in a resource constrained world, and due to limited resources, it is fair to say NISC 

has not yet actualized its full potential. With the support of the Department of the Interior as well as 12 other NISC member departments and agencies, I intend to do all I can to mobilize NISC’s 

leadership and capacities to effectively implement the Invasive 

Species Executive Order from the policy level to the ground level 

and back again. 

The work includes, but is not limited to, NISC’s four major functions: raising awareness of the linkages between invasive species 

and various aspects of national security as they relate to each Department; setting priorities for international action that actually 

has impact at the ground level; fostering a culture of collaboration, 

innovation, and long-term commitment to problem solving; and facilitating team work across departments and between Federal, 

State, tribes, and other stakeholders that not only results in 

invasive species prevented and eradicated, but ecosystems and ecosystem services restored. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

Thank you for time and for caring about this critically important 

issue. I am happy to answer questions regarding this. Ms. 

Kinsinger is available to answer technical questions on specific species as needed. 

[The statement of Ms. Reaser follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 99595.001
8 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 99595.002
9 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 99595.003
10 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 99595.004
11 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 99595.005
12 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 99595.006
13 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 99595.007
14 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 99595.008
15 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 99595.009
16 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Dr. Reaser. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Cameron for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT J. CAMERON 

Mr. CAMERON. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Lawrence, 

members of the subcommittee, my name is Scott Cameron. I am 

president of a nonprofit organization called the Reduce Risks from 

Invasive Species Coalition, or RRISC. I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify today on opportunities to improve invasive species policy 

and programmatic implementation in the United States. 

RRISC is a 501(c)(3) organization incorporated in 2014. Our mission is to educate the public on the risks imposed by invasive species and to promote cost-effective strategies to reduce those risks. 

We pride ourselves on being bipartisan with a distinguished advisory board comprised of former senior government officials from the 

Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Administrations. I am pleased to 

say that since our inception, we have had a close working relationship with the Congressional Invasive Species Caucus, co-chaired by 

your own representatives, Dan Benishek from Michigan and Mike 

Thompson from California. 

Invasive species pose serious economic and environmental problems across the country. They have been estimated to cost the 

American economy more than $120 billion a year and to have a 

$1.4 trillion annual impact on the global economy. There are significant public health impacts from invasive species. For instance, 

invasive species, like West Nile virus and fire ants, put many 

Americans in the hospital every year, and in some cases they do 

not survive. Invasive species have single-handedly caused 20 percent of all species extinctions since the 1600s, and they have been 

implicated in up to half of all the species extinctions over the last 

four centuries. 

Indirectly, they cause increased regulatory burden on American 

society since invasives are in whole or in part responsible for more 

than 40 percent of the listings under the Endangered Species Act. 

For example, widespread distribution of invasive cheatgrass in Wyoming and Colorado was a key risk factor that almost led to the 

listing of the greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species 

Act earlier this year. 

If your constituents are concerned about loss of biodiversity and 

species extinctions in the United States, then they should also be 

concerned about invasive species. If your constituents are frustrated by the regulatory burden imposed by the Endangered Species Act, that is another reason to be concerned about invasive species because they are putting a lot of species on the ESA list. 

I would now like to offer a number of recommendations on how 

institutional arrangements could be improved to yield better results in invasive species management for our country. 

Congress should direct the National Invasive Species Council to 

present the Congress with a short annual work plan, 5 pages in 

length, to include deadlines and intended outcomes of Council activities. This would help focus the political level attention in the 

agencies on the invasive species problem. 

The National Invasive Species Council should provide a forum for 

Federal interagency communication and coordination with regional 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 

governors associations—southern governors, western governors, 

and so on. NISC should design a national network of regionallydriven, early detection, and rapid response capabilities whose regional priorities are established based on the advice of the governors of those States in those regions. 

NISC should provide a forum for Federal agency regional executives, BLM State directors, regional foresters, EPA regional administrators, and so on, so that those regional officials could more easily get the attention of the departmental political leadership in 

headquarters in the Office of Management and Budget. And 

through more coordinated policymaking at the headquarters level, 

achieve better on-the-ground coordination at the local level. 

The Council should provide a forum for ensuring and expediting 

interagency coordination at the headquarters level so that time 

sensitive decisions involving invasive species policy, regulatory approvals, or research are less likely to be caught up in bureaucratic 

red tape in D.C. As an example, facilitating Endangered Species 

Act, Section 7 consultation between USDA and EPA on new pesticides targeting invasive species; working with the Council on Environmental Quality to streamline environmental compliance for 

agency on the ground invasive species control actions; and achieving an interagency bio control research agenda that would effectively leverage the relative scientific strengths of EPA, USGS, 

USDA, and the National Science Foundation. 

Another recommendation. NISC should seek out and evaluate 

international best practices and explore the feasibility of adopting 

those best practices in the United States. 

It looks like I am over time, so I will stop, Madam. Chairman, 

and I look forward to questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Cameron follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 99595.010
19 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 99595.011
20 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 99595.012
21 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 99595.013
22 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 99595.014
23 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 99595.015
24 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 99595.016
25 

Mr. BUCK. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Cameron. 

The chair recognizes Dr. Steinman for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN D. STEINMAN, PH.D. 

Mr. STEINMAN. Thank you, Chairman Buck, Ranking Member 

Lawrence, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today with regard to the threats 

posed by invasive species, and, in particular, their impacts in the 

Great Lakes region. 

There are four areas that I would like to cover today. The first 

is invasive species and the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes serve as 

the poster child for aquatic invasive species. It is now estimated 

since the 1800s, over 180 non-native species have invaded the 

Great Lakes ecosystem. 

The Great Lakes are a national treasure. They hold over 20 percent of the world’s surface fresh water, and over 90 percent of the 

surface fresh water in the United States. The importance of this resource, both in terms of water quantity and water quality, cannot 

be overstated given the increasing concerns over water security in 

this Nation and around the world. 

Aquatic invasive species are acutely felt in the State of Michigan, 

a state which touches four of the five Great Lakes—our governor 

likes that four of the five Great Lakes favor Michigan—and where 

1 in 5 jobs are linked to water. The second area I would like to talk 

about are the ecological impacts in the Great Lakes. These include 

habitat loss, food web disruption, and alterations to native fisheries. 

Two aquatic invasive species that have been particularly problematic in the Great Lakes are the sea lamprey and the Dreissena 

mussels, which include the quagga and zebra mussels. The sea 

lamprey, for those not familiar with it, is an eel-like parasite whose 

native habitat is the ocean. It got into the Great Lakes after the 

Welland Canal was improved, and it bypassed the Niagara Falls. 

By 1938, they had reached all of the Great Lakes. 

Sea lamprey parasitism is not a pretty site. They attach to fish 

with a suction cup mouth, and dig their teeth into fish flesh, and 

finally feed on fish body fluids by secreting an enzyme that prevents the blood from clotting. The lake trout harvest in the upper 

Great Lakes has declined from about 15 million pounds per year 

before the sea lampreys to approximately 300,000 pounds now, a 

decline of 98 percent of this critical fish. The good news is the sea 

lamprey control program is very effective. We have to apply it 

every year, though, and it costs about $20 million per year. 

The zebra and quagga mussels also have caused extensive damage. They came in through ballast water discharge. The zebra mussel was first found in 1988 in Lake Sinclair, quickly followed by its 

larger and more aggressive cousin, the quagga mussel. In fact, the 

quagga mussel is now estimated to have about 950 trillion—that is 

with a ‘‘T’’—in Lake Michigan alone. That is a huge number. They 

are filter feeders there literally sucking the bioenergetic life out of 

Lake Michigan. Once you decline the algae levels—they are lower 

than they are in Lake Superior—there is no food for the 

zooplankton to feed on. When there is no zooplankton, there is no 

food for crayfish to feed on, and when there is no crayfish, there 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 

is no food for the top predators, the salmon and the lake trout, to 

feed on. So the devastation to the food web and the economic impacts are enormous. 

Which leads me to the third area I would like to talk about: the 

economic influences of invasive species in the Great Lakes. In 

Michigan, especially affected by aquatic invasive species, the industry has influenced or affected our power generation, industrial facilities, tourism, and sport and commercial fisheries, which account 

for about 30,000 jobs and almost $12 billion in annual sales based 

on 2010 data. 

As Representative Lawrence mentioned, the commercial and recreational fishery industry in the Great Lakes is estimated to be between $4 and $7 billion, and they are at critical risk by the presence of these invasive species. 

And finally, I would like to address the management implications. With the Asian carp at the entryways of the Great Lakes, we 

must be coordinated in our approaches to monitor our waterways 

to keep invasive species from getting into the Great Lakes, quarantine them when necessary and where possible, and then finally 

eradicate them when feasible. It is critical to recognize that in a 

hydraulically connected system like the Great Lakes, the program 

to control aquatic invasives is only as strong as the weakest link 

in that chain. 

Regardless of how vigilant or aggressive Michigan may be in 

dealing with aquatic invasive species, its waters remain vulnerable 

if any of the other seven Great Lakes States or two Canadian provinces are not as equally vigilant or aggressive. And this concept of 

vulnerability applies well beyond aquatic ecosystems. It applies to 

any connected ecosystem across its jurisdictional boundaries, 

whether it is water, land, or air. 

It is clear that we need a coordinated effort to tackle invasive 

species instead of jumping from one crisis to another, and good 

science is needed to make informed management decisions. I clearly understand the role of science having worked in the Everglades 

restoration before I came to Michigan, and I recognize that science 

does not dictate policy; it helps inform policy. 

But let me leave you with this one thought taken from Peter 

Glick, one of the foremost water resource scientists on the planet. 

It is very difficult to make good public policy without good science, 

and it is even harder to make good public policy with bad science. 

Thank you again for the invitation to appear before you today. 

[The statement of Mr. Steinman follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 99595.017
28 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 99595.018
29 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 99595.019
30 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 99595.020
31 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 99595.021
32 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 99595.022
33 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 99595.023
34 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 99595.024
35 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Dr. Steinman. 

The chair recognizes Dr. Beck for a 5-minute opening. 

STATEMENT OF K. GEORGE BECK, PH.D. 

Mr. BECK. Chairman Buck, Ranking Member Lawrence, and honorable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before you today. I am George Beck, and I am a professor 

of weed science at Colorado State University. Today I represent the 

Healthy Habitats Coalition, and we are a diverse alliance dedicated 

to improving invasive species management in our country. 

In spite of almost 3 decades of efforts by many organizations 

working to persuade the Federal government to do a better job controlling and managing invasive species, little progress has been 

made. Zebra and quagga mussels are in the Great Lakes, and 

Asian carp is poised to invade those bodies. Cheatgrass, 

knapweeds, and tamarisk abound in the west; Burmese pythons, 

melaleuca, and hydrilla are wreaking havoc in Florida. Emerald 

ash borer and other invasive insects are invading the north, east, 

and Midwest. All of these are spreading rapidly, and every State 

has invasive species without exception. 

Cheatgrass alters habit so significantly that it is clearly linked 

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

so. For example, CSU weed scientists just completed a comprehensive study to demonstrate such success, and we also have developed approaches that target and eliminate the cheatgrass soil seed 

reserve, which then will provide the best opportunity to recover native species habitat. 

The invasive species conundrum in the U.S. is not necessarily 

due to a lack of knowledge. Rather it is because of chronically poor 

Federal land management agency performance around managing 

invasive species. And this is a reflection of chronically poor administrative leadership concerning invasive species. 

Leadership from the National Invasive Species Council is practically non-existent. NISC is made up, of course, of most of the 

President’s Cabinet. Most prominently, the members are the cochairs, Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. Frankly, NISC could be dissolved, and the funds used to operate that 

body should be spent on decreasing the population abundance of 

invasive species and recovering native species habitat. 

This poor Federal performance is due to at least four things that 

we have been able to identify: inconsistent budgets and non-transparency in the invasive species budgeting process, a lack of collaboration, prioritization, and on-the-ground performance with State 

and local governments, using NEPA as an excuse for inaction or 

justification to postpone making timely management decisions, and 

poor administrative leadership to develop appropriate invasive species public policy, management, and budgetary action. 

The solution to these problems has been introduced as bills, H.R. 

1485 and S. 2240, the Federal Lands Invasive Species Control, Prevention, and Management Act. The bills focus on the Forest Service, BLM, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Services. 

These are the major Federal land management agencies. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

The bills require agencies to develop an invasive species strategic 

plan that fosters agreements with States and local governments. 

The bill also has categorical exclusions that will protect high-value 

sites from invasive species, fully support and facilitate the development of early detection and rapid response, and then years and 

years of analysis to approve new management tools. The bills also 

require invasive species population to be decreased by 5 percent 

net annually to stay ahead of expansion rates, and change the 

spending parameters. And these would be 75 percent of invasive 

species funds to those agencies would have to be put on the ground. 

Not more than 15 percent of those funds can be spent on awareness and research, and up to 10 percent on administration. So the 

bulk of the money will be directed towards healing the problem. 

HHC has many supporters for these efforts, including an 

invasive species resolution from the Western Governors Association 

and direct support from Governor Butch Otter from Idaho, Governor Cecil Andrus, who is the former governor of Idaho and a 

former Secretary of Interior, and Governor Martinez from New 

Mexico. There is no Federal administrative leadership on invasive 

species. It is up to Congress to pass strong leadership and pass 

these bills. Doing so will place our country on the road to begin 

solving the invasive species problem. We must stop kicking this can 

down the road. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to share HHC’s thoughts 

on invasive species management in the U.S. 

[The statement of Mr. Beck follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 99595.025
38 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 99595.026
39 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 99595.027
40 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 99595.028
41 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 99595.029
42 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 99595.030
43 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 99595.031
44 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 99595.032
45 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Dr. Beck, and go Rams. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BUCK. The chair will now recognize members for 5 minutes, 

and will recognize himself first. 

Dr. Reaser, how does NISC coordinate its work with Federal 

agencies, and States, and local communities to combat invasive 

species? 

Ms. REASER. Thank you for the question. NISC coordinates work 

through a series of tiers of coordination. NISC itself, as you are 

aware, are the Secretaries and administrators of the 13-member 

departments. And then within the NISC structure, broader structure, we also have policy-level leads and more technical-level leads. 

There are interdepartmental coordination mechanisms throughout 

that structure. There are also coordination mechanisms between 

NISC and other structures focused on invasive species, such as the 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. And there are regular joint 

working groups, and joint committees, and joint products with that 

group and others. 

And then there are on-the-ground activities where Federal agency representatives are collaborating with States, and tribes, and 

other stakeholders at the ecosystem level or on a species-by-species 

specific level. 

Mr. BUCK. What is the annual budget for NISC? 

Ms. REASER. For the NISC staff? 

Mr. BUCK. What is the total budget, I guess, and then if you 

want to break it down, you can explain. 

Ms. REASER. Okay. So the approximate budget for the NISC staff 

is about a million dollars per year, and about a third of that 30 

percent is spent on administering the Invasive Species Advisory 

Committee. 

Mr. BUCK. And appropriately what percentage of the overall 

budget goes to administrative expenses? 

Ms. REASER. So for the NISC staff just to clarify, it is about 65 

percent would be salary, travel, basic operations. And then approximately 30 percent would be for the advisory committee’s administration. 

Mr. BUCK. Dr. Beck, cheatgrass continues to cause problems with 

sage grouse habitat. Could you please describe the current status 

of the cheatgrass threat and what actions have been taken to mitigate its spread? 

Mr. BECK. Cheatgrass is a controversial plant relative to how 

much area it occupies. I have heard data everywhere from 50 million to over a hundred million acres, so it is really hard to know. 

It has not found its way everywhere. For example, 10 years ago 

was the first time cheatgrass showed up in the Gunnison Basin in 

South Central Colorado. And in the Kremmling area, which is, oh, 

150 miles north, it has only been there for about 5 years, or at 

least that is what people say. 

So it continues to find new homes. The Great Basin is obviously 

very inundated with it. It is not so bad that you can close your eyes 

and point and be looking at cheatgrass whether you know it or not, 

but we are getting close to that. It is there every year. I mean, I 

hear people talk about, well, it is not a bad year for cheatgrass, 

and I say wait until June. It is the same very June. And I even 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

had a student in one of my classes tell me that his mother’s neighbor was running around picking this grass from around his yard 

in the foothills. I think it was above the Estes Park area. And she 

wanted to know what he was doing, and he said, well, this does not 

require any water, I do not know what is. And he was planting 

cheatgrass. So, you know, Pogo was right when he said, we have 

met the enemy and they are us. 

So we continue to foster its spread through all kinds of means, 

some of them inadvertent, and some of them not. But the problem 

is worsening constantly. 

Mr. BUCK. And what do you think NISC can do to help with the 

cheatgrass problem? 

Mr. BECK. NISC’s role is to coordinate with the Federal agencies, 

and I educate a lot in the public. Half of my appointment is extension, and so I must give about 50 to 75 presentations a year 

through Colorado alone, and I just do not see where any coordinating is having effect. In fact, I have visited with some Federal 

employees who do not even know NISC exists. So there is a transitional loss someplace between Washington, D.C. and the rest of the 

country. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. Thank you. My time is almost up, and I recognize the gentlelady from Michigan for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Reaser, I understand that 

the one update that has been made to the management plan was 

back in 2008. Is that correct? So help me understand why the 

Council has largely not updated the management plan, and when 

will it be updated? 

Ms. REASER. Okay. So let us step back to 2001. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Okay. 

Ms. REASER. And thank you for the question. I think it is an important one. As you know, in the executive order, there is a request 

for the plan to be revised every two years. The reasons behind that 

were, of course, to set priorities, raise visibility, and so forth, all 

reasonable criteria. 

When the original plan was created, there was a tremendous 

amount of enthusiasm among the departments for this new culture 

of collaboration, and the request was to bring priorities together in 

a comprehensive manner to use the word you used previously. The 

second management plan followed the pattern of the first management plan. It was a revision thereof, and so it had approximately 

90 action items in it as did the first one. There were 170 total. 

The second management plan ran from 2008 through 2014. Since 

that time, there has been a process of moving the priorities forward 

from the first two management plans collectively. There has also 

been a process of looking at what items within those management 

plans require further work on an evaluation process going forward. 

There has been a delay in the process of moving it to the third 

management plan for a couple of reasons. One, there had been unanticipated staff turnovers and vacancies that could not be accounted for, and did have a significant impact on process. And then 

more recently, there was a desire to hire my position into place to 

take leadership over the third management plan, which I am now 

in the process of doing. And we are looking forward to having that 

available sometime early next year. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Okay. I wanted to ask if it was achieving the objective of reducing the invasive species rate by 5 percent every 

year. Are you anywhere close to that goal? 

Ms. REASER. So the Invasive Species Management Plan itself is 

a priority setting mechanism, so each item within the plan has different goals and objectives. Only a small percentage of those would 

be dedicated for activities related to weeds on the ground. As those 

projects move forward, each of them is going to have a goal that 

is context specific. A number of 5 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent 

is not necessarily going to be fit to purpose for all circumstances. 

So each of the activities undertaken through the plan or otherwise is going to set a goal that makes sense context specifically. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. So are you reaching any of those goals? 

Ms. REASER. Yes, many of those goals have been reached through 

this process. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. One of the things that the plan, it is my understanding that we as members of Congress should know that the 

plan is being updated, and I can tell you that has not been a reality. So you are saying, you are making a commitment here today 

that your plan will be updated by the spring of next year. And I 

expect that we will know that that has happened under your leadership. Is that correct? 

Ms. REASER. I am willing to be personally accountable on that 

one. There are not many things that I can promise you, but that 

one I can assure you under my leadership will happen as soon as 

it is feasibly possible. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. I am going to have to come back for another 

round of questions, but I do want to ask this. With your knowledge 

now that you are in the position, do you have the funds or the resources to actively, once we get a plan, to implement it and to be 

able to state to Congress and to the people of the United States 

that we have a very proactive and committed plan to addressing 

the Invasive Species Act? 

And I love the comparison made between endangered species. I 

think we get a lot of attention and affection when we start talking 

about endangered species where you need to really talk about the 

invasive species because that is a major component of why we have 

endangered. So when you submit the plan, will you be able to implement it with your budget and resources? 

Ms. REASER. That is a very good and pertinent question. We will 

make sure that where we have good alignment with current resources that will be well recognized. There may be cases where 

there is an action item in the plan to mobilize additional resources 

or find efficiencies with existing resources, and we will also work 

to identify that as well. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. You are not willing to say if you have it yet or 

not because that is what you are saying. 

Ms. REASER. We have not finished the plan yet. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Okay. 

Ms. REASER. So it would be premature for me —— 

Ms. LAWRENCE. I will give you that. 

Ms. REASER. Thank you. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

Mr. BUCK. I thank the lady from Michigan, and I recognize the 

gentleman from Arizona. 

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, Dr. Reaser, the 

Lower Colorado River is in the frontlines of battling the quagga 

mussel. So, Dr. Steinman, we join you, and the salt cedar. The 

mussels threaten the Hoover Dam, the Davis Dam, Parker Dam, 

Imperial Dam, and the Central Arizona Project, all of which are 

part of my district in Arizona. These water systems supply electricity and drinking water to millions across the Southwest. 

Now, while the problem is massive in scale, its implications are 

felt locally and require local action to mitigate their spread. Municipal leaders and community organizations in my district, such as 

the Lake Havasu Marine Association, are prepared and willing to 

do their part, but need resources to do so. 

So my first question. What specific authorizations currently exist 

for funding mitigation programs that combat these mussels or salt 

cedars on a State or local level? 

Ms. REASER. Thank you for the question. I do not have specific 

information available on those authorities, but I would be happy to 

make that information available to you. 

Mr. GOSAR. I would like to get them because I think the gentleman, Dr. Beck, was making this comment. We have a lot of surface activity, but nothing down on the local level, and it is imperative that we leverage those resources. 

I would also like to know what type of flexibility exists with 

matching funds from local, and States, and private partnerships for 

these authorizations. Do you have that either? 

Ms. REASER. Thank you for the question. I am going to invite 

Anne Kinsinger to address the answer. 

Ms. KINSINGER. I do not have a comprehensive answer on that, 

but I did want to note that the Fish and Wildlife Service does work 

to coordinate the development of State wildlife action plans. And 

when a species is listed as a species of management concern in 

those plans, then grants are available. So I do not think that is the 

full answer, so I think we will need to get back to you with some 

other authorities. But that is a major —— 

Mr. GOSAR. I would like to know that. 

Ms. KINSINGER. Yes. 

Mr. GOSAR. Stay right there. I am going to jump ahead here. So 

according to Executive Order 131112, NISC is charged with producing a national management plan every 2 years that sets forth 

its goals for treating and eradicating invasive species. However, 

since 1999, NISC has only released two management plans, those 

in 2001 and 2008. Can you please explain why there has been such 

a delay in producing a management plan, and when does NISC 

plan to produce a national management plan? 

Ms. REASER. Thank you for the question. To make it short since 

I have answered a version of this already, the management plan 

between 2014—that is when the second management plan 

sunsetted—sorry—between 2012, and this management plan, there 

has been a process in place to identify which items in the second 

management plan need to be moved forward to the third management plan. A number of items are ongoing understandably. Also 

—— 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

Mr. GOSAR. I get that, and I see the gentleman over here just 

wriggling, which is what I am doing, is that there is so much bureaucracy up here, there is nothing trickling down to the local levels. And this is what is frustrating about this is that we always 

have to set goals. We have to have objectives, and then we have 

to have outcomes. And if we do not have people on the local level 

included in those, we are never going anywhere. 

And this is what is so frustrating with these groups. I have got 

salt cedars on one side. I have got quagga mussels everywhere. I 

have bison in the Yellowstone National area in the Grand Canyon. 

This is frustrating when you are talking about invasive species because you have people with expertise and the manpower and willpower to do this, but they cannot get any jurisdiction or leverage 

coming out of your Department. Does that make sense to you? 

Ms. REASER. I certainly understand and concur with your frustrations in terms of the priority of getting resources to the ground 

—— 

Mr. GOSAR. Yes, but it is even worse than that because not just 

getting the resources. But these plans seem to get lost in your bureaucracy that are well intentioned and have great outcomes, but 

they cannot get any jurisdiction to say we are going to work with 

you, let us move forward with this plan. I mean, it is just absolutely ludicrous with the folks back home what is going on with 

this. 

Ms. REASER. I understand your concerns, and they are warranted. This is a substantial issue of concern that deserves priority 

attention. I can assure you that the third management plan will be 

available early next year. 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, I will have to stay. I am running out of time. 

I will stay —— 

Mr. BUCK. The chair thanks the gentleman from Arizona. I just 

want to make one thing clear. Dr. Reaser, I want to make sure we 

have the correct spelling of the assisted witness in this matter. If 

you could just spell your name for the record, I would appreciate 

it. 

Ms. KINSINGER. Yes, I am Anne Kinsinger. That is Anne with an 

‘‘E.’’ Last name K-i-n-s-i-n-g-e-r. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you very much. And the chair now recognizes 

the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for 5 minutes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member 

Lawrence. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and I am so appreciative of you coming here to discuss this issue. Invasive species 

affect our economy, our environment, human health in many instances. 

And although we have not focused on it today, and I did not hear 

it in your testimonies, invasive species, such as lionfish, brown tree 

snake, and even invasive Sargassum seaweed, have had a devastating effect on all aspects of the economic development, agricultural production, and tourism, particularly in my district in the 

United States Virgin Islands, and in some parts of southeastern 

United States. 

I note that several of my colleagues from Florida have introduced 

legislation related to the lionfish, which are an invasive, voracious 

eating species that is not native to the waters in which they have 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

come, and have completely attempted in their eating habits to annihilate our own local fish. And our fishermen are up in arms. Our 

Department of Planning and Natural Resources are trying to create 

ways to deal with this invasive species both in the Virgin Island, 

Puerto Rico, and particularly in areas of Florida as well. 

And there has been success in controlling a few of the invasive 

species, but it is clear you all are completely aware that we need 

to do more. Ms. Reaser, according to the submitted testimony, you 

have taken on some really important initiatives. And one of those 

initiatives is to focus on national priorities and targeted outputs. 

I wanted to know if you could tell us what the national priorities 

are, and what do you mean by ‘‘targeted outputs?’’ And specifically, 

of course, you know, my interest would be if the territories are included in those priorities. 

Ms. REASER. Certainly the territories are explicitly included in 

the work we are doing, and thank you for highlighting them. And 

in particular, they do face many challenges that are particular to 

island regions. As you are probably well aware, invasive species are 

one of the number one threats to biodiversity in island context, and 

that has certainly been the case in the U.S. territories. 

The national priorities are set within the National Invasive Species Management Plan in terms of how the Federal government is 

going to work together, but also with States, territories, tribes, and 

other partners. So each management plan sets forward a new set 

of priorities, and so we will have a new set early this next year. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And how is that determined, in what way? Is it 

by population? Is it based on economic determinants? What sets 

those priorities? 

Ms. REASER. Anne Kinsinger would like to address that. 

Ms. KINSINGER. Okay. Hi. I just wanted to say I am not speaking 

to what will be in the plan, but that there are a number of scientifically-based techniques that we can use. One of them is model the 

invasivity of the animal once it is detected and try to get a sense 

of how quickly it will spread, and try to be able to understand what 

kind of impacts it is going to have, because there are many 

invasive species that come to the country and really do not cause 

much damages, do not spread very quickly. 

So we have a variety of tools that we are trying to use that managers and policy makers can deploy to understand how quickly and 

how damaging from both an ecological and an economic perspective. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Because the reason I was asking what are the 

benchmarks and how do you determine that is more often than not, 

in my area of the Virgin Islands, because it is seen that we are 

small in numbers, we are not given the priorities. And I just wanted to share something with the committee today, and I am asking 

that we show this picture, and I will pass this around. 

That this is what happens when the invasive species, the 

Sargassum seaweed, which if you think about an island economy 

that is based on fishing and tourism, if that is sitting on your 

beach, it is going to affect your tourism tremendously on a regular 

basis. And that is on every beach in the Virgin Islands these last 

couple of months. So thank you, and I would ask unanimous consent to include this in the record. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

And I just wanted to then close with, and I know I am running 

out of time. Mr. Beck, if you could tell us if you feel that there 

needs to be a change and improvement in controlling this and how 

we set these priorities. 

Mr. BECK. I am not familiar with the seaweed problem other 

than I am just aware that it exists, so I am not the expert to ask 

on that. But if we do not have the information, it needs to be dealt 

with immediately. That seems to be the case with almost every 

new invasive species, you know. Where are we scientifically on it? 

That is an excellent question to ask, and I think we need to address these species unfortunately one at a time, but that is part of 

the challenge in this. And they all need to be addressed. 

Mr. BUCK. With no objection, the picture will be included in the 

record. 

Mr. BUCK. And I would just mention to the gentlelady from the 

Virgin Island that Dr. Beck and I live close to each other, and we 

would be glad to go to the Virgin Islands this time of year to look 

at the seaweed and —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Immediately. 

Mr. BUCK. Yes, immediately. Great. The chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Arizona for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Reaser, we are going 

to come back again to Arizona. And as you know, the Tamarisk salt 

cedar has been spread throughout the Colorado River Basin. It has 

been especially damaging to areas in Arizona in my district along 

the Gila River. These invasive and thirsty shrubs steal already limited water to push out native plants, strain agricultural resources, 

and disrupt economic activity. 

In communities where the Tamarisk invasion has developed into 

crisis, like Buckeye Arizona on the Gila River, local and State leaders have developed action plans to eradicate the shrub and restore 

natural habitats. However, these mitigation plans, like I alluded to 

earlier, have gotten lost in the complicated web of Federal invasive 

species policy, or have been flat out resisted by the Federal agencies themselves. 

So what has NISC done to engage communities and to empower 

them to leverage the local resources and expertise to address problems unique to their area? 

Ms. REASER. Thank you for the question. To clarify, NISC itself 

is the Secretaries’ and administrators —— 

Mr. GOSAR. I understand. 

Ms. REASER.—of the 13 member Departments. So they themselves would not be having a direct relationship coordinating with 

the counties. However, many of the Federal agency personnel working in that region have been involved in multi-stakeholder partnerships. You are familiar, I am sure, with the Tamarisk Coalition. 

Mr. GOSAR. Yes. 

Ms. REASER. And through those on the ground efforts at better 

communication and coordination, requests for assistance, individual 

priority setting, information, exercises, and so forth are brought up 

through the Federal agencies. 

Mr. GOSAR. So now, is there any benefit or streamlining to this 

process in coordination with American Indian tribes? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

Ms. REASER. Thank you for the question. Are you referring to the 

work with Tamarisk in particular or with —— 

Mr. GOSAR. With any invasive species, but in this case Tamarisk, 

yes. 

Ms. REASER. Thank you for the question. I cannot answer specifically with regard to Tamarisk. I can answer more broadly if that 

is of interest. 

Mr. GOSAR. Sure. 

Ms. REASER. Okay. So within the framework of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee that I mentioned previously, there are two 

seats dedicated for tribal representatives. There have been five 

tribal individuals who have filled those seats to date. The tribes are 

also included in numerous specific actions that are implemented 

under the National Invasive Species Management Plan. They may 

participate in specific committees, working groups, or task teams 

of particular interest to the tribes. 

The most recent example would be the outreach to tribes and inclusion of tribal representatives and the development of the early 

detection and rapid response framework that will be released in 

the near future. 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, but my question is, is there any mechanism in 

which that can streamline? I mean, they have jurisdictions that are 

synonymous as a sovereign entity if it exists on their property. Is 

there is a streamlining mechanism? Not just representation, but is 

there a streamlining possibility in utilizing the tribes within a 

problem? 

Ms. REASER. Thank you for the question. The tribes themselves 

have not brought to our attention a request for that process. If they 

did, I think we would take it into consideration to look at ways to 

coordinate better. We certainly would welcome more tribal participation at all levels of the work within the NISC and the broader 

NISC framework. 

Mr. GOSAR. Gotcha. Dr. Beck, I mean, you have seen this from 

the ground level. How would you orchestrate something in a comprehensive management plan that addresses the Great Lakes from 

the Virgin Islands, to Arizona, to the Great Lakes so that we have 

all these multiple applications going on? I mean, you are with CSU, 

right? 

Mr. BECK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOSAR. I have got ASU, U of A, NAU. I mean, they are a 

pretty good resource out there. But how would you manage a plan 

like that from your level that would address a lot of these things 

and synchronize them that may not be so bureaucratically top 

down driven? 

Mr. BECK. Well, first, I think is to involve people at the local 

level. What do they want to do? What is their land use vision, and 

then adapt from there. And then geographically you have to start 

up to the high elevation, high waters, and then move downstream 

from there rather than trying to move up. I have seen it go both 

ways, and it never works when you try to run upstream. But at 

any rate, visiting and getting input from the local community is absolutely essential. That is the starting place. 

Mr. GOSAR. I know we have been chasing the mussels upstream 

up to Colorado, so we know your plight there, absolutely. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

Mr. BECK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOSAR. One last question. Dr. Steinman, would you have any 

other comments in regards to that process? 

Mr. STEINMAN. Well, I think the coordination is essential. Without that, things are going to break down. As I mentioned in the 

oral testimony, written testimony, these invasive species cross jurisdictional boundaries. Any time you have these connected systems, the weakest link provides the problem there. So it is essential that people work together and have a coordinated effort and 

based on science is really going to be a critical element to make 

things successful. 

Mr. GOSAR. When you empower local people, you find people 

more adaptive to be protecting, right? 

Mr. STEINMAN. Absolutely, and I agree with Dr. Beck in the 

sense that if you do not what their social values are at that local 

land value, you know, you are just not going to make a difference. 

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you. 

Mr. BUCK. The chair thanks the gentleman from Arizona, and 

recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Cameron, I just want 

to ask a follow-up question. How do you feel the NISC, from your 

organization, how effective is it? You gave some recommendations. 

Does the plan drive the results? I would like to hear your opinion. 

Mr. CAMERON. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. A couple of 

thoughts. The first is a plan is ultimately just a piece of paper. 

What you really need is commitment at least at the assistant secretary level. More than a commitment, active participation. You 

need assistant secretaries willing to spend 15 percent of their time 

worried about invasive species. Frankly, I do not think we have 

had that for quite a while. You need that leadership in order to 

drive coordination inside Washington in order to provide air cover, 

if you will, for the people at the regional level, at the State level 

who are trying to do the right thing. So a good plan is helpful, it 

is necessary, but it is by no means sufficient. 

What I think is really important, echoing some things we have 

heard before, is taking a lot of hints from the governors. Your own 

governor is really invested in the invasive species issues even with 

Michigan’s economic problems. He has budget increases in the 

State budget for invasives. Governor Hickenlooper has been all 

over the cheatgrass issue from the very beginning in Colorado. 

So the Federal government needs to pay attention to where the 

governors are coming from. The Federal government can provide a 

forum for cooperation among the governors. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative in your part of the country, Ms. Lawrence, is one 

example of a fairly successful model. Maybe WGA could do the 

same on cheatgrass, for instance. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Well, Dr. Steinman, I introduced H.R. 1900, the 

National Sea Grant College Program. And we know it is administered within the National Oceanic Administration, NOAA. Do you 

believe that Congress should reauthorize it and fund new university research, because one of the things that I am hearing, and who 

made the quote about good science versus good policy. So would 

you please comment on that? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

Mr. STEINMAN. Thank you, Representative Lawrence. I am a 

strong supporter of the National Sea Grant Program administered 

under NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It is really where the science, education, and outreach all 

come together on a local basis. And even though National Sea 

Grant seems to have a marine name to it, it applies to the 

gentlelady as well. 

And so, whether it is fresh water, salt water, or estuarian systems, Sea Grant is really there at the local level making a difference educating people and providing the science to help inform 

those management decisions that need to be made. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. You know, one of the things that I really want 

to drive this point home is that we think about just fish in the 

water. But there is an additional effect of the zebra mussel, an increase of blue water algae, which resulted in the loss of drinking 

water to 400,000 Ohio citizens. Can you explain how this invasive 

species has an impact on our drinking water? 

Mr. STEINMAN. Yes, thank you for the question. So the zebra and 

quagga mussels, as I said, are filter feeders, so they are filtering 

out the organisms that are in the water. And by doing that, they 

are clearing the water, and as they clear the water, there is more 

opportunity for the blue-green algae or cyanobacteria to start to 

form in that system. 

Now, it also needs nutrients as well as the light that is getting 

through the water. The nutrients particularly in the Western Basin 

of Lake Erie were coming off of farm fields. You had that combination of fertilizer application, a big rainstorm that moved it all into 

the lake. And then you had enough light for the blue-greens to 

grow the cyanobacteria, and because they release a toxin, in this 

case microcystins, which is toxic to humans, potentially toxic. That 

is what Toledo Water Supply just decided to shut down. 

Now, we have had algae blooms that are actually larger than the 

one last year that shut down the water supply, but it turned out 

that they did not grow near where the water intakes were. So really it makes a difference where those blooms are forming, but that 

combination does create something. 

And I want to point out for Ms. Plaskett as well that clearing of 

the water by the quagga and zebra mussels also results in a proliferation of what we call these green algae, filamentous green 

algae called cladophora, very similar to your Sargassum that is 

washing up on the beaches of the Great Lakes and creating what 

we call muck. And nobody wants to go where that muck is. Just 

like in the Virgin Islands, we are seeing the same thing in the 

Great Lakes. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. I know I only have a few seconds, but, Dr. 

Reaser, this is where I want to connect your job with these immediate. So when we have an invasive species affecting drinking 

water, how does these issues rise to the level of you responding or 

being able to respond to this? And when you have a situation of 

Virgin Islands, and everyone sitting here are likely to know what 

is happening, how do we as a member of Congress know that you 

are actually responding in attacking this, not just a report. 

But what is your action? And I am sorry, sir, I know I am over, 

but this is important. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

Ms. REASER. It is important, and thank you for the question. To 

clarify again, NISC itself is the Secretaries and administrators of 

the 13 member departments. And in many cases, issues such as 

this do not necessarily have to rise to that level to get action. There 

are hopefully mechanisms in place in most States now and in some 

territories where there are State-level national invasive species 

councils. There are also plant councils and aquatic councils, and 

they can work to bring local levels to State-level attention. Statelevel attention can then be brought to Federal partners and so 

forth. 

And hopefully at the appropriate level, we are getting response, 

whether that is a technical-level response, an authority-level response, or some other mechanism that needs to be put in place to 

assist. So ultimately the response comes through partnerships and 

communications on up. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. 

Chair. 

Mr. BUCK. The chair thanks the gentlelady from Michigan, and 

recognizes the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate our panelists being here today. 

Dr. Reaser, in your opening remarks, I appreciate how you 

brought a context to this issue in how it is a national security 

issue. That is something, you know, I know a little something 

about. I spent 9 years as an undercover officer in the CIA chasing 

al Qaeda and the Taliban, you know, Iranian and IRGC Quds force. 

And it is great being able to use those talents and experience, you 

know, going after invasive weeds and worms. It is an important 

issue to the State of Texas. In Texas we are dealing with the 

branched broomrape. We are dealing with the Old World boll 

worm. We are dealing with cheatgrass as well. 

And, you know, we have talked here today, and I guess my first 

question is more a philosophical question. We have talked here 

today about how invasive species pose one of the greatest threats 

to the agriculture industries in the world, yet are the least funded 

and recognized. How can we change this mentality to become more 

proactive in protecting our industries? 

Ms. REASER. Thank you for the question. I think it is a really 

good one, and something that deserves a lot more time than what 

we have available to us. I think one of the challenges that has existed within this issue I the agricultural context is the long history 

of using the word ‘‘pest’’ and ‘‘weeds,’’ which do not galvanize the 

public’s emotive response to this issue. 

A lot of people equate ‘‘weeds’’ to dandelions, which are in their 

background and they do not feel are particularly threatening. The 

invasive species issue itself, because of examples that have been 

emerging from around the world, is getting more of the public’s 

perspective on the real risks associated with these non-native organisms, impacting them personally. 

And I think as we raise the profile of this issue, as we communicate case studies effectively, as we draw the relationships between these individual species and people’s personal lives, whether 

that be in the agricultural context or otherwise, we will see addiVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:43 May 04, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\99595.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

tional calls for support in all sorts of ways—financial, technical, 

and otherwise. 

The human dimensions of this issue are of particular interest to 

me, and I would love to have a side conversation with you at another date if that is of interest to you. 

Mr. HURD. It is of interest, and I appreciate that. And also in 

some of the specifics not only in how do we educate, you know, 

folks about how critical of an issue this is, the Old World boll worm 

poses a significant threat to corn, cotton, and other important crops 

throughout the U.S. And given that it reached Brazil and Puerto 

Rico, and that in June of this year one worm was found in Florida, 

is there a Federal protocol in place for an effective response to 

eliminate any isolated infestations before the pest spreads and becomes established in the U.S.? 

Ms. REASER. Thank you for the question. I am not an expert on 

that species in particular. I know that USDA has been working on 

eradicating the Texas boll weevil, if, in fact, we are talking about 

the same species, and that that work has been mostly successful. 

I would like to follow up with you more specifically at a later date 

when I can get the specifics in front of me. 

Mr. HURD. Great. I appreciate that and would welcome that. And 

my last question, there has been some conversations already on 

cheatgrass. The latest research suggests that targeting grazing and 

optimum times, either before the seed polyps develop or after they 

drop, produces recurrence on rangelands more than anything else 

we have tried. An given the tremendous wildfire issues and detrimental effects of sage grouse habitat associated with cheatgrass, 

should not research like this be a priority, and what are agencies 

doing to coordinate their efforts to streamline unnecessary environmental reviews for pilot projects and trials? 

Ms. REASER. So, two different answers. Thank you for the questions. In terms of the grazing question in particular, there are nuances to the grazing that need to be looked at from a research perspective. There are a number of criteria that go into determining 

whether grazing is an effective technique in terms of managing 

cheatgrass. Those relate to the history of the land use, in particular, the condition of the land. 

The micro climate that you are looking at, whether you are talking about grazing with cattle versus sheep, the density of the animals, even the breed of the animals, can make a difference in 

terms of grazing habits. So there is various work going on to look 

at best possible strategies for managing cheatgrass, and they may 

vary across and likely will vary across the landscape. 

To get to the second part of your question, which I am going to 

ask you to repeat. 

Mr. HURD. Sure. It is, you know, what are agencies doing to coordinate efforts to streamline unnecessary environmental reviews 

for pilot projects and initial trials? 

Ms. REASER. Great. Apologies. Thank you for that. One of the 

priorities that emerged out of the Western Invasive Weed Summit 

that I attended two weeks ago was streamlining the NEPA process. 

This has been a priority for us for a number of years at this point 

in time, and we are going to continue to move ahead on looking at 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
57 

what we could do to provide better NEPA guidance and streamlining in the invasive species context into the New Year. 

Mr. HURD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the time I do not have. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BUCK. The chairman thanks the gentleman from Texas, and 

recognizes the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. Thank you so much. I just wanted to 

go back to something that we were talking about, and that the 

ranking member, Ms. Lawrence, brought up. When you talked 

about this is layering, and the responses that come from the local 

level, to the State level, to the Federal level. You also talked about 

the management plan, and I know it is the specific task and the 

mandate of this group to really set those kind of guidelines and 

those prioritizations out. 

Can you give me an example of how this has worked in some of 

these invasive species? In your written testimony you talked about 

the Asian carp. You talked about cheatgrass. You know, we have 

given the example about the lionfish. How has this worked to address some of these issues on some of these specific invasive species 

issues? 

Ms. REASER. Thank you for the question. You are particularly interested in the coordination mechanisms and the —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Well, I am just trying to find out some specificity 

because I just hear a lot of very general discussion about how the 

process works, and that the management plans are there to make 

this happen. But I have not heard—maybe it was done—what specific examples you have of where this has worked and where the 

organization, when this group has actually made it effective 

against some of these invasive species. 

Ms. REASER. Okay. So I want to clarify once again that the National Invasive Species Council is itself the Secretary’s and administrators of the 13-member Federal Department. So when we start 

moving onto discussions about impacts on the ground, we are looking at the engagement at the Agency level and Agency personnel. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Right, but you set those. You set those priorities 

in that national plan and the management of how that is going to 

be done, is that not right, in your coordination of all of these agencies. 

Ms. REASER. The management plan sets out a series of actions 

to be taken over the life of the management plan. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And the management plan is how, in fact, these 

agencies are going to attack these invasive species issues, right? 

Ms. REASER. The management plan sets out goals and objectives 

for achieving certain things. It is not prescriptive in telling the 

agencies how specifically to move forward on that particular action. 

Ms. PLASKETT. But it sets out guidelines for these agencies on 

how this is supposed to be done? That is a yes or a no. Does it? 

Ms. REASER. It sets out priority actions. It does not explicitly set 

out guidelines. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So in setting the priorities for them, can you give 

me an example of how those priorities have not been set since this 

group has been made, how it has been effective in the invasive species fight? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

Ms. REASER. Okay. So I can give you a specific example for what 

is happening on the ground right now within the work that is being 

done on cheatgrass. Under a second —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Is that the only way you are able to tell me what 

it is working on? You are not able to tell me what has been done 

and what has been effective in the past as yet? 

Ms. REASER. I can go through a number of action items in the 

plan. There are 170 various action items, and I can go through 

with you at a later date —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Are there too many action items? 

Ms. REASER. Pardon? 

Ms. PLASKETT. Are there too many action items maybe? If I give 

my kids too many chores, they will never get any of them completed. 

Ms. REASER. I understand your concern with the number of activities and the action items, and I can assure you in the next management plan —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. I am not concerned. You just cited so many of 

them as a reason you are not able to tell me which ones they have 

completed. 

Ms. REASER. Well, I can pull out the two management plans at 

the moment, and I could go through them with you. We do not 

have time obviously to do that right now. It is something we could 

sit down and do together. 

Ms. PLASKETT. I just asked for one example. 

Ms. REASER. So one example in the management plan was to provide resources to develop an international infrastructure for sharing information on invasive species. A number of activities actually 

have taken place to result in that. The Global Invasive Species Information Network was created that is housed by the U.S. Geological Survey. 

We have also contributed resources to setting up a global database. You could call it a global encyclopedia through an organization known as CAVI. That provides information that can be used 

in the agricultural sector, in the environmental sector, and otherwise to inform decision making, such as risk analyses and risk assessments on the invasive species issue. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And any of these, have you been able to show 

where the action items, the action that has been taken, has actually scaled back the invasive species, or what the impact that those 

have had on the particular areas that they have affected? 

Ms. REASER. At this point in time, without actually going to the 

agencies and asking for that particular data —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Can you ask? That is the ultimate goal of the 

group. Would that not be something that you would know immediately to be able to say that what you have been working on all 

these years, this is the outcome and this is how we have been able 

to beat back this national crisis, this national security issue? 

Ms. REASER. I understand your concern, and if the management 

plan action items were specifically targeted towards an on the 

ground response, that would be feasible, and I can collect that information. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

Many of the items in the management plan are actually focused 

on enhancing coordination, cooperation, efficiencies, and resource 

spending, partnerships with States and tribal governments. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And is not all of that the ultimate goal to eradicate the invasive species? 

Ms. REASER. They are all creating the enabling environment to 

allow that to happen. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Dr. Reaser, that is just yes or no. Is not that the 

ultimate goal of the organization is to do that? 

Ms. REASER. The ultimate goal of —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Yes? No? 

Ms. REASER.—the National Invasive Species Council is to facilitate coordination and cooperation of specific duties that are outlined in the executive order. 

Ms. PLASKETT. To what end? 

Ms. REASER. Ultimately to the end of preventing, and controlling 

—— 

Ms. PLASKETT. So the answer would be —— 

Ms. REASER.—and eradicating invasive species. However, the activities are often many steps removed from what is happening on 

the ground. So the ability to say we have created an invasive species database is creating an enabling environment to enable people 

on the ground, whether that is cheatgrass, or zebra mussels, or 

weevils in Texas, to make a difference. 

However, being able to say that the data in that database directly resulted in 300 infestations being intercepted in the field is 

understandably quite difficult. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. BUCK. The chair thanks the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, and recognizes the gentleman from Alabama. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to 

thank the witnesses for being here and for their testimony. 

I have got a question about how some of these invasive species 

enter the country, and I just want to ask, Dr. Reaser, I know that 

the Department of Agriculture and Department of Interior are involved. But is there an ongoing discussion about, for instance, 

sportsmen have brought in certain plants that they think are good 

for wildlife that have turned out not so well. This has been the case 

in Alabama. 

And I think as we talk about how to deal with the invasive species who are already here, we need to be talking about how we can 

prevent some of them from being brought into the country. Can you 

tell me what kind of activity takes place, what kind of discussions, 

what kind of strategic planning is going on to prevent that? 

Ms. REASER. Thank you for the question. We generally discuss 

these in the context of pathway interdiction and prevention at the 

border. And I am sure you are well aware, there are numerous controls in place at our ports of entry both on the agricultural side and 

on the wildlife and human health side to intercept organisms before they come into the States. There also are mechanisms in place 

to interdict various pathways by which organisms may be introduced, whether that is through horticulture or other means. 

One of the ways in which we are adding value at this point in 

time is to increase our capacities for risk analysis, our ability to 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

look at species before they come to the United States, and determining what is the likelihood of those organisms being harmful if 

they arrive here so that we can proactively make choices about 

which species to let in and which species to prohibit. 

Mr. PALMER. When these things are brought in, and there was, 

I think, it is an Asian version of oak trees that was brought in that 

a lot of people thought was a great idea for deer and wild turkey, 

have now decided that it is not. Is there any effort to limit the introduction of something like that so that you have got a 5-, 10-year 

period to determine if it is problematic? What is the process? 

Ms. REASER. So ideally, risk analyses are informed by the best 

available science that you have. They also take other values and 

economic concerns into consideration. So if that or any organism 

became an issue of concern for importation into the United States, 

a risk analysis could take place, and it could determine based on 

the output of that risk analysis whether there were reasons to prohibit that organism, whatever it happened to be, and authorities in 

place to then follow up with the prohibition. 

Mr. PALMER. In the South, we have had to deal with an invasive 

species called kudzu. But we have also been dealing with an 

invasive weed called Cogan grass, and I think it came into the 

country as packing material. And, again, it gets back to the collaboration between the various Federal agencies and departments of 

government to make sure that if we bring something in, that it 

does not have the capacity, first of all, to reproduce, which I think 

that surprised a number of people when that happen. 

But in that regard, Dr. Beck, you are the weed specialist. What 

impact does the NEPA process have on the efforts to control the 

spread of invasive weeds like cheatgrass, and is it helping or hurting these efforts, or other things like cogon grass, for instance? 

Mr. BECK. My apologies. I did not hear the one word. My hearing 

is horrible. NEPA you said? 

Mr. PALMER. Right, NEPA. N–E-P–A. 

Mr. BECK. My experience personally with NEPA is with working 

with others that have had to do battle with them, and I guess that 

is the term that they would prefer to use. It can be an onerous 

process. It is by design meant to be thorough, but one does not 

have to take 10 years to make a decision. 

I think the process is good when it is used as it is supposed to 

be used, but unfortunately we run into situations where there 

seems to be a lot of misuse. In other words, the people who are 

making the assessment simply do not want something coming in, 

or they do not care, and it go could go either way. NEPA is a problem that needs to be addressed and streamlined. 

Mr. PALMER. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BUCK. The chair thanks the gentleman from Alabama, and 

recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. I want to thank you all for being here. For my 

last set of questions, Mr. Cameron, I agree with your suggestion 

that Congress should direct the Council to furnish us with a short 

annual work plan to help focus attention on the Council’s work. 

Ms. Reaser, do you have any objection to that suggestion? 

Ms. REASER. Thank you for the question, and I appreciate the 

suggestion that Scott Cameron has brought forward. My request 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
61 

would be that any reporting be tied into the National Invasive Species Management Plan process so that the reporting on that can 

happen concurrently with any requests so that we are making sure 

that we are being efficient in our reporting processes. 

The current reporting for the National Invasive Species Management Plan is set at the executive order for 18 months after each 

management plan. And as we move forward, we intend to report 

out on that time frame. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. I would strongly recommend that as you are 

working on the plan, that you look at providing us with updates. 

I want to ask Dr. Steinman, what can the Federal government 

do to be helpful in your effort in curbing invasive species in the 

Great Lakes? What can the Federal government do? I am a little 

concerned that we have a plan that does not really cause action. 

It is a plan. So please tell me, what can we do? 

Mr. STEINMAN. Well, thank you, Representative Lawrence. It 

really depends on the vector that we are talking about for introduction because there are so many ways that invasive species can get 

into the Great Lakes or into any ecosystem. So, again, that coordination is really critical if you are talking about species that are 

coming in from ballast water introduction. And it is critical that 

the EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard are all working together, the Canadian government as well as the U.S. government are working to 

make sure that none of these salties are discharging any of the ballast water organisms that would get in that way. 

But in many cases, some of these organisms are being introduced 

just by unintentional means or through the live aquaculture trade, 

and that is when USDA needs to come into play. So, again, it gets 

down to coordination. I know this is a common refrain we have 

been hearing, not just amongst the Federal government, although 

that is an important resource for us not just in terms of their management strategies, but in terms of resources, monetary resources. 

But then working with the State and local agencies as well to make 

sure that that plan once developed is coordinated and can be implemented in a rigorous way. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you so much. I want the panel to know, 

Dr. Reaser, that I am looking forward to that report and your leadership, but leadership is needed. All the members who have spoken 

here, we represent different parts of this country, and the issues 

that we are talking about, and we covered it. It is economic. It is 

our water quality. It is recreational. It is jobs. It is our economy. 

All these things are tied to this. 

And it seems like there has been this kind of whatever attitude, 

and under your leadership, and it is something that is going to be 

a priority for me as a member of Congress, is that we continue to 

put the focus and the energy. This is not a job to come in and just 

kind of sit on the side because nobody cares what you are doing. 

You have a tremendous background when you talk about your resume, and so you understand the impact of this. 

And this hearing to me is important because this is a major impact. You know, I am from the Great Lakes, but you heard Texas. 

You heard Florida. You heard the Islands. This is something that 

requires the commitment and the passion, and I am sitting here. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

I am looking forward to that leadership. I am going to be actively 

looking for that report. 

And this issue of coordinating the levels of government is extremely important, and I expect for the plan to lay out that process 

so that we have a process where at least there is a plan where if 

I am a governor, this is the layers and this is how we move forward, and there is a process for that. So I want to thank you all 

for you being here and your expertise. 

I yield back my time, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. The chair thanks the gentlelady from Michigan. And 

in closing, I would like to thank our witnesses for taking the time 

to appear before us today. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(63) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 99595.033
65 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 99595.034
66 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 99595.035
67 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 99595.036
68 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 99595.037
69 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 99595.038
70 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 99595.039
71 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 99595.040
72 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 99595.041
73 

Æ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 99595.042