[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BLACKWATER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
April 19, 2001, in Cambridge, Maryland
__________
Serial No. 107-17
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-815 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. "Butch" Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Vice Chairman Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Richard W. Pombo, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North
Carolina
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 19, 2001................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland.......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Ashe, Daniel M., Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Johnson, W. Ladd, Chairman, Maryland Waterfowl Commission,
and President, Resource Management, Inc.................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Thompson, Edith R., Exotic/Invasive Species Policy
Coordinator, Maryland Department of Natural Resources...... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Tillier, Ron, President, Friends of Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge, Inc....................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Willey, Guy W., Sr., Wildlife Technician..................... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
INVASIVE SPECIES AND THE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG AT THE BLACKWATER NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE, MARYLAND
----------
Thursday, April 19, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Cambridge, Maryland
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
the Visitor's Center, Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, The
Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
Mr. Gilchrest. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans will come to order.
There is a few more seats in the room, actually quite a few
more seats, so if there is anybody in the back that wants to
move up a little bit or if you don't want to stand for the
hearing, there is plenty of room.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. I want to thank everyone for coming today.
This is a field hearing of the Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. The Subcommittee exercises
the House Resources Committee legislative jurisdiction over
fisheries and wildlife, including refuges, marine affairs, and
oceanography. On the executive side that translates into
jurisdiction over most Fish and Wildlife Service programs and
the coastal and ocean programs of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Recently the Subcommittee held a hearing on the operational
and maintenance needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
This hearing follows up and uses the Blackwater Refuge as an
example of specific operational and maintenance needs and how
well those needs are met by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Given the importance of refuges such as Blackwater in
maintaining the health of the Atlantic Migratory Bird Flyway,
we think it is a perfect example to review in more detail. The
fact that I represent Dorchester County, where the refuge is
located, made the decision even easier.
Today's hearing is on the operation and maintenance of the
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. The Subcommittee is
particularly interested in hearing about three items: the
operational and maintenance needs of the refuge; the control of
harmful invasive species at the refuge, particularly nutria;
and the recreational opportunities that provide people an
opportunity to visit the refuge.
We are fortunate to have a panel of witnesses today who
have extensive knowledge of this refuge and the management of
conservation lands. I look forward to hearing their testimony
concerning the operation and maintenance needs, invasive
species control problems, and recreational uses of Blackwater,
and in a broader context the management of conservation lands
throughout the United States.
And I also truly welcome the panel this morning. We look
forward to the testimony the witnesses will give us. I also
want to thank Glenn Carowan for his hospitality in the
beautiful Blackwater Refuge in Dorchester County on the Eastern
Shore of Maryland. This is a magnificent place, and we want to
thank all of you in the room: the Friends of Blackwater; the
refuge managers; and all of the people that have come together
to make this place an inspiration for visitors to have some
sense of the beauty, the magnificence, the gentleness, the
harshness of the natural system that this refuge represents,
the ecosystem, the food web, the natural course of nature that
this refuge is trying to represent, the way it used to be
before John Smith came.
Now, it is nice since John Smith came. We have improved the
quality and the standard of life for human beings, extended
their life, provided habitat for we as people, food and shelter
and clothing. What the refuge attempts to do is to provide
habitat, food, shelter, and some place to raise their young,
for wildlife. And I think as human beings we have the skill and
the intelligence to be able to do that, sort of a suburb for
birds.
But as in other suburbs, there are certain things that we
don't need there or shouldn't be there. And in part of the
testimony that we will hear this morning is some of the
invasive species that we find at Blackwater, and do we have the
skill, the will, the determination, and the resources to do
something about these invasive species, notably our little
friend over here, the nutria.
But, at any rate, I want to thank all of you for coming. We
look forward to your testimony, and we will take it back and
try to make good use of it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement by The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Thank you for coming today. This is a field hearing of the
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, which I
chair. The Subcommittee exercises the House Resources Committee's
legislative jurisdiction over fisheries and wildlife, including
refuges, marine affairs and oceanography. On the executive side, that
translates into jurisdiction over most Fish and Wildlife Service
programs, and the coastal and ocean programs of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
Recently the Subcommittee held a hearing on the operational and
maintenance needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This hearing
follows up and uses the Blackwater refuge as an example of specific
operational and maintenance needs, and how well those needs are met by
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Given the importance of refuges such a Blackwater in maintaining
the health of the Atlantic Migratory Bird Flyway, I think it is the
perfect example to review in more detail. The fact that I represent
Dorchester County where the refuge is located made the decision even
easier.
Today's hearing is on the operation and maintenance of the
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. The subcommittee is particularly
interested in hearing about three items:
1) the operational and maintenance needs of the refuge;
2) the control of harmful invasive species at the refuge,
particularly nutria; and
3) the recreational opportunities provided by the refuge.
We are fortunate to have a panel of witnesses today, who have
extensive knowledge of this refuge and the management of conservation
lands. I look forward to hearing their testimony concerning the
operation and maintenance needs, invasive species control problems, and
recreational uses at Blackwater and in a broader context of the
management of conservation lands throughout the United States.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Dan
Ashe, Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Welcome, Mr. Ashe.
STATEMENT OF DAN ASHE, CHIEF, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest. That was a tough act to
follow. I have to tell you, too, when I was walking out the
door this morning at 0-dark-30, my wife said, ``Now where are
you going today?'' And I said, ``I'm going over to
Blackwater.'' And she said, ``You don't look like you're going
to Blackwater.''
[Laughter.]
I think this is the first time I have ever worn a tie on a
unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, Dan, if you want to take it off, you
shed your tie.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ashe. It is really a pleasure to be with you here at
Blackwater, and I really think this does provide a great
setting for us to consider the future of America's National
Wildlife Refuge System as it approaches its 100th anniversary
in 2003. I agree with you, Blackwater is a magnificent refuge,
and I think looking at Blackwater and our management here
really does provide insights into the challenges that face its
534 sister refuges.
It also provides an outstanding example of how we can use
innovative and science-based management to address even some of
our most intractable problems like invasive species control. It
is also a great place for us to reflect on the crucial role
that comprehensive planning, volunteers, and community support
groups like the Friends of Blackwater are playing in helping us
to build a better future for the Refuge System as a whole.
The President's budget for Fiscal Year 2002 reinforces our
commitment to take care of our refuges by including a $10
million increase for refuge maintenance. That increase will
help us hire essential maintenance workers, deal with numerous
deferred maintenance projects, and perform annual maintenance
to further slow the growth of our deferred maintenance backlog.
And as we talked about a couple of weeks ago in Washington,
that backlog now stands at about $830 million.
As you look around Blackwater, you can see the difference
that our attention to maintenance has made. The facilities I
think provide a safe environment for both our employees and our
visitors. They are in significantly better condition than they
were five years ago. We are making similarly impressive
progress throughout the Refuge System in the maintenance of our
facilities.
But Blackwater, like many other refuges throughout the
system, has a razor-thin margin of flexible operating funds
that support our managers in dealing with complex management
issues that they face, like invasive species control. I think
the example here at Blackwater of nutria provides a great
example. If we are not able to effectively address the threats
posed by invasive species like nutria, then the situation
worsens and the long-term cost of dealing with those issues
increases substantially.
That story repeats itself again and again on refuges
throughout the country, and at over 50 percent of our refuges
today, invasive species problems are preventing us from
attaining our population and habitat goals at those refuges. At
Loxahatchee Refuge in Florida, part of the Florida Everglades
system, the exotic melaleuca and the Old World climbing fern
are choking out the native plants. At Bosque del Apache in New
Mexico, the salt cedar has all but eliminated the native
cottonwoods there, and we are fighting to restore them
literally acre-by-acre.
In our wetlands we are fighting purple loosestrife. In our
forests in the Southeast we are battling Chinese tallow. At our
prairie refuges and waterfowl production areas we are
struggling against invaders like leafy spurge and exotic
thistles. In the lakes and rivers on our refuges we are
swimming against a current of invasives, including zebra
mussel, giant salvinia and water hyacinth.
I was at North Delta Refuge at Stone Lakes in the Central
Valley of California last week, and talking to those managers
about the problems there with water hyacinth and the challenge
they have in dealing with that. You add toads and starlings and
sparrows and rats and moths and ants and even exotic bees, and
you begin to see through the eyes of our refuge managers: the
problems that they are facing are daunting.
I think today invasive species probably represent the most
serious challenge to the biological integrity of the Refuge
System and one of our most pressing operational needs. A couple
of weeks ago when you held your hearing on Refuge System
operations and maintenance, we discussed our $1.1 billion in
operational needs. That total includes about 300 projects
totaling $120 million to address invasive species challenges,
and with leadership from Members like yourself, Congress has
been providing us with increased funding to address these
issues. But we have much work to do.
So I will suspend there, Mr. Chairman, and conclude by
thanking you for holding this hearing today to help bring more
attention and understanding within the Congress and the public
at large to the needs of America's National Wildlife Refuge
System. Our managers and employees like Glenn Carowan and his
staff are the best in the world at what they do, and they do it
with precious few resources. Their jobs are already
challenging, and additional challenges like nutria and the
hundreds of other invasive exotics are making it just about
impossible.
So thank you again for holding this hearing and helping us
get to the place where we need to be.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]
Statement of Dan Ashe, Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S.
Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the
operational and maintenance needs of the National Wildlife Refuge
System. Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge provides a great setting to
consider the future of the Refuge System as it nears its 100th
anniversary, in 2003. This magnificent refuge provides not only
insights into the challenges facing the Refuge System, but also
outstanding examples of how innovative, science-based management can
address many of the threats to our nation's wildlife heritage. This
refuge is the perfect place to consider the crucial role that
volunteers and community support groups, like the Friends of
Blackwater, must play if we are to succeed in accomplishing our
wildlife conservation mission.
Our first priority is taking care of what we have: the maintenance
of the facilities and equipment we need to accomplish our mission. The
Refuge System has $7 billion worth of buildings, utilities, dikes and
levees, roads, fences, dams, vehicles and tools, that we must maintain
to protect their value and keep them safe and in good working order.
Refuge maintenance is addressed in three different but related
programs: 1) Refuge Operations supports salaries for maintenance
workers, laborers, and equipment operators; 2) Construction supports
large and complex maintenance and capital improvement projects that
normally cannot be accomplished in one year; and 3) the Refuge
Maintenance program which supports annual maintenance, equipment repair
and replacement, and deferred maintenance backlogged projects. In
addition, since TEA-21, the Federal Lands Highways program helps
address additional maintenance projects.
Thanks to your support, the efforts of the Cooperative Alliance for
Refuge Enhancement (CARE), our Five Year Deferred Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement list, and our Maintenance Management System
database, Have made progress addressing the highest priority needs of
our facilities and equipment over the past few years. I'm pleased to
say we have slowed the rate of growth in our maintenance backlog from
30% just a few years ago to 7% today. We currently estimate a backlog
of deferred maintenance projects, including 8,092 projects, totaling
roughly $830 million, including $172 million for equipment replacement
and repair.In Fiscal Year 2001, Congress appropriated a total of $75
million for Refuge System maintenance ($56 million in Title I and $19
million in Title VIII) and we are receiving $20 million annually in
TEA-21 funds through the Federal Lands Highways program. Therefore, in
total, we have $95 million available for refuge maintenance during the
current fiscal year, and with this level of funding we will make
additional progress toward our ultimate goal of reducing the
maintenance backlog.
The President's Budget request for Fiscal Year 2002 reinforces the
need to take care of what we have by including a $10 million program
increase for refuge maintenance. This increase will address the most
critical annual and deferred maintenance projects. The Fiscal Year 2002
request will also enable us to implement a three-step approach to
reducing the deferred maintenance inventory by increasing funding to
hire essential maintenance workers, performing additional annual
preventative maintenance, and performing additional deferred
maintenance, including a $1.8 million increase for condition
assessments and improving the Maintenance Management System.
As you look around Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, you can see
the difference the investment in maintenance has made. While we still
have work to do, we have made progress in reducing the deferred
maintenance backlog. The facilities provide a safe environment for both
our employees and visitors. They are in better condition than they were
five years ago. With a continued commitment to addressing these
maintenance needs, we are making similar progress throughout the Refuge
System.
This is important, because we have pressing operational needs on
refuges. Blackwater, like many other refuges throughout the System, has
a razor thin margin of flexible, operational funds that managers need
to address the dynamic resource management challenges they face. For
example, meeting the challenges of combating invasive species requires
a substantial commitment of operational resources. The example of
nutria here at Blackwater and throughout the Chesapeake Bay provides a
great example.
Nutria are an exotic invasive rodent, native to South America, that
have been introduced in 22 states nationwide, and affect over 1,000,000
acres of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Among areas with high
nutria populations is the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland, including
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. Blackwater has lost over 7000
acres of marsh since 1933, and the rate of marsh loss has accelerated
in recent years to approximately 200 acres per year. Although there are
many contributing factors (e.g., sea level rise, land subsidence),
nutria are a catalyst of marsh loss due to their habit of foraging on
the below-ground portions of marsh plants. This activity compromises
the integrity of the marsh root mat, facilitating erosion and leading
to permanent marsh loss. In light of the damage caused by nutria, the
Service and 22 other Federal, state, and private partners joined forces
in 1997 to identify appropriate methods for controlling nutria and
restoring degraded marsh habitat. The Partnership prepared a 3-year
pilot program proposal, which was subsequently approved by Congress,
including authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to spend up
to $2.9 million over three years beginning in Fiscal Year 2000 (Public
Law 105-322).
The Service received $500,000 in Fiscal Year 2000 to implement the
three-year pilot study, Marsh Restoration: Nutria Control in Maryland
in and around Blackwater Refuge. The funding came from both Refuge
Operations ($300k) and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
($200k) funds. An additional $500,000 was provided in 2001 and the 2002
budget also includes a request for $500,000.
The 3-year pilot program was initiated in July 2000 with the hiring
of a crew of four. Trapping is occurring on nine study sites in
Maryland, three of which are on Blackwater Refuge. The initial focus is
on live capture of animals as part of a study that will help formulate
effective strategies for eradicating nutria. In January 2002, intensive
harvest will be implemented on three study sites, while no harvest will
occur on the remaining sites. This approach will allow monitoring of
biological responses of nutria to intensive harvest, and will provide
answers to many questions regarding effective nutria control.
The damage nutria cause to the marshes of Chesapeake Bay can be
helpful in understanding the operational needs of the Refuge System. If
we do not address the threats posed by invasive species, the situation
worsens, and the long-term cost of addressing the problem increases.
This is a story that repeats itself over and over again throughout the
Refuge System. At Loxahatchee Refuge in Florida's Everglades, the
exotic melaleuca tree and the Old World climbing fern have infested
thousands of acres of the refuge, out-competing the native plants. As
these species become more widespread, the complexity and the cost of
controlling them increases. From coast to coast, from the prairies to
the mountains, each State and every ecosystem of our country has its
own suite of invasive species threatening the health of the land.
Other major terrestrial plant invaders on refuges include salt
cedar, leafy spurge, whitetop, Brazilian pepper, purple loosestrife,
Australian pine, Chinese tallow, and exotic thistles. Problem aquatic
plants include giant salvinia and water hyacinth. Aquatic vertebrate
invaders include tilapia, Asian carp, Asian swamp eels, and nutria;
Terrestrial vertebrates include marine toads, European starling and
English sparrow, and feral goats, pigs, and cats. Aquatic invertebrates
include the zebra mussel. Terrestrial invertebrate invasives include
the gypsy moth, imported fire ant, and Africanized honeybee.
The problems are daunting, yet in most cases we know what needs to
be done. We use a variety of strategies including outreach and
education to minimize spread by humans, inventory and risk assessment,
mechanical controls such as machinery or water level manipulation,
pesticide applications, biological controls using natural predators,
grazing, and prescribed fire.
The need to address the threats that invasive species pose to the
biological integrity of the Refuge System is just one example of the
operational needs on refuges. Nationwide, refuge staff have identified,
categorized and prioritized $1.1 billion in refuge operational
projects. There are over 300 projects totaling $120 million to combat
invasive species. Congress has provided increased resources to address
invasive species each year since Fiscal Year 1998, under the improve
habitat component of Refuge operations. Increases totaling $2.7 million
have been provided since 1998,and each year Congress has funded high
priority invasive species projects. Refuge operational needs and
opportunities, if implemented, will forward our mission in managing
refuge lands. These needs and opportunities are entered into our Refuge
Operating Needs System (RONS) as they are identified by refuge staff.
To better understand the most pressing operational needs on
refuges, Congress directed us--in the Committee report accompanying the
Fiscal Year 2000 Interior Appropriations bill--to develop a tiered
approach to identify priority operating needs; aspects of refuge
management--staff, equipment, and supplies--that are basic components
of carrying out management of the Refuge System. We have responded to
that Congressional direction and tiered the RONS database and now have
a comprehensive view of the most pressing operational needs of the
Refuge System. For instance, many of our refuges do not have a full-
time biologist, law enforcement officer, or the resources to support
monitoring wildlife populations and habitat conditions. In some cases a
full-time biologist or a law enforcement officer may not be necessary
to fulfill the mission of a particular refuge; however, in many other
cases, they are an essential part of the successful operation of a
refuge. In addition to priority operating needs, there is a wealth of
opportunity to do good things for wildlife within the Refuge System.
These opportunities are included in the second tier of identified
refuge operations projects.
Additionally, we have unmet needs associated with establishment of
new refuges that are categorized in the RONS database, in order to
respond to GAO's report entitled, Agency Needs to Inform Congress of
Future Costs Associated with Land Acquisitions. That report recommended
that the Service estimate future operations and maintenance costs for
each new refuge.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your support in helping us meet our
operating needs. Since 1997, funding for refuge operations has
increased from $155 million to $225 million. Our people continue to do
great work on the ground and to manage our refuges to provide
tremendous benefits to wildlife and spectacular opportunities for
Americans to get outdoors and enjoy their wildlife heritage. We are
getting increasingly important work from a growing volunteer workforce.
We are getting expanding support from our Refuge Friends groups and
cooperating associations. We are growing our fee demonstration
programs. In short, we are being innovative in meeting our needs, which
I believe has always been a hallmark of refuge managers and the Refuge
System.
The Refuge System has made substantial progress in identifying and
categorizing its priority operation and maintenance needs and
opportunities, an important step in developing a long-term plan for
meeting those needs. In the coming months, the Service will present its
findings to the Department of the Interior and OMB, and work towards
developing a long-term plan to address these needs and opportunities.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Ashe. We will continue to
partner with Fish and Wildlife on the Refuge System, and we
appreciate your attendance here this morning.
Ms. Edith Thompson, Invasive Species Coordinator, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF EDITH THOMPSON, EXOTIC/INVASIVE SPECIES
COORDINATOR, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Ms. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Maryland Marsh Restoration and Nutria Control
Partnership thanks you for asking us to testify before the
Subcommittee about our efforts to address the growing
population of nutria on Blackwater and the rest of the
Chesapeake Bay and the damage it continues to inflict upon
important marsh habitat. We appreciate your interest and
support for the marsh restoration and nutria control pilot
program that we are currently conducting, and our urgent need
to apply what we learn from that pilot program to a broader
eradication and marsh restoration program in the Delmarva
Peninsula.
Nutria is a large, as you can see, semi-aquatic rodent
native to South America. It was imported to the United States
early in the 20th century to provide a fur resource. Since its
escape or release in Blackwater in 1943, it has contributed to
the loss of over 7,000 acres of marsh in the refuge alone.
Continued conversion of this marsh habitat to open water is
removing significant habitat for commercially valuable
waterfowl, shellfish, and finfish, and is decreasing the
ability of the refuge to meet its goals, its conservation
goals, the purpose of the refuge, to conserve native species
and systems. Nutria is consequently impacting native species in
a way that is addressed in the 1999 executive order on invasive
species and their control on Federal lands.
Control measures to date have been limited in their
effectiveness because of the prolific nature of nutria and its
ability to move into pockets of marsh where we have been
successful in eradicating a population. The continued removal
of this marsh from Blackwater and the surrounding area results
in an environment that may no longer support marsh restoration
because the substrate, the silt, the sediment, is gone.
So, to protect the marsh, nutria eradication has to be
conducted aggressively and effectively, with good information.
And to protect the marsh, damaged marsh has to be restored
while the nutria is being eradicated.
To accomplish this, the Maryland Marsh Restoration and
Nutria Control Partnership was formed through a Memorandum of
Understanding in 1997. With 17 initial partners, including the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, the Maryland Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Unit, and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, the
partnership comprises a management team which has done an
amazing amount of work getting grants and doing research
necessary in this pilot program.
The partnership also includes actually a total of 24
partners now, including the National Aquarium in Baltimore, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture is a very important partner,
Tudor Farms, the Salisbury Zoo, and many others. In 1998 the
partnership drafted this proposal for the pilot program, and
its purposes are to develop methods and strategies to reduce
nutria populations in Blackwater and in the Chesapeake Bay to a
level where the population cannot be sustained biologically; to
develop marsh habitat restoration methods and strategies; and
to promote public understanding of the importance of marsh
habitat in the Chesapeake Bay and the threat that is posed to
it by nutria.
The pilot program was fully implemented in January 2001,
and will run through 2003 in December. It is being conducted on
Blackwater; on Fishing Bay Wildlife Management Area, which is a
State area; and Tudor Farms, which is a private farm in this
immediate area. Each area has one treatment site and one
control site. Each of those is about 400 acres.
Baseline data is being conducted in those study areas prior
to conducting intensive nutria control, which we expect to
begin in January of 2002 on those treatment sites. The control
sites will be unharvested and will be used to measure the kind
of reproductive response nutria has to control and eradication
on the treatment sites. It is feasible, in other words, that
control and eradication could make their response, reproductive
response greater.
So we have hired 12 trappers and a trapping supervisor, and
they were hired in summer of 2000. Seven of them are local
people. Two University of Maryland Eastern Shore graduate
students are collecting this baseline data on population levels
and the reproductive status of nutria. The data, as I said, are
needed to formulate effective strategies for eradicating
nutria.
We have captured, marked and released 1,832 nutria so far.
The recapture history of the animals will help us estimate more
closely population size and annual survival. It is important to
understand that in population control, annual survival has to
be less than mortality in order to make the population go down.
Radio collars have been deployed on 144 animals. The monitoring
of these animals will help us understand peak activity times
and locations, so we can concentrate our trapping efforts.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District,
provided $30,000 in Fiscal Year 2001 to support preliminary
studies of marsh restoration at Blackwater, and they are
scoping a multiyear effort to restore about 150 acres here. The
big challenges are funding challenges, as you know.
The proposal that the partnership put together had, in
Fiscal Year 2000, $1,350,000 that we needed. We received
$500,000 in the congressional earmark as part of your
legislation, $100,000 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
and $50,000 from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
There were $150,000 in unanticipated costs, so the unmet needs
were $850,000 for that year.
In Fiscal Year 2001 we projected needing $757,000. We
received $500,000 in a budget line item for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, $100,000 from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and another $50,000 from the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation. There were again $150,000 in unanticipated
costs, making the total for the two years that we did not get
or manage to get, $1,077,000.
Projected costs for the third year of the pilot program
were $774,000. The USDA grant will provide $100,000 again,
making the total funding needed for the completion of this
pilot project $1.9 million.
The funding that we have received so far is only for nutria
research and control. We have not received funding, other than
the $30,000 that the Army Corps of Engineers has provided for
Fiscal Year 2001, for marsh restoration. No funding has been
available for the public outreach and education goal of this
project.
Beyond this pilot program, the current objective is to
implement a large-scale nutria eradication effort on the
Eastern Shore after the completion of this pilot program, using
this data. We are really nervous about estimating what that is
going to cost, but we are currently estimating at least twice
the number of employees working, so we have 12, that would be
24, and the salary costs we estimate at $1 million annually,
with support costs of $300,000 annually.
The Army Corps of Engineers estimates that it would cost
approximately $4.5 million to restore 150 acres of marsh at
Blackwater, but the methods haven't been worked out very well
yet, and it is kind of a new science, so it is hard to estimate
those costs.
Finally, the last point I want to make is that nutria is
found throughout the Delmarva Peninsula, and Maryland is doing
its work to get the information to eradicate the animal here,
but if similar effort is not made in Virginia and Delaware, and
we are really successful in eradicating the animals here, the
animals from the other States will just move right in here and
we may as well have done nothing. So it is important that those
two States also work with us.
In conclusion, the partnership is committed to long-term
goals of nutria eradication in Maryland, but this can only be
accomplished, and I say this again, with the full complement of
information generated by the pilot program. The partnership
reflects a broad diversity of extremely skilled professionals,
highly regarded scientific organizations and individuals, and
can complete this pilot project if they have the resources.
We urge Congress to appropriate sufficient funds, that is
$1.9 million, to help us finish this project, and to continue
to support the broader eradication efforts with funds and
necessary legislation on Federal lands throughout the Delmarva
Peninsula.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Thompson.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thompson follows:]
Statement of Edith R. Thompson, Exotic/Invasive Species Policy
Coordinator, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
The Maryland Marsh Restoration/Nutria Control Partnership thanks
you for asking us to testify before the Subcommittee on our efforts to
address the growing population of Nutria within the Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge (BNWR) and the Chesapeake Bay and the destruction that
it continues to inflict upon important marsh habitat. We greatly
appreciate your interest in and support for both the Nutria/Wetland
Restoration Pilot Program (Pilot Program) that we are currently
conducting and our urgent need to apply what we learn from it to a
broader eradication and wetland restoration effort on the Refuge and in
surrounding wetlands.
Nutria, a large, semi-aquatic rodent native to South America, was
imported to the United States early in the 20th Century to provide a
fur resource. Since its escape or release in the marshes of the BNWR in
1943, Nutria has contributed to the loss of over 7,000 acres of marsh
habitat on the Refuge alone. The current population of nutria on BNWR
is estimated to be 35,000 to 50,000 animals. Continued conversion of
marsh habitat to open water is removing significant habitat for
commercially important waterfowl, shell and finfish species and
decreasing the ability of the refuge to support a diversity of native
plants and animals. Consequently, nutria negatively impacts the
conservation purposes of the BNWR and creates the kind of negative
impact on native species and habitats addressed in the 1999 Executive
Order regarding Invasive Species and their control on federal lands.
Control measures to date have had limited effect because the highly
prolific nutria immediately fills in pockets of marsh where a
population has been eradicated. The continued removal of marsh from
BNWR and from surrounding areas could result in a change in the local
environment, which could in turn prevent the restoration of the marsh.
To protect the marsh, nutria eradication must be conducted aggressively
and efficiently in order to prevent resettlement in treated marshes.
Damaged marsh must be restored immediately in order to maintain an
environment that can support marsh plants while nutria are being
removed.
To accomplish this, the Maryland Marsh Restoration/Nutria Control
Partnership (the Partnership) was formed through a Memorandum of
Understanding in 1997 with 17 initial partners including the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the
Maryland Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, the University of
Maryland Eastern Shore, which compose a core Management Team, as well
as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Aquarium in
Baltimore, Tudor Farms and the Salisbury Zoo among others. The
Partnership now includes 24 members. In 1998, the Partnership drafted a
proposal that reflected an agreement to initiate and support a Pilot
Program to:
1) Develop effective methods and strategies to reduce nutria
populations in the Chesapeake Bay wetlands to the point where they are
unable to maintain a sustainable population,
2) Develop effective marsh habitat restoration methods and
strategies, and
3) Promote public understanding of the importance of preserving
Maryland's wetlands and the threat that nutria poses to those habitats.
The Pilot Program was fully implemented in January of 2001 and will
run through 2003. It is being conducted on BNWR, Fishing Bay Wildlife
Management Area (STATE), and Tudor Farms (Private), in Dorchester
County. Each area includes one treatment site and one control site,
each about 400 acres.
NUTRIA ERADICATION
Baseline data is being collected in the study areas prior to
conducting intensive nutria eradication. Collection of baseline data
will continue until January of 2002, after which intensive population
control will occur on half of the sample sites. On the treatment sites,
various trapping methods are being tested. Twelve trappers and a
trapping supervisor were hired in late summer of 2000. Seven of
trappers are residents of local communities around BNWR. Two University
of Maryland Eastern Shore graduate students are collecting baseline
data on population levels and reproductive status of nutria. These data
are needed to formulate effective strategies for eradicating nutria.
To date, 1,832 nutria have been captured, marked, and released.
Recapture histories of these animals during future trapping events will
be used to generate estimates of population size and survival.
Radio collars have been deployed on 144 animals. Regular monitoring
of these animals will reveal seasonal movement patterns, allowing
control efforts to target peak activity times and locations, which will
increase effectiveness of broader eradication efforts.
Preliminary analysis of reproductive status has been conducted for
several animals, as well, to help measure the mechanics of nutria's
reproductive capacity. They have shown a high degree of synchrony among
females, which is believed to result from severe winter weather. No
gross indications of disease or parasites have been identified in these
animals. Marsh habitat restoration is also being examined.
In January 2002, intensive population control will be initiated on
half the study sites. The remaining sites will be unharvested controls
for comparison of population and reproductive responses to intensive
harvest.
WETLAND RESTORATION
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, has provided
$30,000 in Fiscal Year 2001 to support preliminary studies of marsh
restoration methods at BNWR. The USFWS will disburse funds to the
University of Maryland College Park to support a graduate research
assistant during summer 2001. The Corps is currently scoping a multi-
year effort to restore about 150 acres of marsh at BNWR. The Fiscal
Year 2001 research project will refine methods to be used in this
large-scale effort.
CHALLENGES FACING SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF PILOT PROJECT
The successful completion of the pilot project is essential to
ensuring that future nutria eradication and wetland restoration efforts
at BNWR are effective. The primary challenge to the successful
completion of the pilot project has been the inability of the
Partnership to obtain the funds necessary and projected in the original
Partnership proposal.
In that proposal, projected costs for the first year (Fiscal Year
2000) were $1,350,000.00 and the program received $500,000 in a
Congressional earmark to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, $100,000
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Capacity Building Grant, and
$50,000 from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. There were
$150,000 in unanticipated costs above what was anticipated in the Pilot
proposal, so the unmet budget needs for the first year were $850,000.
Projected costs for the second year (Fiscal Year 2001) were
$757,000 and the program received $500,000 in as a line item in the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service budget, $100,000 from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Capacity Building Grant, and another $50,000
from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. There were $150,000 in
unanticipated costs above what was anticipated in the Pilot proposal,
making the total unmet funding needs for the two years at $1,077,000.
Projected costs for the third year of the Pilot Program (Fiscal
Year 2002) are $770,000, making the total funding needs for the
completion of the Program $1,880,000. The Maryland Department of
Natural Resources has contributed approximately $260,000 in in-kind,
nonfederal matches for the grants described above.
Funding for the Pilot Program through Congressional appropriations
and NFWF grants have been available only for nutria research and
control activities. Funding for wetland restoration efforts has not
been available, although the Army Corps of Engineers has provided
$30,000 for Fiscal Year 2001 to support preliminary investigation into
marsh restoration at BNWR. No funding has been available for public
outreach and education efforts directly related to the Pilot Program.
Beyond the Pilot Program, the current objective is to implement a
large-scale nutria eradication effort on the Eastern Shore after
completion of the Pilot Program in December of 2003. It is anticipated
that a workforce of at least twice that employed in the Pilot Project
would be required for such an effort. Salary costs for such a workforce
would be approximately $1 million annually, with support costs
estimated at $300,000 annually. These figures approximate the annual
budget estimates for the Pilot Program Proposal, but differ in that the
workforce is doubled and there is no provision for wetland restoration.
In its Section 206 Preliminary Restoration Plan, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers estimated restoration costs at $4.5 million for 150
acres of restored wetland at BNWR. These costs cannot be easily
extrapolated throughout the range of nutria in Maryland due to
variation in mobilization costs, a significant component of total
restoration costs.
Finally, nutria are found throughout the Delmarva Peninsula.
Control of nutria in the BNWR and Maryland's marshes will not be
successful in the long term if populations of these animals can move
from other states into Maryland habitat that is made available through
this nutria eradication program.
CONCLUSION
The Partnership is committed to the long-term goal of nutria
eradication in Maryland, however, this can only be accomplished if the
full complement of information generated by the Pilot Program is
achieved. The Partnership reflects a broad diversity of credible and
professional scientific organizations with individuals willing and able
to complete the goals of the Pilot Program, which is necessary to
ensure effective eradication of nutria in the state and in a
significant portion of the Chesapeake Bay.
The Partnership urges Congress to appropriate sufficient funds to
address the unmet needs of the Pilot Program, a total of $1.9 million
and to continue to support broader eradication efforts with funds and
necessary legislation on federal lands.
______
Mr. Tillier, Friends of Blackwater.
STATEMENT OF RON TILLIER, PRESIDENT, FRIENDS OF BLACKWATER
Mr. Tillier. First of all, thank you very much for asking
us to speak this morning. The Friends basically is the backbone
of the volunteer effort here. Last year we donated
approximately 11,000 volunteer hours or the equivalent of six
and a half full-time employees, and those ranged in activities
from manning the visitor center, operating the bookstore,
administrative and clerical assistance, biological surveys and
programs, conducting educational group orientations, and
conducting guided refuge tours.
The visitor center is manned entirely by volunteers, since
the outdoor recreation planner is the only staff person here on
the premises. While the refuge presently has a temporary person
at the center, we don't know how long that position is going to
be funded. Over the past 10 years, the outdoor recreation
planner has trained and has had 44 part-time assistants. When
volunteers aren't available here, the refuge often finds it
necessary to close the visitor center.
We do a lot of things here at the refuge. We handle, for
example, all of the administrative detail of the annual hunt
program at the refuge. At the present time, we are in process
of upgrading exhibits at the visitor center. Some of the
present exhibits here go back to the 1960's. This is being
funded by a $15,000 grant, with funds being matched by the
Friends, and the exhibits will be in place by June of this
year.
We have funded and developed an educational manual which is
being printed this month and will be distributed to schools in
Dorchester and surrounding counties, to encourage teachers to
integrate the refuge as an outdoor classroom in their natural
science programs. Through coordination with Africam, we have
been able to place video cameras on an eagle's nest and on an
osprey platform. While our eagle's nest venture hasn't been
successful because the nest remains unoccupied, the osprey cam
is proving to be a very valuable educational tool here at the
visitors center and also on-line at our web site.
Friends is presently involved in a major marsh restoration
project in conjunction with the National Aquarium. This program
will involve planting of marsh grasses on approximately 10
acres of land on Barren Island. Our commitment to this project
involves not only the planting, which will require recruitment
of 30 to 60 volunteers per day for a period of up to six days,
but then will require a monitoring activity for a period of at
least 10 years.
We support community members and groups where it also
benefits the refuge. For example, we recently pledged the
support of $2,000 to a 13-year-old Boy Scout who put together a
project involving the planting of over 1,000 trees here on the
refuge. We work with other community organizations. As a
result, construction will begin this summer on a butterfly
garden to be located directly behind the visitor center. We are
working with the Department of Tourism to install and operate a
low-power AM radio station to assist in popularizing the refuge
to people traveling on Route 50.
We anticipate a grant of $15,000 which would be providing
the materials for construction of a handicapped-accessible
educational photo blind and observation site here in the marsh.
We are also anticipating receipt of another grant this summer
which will enable us to develop a canoe/kayak trail through the
marsh. The group is currently involved with refuge staff in
development of plans for a walking trail.
We have done some background work on the possibility of
expanding and updating the visitor center. We have acquired
rough drawings, and the group is presently investigating what
will be necessary in order to put together a feasible capital
campaign.
We conduct, in conjunction with the refuge outdoor
recreation planner, a minimum of three major open houses. We
will do four this year. Our most recent effort, the eagle
festival was held on March 10th. We hosted over 1,350 visitors
on that day here. In order to accommodate the crowd, we had to
split activities between the visitor center and a rented tent,
which evidences the inadequacy of this 40-year-old facility.
We recently hosted a Business After Hours program, where we
presented 22 plaques to organizations in the community which
made significant contributions to the refuge. We have an active
Speakers' Bureau. We financed the development and production of
a video which explains activities here on the refuge. The group
publishes a quarterly newsletter, which is called Tidelines,
which we mail to members, interested groups and community
leaders from Guam to Alaska and Hawaii. We printed 1,200
newsletters last month.
We have our own web site, which was professionally prepared
by a member of the Friends and is maintained by her. FOB
members attend numerous educational and awareness meetings,
conferences, and seminars which are deemed to be potentially
helpful to the refuge. We attend community events to heighten
awareness of the refuge, for example, the Waterfowl Festival,
the National Outdoor Show, Earth Day, those kinds of programs.
The group operates the Eagle's Nest bookstore here, which
has been recognized by many as the best nature book source in
the county for both adults and children. We solicit donations
from individuals and organizations for funds to assist in
obtaining seed to support the crop planting program for the
feeding of migratory waterfowl, and this is becoming a more
important program each year because of the problems with
resident Canada geese and the availability of refuge funds in
general. We are also involved in an active outreach program,
working with the Fish and Wildlife Service in promoting the
concept of Friends groups to other refuges in the system.
So, in summary, the Friends of Blackwater are totally
dedicated to supporting the refuge in all of its missions. But
despite a substantial cadre of very willing volunteers,
refuges, if they are going to increase their interface with the
public in an educational and recreational sense, will have to
be better funded in terms of staff and financial resources in
order to maintain the lands and the missions that have been
entrusted to them.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tillier follows:]
Statement of Ron Tillier, President, Friends of Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge, Inc.
Friends groups can be a tremendous assist and can offer valuable
support to National Wildlife Refuges. At Blackwater, FOB (Friends of
Blackwater) is the backbone of the volunteer effort. Volunteers come
from as far as Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the Western Shore. Last
year, volunteers donated approximately 11,000 volunteer hours or the
equivalent of six and a half fun time employees ranging in activities
from manning the visitor center, operating the bookstore;
administrative and clerical assistance; biological surveys and programs
conducting educational group orientations and conducting guided Refuge
tours. Landscaping around the visitor center and its entrance sign is
done entirely by one volunteer. The visitor center is manned entirely
by volunteers since the Outdoor Recreation Planner is the only staff
person on the premises. While the Refuge presently has a temporary
person at the Center in addition to the permanent staff person, it is
not known how long this position will be funded. Over the past ten
years, the Outdoor Recreation Planner has trained and had 44 part-time
assistants. Volunteers working at the center provide information,
assist in interpretive work run the bookstore and act as hosts to the
Refuge. It is highly doubtful that the Refuge could provide the
amenities of the visitor center without those volunteers. In fact, when
volunteers are not available, the Refuge finds it necessary to close
the Visitor Center.
FOB provides support in virtually all aspects of refuge operations
at BNWR. As a 501(c)(3) organization (nonprofit), all proceeds from the
operation of the refuge bookstore and all other revenues are turned
back to the refuge in some form
A sampling of activities (not in order of importance or time
involved) is provided here for your review:
1. Members of the Friends take part in various biological surveys,
notably our annual eagle count which takes place every January. Others
are actively involved with, or substituting for, Refuge personnel in
the cleaning of nesting boxes in support of the Refuge wood duck
program for example, (there are numerous nesting boxes for various
species on the Refuge) or assisting Refuge biologists in various
monitoring programs.
2. FOB handles all of the administrative detail of the annual hunt
program at the Refuge. This is done by paying a qualified individual
hired through an employment services bureau. The work entails
developing the scope of the hunt with Refuge personnel as well as
regulations, mailings, maps and distribution of information. A member
of the group works very closely with this individual in development and
dissemination of written materials.
3. At the present time, FOB is in process of upgrading exhibits at
the visitor center. Some of the present exhibits date back to the
1960's. This is being done by volunteers in conjunction with Joan
Carroll Designs (a professional exhibits firm) and is being funded by a
$15,000 grant received from the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water
Trails Network (through the National Parks Service) with funds being
matched by FOB. The total expenditure will exceed $30,000. The wits
will be in place by June of this year and will involve a complete
renovation of the entrance interior and the east side of the visitor
center. The upgrade will focus attention on the various topographical
aspects of the refuge, i.e., marsh, woodlands and water. It will also
feature a live beehive with extensive educational material.
4. FOB has funded and developed an Educational Manual which is
being printed this month and will be distributed to schools in
Dorchester and surrounding counties to encourage teachers to integrate
the Refuge as an outdoor classroom into their natural science programs.
The manual was developed with direct input firm teachers to ensure
utilization and compatibility with existing programs. In order to get
teachers to attend the developmental workshops, FOB paid the schools
for substitute teachers. This first manual is for use in elementary
schools; however there is a Junior High School manual and Senior High
School version currently under development. The group obtained funds to
cover the printing of this manual from the local Wal-Mart.
5. FOB, through coordination with Africam and National Geographic,
has been able to place video cameras on an eagle's nest and on an
osprey platform. While our eagle's nest venture has not been successful
because the nest remains unoccupied, the Osprey Cam is proving to be a
valuable educational tool here at the visitor center and online at our
website (www.friendsofblackwater.org) and at the Refuge website, the
Africam website and the website at a local Internet Service Provider.
This project entailed getting the entire local community involved
including Choptank Electric who donated electrical access County
Commissioners who authorized use of a communications tower, Hurst Creek
Computers who provided the technical equipment and expertise; and
Maryland Towers who provided labor and equipment as well as the
expertise of Refuge staff and a member of the Friends.
6. The Friends is presently involved in a major marsh restoration
project in conjunction with the National Aquarium and the Friends of
Eastern Neck Wildlife Refuge. This program will involve planting of
marsh grasses on approximately ten acres of land on Barren Island. Our
commitment to this project involves not only the planting, which will
require recruitment of 30 to 60 volunteers per day for a period of six
days, but then will require monitoring activity for a period of at
least ten years. This project is especially important to the Refuge and
to the Eastern Shore since it involves an attempt to control erosion on
our fast disappearing islands in the Bay- This project is so important
that it is the entire focus of a single member of the Refuge Staff.
Training for monitoring the results of this program will be conducted
in May in conjunction with Eastern Neck Wildlife Refuge and planting on
Barren Island is planned to take place in early June of this year.
7. FOB supports community members and groups where it also benefits
the Refuge. For example, it recently pledged support of up to $2,000 to
a thirteen year old boy scout named Joshua Stone who singlehandedly put
together a project involving the planting of over 1,000 trees on the
Refuge. The total value of the project exceeded $8,000 but through
Joshua's persistence and ingenuity the FOB contribution will be a
little under $1,500. The project actually resulted in the planting of
close to 2,000 trees.
8. FOB works with other community organizations. As a result,
construction will begin this summer on a butterfly garden to be located
directly behind the Visitor Center. This garden, while totally
constructed by the Cambridge Garden Club at substantial expense, is
indicative of the type of relationship it has with other groups in the
area. The garden will be a major educational and recreational addition
to the Refuge and will certainly enhance its ``outdoor classroom''
functionality. An exhibit within the visitor center which is being
funded by FOB will focus on butterflies and the garden.
9. FOB is working with the Department of Tourism to install and
operate a low power am radio station to assist in. popularizing the
Refuge to people traveling route 50. While funding for this project is
provided through the Regional Office of the USFWS, the coordination of
this project is being handled through FOB and a volunteer and FOB
member. This project will require close coordination with the County,
the Department of Tourism., the Highway Department, FCC and Refuge
Staff.
10. FOB is anticipating a grant of $15,000 to provide materials for
construction of a handicapped accessible educational/photoblind and
observation site in the marsh. We are hopeful the funds will pay for
the decking material with the construction being done by volunteers.
This project will greatly improve accessibility to the marsh in terms
of public use for educational and recreational purposes. The group is
expecting to receive a quote for materials very soon and should be
prepared to begin this project in June of this year.
11. The Friends is also anticipating receipt of a substantial grant
this summer which will enable it to develop a canoe/kayak trail through
the marsh. This project will include partnerships with private
individuals, that is, owners of a campground. and a bed and breakfast.
This will be a major effort involving development of the approximately
60 miles of waterway, mapping, signage and administrative details. This
project is designed to greatly increase public use/ accessibility and
will be both educational and recreational.
12. The group is currently involved with the Refuge staff in the
development of plans for a 5-7 mile walking trail. Once again, this is
the type of project that will provide the basis for increased public
use and appeal.
13. FOB has done some background work on the possibility of
expanding/ updating the visitor center. It has acquired rough drawings
and the group is presently investigating what will be necessary in
order to put together a feasible capital campaign. As envisioned, the
building would take on a second floor, with an enclosed glass viewing
area, and newly added wings to provide an expanded auditorium and
potentially house a local folk museum as well.
14. The group has been supportive of the Refuge's Nutria Control
concerns and has hosted a public meeting on this subject to heighten
community, awareness of the damage being done by this invasive species.
The group also talks about this subject whenever the opportunity arises
whether it be through our speaker's bureau, the press or its presence
at numerous community affairs and events.
15. FOB conducts, in conjunction with the Refuge Outdoor Recreation
Planner, a . minimum of three major open houses (four in 2001). These
open houses focus largely on educational activities and feature special
programs for children that are recreational as well. Our most recent
effort, `Eagle Festival'' was held on March 10, 2001. We hosted over
1,350 visitors on that day. In order to accommodate the crowd, we had
to split activities between the visitor center and a rented tent
evidencing the inadequacy of our 40 year old facility. Adults and
children took part in a myriad of programs including: Bird walk; ``What
Blackwater Does for the Eagle--; Eagle Eye View Children's Activity;
Live Peregrine Falcon Program.; Educational Puppet Show; Eagles in
Maryland presentation; Eagle Prowl; ``How To'' Photograph Wildlife;
Children's Eagle Puppet Construction Project; Live Golden Eagle and
Bald Eagle Program; Eagle Nest Production (video) at Iroquois NWR;
Eagles as part of Native American Culture; Children's Arts and Crafts:
What You Can Do To Help Injured Birds; How to Choose Binoculars and
Scopes; Name that Tune Bird Calls; Live Owl Program; Children's Bird
Feeder Construction Activity. Our annual ``Spring Fling and Birding
Festival'' features our now well-known Children's Turtle Race!
16. The group interfaces and recognizes organizations and
individuals who contribute to the Refuge; for example, it recently
hosted a ``Business After Hours'' program in conjunction with the
Dorchester Chamber of Commerce. FOB presented 22 plaques to
organizations making significant contributions to the Refuge directly
or to the Friends which, of course, also benefits the Refuge directly.
17. The group is very active in seeking out grant opportunities to
fund its projects and has sent members to grant writing courses. It has
also paid for other educational courses, for example, Newsletter
Preparation.
18. FOB has an active Speaker's Bureau. The group will provide
speakers to various options and has spoken to senior citizen's groups,
fraternal organizations and various church and business groups.
Typically, these presentations involve a combination of speaking and
short video on the Refuge and the importance of the Refuge to the
community,- however, the subject can be altered to fit the need of the
requesting organization.
19. The group financed the development and production of a video
which explains activities on the Refuge, focusing on its main missions
of providing for migratory birds and waterfowl, endangered species,
public interface and the land and water management programs required to
support those missions.
20. The group publishes a quarterly newsletter ``Tidelines'' which
it mails to members, interested groups, ;and community leaders from
Guam to Alaska and Hawaii. The publication provides news of what's
happening on the Refuge and attempts to provide recognition to staff
members and volunteers for their efforts. We printed 1200 newsletters
last month and mailed 987.
21. FOB has its own web site www.friendsofblackwater.org, which was
professionally prepared by a member of the Friends and maintained by
her. It is an outstanding site with access to the Refuge Osprey Cam and
links to many other educational sites. A visit to the site is the
beginning of a memorable educational voyage.
22. FOB members attend numerous educational and awareness meetings,
conferences and seminars which are deemed to be potentially helpful. to
the Refuge and/or to the group itself. An example would be last year's
Virginia Governor's Conference on Greenways and Blueways.
23. Members are also involved with publicity for the Refuge and are
involved in writing press releases and appearing on radio programs etc.
in support of Refuge activities.
24. Members attend meetings of various types which might affect the
Refuge, e.g. recently we were represented at the Dorchester County
Commissioner's meeting for a hearing on a proposed moratorium of
antenna towers in the County. This moratorium would have adversely
affected our ability to provide the educational Osprey Cam to the
public; hence, we act as advocates to the benefit of the Refuge, the
community, and its tourism opportunity.
25. The group attempts to be constantly attuned to legislation that
has the potential to affect the Refuge and takes positions in favor or
in opposition of such proposed legislation. In this fashion, it tries
to stay in touch with its legislators and on issues affecting itself,
the Refuge and the Community.
26. FOB attends community events to heighten awareness of the
Refuge, the Friends group and associated activities. Examples of events
which. we typically attend and take part in are: Waterfowl Festival;
National Outdoor Show; Shad Festival; Salisbury Zoo Earth Day;
Picketing Creek International Migratory Bird Day; Cambridge Senior
Celebration; 4-H Fair, Seafood Feast-i-Val; Dorchester Outdoor Show;
National Hunting and Fishing Day Show; Horsehead Wetlands Day; and
Picketing Creek Hoe-Down. Refuge activities are always featured and a
booth is manned to provide information.
27. The Group operates the ``Eagle's Nest'' Bookstore which has
been recognized by many as the best nature book source in the county,
for both adults and children. The bookstore holds its own open house
annually where it always has local authors available for book signings
and discussions. One hundred percent of all bookstore profits are
turned back to the Refuge to assist it in its operational needs.
Typical items purchased with funds are: binoculars for use by children
and groups during guided tours) computers, copying machines, tables,
cameras, spotting scopes and other similar equipment. The bookstore has
been selected by the USFWS as its national distributor of ``Wild
Things'' poster tee shirts for the past four years. Our volunteer
bookstore manager is often called upon by groups just staffing
bookstores for advice and counsel.
28. Hyatt is opening a major resort in the area in December. The
group has formed a committee to plan how to take advantage of the
anticipated increase in visitor, to Cambridge.
29. The group assists the Refuge by soliciting donations from
individuals and organizations for funds to assist in obtaining seed and
associated supplies to support its crop planting program for the
feeding of migratory waterfowl This is becoming a more important
program each year because of problems with resident Canada Geese and
availability of Refuge Funds in general.
30. FOB is also involved in an active outreach program working with
the USFWS is promoting the concept of expansion of Friends Groups to
other Refuges in the System. Representatives from FOB have traveled all
over the U.S. to assist Refuges and fledgling Friends groups in their
early developmental stages, often accompanied by the Project Leader at
Blackwater.
31. Most recently, a representative of the Friends attended a four
day Invasive Plants Conference in Washington DC. Attendance at this
conference should prove beneficial to the Refuge as awareness of those
speck issues and their potential impact increase. The Friends will be
in a better position to address the public with solid scientific
information.
32. When it became apparent that storage space had to be expanded
to accommodate the growing inventory of our bookstore, the Friends
brought together a small group of volunteers who constructed the shed
adjacent to the visitor center. There simply is inadequate space in the
present building; hence volunteers and the Friends provided materials
and labor to solve the problem.
In summary, the Friends of Blackwater are totally dedicated to
supporting the Refuge in all of its missions. Additionally, in so
doing, it has the opportunity to be of service to the community as
well. To the extent the group can increase awareness of the Refuge and
its programs to the general public, it will have an effect on local
eco-tourism which .is certainly mutually beneficial.
The most important sources of FOB revenue at the moment are the
bookstore and donations,. Last fiscal year, gross sales in the
bookstore approximated $70,000; however, we do not believe we can
recognize any significant increases above this level due, primarily, to
physical constraints. Additionally, all of that $70,000 does not wend
its way to the Refuge because, despite the fact it is operated by a
volunteer, there are numerous expenses involved. In essence, this means
that we have to find new ways to increase revenue and we are exploring
other means.
For two years, we bad an outstanding source of revenue which
required virtually no effort and represented a 100% profit. As noted
above, the Refuge conducts an annual hunt program. In the past, we have
had donations of a gun which we used as an item to ``raffle''. The cost
of the tickers were borne by a local bank and a volunteer obtained a
display case; hence, we had no associated costs. We began selling
tickets in the Spring and awarded the gun in December. I believe that
this one source of revenue has the potential to exceed the efficacy of
any other revenue source. We have not held a raffle this year because
we were advised by the USFVPS that a raffle is considered gambling and
that gambling is not permitted an government property. The market for
these donations (and we believe that the purchase of a raffle ticket is
truly a ``donation'' and not gambling is the strictest sense of the
word) is on Refuge property because that's where the hunters come to
hunt and to obtain permits. We were informed that if the Secretary of
the Interior would write a letter of exception, that groups such as
ours would be able to use a ``raffle'' as a fund raising activity: The
group addressed a letter to Secretary Babbitt two years ago asking that
an exception be made which would allow nonprofit groups to use rakes as
fund raisers. Unfortunately that letter was shuffled down to the FWS
where a response was prepared that clearly did not recognize the
content of our original letter. It was most disappointing since we know
that groups such as ours (and their associated refuges) would greatly
benefit. It is the hope of our organization that someone in the new
administration will taste the time to revisit this policy and allow us
to maximize our hind raising efforts for the benefit of Refuges
nationwide.
Despite a substantial cadre of willing volunteers, Refuges, if they
are to increase their interface with the public in an educational and
recreational sense, will have to be better funded in terms of staff and
financial resources to maintain the lands and missions entrusted to
them.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this information.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Tillier. Perfect timing.
Mr. Johnson?
STATEMENT OF W. LADD JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN, MARYLAND WATERFOWL
COMMISSION
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir. Blackwater has a special
affinity to me. My uncle, Peter VanHussian, was the first
manager here at Blackwater when it was founded, and since then
I don't think there has been a manager here that I haven't had
as a friend.
We are excited about the possibility of expanding
Blackwater for recreational use. Presently about the only
recreational, consumptive recreational use is deer hunting, and
it is my understanding that almost everyone who applied last
year got a spot to go deer hunting. What is exciting to us is
that many of those people were not residents, which meant hard
currency to our local economy here because they stayed in
hotels, ate in restaurants, and bought nonresident licenses
which help support many of our governmental programs,
particularly in waterfowl.
We are excited about expanding Blackwater into turkey
hunting. I don't know if many of you saw it last night, but
there was a trivia question on Outdoor Life on television last
night, that there are now more turkey hunters than there are
waterfowl hunters, which is rather profound when you look at
it. Although if you look at the National Wild Turkey
Federation, it is growing much more rapidly than any other
nonprofit organization in the country in the sporting field.
We see the future of waterfowl hunting on Blackwater. With
the expanse of Blackwater that we have now, certainly the
Nanticoke watershed, if acquisition could be made over there on
that avenue, it is a satellite area that waterfowl hunting,
particularly goose hunting and duck hunting, could be expanded
over there, with limited rail hunting. As far as hunting here
on the Blackwater proper, where we are seated now, we do not
conceive any hunting opportunities here. The agricultural lands
are too important to sustaining the populations that frequent
Blackwater.
On the nonconsumptive use, we are excited about that. We
think that can be expanded, as the Friends of Blackwater said,
certainly canoe or kayak trails through the marshes. There are
plans now for a rather extensive butterfly garden just outside
the picture window here at Blackwater, being funded by the
Dorchester Garden Club. It will expand that use. Certainly
photography and everything else can be expanded.
What I see also is a desperate need for an educational
center; this close to the Nation's Capital, and the population
that is here within two hours of Blackwater, that Blackwater
could serve as a model for a major population up and down the
Atlantic Flyway to come in and use it both as hunter education
and nonconsumptive education. It could certainly be used by
many organizations out of Washington that are related to
wildlife.
What does concern us is a present attitude or procedure
being introduced by the Fish and Wildlife Service which I have
labeled as ``passive wildlife management.'' They have a more
fancier name than I do. But what it means is, the refuges will
not be managed as they have in the past. They will be converted
back to where they were, as you mentioned, when John Smith
arrived, and I call that passive management or letting nature
take its course. With wildlife today, the three most important
things are food, shelter and water, and if it goes back to the
passive use, of letting nature take its course and the refuge
grows up in native trees and native fauna, then certainly the
food source will not be there.
The private sector and many of the States have taken on
another attitude, which we are very active in, in that my
company designs wildlife habitat for the private sector. It is
what we call ``intensive wildlife management.'' Intensive
wildlife management is planting grain crops, managing it for
maximum production of food sources. And if the attitude of the
Fish and Wildlife Service is to go to the passive, then
certainly what I mentioned to you a while ago on the
nonconsumptive use and the consumptive use of the refuges will
certainly be deteriorating.
The populations of waterfowl, because of our economy and
our new agricultural practices, combines are leaving less grain
in the field for wildlife. Those fields that would normally
have grain residues now are being plowed in the fall and
planted in either barley or wheat. Now, that does serve as some
green browse for Canada geese and deer and turkey, but it does
not provide the energy source that is there for wildlife. So we
are vitally concerned about the movement to the passive use or
letting nature take its course. The only benefit it has, it
costs nothing. So it all relates back to money.
On Blackwater here, my company administers a conservation
seed program where we make seed available for people who will
plant it for wildlife. We do about a million acres total in
States east of the Rockies. Most of it is on private land, but
here on Blackwater and at Eastern Neck and over in Delaware, we
provide the seed to them free of charge so they can have that
seed to plant for wildlife, and we continue to do that program.
We don't object to doing it. We consider it a privilege. It
also serves as a demonstration area to the public who visit
Blackwater, to see what intensive wildlife management can do as
far as sustaining wildlife populations.
We are excited about the use of Blackwater as a
recreational area. We think it can be expanded and should be
expanded, and anything that we can do to assist that, we are
certainly prepared to do so. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Statement of W. Ladd Johnson, President, Resource Management, Inc., and
Chairman, Maryland Waterfowl Commission
Thank you for asking me to participate in this hearing. Blackwater
National Wildlife Refuge has always been a favorite area for me. Its
history is of particular interest since my uncle; Mr. Peter VanHussian
was its first manager. Since then, I do not think there has not been a
manager that I have not had as a friend.
We are excited about the possibility of Blackwater expanding its
recreational use by the public. We understand that presently, the
refuge offers deer hunting--archery, black powder, shotgun and youth
hunting. So far every applicant has been accommodated. One statistic
that is interesting is that of the approximately 3000 people who
participated were non-resident hunters. This is exciting since it meant
hard currency to our local economy for room rents, restaurants,
sporting goods stores, etc. Also, exciting is the potential of
expanding hunting activities to turkey hunting. This sport is the
fastest growing hunting sport in North America and is certainly going
to be paramount to sport hunting to Maryland.
Secondly, I see a future for waterfowl hunting on Blackwater. One
fine opportunity is a resident Canada goose hunting. The problems
created not only on the refuge but other agricultural areas by resident
Canada geese are profound; any way to control their numbers and
depredation should certainly be encouraged. Perhaps the expansion of
the refuge to the Nanticoke River Watershed could allow the hunting of
ducks and migratory geese in those areas. On the refuge proper, those
areas around the agricultural fields, marshland, and woodlands,
migratory waterfowl should be prohibited. The habitat in these areas is
critical to sustain those migratory populations.
Other areas that could be expanded for refuge recreational use are
those of ``Non-Consumption Uses.'' Certainly, the continued use of
observation/photography should be encouraged. Presently, over 500,000
plus persons use the refuge for this entertainment. One important
element that could increase this type of activity is an educational
center; educational classes featuring lectures on endangered species,
invasive plants, etc. on a scheduled basis would create public
awareness. Hunter educational classes for the youth describing how
hunting is an American and a Maryland heritage along with the
prescribed hunter safety courses could all be designed within the
educational center.
Lastly, there are a few comments that we would like to make
concerning the operations of refuge and most national refuges. We are
greatly concerned with the new direction of land management on the
national refuges. The present movement of land management that we have
labeled as ``passive management'' is the virtual act of doing nothing
and letting nature take its course. The USFWS has another grandiose
name for it; but the definition is the same (The act of doing nothing).
This type of land management is not wise as a practice of sustaining
waterfowl and wildlife populations. The only benefit it has is that it
cost the government nothing; it cost wildlife a great deal.
Today's agricultural practices and equipment leave very little as a
nutritional food source for wildlife. Combines leave little grain
residue for wildlife consumption. Corn and soybean fields that would
remain after harvest are now being plowed and converted to wheat or
barley. These crops do offer green browse but in harsh winter months
they don't supply the necessary carbohydrates and energy sources needed
to sustain wildlife.
We encourage you to please review this policy and plan budgetary
funding for what we call ``Intensive Wildlife Management.'' Presently,
we provide seeds through our ``Conservation Seed Program'' for food
plots for wildlife. Over one million acres are planted under this
program annually. Ninety percent is performed on private lands; the
rest is in state wildlife management areas. The private and state
sectors know the importance of ``Intensive Wildlife Management'' Why
does the USFWS look the other way? This year, we are donating the seed
to Blackwater in order that they can plant their lands. We do not
object to donating this seed, we do object to the policies of the
service of ``Passive Wildlife Management.--
Civilization has claimed much of the habitat of our nations
wildlife. The habitat that was present when the colonies were
established is now gone. Therefore, we must sustain our nations
wildlife on much fewer acres; the reason for active wildlife
management. The service should be demonstrating by action the
activities of conservation tillage, eradication of invasive plant
species, reclamation of lost wetlands, and maximization of food sources
for our nations wildlife.
Thank you for allowing us to participate.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Guy Willey.
STATEMENT OF GUY W. WILLEY, SR., WILDLIFE TECHNICIAN
Mr. Willey. Mr. Chairman, my name is Guy Willey, Sr. I
retired after 30 years from the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
I have more than a half century trapping the marshes and
uplands of Dorchester County and on the Eastern Shore.
Before and since my retirement in 1985, I have been
actively employed as a private and contractual trapper, working
both for the Department of Natural Resources, Fish and
Wildlife, and Tudor Farms. I continue to rent public marshlands
for trapping purposes. I feel that I have a significant amount
of knowledge to share with you today. It is therefore with
great pride that I thank you for the opportunity to testify on
how I believe trappers can help control invasive species such
as the nutria on Blackwater and other refuges within the
National Wildlife System.
I began my career as a biological technician in the late
1940's, at a time when muskrat trapping was a primary activity
on Blackwater. During the early years when the refuge was
established in 1933, it served as a fur experimental station.
Muskrats, some of the finest in the Nation, were abundant in
those years, and the annual harvest exceeded more than 25,000
from the refuge marshlands.
At that time the refuge only consisted of about 10,000
acres, 7,000 being marshlands. The three-square bulrush spread
as far as the eye could see, and muskrat houses were so
numerous in many places that you could step from house to
house. But as you all know, we have now seen the change due to
sea level rise, salt water intrusion, and the destruction by
the nutria. Muskrat harvest on the refuge has decreased to an
average of 4,000 a year, and the harvest continues to get less
and less.
This is because the nutria that were introduced in the
1940's and '50's have destroyed much of the habitat that is so
valuable to waterfowl and muskrat. Nutria were released by
several of the locals in the 1950's, and the population has now
grown to an estimated 35,000 to 50,000 on the refuge alone. Our
most productive wetlands are remnants of their former size, and
the wildlife in the area has suffered along with the local
economy, which for centuries depended on extra revenue from
furbearers and other natural resources.
And I could add a little bit about that. We have had, back
in the 1950's and '60's we had Senators and people that have
served in the Maryland House, and I am talking about Senator
Malkus, who said that farming was so bad back in the early when
he was going to school, after he came out of World War II, that
muskrat had supported him, put him through college. And I
really believe that, because of the value of the fur. As you
all know, the fur prices have now decreased so that it is
almost not worthwhile, with the amount of jobs available, even
to have a trapper trap.
In more than 50 years experience as a trapper, I have
gained knowledge of the Chesapeake Bay, the wetlands and
woodlands of the Eastern Shore. Since the early '50's I have
seen the human population explosion along the Bay, and I have
watched many species drop to record low numbers. First we had
the diving duck population, then the black ducks declined, and
later the Canada goose population decreased. All these species
have been placed in a position where the seasons have been
closed or restricted.
However, the most alarming problems in my mind are the loss
of the wetlands, both the marsh vegetation and submerged
vegetation, and the growing invasion of the exotic species like
the nutria, phragmites, loosestrife, gypsy moth, mute swans,
and resident geese that compete with our native wildlife. These
problems must be taken care of before it is too late.
The loss of wetlands affects the waterfowl, eagles, and the
fish and crab life in the Bay and its waters. The economy and
life of the residents of the Eastern Shore are affected. Our
national wildlife refuges should not be havens for these
species, and should set the example for providing the best
practices for how private landowners can control the species on
their land.
Probably my greatest contribution in helping deal with
these problems of wetland loss caused by especially the nutria
can be gained through the knowledge that I have attained over
my years as a trapper. Other trappers and I were willing to
work with the refuge staff to apply new methods and experiment
to take care of, control these species like the nutria.
For example, since 1990 refuge trappers, working only on
the incentive of $1.50 in their bid for each nutria harvested,
have removed more than 34,000, according to the refuge records.
My understanding of the 3-year pilot program is that 50 percent
of the current trappers employed are experienced local trappers
which have demonstrated interest in the local level of
attempting to deal with these problems.
It is when the pilot program has been completed that the
real work will begin. I believe it will be the local trapper
who will be able to take the new methods from the pilot program
and use them to help achieve the goal of complete eradication.
There is also the issue of access to private lands to help
control invasives, such as nutria, which can subsequently
reinfest the refuge even if the refuge control is successful.
Therefore, local trappers must be the key in achieving success
on private lands.
And I would like to add a little something. Many of the
private lands, like Laddie mentioned before, are under lease to
waterfowl, deer, turkey hunting. Sometimes these leases net a
good return to the owners. Therefore, the nutria removal will
be in conflict with these activities.
And there are some landowners who have a dislike for the
Federal and State government and may not want to cooperate.
Some of the dislike has been brought on by law enforcement
activities, restriction on land due to the Critical Areas Act
by the State, and the problem with the Delmarva fox squirrel
and eagle regulations placed on them in the Endangered Species
Act.
Mr. Chairman, while I have the opportunity, I would also
like to say a few words about the status of our refuges and
what I see as the major issues facing Blackwater today. As a
retired career employee and life resident of the area, I see
things that maybe other folks don't see and hear easily, and I
hope that the folks with the Fish and Wildlife Service will
find useful.
Funding is needed not only to control the nutria and slow
down the decline of these important habitats on the National
Refuges and State and private lands, but also to properly meet
the other mandates the refuges have. And I have listed in this
little letter I wrote to you all, the major issues I see as the
following.
Right now there is a move on I saw on TV, in Delaware,
which you are not a Congressman from Delaware but it still
affects, that Prime Hook was planting trees in lands that were
purchased for waterfowl. Prime Hook Refuge was purchased back
as a waterfowl refuge because of the decline in the duck
population and the snow goose problem they had. But they had a
big story on Channel 16 the other night and said that they were
planting all these fields back into pine trees because this way
they wouldn't have to farm, so it cuts back on the cost.
But this kind of makes it crazy to me, because if you
decrease the farming operations, here we are trying to manage
for the Delmarva fox squirrel, and in the years of low mast
when you don't have much acorns and all, what we find, these
squirrels will survive on the corn and milo left on a lot of
these areas that are left for wildlife use, like many farmers
will leave the edge. They leave it for deer, or they may leave
it for turkey, and the squirrel is a beneficiary of it. So it
kind of makes me wonder what is happening, if they are going to
start planting just trees, just to plant trees.
Also here at Blackwater I feel that we should continue to
fund the nutria program, provide more maintenance funds for
building roads and dikes. And probably the most, the biggest
problem that we have here at Blackwater is, back in the late
'80's there was a break from the Chesapeake Bay that entered
Parsons Creek.
And what happened, when the break happened, it cut through
the upper Blackwater, and then the salt water invaded the upper
Blackwater, and now the salt water flows from the Chesapeake
Bay all the way back out to Fishing Bay again, and this has
caused a great change in the vegetation, along with the nutria
damage. And to control this problem, a dam at the upper
Blackwater River could take care of this by damming off and
stopping the water from coming in at Taylor's Island and coming
into the refuge.
I think that the manager here has talked a lot about it in
the past years, and I have kept pretty much in touch with him.
But that is a problem now that should be accomplished even
before we get done with the nutria population, because if you
are going to restore the marshes, you want to be able to
restore vegetation that is going to be native and not something
that is going to come back in again, like we have in phragmites
or salt marsh or those type of marshes.
We should continue to burn the marshes to maintain the
three-square that we have left. Now, there is a lot of people
that don't like burning. We have a lot of people that visit the
refuge, when I left here in 1985, and they come down and they
see these fires burning on these marshes and they think that is
terrible. I have had people that talked real bad to me when we
have been out burning marshes, and they say, ``What are you
doing?''
But they don't realize that it does two things. The three-
square plant is a plant like the tulip, and like in the spring
it is the first plant that comes up. If it doesn't get that
start, then the other plants take over and that plant doesn't
do as well. Controlled burning of the marshes helps keep that
plant, keep the three-square plant and holds it, because the
three-square plant is one that is becoming endangered not only
in Maryland but I think also in Louisiana, from what I read,
and that is the bulrush, three-square bulrush.
Also, we must continue to burn the woodland areas to
prevent the summertime fire by reducing fuel in these areas, in
these pine areas. By doing it in the winter, there is no damage
to the pines. Because if we don't, then if we get a summertime
fire, then it is going to destroy the habitat for both the
Delmarva fox squirrel and the eagles who nest along the edge.
Also, I think we should increase the effort to control the
Canada goose, resident Canada goose population. And I know the
refuge has had a big problem with it, and I don't always agree
with Glenn on this, and I don't like to see these birds killed,
and he knows how I feel about it.
But maybe they could set up a special hunting period on the
refuge in the fall, where it doesn't interfere with the public,
close off the drive and say we are going to have a hunt and try
to kill, knock back some of these 3,000 or 4,000 resident geese
that do so much damage. If we don't do that, then they will
continue to increase, because I think when I left in 1985 there
was only about 1,500. Now they are up to 4,000 or 5,000
resident birds, and they continue to increase.
Another thing, too, we have created this problem, and maybe
Dan don't have much to do with this, but the regulations, when
we closed the Canada goose season on the Eastern Shore for the
past years by the State because of the migratory birds, low
population of birds, and I was in agreement with that, we have
also created a problem because many of these local Canada geese
were killed in the five-mile area of the refuge, and the reason
we know this, because we had a lot of them collared with the
white collars on them. And by not killing those birds, there is
no hunting season so these birds continue to increase.
And what is happening now to the birds, why the farmers are
raising so much hell, is because the birds are so tame after
four or five years of not hunting, they will walk right on up
to the barn. They are right in your back yard, even the
migratory birds.
And what is going to happen is, if we don't have some kind
of season, the migratory birds are going to be knocked back
real heavy because they are going to be so dumb when they come
in, in the first few years. The young will be killed off again,
and then we will wonder why we don't have any migratory birds,
because the younger they are will be the ones not going to be
as smart.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Willey, I think if you are just about
done, we need to move on.
Mr. Willey. Yes, I am done.
Mr. Gilchrest. You will be able to add some more of your
experience.
Mr. Willey. Yes, that is all. I am going to say one thing
in closing. I appreciate you all letting me talk, and Glenn
knew that I couldn't say what I had to say in five minutes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Glenn didn't warn us about that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Willey. We
appreciate your testimony, and your years of valuable
experience will be important to us to help continue to manage
this refuge and the Nation's refuges.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Willey follows:]
Statement of Guy W. Willey, Sr., Wildlife Technician
Mr. Chairman, my name is Guy W. Willey, Sr. I am a retired 30 year
career employee with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and have more
than half a century of experience trapping the marshes and uplands of
Dorchester County and Maryland's Eastern Shore. Before and since my
retirement in 1985, I have been actively employed as a private and
contractual trapper working for the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and Tudor Farms. I continue
to rent private and public marshlands for trapping purposes, and feel
that I have a significant amount of knowledge to share with you today.
It is therefore with great pride that I thank you for the opportunity
to testify on how I believe trappers can help control invasive species,
particularly nutria, on Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge and other
refuges within the National Wildlife Refuge System.
I began my career as a Biological Technician with the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in the late 1940's at a time when muskrat trapping
was a primary activity on Blackwater Refuge. During the early years
after the refuge's establishment in 1933, Blackwater served as a
furbearer experimental station. Muskrats, some of the finest quality in
the nation, were abundant in those years, and the annual harvest often
exceeded 25,000 from refuge marshlands. The lush three square bulrush
marshes spread as far as the eye could see, and muskrat houses were so
numerous that in many places that you could step from one house to the
next. But as you know, all that has now changed due to a number of
factors including sea level rise, land subsidence, salt water
intrusion, and the destructive nutria. Muskrat harvest on the refuge
has decreased to an average of about 4,000 a year, and the harvest
continues to get less and less each year. Nutria were introduced to the
area in 1943 to determine if they could survive the northern climate
and cold winters, thereby stimulating the fur economy. Nutria were
released by several of the locals in the early 1950's. As you know, the
population quickly grew to the more than 35,000 to 50,000 that are
estimated to be on Blackwater Refuge today. Our once productive
marshlands are but remnants of their former size, and all the wildlife
in the area has suffered, along with the local economy that has.for
centuries depended on the extra revenue from our furbearers and other
natural resources. What was once large expanses of marshlands are now
shallow unproductive waters that have high amounts of suspended
sediments and support little wildlife.
In more than 50 years of experience as a trapper, I have gained a
thorough knowledge of the Chesapeake Bay, the wetlands, and woodlands
of the Eastern Shore. Since the early `50's, I have seen the human
population explosion along the Bay and I have watched many species drop
to record low numbers. First, the diving duck population, then the
black ducks declined, and later the Canada goose populations decreased.
All the above species have been placed in a position where seasons have
been closed or restricted. However, the most alarming problems in my
mind are the loss of wetlands, both marsh vegetation and submerged
vegetation, and the growing invasion of exotic species like the nutria,
phragmites, purple loosestrife, gypsy moth, mute swans, and many other
species that often out compete our native wildlife. These problems must
be taken care of before it's too late. The loss of wetlands affects the
waterfowl, eagles, and the fish and crab life of the Bay and its
waters. The economy and life of the residents of the Eastern Shore are
also affected. Our national wildlife refuges should not be havens for
these species, and they should set the example for providing the best
practices on how private landowners can effectively control these
species on their lands.
I believe that my greatest contribution in helping deal with these
problems of wetland loss caused by invasive species is in the knowledge
I have obtained throughout my years as a trapper. Other trappers and I
are willing to work with refuge staff to apply new methods and
experiment with new strategies to help control invasive species like
nutria. For example, since 1990 refuge trappers, working on only the
incentive of $1.50 reduction in their trapping bid for each nutria
harvested, have removed 34,300 nutria according to refuge records. My
understanding of the 3year pilot program is that 50% of the current
trappers employed are experienced local trappers, which had
demonstrated interest at the local level in attempting to deal with
these problems. It's when the pilot program has been completed, that
the real work begins. I believe it will be the local trappers who will
be able to take the new methods and strategies that this pilot effort
will provide, and use them to help achieve the ultimate goal which is
eradication. There is also the issue of access onto private lands to
help control invasives, such as nutria, which can subsequently
reinfects the refuge even if the refuge is successful. Local trappers
will be the key to achieving success on private lands.
In order to achieve this goal, we need to enlist the support and
help of all landowners within the current range of nutria. What better
individuals to assist in that coordination and action than the trappers
and hunters which currently use those lands.
Mr. Chairman, while I have the opportunity, I'd also like to say a
few words about the status of our refuges and what I see as the major
issues faced by Blackwater Refuge today other than the issues with
invasives. As a retired career employee and life resident of this area,
I see things that others might not as easily see and hear things that
others might not as easily hear that I hope you and the folks with the
Fish and Wildlife Service will find useful.
Obviously funding is needed not only to control invasives and slow
down the rate of decline of these important habitats found on our
National Refuges, State and Private lands adjacent to the Bay, but also
to properly meet the many other mandates that our refuges have.
The major issues I see today are as follows:
1. Increase the farming operations to provide more food for the DFS
(Delmarva fox squirrel) as well as waterfowl. Small areas of corn, milo
and soybean sometimes (in a year of low mast production) mean the
difference between maintaining the endangered DFS population at a good
level.
2. Provide more maintenance funds for buildings, roads and dikes.
3. Continue to fund the nutria reduction program.
4. Begin to stop the erosion of the marsh by cutting off the salt
water from the bay, which is now entering the refuge from Parsons
Creek, (a dam in the upper Blackwater River can accomplish this).
5. Continue to control burn the marshes to maintain the three-
square marsh, so important to waterfowl. Burn woodland areas to prevent
summer time fires by reducing fuels. This will maintain the adjacent
wooded areas for both the DFS and the Bald Eagle population.
6. Increase efforts to control the resident Canada goose
population. This may require a special hunting period in the early
fall.
7. Open the season on the refuge for a small period on the snow
goose population, which continues to increase on the Eastern Shore.
This specie is doing damage to many of the refuges.
8. The acres of Barren Island, Smith Island and many private owned
lands continue to erode in the bay. The Department of Interior must
work along with the Corp of Engineers to find the best method and cost
efficient way to slow down this erosion problem.
9. I believe the loss of the wetlands and shore erosion, which
places a heavy sediment load in the bay and rivers. This will be the
downfall of the bays production of the crabs, oysters, fish and all the
other species that depend on it.
In closing, dedication by the Congress will help begin the process
to restore our refuges to a higher standard and place pride back in our
employees.
Thanks, for the opportunity to be heard by the Committee.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I might say to some of the local farmers
that have geese problems, though, a couple of shots from a
shotgun every once in a while does a lot of good to scare the
geese off, or just let the dog go. But, anyway, I know there is
a problem with the resident geese, and that is one of the areas
that we certainly want to try to cover.
What I would like to do now is to just ask the panel a
number of questions dealing with a whole range of activities:
the comprehensive conservation plans, how they are moving along
nationwide, but in particular with Blackwater; certainly deal
with the nutria problem; get some feedback between Mr. Ashe and
Mr. Johnson about passive or intensive management and is one
more appropriate than the other, or is a region dependent
upon--the use of passive might be good for one place, the use
of intensive might be better management for another area; so
those kinds of things.
I would like to start, though, with Mr. Ashe, and there is
never enough money, it seems. I have a daughter in college, and
there never seems to be enough, quite enough money.
[Laughter]
The difference between the National Park Service funding
and our refuge funding is rather dramatic, and I would like to
ask you your opinion on how we could better bring that into
some more, a little more equity. I mean, when you consider the
number of acres in America's refuges and the number of acres in
our National Park System, we have a lot more acres in the
refuges, and the growing population of visitors has
dramatically increased. And the importance of the refuges to
wildlife, to biological diversity, to an outdoor school for us
to understand ecosystems and precedents for ecosystem
management is pretty extraordinary.
The other thing is, Fish and Wildlife--and I know, Dan, you
didn't make up the President's budget, I don't think--are
asking, the Service is asking for $2.7 million for invasive
species control. Now, if we are asking for $1.9 million for
Blackwater and $2.7 million is requested nationwide, is that
enough? Would you describe it as a pittance?
Mr. Ashe. To answer your question, no, it is not enough to
address the needs. If you just look, as I said, at our refuge
operating needs database, as we did in preparation for this
hearing, and you query the database and say how many projects
are there pertaining to invasive species (and these are
projects that have been identified by our managers nationwide),
there are over 300 projects totaling more than $120 million. We
anticipate that that will probably be over $150 million by the
end of this year, in terms of projects that have been
identified by our managers as things they need to do in order
to address invasive species.
Mr. Gilchrest. You are saying about $150 million in
identified projects, with $2.7 million requested?
Mr. Ashe. That is correct. Clearly our needs outstrip our
capacity, and so what we have to do in that context is set
priorities. Your question was a large one, and I guess I would
maybe back up and say, I have a lot of respect for President
Bush. He made a commitment in the context of his campaign that
he was going to deal with the Park System maintenance backlog.
And those of us in the Fish and Wildlife Service, every
time we heard the word ``parks'' come out of his mouth, we
wanted him to say ``and refuges.'' Many of us were working to
try to get him to do that at that point in time. It didn't
happen, and so his budget for this year reflects his campaign
promise, which was to deal with the issue of Park System
maintenance.
And so what we have been and are continuing to do is to
work within the Administration to try to raise the profile and
the priority of the Refuge System. I think we have had good
success. The dollars that we have in the budget now are there
because we did push the issue within the Administration and we
did get the support of Secretary Norton for the increase that
we have in our budget. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Park Service are the only two agencies within the Department of
the Interior that are seeing increases for this year. So we
were successful. Yet, our needs outstrip our available dollars.
That is--
Mr. Gilchrest. It is a massive problem. Well, we will--
Mr. Ashe. I want to say thank you because I know you and
Congressman Hansen have written to President Bush, and I know
other Members are working on behalf of the Refuge System, and I
think that is what needs to happen.
Mr. Gilchrest. Sure. I guess when you look at the problems
with Medicare, Medicaid, education, national defense, bridges
that are falling down, the whole range of Federal
responsibilities, this unfortunately takes short shrift to
those things. But we will continue to push to get the
appropriate funding in a priority sense, and Blackwater will be
one of those areas, because of the urgency that we are seeing.
Ms. Thompson, the State participation in this has been very
well performed, and we appreciate that. I just have a couple of
questions. The eradication program, you talked about, explained
eradication. There are control sites and there are eradication
sites.
Ms. Thompson. Well, they are one and the same thing. In the
treatment, you mean, in the pilot program?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Ms. Thompson. There are generally, in a research, you know,
scientific research projects, you have a control and you have
an experimental measurement that you are taking. So we have
control sites where we are doing nothing, and we have treatment
sites where we are going to do intensive eradication in 2002 to
see--
Mr. Gilchrest. And the control sites are a measure to see
the reaction--
Ms. Thompson. Of the population.
Mr. Gilchrest. --from the actual eradication?
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. To see if there is any extra activity as far
as procreation is concerned, or change of activity or movement
by the nutria?
Ms. Thompson. Exactly. We want to see where they go. We
want to see if they run away. We want to see if they respond
reproductively to the population reduction that we're
conducting there, and give us some information about--what we
essentially don't want to do is just start an eradication
program and make some mistakes, expensive mistakes that are
caused by the biology of the animal which we are just, you
know, trying to understand, or that are caused by environmental
factors, weather, tides, et cetera.
In other words, if we had a large increase in sea level
rise that eliminated some habitat for, let's say, the nutria,
and we thought we were successful in eradicating them--
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, I see.
Ms. Thompson. --we backed off, and that recovered, they
would explode again. So we want to understand their interaction
with their environment and their reproductive response to
reduction in population before we implement a serious, broad
eradication program, and that is why we need to get the data
from the pilot program.
Mr. Gilchrest. How much money has the State of Maryland
contributed to the nutria pilot project?
Ms. Thompson. I knew you would ask that question.
Mr. Gilchrest. And are those dollars being spent not only
here in Blackwater, but places such as Tudor Farms or other
areas?
Ms. Thompson. You know, I am not familiar with whether or
not we have contributed actual dollars to the pilot project. We
have contributed a lot of in-kind, so a tremendous amount of
salary has gone into it.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. So the DNR staff have spent
considerable time participating in the pilot project?
Ms. Thompson. Yes. We had our director at the time pretty
much fully engaged, so we had his--
Mr. Gilchrest. Who was that?
Ms. Thompson. He was Mike Slattery, and he is no longer
with us as of last Thursday, and I am trying to catch up on
his--
Mr. Gilchrest. We are very happy to work with you.
Ms. Thompson. Great.
Mr. Gilchrest. We were disappointed with Mike Slattery's
change of career.
Ms. Thompson. Us, too. We miss him.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, we are all going to miss him.
Ms. Thompson. But we also have a furbearer biologist, and
he has been working very much on this, so it is his salary as
well as equipment and time and so on that we have contributed
to it.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Ms. Thompson. And how much, I would have to get back to you
on that. We do have the numbers because we used them,
obviously, for grant processes.
Mr. Gilchrest. We would appreciate that.
Ms. Thompson. I will do that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Can you just quickly tell us, or maybe
somebody on the panel, how you put a radio collar on a nutria?
Ms. Thompson. Well, I have to go to my lifeline. Can I go
to my lifeline?
Mr. Gilchrest. Sure.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Thompson. Where are they? Mark, Mark Sherfy.
Mr. Sherfy. Yes, Mark Sherfy from the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Chesapeake Bay Field Office. Basically, the
animals are caught in cage traps or a box trap. It takes a team
of two people to handle the live animal. It is restrained with
a pole that has got a cable that holds it, basically holds the
animal down.
And the collar itself is really nothing more than a piece
of cable that has got plastic around it, that slips over the
head and it is tightened down to just the right tension so that
it stays on the animal. It is not loose enough so the animal
can get a foot up behind it, and it is not tight enough so that
it hurts the animal. It just basically rides around the neck
like a necklace, a little--with the actual radio part hanging
below the chin, and the antenna back up over the back.
Mr. Gilchrest. Does it have a big range, do you know yet?
Mr. Sherfy. Some of them do. Many of the animals who have
been followed stay within say a couple hundred yards. We have
had animals that have moved--oh, one that was seven, and a half
miles, we picked up off of Tudor Farms and headed down the
river about seven miles. So there are those outliers that pick
up and move long distances, and those are the ones that are
really interesting from an eradication standpoint. Those are
the animals we really need to understand. You know, the ones
that are staying in a relatively small area are not nearly as
significant from an eradication standpoint. We need to get the
ones who are making large distances.
Mr. Gilchrest. Interesting. Thank you.
Ms. Thompson. Thank you, Mark.
Mr. Gilchrest. Can you tell us something about, I guess I
would like to know a little bit more, and we probably should
call the Corps on this, the Corps' participation in the
restoration of the wetlands that apparently have been destroyed
because of nutria or sea level rise.
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. How engaged is the Corps in that, or the
State as partnering with the Corps and Fish and Wildlife? Is
that at the very early stages?
Ms. Thompson. Yes, it is the very early stages, and we are
very engaged but I think we are at the very beginning of that.
I understand the Corps wants to start their preliminary
investigation of wetland restoration this summer. They are
hoping to do that. I got the sense from Steve Kopecky yesterday
at our meeting that we have some understaffing issues over
there, as well.
But that is their intention, to start this summer, and he
and I are going to sit down in the very near future to talk
about the 150 acres of marsh restoration that we have been
planning, I understand, for some time. They are using Federal
grant money to do that, so obviously we need a non-Federal
match. The State is going to be providing that non-Federal
match as a budget amendment in FY '02. So we need to sit down
still and talk about what our goals are and how much money the
State needs to contribute in that amount.
Mr. Gilchrest. I know it is at the very early stages of
that, but I would assume if you are going to restore some
wetlands, that there is going to be some material moved from
one place to another.
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. And would that likely be dredge material,
and where might that material be dredged from?
Ms. Thompson. Those are all tricky issues, and I understand
we are still discussing them. From what we talked about
yesterday, we are still discussing that. It is still a little
uncertain.
It is also uncertain how the marsh restoration would occur
in the areas where we are doing eradication, would that
conflict, and we need to resolve that still. So as soon as we
do, we will let you know what happened and where we are going,
but we are still--
Mr. Gilchrest. And we would like to be, along with the
refuge here and certainly probably with some of the people at
this table, we would like to stay engaged in that process--
Ms. Thompson. Absolutely.
Mr. Gilchrest. --to help with whatever funding was
possible.
Ms. Thompson. Absolutely.
Mr. Gilchrest. Certainly where the dredge material might
come from, I would assume--
Ms. Thompson. I think what we can commit to is an update
for you and all of our partners on what we are doing, what we
have decided to do, both in wetland restoration and in the
eradication, and what we are finding. As we move toward
eradication and wetland restoration over the next year, that is
going to be really important, so we will do that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. Mr. Tillier, can you comment on--
you made a comment about the restoration or planting grass on
Barren Island. First of all, I found your testimony fascinating
in the amount of work that you and your colleagues do for
America, basically, on this refuge. I was wondering if all of
the people that are working with you are retired, or you do
this after hours, or you get mileage or some kind of insurance
coverage or however that works. But we certainly appreciate all
that you are engaged in. The restoration and planting grass at
Barren Island, I found that fascinating.
Mr. Tillier. Yes, sir. This whole project really began on
Eastern Neck Wildlife Refuge, where they did a pilot program,
if you will, and they did some planting of marsh grasses. That
was done in conjunction with the National Aquarium and also
with the Corps of Engineers, who moved dredge material over
there and then they planted.
Then we were approached here by the Friends of Eastern
Neck, who had participated in that project, to see if we would
be interested, and by the National Aquarium, who came to us as
a group to see if we would be interested in doing something
here locally. We also since then had an individual by the name
of John Gill, who is a biologist here on the refuge,
responsible for the islands, and John Gill is very much
interested in this project and had been in conversation also
with people at the National Aquarium, and he asked the Friends
if we would be interested in doing that.
So at one of our regular board meetings, we entertained the
proposal, which we understood would be to do two things: number
one, to go to Eastern Neck and provide a cadre, a small cadre
of people from the Friends who would learn how to monitor the
results of any kind of a planting effort. That is planned for
the month of May here. Then we are--
Mr. Gilchrest. So you haven't started planting grass yet?
Mr. Tillier. No, not yet. We are going to go first to the
training session with a small cadre. The board then got one of
our volunteers who is really pulling together the numbers of
volunteers which we are going to need, which are substantial.
We are going to need 30 to 60 people a day for up to six days,
and--
Mr. Gilchrest. Where would the grass come from?
Mr. Tillier. I am really not sure where the grass will come
from. Our emphasis has been on right now trying to get the
people who are going to get this done.
Mr. Gilchrest. The Aquarium is providing the grass?
Mr. Tillier. That is my understanding, but I am not 100
percent sure.
Mr. Gilchrest. This is not SAVs. This will be upland
grasses?
Mr. Tillier. Again, yes, it is upland grasses.
Mr. Gilchrest. Will there be any need for dredge material?
Mr. Tillier. I believe that has already been done.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, it has been done?
Mr. Tillier. That is in place, so at this point it is going
to be a matter of getting all of these people out there, and we
are beginning this planting process on June 4th, so it will run
over a period of up to six days. It was done, of course, in
consideration of tides, et cetera.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes. I would like, if we have an
opportunity, I would like to come down and help stick some of
the shoots in the ground.
Mr. Tillier. We will definitely--you definitely have an
invitation, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. And we certainly appreciate all
the work you have done in that area.
Mr. Johnson, I guess I will go to that intensive/passive. I
want to thank you for all the work you have done on the refuges
around the country, and I find it fascinating that you provide
some of that feed for the wildlife for free.
Mr. Johnson. Well, the best explanation I can give you to
that is, I dumbed myself into a major industry.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. That sounds--that is a good line--that
sounds like a poor elected official.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Johnson. My company is called Resource Management, and
we are wildlife consultants. We design wildlife habitat, and we
have designed about 2 million acres for the private sector in
the past 10 years.
Mr. Gilchrest. This is across the country?
Mr. Johnson. Across the country, yes, primarily in the
South. Most of our work has been in the South, because that is
where most of the sporting activity takes place. Most of our
work is to enhance someone's sporting opportunity.
And in doing so, we were recommending that they plant, this
crop or that crop, so I got the idea, well, some of these seed
companies have to have seed left over this year, or a
discontinued variety that they have to get rid of. And since it
is treated for planting, it becomes a hazardous waste to them
when it is no longer on the market.
So I approached the largest seed company about discounting
that seed to us, to make it available to clients. And I arrived
in Des Moines, Iowa, to visit with the Pioneer Seed Company. My
meeting was at 1:30 and I arrived at 11. They had scheduled a
tour for me to go around to see their facilities.
We passed these huge grain bins and I said, ``Gee, is that
where you keep your seed?'' And they said, ``No, that's where
we keep our out-of-date seed.'' And they said, ``Do you know it
costs us a quarter of a million dollars to get rid of that each
year?'' So I went to the meeting now not asking for a discount,
with a proposal on how to get rid of their out-of-date seed,
how to save them a quarter of a million dollars a year.
[Laughter.]
And since then we are representing about 80 percent of the
left-over grain seed in North America. The seed companies
donate it.
Mr. Gilchrest. This is grain?
Mr. Johnson. This is corn, grain sorghum, sunflowers,
wheat, barley, oats, any treated seed.
Mr. Gilchrest. So when you take that grain and distribute
it in various places, is it planted or is it just spread for
feed?
Mr. Johnson. It is planted.
Mr. Gilchrest. It is planted?
Mr. Johnson. It is planted. It can't be put back in the
food chain because it is treated. We are putting it back in the
ground, which was its intended use, but instead of being
planted for profit, we are planting it now for wildlife.
Mr. Gilchrest. Does this go to private landowners?
Mr. Johnson. Private landowners. Each person--
Mr. Gilchrest. Does any of it go to refuges or for State
land?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, almost every Federal refuge that has a
planting program is using this program, yes. The way it works--
Mr. Gilchrest. How is it--
Mr. Johnson. --we have designed it to go through nonprofit
organizations. The Wild Turkey Federation is our largest. Quail
Unlimited is second.
Mr. Gilchrest. Who distributes the seed?
Mr. Johnson. The various chapters of those organizations.
Each person who receives one bag signs a disclaimer that he is
going to plant it and leave it for wildlife; that it cannot be
traded, sold or harvested for profit. And in seven years, sir,
not one person has violated that.
The policing mechanism are the people and the chapters
themselves, because we have made it perfectly clear that if one
person in a chapter violates it, that chapter can no longer
participate. So we have actually had members hear rumors that
someone was going to plant corn and harvest it for silage, and
they went out and picked it up out of his barn and took it
back. They wouldn't even let him do it on a rumor. So that
program has been very effective.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is tough.
Mr. Johnson. So that is how the seed program started.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Johnson. The private sector is utilizing what I
described to you as intensive management. The tonnage and
energy generated from intensive management far exceeds what I
described as passive management.
A few years ago ``moist soil management'' was the buzz word
in Washington for waterfowl habitat. Moist soil management has
its place, but moist soil management is nothing more than a wet
weed patch. It does create some energy, it does create some
microorganisms that will generate when you put water on it, but
nothing near the tonnage that grain crops will do.
Agriculture has changed so much since the '50's until now,
the residue is no longer there for wildlife, so we have to look
at intensive management. And the private sector, quite frankly,
is doing a magnificent job. In some cases the State is
utilizing intensive management, also.
Mr. Gilchrest. Let me just jump now to Mr. Ashe on passive
management versus intensive management. Based on what Mr.
Johnson said in his testimony and has just alluded to now, can
you comment on that as far as our Refuge System is concerned?
Mr. Ashe. I guess I would just say I am a little bit
perplexed, and maybe if we have a discussion we will get down
to the root of the issue. I mean, I am very familiar with our
Refuge System, and we do intensive management. We do some of
the most intensive management in the world.
If you go to refuges like Sacramento River or Klamath
National Wildlife Refuge, you will see intensively managed
refuges, the entire breadth of which look like what you see
behind you here in Blackwater, with impoundments and farm
fields. And we do that because the habitat has been so altered
that it is necessary for us to do that.
Sacramento River Refuge and San Luis Refuge in the Central
Valley of California provide the wintering habitat for the
remaining population of Aleutian Canada goose (which we just
delisted, or took off the Endangered Species List) so we have
to manage those lands intensively to support those birds. They
have plenty of habitat on the northern breeding range in
Alaska. When they come to their wintering range in the Central
Valley of California, Sac River and San Luis are all they have
left, so we have to manage and do manage those refuges very
intensively. The same thing for Klamath, and the same thing at
Bosque del Apache along the Rio Grande. We manage land very
intensively where we need to manage land.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are there areas, then, that the Fish and
Wildlife is considering less intensive management? Mr. Johnson,
is this something that you have heard, or is it a direction--
Mr. Johnson. No, I understand that there is a directive
out, and I forget, there is a name for this directive, and I
apologize for not having that with me. But as Mr. Willey
alluded to Prime Hook, planting Prime Hook's agricultural lands
in trees when it should be intensively managed for that
waterfowl population--
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, this is a Fish and Wildlife Refuge in
Delaware?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, and there is a directive out there, I
believe, that says to put it back the way it was--as a matter
of fact, it said between 800 and 1800 A.D., is the way the
directive reads, and I apologize for not having it with me. I
can make it available to you, but there is a directive.
Mr. Gilchrest. A policy of maintaining--oh, I see, this is
the issue of ecological integrity.
Mr. Johnson. That is it.
Mr. Ashe. The ecological integrity policy and biological
integrity policy does not tell our managers to let nature take
its course. That is not the purpose of the integrity policy. In
fact, the policy recognizes that, in many cases, to achieve our
purpose at our refuges, we do have to manage intensively,
depending upon the nature of our business and what our purpose
is at the refuge.
Mr. Johnson is right, we do a substantial amount of moist
soil management on refuges, because what we have realized as a
result of the developing science on moist soil management is
that we can manage areas for waterfowl, we can produce ``hot
food,'' as they say in the wildlife business, for migrating
waterfowl, but also continue to manage those areas to provide
the wetland benefits that benefit a diversity of species.
So that we can rely principally on native plants, we can
leave areas in their wetland state, not as a drained farm field
but leave them in their wetland state. We can also manage the
water levels better at that point to benefit migrating
shorebirds as well, so that we get more out of those areas by
managing them in that way. We are not managing exclusively for
waterfowl, but we are managing then for a diverse array of
wildlife species.
Mr. Gilchrest. Would there be, in the process of planning,
the concept of passive management versus intensive management,
would the goal for the refuge be different under passive
management versus intensive management?
Mr. Ashe. The goal of the refuges, I mean, our refuge, each
refuge has--
Mr. Gilchrest. Would the goal then be more broad for
passive versus intensive?
Mr. Ashe. Each refuge has a purpose, and I agree, refuges
like Blackwater and Prime Hook are refuges that were
established for migratory birds, principally waterfowl. And so
we have an obligation to meet our purpose. That is also
reflected in our integrity policy: our first responsibility is
to accomplish our purpose. If that purpose is waterfowl
conservation, then we first have to accomplish waterfowl
conservation.
But we also have a responsibility to manage our refuges
for, in many cases, for a variety of migratory waterfowl or
migratory species, in some cases endangered species like the
Delmarva fox squirrel here at Blackwater. So we have to manage
for those also. So those purposes are going to dictate how we
manage. In some cases, again, at our refuges we are looking at
how we can manage the same piece of real estate, for waterfowl
purposes, but also manage them for migrating shore birds.
And I don't know the issue at Prime Hook. Maybe it is
funding. Maybe the manager is saying, ``I can't farm those
fields because I don't have the dollars to farm them, so in
order to prevent invasives from coming in and other problems,
I'm going to put them back into trees. I'm going to put that
area back into forest.'' It is also possible that the manager
may have said, ``In order to provide benefits for migrating
neotropical songbirds, I need more forest habitat on the
refuge.''
We can learn more about that case, but usually when a
manager is doing something like that, they are doing it for a
management reason. They are doing it because they have a reason
to do it. And my guess would be that they have looked at the
issue and they have said, ``We can accomplish our waterfowl
purpose through other means or existing means. What we need on
this refuge is additional forest habitat to support migrating
songbirds.''
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. I think he just, Dan hit it on the head. Most
of the comments I get back from the refuge managers that we are
participating with, if it wasn't for our give-away seed program
furnishing seed to them at 50 cents a bag or $2 a bag versus
$80 or $100 a bag, they could not plant that crop.
Now, what we have done also is, in many cases we have
donated the seed to them. This seed may cost $100 a bag. A bag
plants four acres. We will give them a letter of in-kind
contribution at a 50 percent value. The companies let us do
this, so I can write Blackwater a letter and say, ``We're
giving you an in-kind grant of $2,000 worth of seed,'' which
they then can go to the Fish and Wildlife Foundation and use as
a matching grant to try to get enough money for fertilizer. So,
I mean, therein lies the problem, that most of the time--
Mr. Gilchrest. We have a lot of chicken manure on the
Eastern Shore.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Johnson. --it is being converted to passive management
because they just don't have the money to farm it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Would you say the size of the refuge--Dan
made a comment about passive management in Alaska because it is
so big, versus intensive management on some of the lower
refuges because they have been altered and changed and they
don't have the land mass. Would you say the size of the refuge
to some extent might dictate either passive or intensive or a
combination?
Mr. Johnson. It would be a combination. Blackwater, every
refuge on the Atlantic Flyway, every refuge on the Mississippi
and Central Flyway, and even parts of California, urbanization
has taken so much of their habitat that the refuges are even
more paramount than they were 30 years ago, as providing the
nutritional source needed and a place to go hide and rest. As
we said a while ago, agriculture is not supplying what it used
to in the past, so they are more dependent on an energy source
that is going to be consistent and sustainable.
The trouble with moist soil management, it is sustainable
for a large population for a short period, where cash grains
and intensive management produces much more tonnage, produces
the same invertebrates. The tests that we have run in an
agricultural field not treated with a herbicide, and in many
cases we encourage that where we are going to do flooding
because by not treating with a herbicide, we still get the
foxtail, we still get the weed growth that does provide some
tonnage also, but it does not cut down on the invertebrate
blooms and the invertebrate generation that we can get from
those flooded facilities. So the tonnage is there. It comes
down to the amount of energy that you can get out there to the
wildlife source.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. May I add something else?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. Ms. Thompson was talking about what funds were
available. For instance, on phragmites, on treating invasive
plants, we use Duck Stamp monies on a cost share program with a
private entity for phragmites control. Phragmites control
usually costs about $100 an acre. We are into a cost share
program using Duck Stamp monies, for the private sector to pay
50 percent of that.
We also passed legislation in the State where we can hit
one-third of the mitigation funds from the Department of the
Environment, where they mitigate for development and road
construction and so on and so forth. We can use one-third of
those funds for phragmites control. And we also get matching
grants from the Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
I serve on a board called Pulling Together Initiative that
makes available about $3 million across the country in cost-
share programs. The money comes from Fish and Wildlife, BLM,
Department of Defense, and many other avenues. That goes on a
lot of public lands in the West.
But we found in Maryland, on phragmites control
particularly, that we better concentrate on watersheds. There
is no need to do two acres here on the Chester River and then
come down and do two acres on the Choptank; that we are going
to concentrate our funds now and all our cost-share efforts on
watersheds. For Blackwater to have an intensive program and
then their neighbor not having an intensive phragmites program
accomplishes nothing.
Mr. Gilchrest. Right. This is a big watershed.
Mr. Johnson. So we are trying to attack it on a watershed
basis.
Mr. Gilchrest. I am going to try to make this as quick as
possible, because we probably don't want to sit here until 3
o'clock this afternoon, but I do have about 16 questions more,
and some of them are on phragmites. But I wanted to ask Mr.
Willey a question, and the phragmites question deals with a
whole range of other invasive species, what is the value of it
versus the cost of eradicating it, can we adapt to phragmites,
and things like that.
But you are exactly right, if you just do it on--even if
you just did it in Dorchester, which is a pretty big area for
eradication of phragmites, they are popping up all over the
place, and in some areas of the Eastern Shore I think the DNR
has pretty much given up on it, just letting it go for
shoreline erosion purposes.
But, Mr. Willey, it was interesting that you said the loss
of wetlands was about the biggest problem we have over here,
partly and fundamentally due to human population activities and
things like that, and the loss of habitat for a full range of
wildlife. But nutria in particular, as an invited guest that
has overstayed its welcome, there are a number of trappers now
engaged in the pilot project, from I would guess a number of
places, the Eastern Shore plus other States.
Could you give us, if you know, some idea of how many local
trappers are involved in the pilot project? And Ms. Thompson
made a comment, alluded to the fact that we are going to need
about twice as many trappers when the pilot project is over,
and do you see that being a problem with continuing this
program, or are there enough local trappers that could handle
the full roll eradication program? I know that is a long--
Mr. Willey. Yes, just real briefly, if you are talking
about, yes, there are several trappers from Maryland, not from
this county.
Mr. Gilchrest. Right.
Mr. Willey. Well, I think there is one or two from this
county. Edith, is that right?
Ms. Thompson. Seven in the local area.
Mr. Willey. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Which is the lower Shore?
Mr. Willey. I think about half of them are, if I remember
correctly. Isn't that--
Ms. Thompson. Yes. There are 12 total, and 7 from here.
Mr. Willey. But they are from here. The biggest problem
with Dorchester, and Glenn could tell you, too, many of these
trappers that trap here in the winter time are crabbers, like
from Hooper's Island, Taylor's Island, or the locals, and those
guys wouldn't sign on because when they had the pilot program,
the opportunity was there but they didn't sign on because they
can make more money, normally, crabbing, than they could, and
they wouldn't accept the job for whatever they pay, you know,
the pay, if it's $20,000 a year, whatever it may be. They
wouldn't accept that, and that's your biggest problem with
getting when you say experienced trappers, someone who has
trapped extensively.
I don't think you would have the problem once you get the
program going. I don't think a lot of them wanted to be
involved into the marking of animals, like Brian is involved
into, the marking and recapture and all. I think most of these
trappers are killers, you know. They want, when they've got the
animal in hand, get rid of him.
So I think that's where it would come in. I think you would
probably be in better shape as the years go by, where they know
the animal is going to be taken, because we have a lot of
criticism: Why in the hell are you putting the collar on? You
know, that is the big problem I think you have got, so I think
that is the big thing, but I think you would be.
Now, I am saying this, but not a lot of people I don't
believe applied, and Edith can tell you that. You probably
wasn't involved in it at first, but I think Rob Colona was
involved in it. They were having a little problem getting even
local people, you know, getting locals even within the State.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is because they wanted to--
Mr. Willey. Well, I mean, they got a full time job. They
are kind of a little bit hesitant--
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there any way that, once the pilot
project is done and there is a real good system to eradicate
these little guys, that someone that does crabbing for part of
the year could actually come in and trap for part of the year?
Mr. Willey. Well, this is what I think they have to work
out. I think they have to work out that. I don't know how to do
it money-wise, but when we had all our meeting up in Annapolis
about two years ago when we first started, they talked about
monetary--you know, what would it cost? The $1.50 came from
Senator Malkus in the Maryland Legislature. It was proposed for
$3, and at the time some trapper said, ``Well, I kill about 700
a day,'' and Fred said, ``Well, he's making more than I am, so
we'll cut it to $1.50.''
[Laughter.]
So that is where $1.50 came in, and the $1.50 has pretty
much stuck with the State and the Feds.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is that a reasonable amount, or should it be
more?
Mr. Willey. $1.50 for nutria, no, but they get compensated.
They bid for muskrat on their bid. For instance, they bid $500
on a tract of marsh, on the unit. Then they get, they can turn
in the tails of the nutria and they get the $1.50 up to the
amount that they bid. And then after a certain time that the
other trappers don't--at the end of, I believe it is at the end
of February, then in March they can still take more animals.
They pay the trapper, they can get a return into March, until
all the money is gone. Say $20,000 is paid into the government
for trapping leases. It is all paid back to the trapper.
Mr. Gilchrest. With your experience as a trapper, would you
say $1.50--
Mr. Willey. No, you are not going to get too many people to
trap, and Brian and the guys here, and Edith, she is not real
involved but Brian is, and he can tell you it is a lot of labor
in it. You know, you may go out and catch 10 animals. When we
trapped on Tudor, we trapped from 19--we have got all the
records, and they have got them--we trapped from 1985, through
1999, when we stopped trapping at Tudor because they had the
project there. The State had a project and we didn't want to
trap where they were doing an experiment.
But we removed, I think in 1985, around 7,000 animals, and
we went from 7,000 down to 5,000, then we went down to about
4,000. Then I think the last year we trapped it was around
1,900.
Mr. Gilchrest. Why was the drop, because you were trapping?
Mr. Willey. Because of the heavy trapping, yes. I mean,
once you remove 7,000 animals from 7,000 acres, you see a
difference in the population.
Brian, is that true or not? Where is Brian?
Mr. Sherfy. Brian is not here, but I can probably speak to
that as well. Actually, in the successful effort in Great
Britain--at the start of this project we brought over Dr.
Morris Goslin from Great Britain, who had successfully
eradicated nutria.
And that was one of their biggest concerns, was, it is not
hard to start a crew of trappers on an eradication effort but
it is difficult to keep them motivated and keep them going when
you get to the end of the eradication effort. When there is
only a handful of animals out there, and these trappers are
trapping day in and day out and seeing no animals, then that,
motivation and compensation for that crew becomes a concern.
But that effort at the very tail end is critical to the success
of eradication.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Willey. Well, that may be the answer. I mean, price,
you know, price will probably take care of anything. I mean, we
had a guy in Annapolis tell us, ``Put $100 on him, like we did
some exotic fish, and he won't be there.'' But you know when
you talk $100 on an animal, if you have got 100,000, then you
have got a lot of money.
Mr. Gilchrest. Right. I am not sure if anybody on the panel
can answer this question. Where else, or where in particular in
the world are these things found? I know I hear South America.
Is it Brazil, Argentina, Chile? Brazil?
Mr. Johnson. Louisiana.
Mr. Gilchrest. Outside the United States. Is this a species
unique to South America?
Mr. Ashe. It is endemic to South America.
Mr. Gilchrest. And throughout the country, I know there are
20-some other States that have this same particular problem.
Ms. Thompson. There is the map.
Mr. Gilchrest. There it is, right there. England, they
don't have one nutria in the country? The only nutria they have
in the country is stuffed? They have no nutria there in
England?
Mr. Sherfy. What they based that on was, I think it was 21
months of very intensive trapping and not catching a single
animal, so if you ask them to unequivocally state "there are no
nutria," then they are not 100 percent sure there are no
animals here. But they trapped intensively for 21 months and
didn't catch a single animal.
Mr. Gilchrest. What is the difference between what England
did and what we are trying to do, other than there is a larger
area where they are located?
Mr. Sherfy. What happened in England was ultimately a
successful effort but they failed in their initial effort
because they didn't understand the biology of the animal and
how it responded to the combination of intensive harvest and
severe winter weather. When they first started trapping the
animals, they were trapping intensively but they also had
severe weather, and they didn't understand the interplay
between those two factors. So they initially knocked the
population back, and then they backed off on their trapping
effort and the population rebounded and they weren't prepared
to deal with that, so they--
Mr. Gilchrest. So we are in part learning from their
mistakes?
Mr. Sherfy. We hope so, yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there any value to this thing at all?
Meat?
Ms. Thompson. Nutria?
Mr. Gilchrest. Nutria. Is there any value, other than
eradication?
Ms. Thompson. Not that we know of. I mean, we encouraged
people to eat and use them to try to get rid of them, but of
course there is always a danger when you do that. When you
don't have them anymore, if people really want that--you know
what I am saying? It is kind of a Catch-22.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Five years ago I said this in jest, but the
more I think about it, it may come true. My theory of
eradication of the nutria was to start a rumor in China that it
had aphrodisiac qualities.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. That might save some tigers. You know, I
think that is a good idea. That could be a headline in the
Washington Post. That is interesting. Yes, it might save the
African rhino, or an elephant or tiger or whatever. Maybe it
could be a protein source for India. Are there already nutria
in India? Can you raise these things domestically?
Ms. Thompson. Oh, yes. That is why they were brought here,
as fur farm animals, essentially.
Mr. Gilchrest. You know, two things. One, we will ship them
over to India and other places that have a food source problem,
and say that they have a certain quality about them. I think
that is a great idea. Maybe the University of Maryland could
come out with some sort of statement.
Anyway, Ms. Thompson, can you tell us what you hope to
learn from the pilot project?
Ms. Thompson. I think we hope to learn, and I think we
probably need to get the word out more about the questions we
are trying to answer, but I think we are trying to learn the
best and most efficient trapping method to use, the ones that
the animals are caught the most in, and the places to put those
traps, the timing of trapping that catches the most animals, so
we understand where most of the animals are concentrated.
You know if we don't understand that, then we waste a lot
of money and time because we don't know where the animals are
going to be and when. So it is much better for us if we can
find, if it is possible to find, concentrated areas where
nutria are moving, either seasonally or during the day, so that
we can utilize the limited resources that we have to get the
most animals.
We also want to understand where the animals are because
there is a problem of not being able to find them. We can trap
and kill the animals we see, but we also understand that
animals are moving where we can't see them, so we need to find
that out. We also want to understand the reproductive biology.
For instance, with coyotes, let's take coyotes as an
example, we thought we could eradicate coyotes, and found out
that it is probably not possible just because of their
reproductive biology and the way they respond to population
declines or litter loss. You know, they are very prolific. We
need to understand that kind of biology in nutria here, in
order to not end up having more nutria because we eradicate--
Mr. Gilchrest. So the coyote has the ability to adapt to a
changing habitat, and nutria are likely to be able to adapt to
a changing habitat?
Ms. Thompson. Nutria might--what coyotes can do is
immediately replace young that are lost. The female can store
sperm for an indefinite period of time. So it is very
difficult. If you go in and remove puppies and not the parents,
they will immediately reproduce again. They are also very
adaptable.
But we don't know that much about nutria and their
reproductive biology to be confident that when we start a
control program, there are some people who say eradication may
be difficult to achieve. If we understand at some point we are
going to be removing animals and there will be less animals in
a population, then those that remain, we are trying to answer
the question, what is their reproductive response to that? Does
it increase?
Mr. Gilchrest. Is the pilot project the same on Blackwater
as it is on Tudor? Is it just one pilot project?
Ms. Thompson. Yes, one pilot project on all three sites,
and with that data we will be able to more effectively,
hopefully eradicate them in a way that doesn't waste resources.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, Dan, as the pilot project continues and
then it is finally complete, and there is some understanding of
the best way to eliminate or reduce significantly nutria, is
Fish and Wildlife looking at areas where this pilot project can
then be replicated in areas around the country to eliminate
nutria?
Mr. Ashe. I think I wouldn't say the pilot project. I would
say if--
Mr. Gilchrest. I guess you wouldn't have to replicate the
pilot project, but what is learned from this pilot project,
does Fish and Wildlife then target areas where there is
problems with nutria?
Mr. Ashe. If we can do intensive control and if we can
achieve eradication, then that certainly is something that--I
mean, you can look at all those red States on that map and in
terms of the lower 48 it probably represents close to half of
our refuge units in the lower 48 States. So it certainly would
be something that we could then think about transporting.
I have to, in the back of my mind, sit here and think if
the Great Britain experience is translatable to the Eastern
Shore. I mean, island ecology is different than continental
ecology, and I can almost see where the Delmarva Peninsula, you
can almost treat the Delmarva Peninsula in the same context as
you can island ecology.
Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, I don't know and I can't
tell you at this point, even if we could eradicate the nutria
from the Eastern Shore of Maryland, if that is transferable to
Louisiana or Texas. It may not be, and so we certainly need to
learn more as we move through the pilot project and then into
and through implementation. If we can eradicate on the Eastern
Shore or on the Delmarva Peninsula, it doesn't mean that that
is directly translatable to the continent as a whole.
Ms. Thompson. Yes. It sounds like we need to be able to--
Mr. Gilchrest. What area does the pilot project cover?
Ms. Thompson. It covers Dorchester County, those three
sites, Tudor Farms, Fishing Bay Wildlife Management Area, and
Blackwater.
Mr. Gilchrest. Where else on the Delmarva Peninsula have
nutria been spotted or seen or known to be?
Ms. Thompson. From Delaware to the southern tip of
Virginia.
Mr. Gilchrest. Queen Anne's County?
Ms. Thompson. Sure.
Mr. Gilchrest. Kent County?
Mr. Sherfy. Yes.
Ms. Thompson. Sure.
Mr. Gilchrest. They are in Kent County? Where are they in
Kent County?
Mr. Sherfy. I can't give you a specific site, but every
Eastern Shore of Maryland county has nutria, from Kent County
all the way down.
Mr. Gilchrest. But you don't know where in Kent County?
Mr. Sherfy. I can't give you a specific site. Robert Colona
from the DNR could.
Ms. Thompson. We can get that for you.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would like to have where on Delmarva
nutria are found.
Ms. Thompson. Okay.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is interesting, yes. But I guess it
would be easily transferable, the pilot project, certainly to
the coastal areas of Virginia, I would guess.
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Ashe. And it is like I mentioned salt cedar before. At
our refuges in the Southwest, and we are learning how to
eradicate salt cedar. It is a slow, as I said, acre-by-acre
process, and so we are learning how to do it. Most of the time
it involves chemical spraying and burning and tilling the
landscape, and then we have to manage water to prevent the salt
cedar from coming back and select for the native cottonwood.
It is a very difficult process, but we are learning how to
do it. But just doing it on our refuges is a stopgap measure.
Then we have to work with BLM and tribes and States to try to
accomplish the same thing on a larger scale. And so we can
translate the technique that we have, but it has to be exported
or else in the long run you haven't really accomplished very
much.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there an estimate as to the number of
nutria in this area?
Ms. Thompson. I think the estimate in Blackwater is 35,000
to 50,000 animals.
Mr. Gilchrest. Any rough estimate as to how many there are
in Delmarva?
Ms. Thompson. I don't know.
Mr. Sherfy. Not that I am aware of.
Ms. Thompson. Not that I am aware of, no.
Mr. Gilchrest. Staff just told me that there is 22 million
in Louisiana, rough estimate, so I wouldn't guess we have
anywhere near that many, but I guess that is across the State.
Ms. Thompson. Yes. Louisiana has a lot more coastal marsh,
too, habitat for them.
Mr. Gilchrest. I know the hour is moving along and we have
some other places to go to today, and people are getting tired,
probably want to eat lunch, but just a couple more questions
and we will get out of here in the next 10 or 15 minutes, I
promise.
We look forward to working aggressively with the nutria
problem on Blackwater, Tudor Farms, the Delmarva Peninsula, in
the hopes that we can completely eradicate on a watershed basis
this little critter. Some other invasive species such as
phragmites, gypsy moth, mute swans, are still a problem and
they will be with us for quite some time.
What I would like to do, Mr. Tillier, as Friends of
Blackwater, do you have any recommendation from your group or
personal opinion on what to do with the mute swans?
Mr. Tillier. Well, we would definitely like to see them
disappear.
[Laughter.]
I don't know what we could specifically recommend, but I
would say this, that the Friends of Blackwater would certainly
be supportive in any kind of project that would assist the
refuge in its efforts to come to grips with this sort of thing.
We have a board of directors, and we have among our volunteers
a lot of knowledge and a lot of interest in what is going on on
the refuge in terms of invasive species, whether they be animal
or whether they be vegetation. So we would be entirely
supportive of any kinds of control mechanism, I assure you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Does the Friends of Blackwater, are you
vocal, do you express those sentiments in the local media and
things like that?
Mr. Tillier. Sure. We will--
Mr. Gilchrest. And I ask that question because apparently
there is, you know, across the country there are a lot of
organizations that are, animal rights groups that are highly
opposed to shaking eggs, to expanding hunting seasons or things
like that.
Mr. Tillier. We have people here in the county who are very
vocal in terms of what you speak. But we will take any
opportunity at any point in time to be supportive of anything
that the refuge does, and we would do it through our Speaker's
Bureau, we do it through any opportunity, wherever we have the
opportunity to be interviewed on any of those subjects.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Willey, any comment on mute swans?
Mr. Willey. On the mute swan, they are scattered throughout
the Delmarva Peninsula. I mean, they go all the way up to the
canal, all the way down. When we fly the eagle surveys, we see
them, you know, nesting all over the place.
What we have been doing is reporting, you know, to the
State, you know, where they are nesting at. That is probably
the best time to try to, you know, get a handle on it. But
since they are so spread out, there is little pockets of them.
I know here on Blackwater, they didn't used to be here, and
now there is one or two, you know, scattered on the refuge.
Most of them do lie between, out on the coast, from Talbot
down, you know, all the way down to I guess the biggest
population in the Honga River. I guess that is probably the
biggest population still left of all the river populations, and
the one out on Barren Island.
They could probably be eradicated, since they--
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have any recommendation on how to do
that?
Mr. Willey. Yes, I have a recommendation.
[Laughter.]
But the Friends of Animals, you do have a lot of groups
that really love that bird, and when you talk about killing
that big white bird, it is a different story than killing a
blackbird. You know, it is like killing the eagle. When you
talk about--
Mr. Gilchrest. It is the difference between a tuna fish and
a dolphin.
Mr. Willey. No, I will tell you, probably--you know, again,
I don't know if Dan--it probably doesn't come under his, come
under migratory birds, does it, Dan, because it is exotic?
Mr. Ashe. Exotic.
Mr. Willey. So it is up to the State. The State, if they
could get enough people to say we are going to eradicate them,
we don't want a mute swan, it would be against the law to have
a mute swan. But you have got people in Cambridge and all that
I know, close to where Laddie lives, and you go around there to
disturb that swan and you have got cameras come out, videos
come out, and you are in big trouble. You better not go shaking
no eggs around there, you know.
[Laughter.]
And they are nesting, you know, on little clumps right in
the town, you know, right in the city, right in the creek, and
they are aggressive. They will come after you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. We will see what we can do with
the present and future administrations.
Mr. Willey. I think the State, you know, I think that is a
State problem, really. I think the State, if you got enough, if
people got enough influence with the people that are in
office--and I doubt if you would do it in Maryland with the
climate right now, really, with the type of--
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, I think the climate is changing. That
is what I hear. There is climate change happening all over the
world. Maybe this will bring in a new regime.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. You are in luck. I chaired the task force on
mute swan for the State of Maryland, and the first thing I did
was get Edith Thompson to come in as the facilitator, because I
wasn't going to take that chairmanship on myself. So Edith came
in and facilitated that task force. It took two years. So,
Edith, could you summarize real quick what the task force came
up with?
Ms. Thompson. Sure. We had a task force, a citizen task
force, to give us some recommendations on what to do about the
mute swan issue, to define mute swan issues for us. We had
representation from the Humane Society, the SPCA and Defenders
of Wildlife, as well as economic and conservation, Chesapeake
Bay, conservation interests in the Eastern Shore and the
Chesapeake Bay. And we talked for two years, as Ladd said,
about this. We wrote an extensive report which is on our web
site.
And basically the issue boils down to two things. One is
that the submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay is
very stressed, and it is the one living resource upon which all
life in the Chesapeake Bay depends. So if we have no SAV, we
have no crabs, no fish, no nothing. It also, you know,
contributes oxygen to the water and prevents soil erosion and
recycling of sedimentation, which in turn creates no sunlight
for the SAV.
So what happens is, the SAV species have evolved to
reproduce, to produce mature seed during a period of time when
the large flocks of waterfowl that migrate here are not here.
The water celery is one good example. It creates a pod which
rises up to the surface of the water, and then as the waterfowl
arrive, it hides it until those seeds are mature. If waterfowl
were to take those seeds while they are immature, they would
pass through the bird's system without being able to be
dispersed and planted and used. So it hides this pod so that
that doesn't happen until the seeds are mature, and then it
raises up again, and the waterfowl eat it and it becomes
dispersed.
But here you have a species of waterfowl that is extremely
large. It needs a lot of food. It primarily eats SAV. It is
here all year. Its population is growing exponentially, which
means that as a population of any creature, humans or whatever,
grows exponentially, the percentage of juveniles in that
population increases.
We have 50 percent juveniles out now. Those birds spend
three years together in big flocks. We have had up to 600 or
more than 600 birds off of Blackwater. They cruise the Bay, and
even though we have about 4,000 birds now and maybe we can live
with 4,000 birds, as these birds' population goes up like that,
they are going to come into conflict with the ability of SAV to
regenerate itself, and this is the problem. It is a serious
social problem--
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have a recommendation as to what to
do with the mute swan? That was a great explanation, by the
way. That was--
Ms. Thompson. Okay. Well, the task force actually did not
deal with the population issue at all. They didn't want to do
that, and I can understand why, so that is kind of left to us.
But they did talk about the need to protect those resources,
the sensitive SAV areas, places where they are coming into
conflict with humans, and of course here at Barren Island where
they come into conflict with State threatened colonial nesting
water birds. They actually eliminated a nesting colony of black
skimmers and least terns, and it was the last nesting colony of
black skimmers in this part of the Bay, and it was the last
natural nesting colony of least terns.
Mr. Gilchrest. So nobody in this State--
Mr. Johnson. We did.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, you guys did.
Ms. Thompson. We killed some birds. Okay, we killed some
birds. This was videotaped, and so on and so on, and turned up
in the news media, which I have to say has been very supportive
of us since then. But the task force recommended various ways
of excluding the birds from these areas, of controlling those
local populations that are having these impacts on the
sensitive resources.
They have advised us on everything from explosives,
pyrotechnics, to trying to look at vasectomy of birds, and
moving nonfertile birds to certain areas. We have looked at egg
addling. We need to do very aggressive egg addling. Most nests
are on private land, so we started this year with an aggressive
egg addling campaign with volunteers. And we have been advised
on lethal methods, as well, and the task force recommended that
lethal methods be used when other methods have failed to
protect those resources from the birds.
We still do, though, have the issue of the increasing
population of birds and where do those birds go? If we exclude
them successfully from these sites--
Mr. Gilchrest. Can they be hunted, mute swans?
Ms. Thompson. They can be. They are a game species in
Maryland. However, there is no regulated hunting season on mute
swans and has never been. They have always been a game species
in Maryland, but there has never been a regulated hunting
season.
Mr. Gilchrest. So a game season, but people can't hunt?
Ms. Thompson. Right, they are a game bird, but we just have
never created a regulated season.
Mr. Gilchrest. If you create a regulated season, would that
help diminish the population?
Ms. Thompson. Possibly, sure.
Mr. Gilchrest. The problem there would be, how do you tell
the difference between--
Mr. Johnson. Easy.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, I figure an experienced person could
tell the difference between a mute swan--
Ms. Thompson. And the tundra.
Mr. Gilchrest. --and a swan that just came down from
Alaska.
Ms. Thompson. You would have a hunting season when the
tundras were not here, of course, so there would be no--
Mr. Gilchrest. That is right.
Ms. Thompson. --ability to make that mistake. But actually
the task force recommended no hunting season. The reason was
because, you know, the animal welfare organizations in Maryland
are quite vocal and do share their thoughts with us a lot, and
we want to be responsive, and we are concerned about--
Mr. Gilchrest. Nobody else is quite as vocal?
Ms. Thompson. We do have some, we do have quite a lot of
vocal people out here. Maryland is one of those States, which
is a good thing. But we want to be responsive, and what we
don't want to do is create a situation that will cause such a
backlash in that vast majority of people who are unaware--
Mr. Gilchrest. How much time do we have before these guys
are so large in number that the SAVs are--
Ms. Thompson. Not a lot of time. I mean, we don't know when
they will really conflict with and damage SAV. We can't even
say that has happened yet, except in local areas. They are--
Mr. Gilchrest. The people that are opposed to eradicating
or finding some way to shake the eggs or a hunting season, the
animal rights groups, I guess, do they have any solution to the
SAV problem?
Ms. Thompson. My personal experience with it, having dealt
with it for the past six months or something, or two years, is
that there is an animal rights agenda which is very clearly no
killing of animals ever, under any circumstances--and that is a
very small minority of people. We can show that statistically.
And then there is a large group of people, members of the
Humane Society and members of Friends of Animals, members of
these organizations, who really don't understand all the
issues. They value the Chesapeake Bay as much as they value the
mute swan. But when they are presented with this information by
the animal welfare organizations, they are not given that kind
of information.
Mr. Gilchrest. The full story.
Ms. Thompson. They are told that the Department of Natural
Resources is a morally bankrupt organization that simply wants
to kill things. Yes. And that we are irresponsible and not
willing to look at alternatives, which is completely untrue. So
I have had to, person by person, person by person, talk to
people to tell them what the whole issues are and explain to
them their role, their empowered role in helping to resolve
this very sticky situation.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Johnson?
Thank you very much, Ms. Thompson.
Mr. Johnson. After that task force reached their
conclusion, the Waterfowl Commission, it was then referred back
to the Waterfowl Commission, who then referred it to the Game
Commission here in Maryland. The Waterfowl Commission took a
more aggressive stance. The Waterfowl Commission passed
unanimously to make the mute swan a nonprotected bird in
Maryland, and to also reduce their numbers from 4,000 to 500 in
five years.
The reason 500 was chosen, during the '80's the population
remained at 500. It was in the '90's that we had the population
explosion. So we picked that magical number of a decade there
that it didn't seem to go up or down, and it was manageable by
egg addling at that time.
But under today's population, we estimate that 12 million
pounds of SAVs are being destroyed annually by mute swan in
Maryland, that is probably a conservative figure. They have now
spread to the Potomac and other tributaries, where they are no
longer concentrated here on the Bay.
So the Department is doing their strategy now, and I think
it is going to come probably in pretty close to what the
Waterfowl Commission recommended, to take an aggressive
approach to this population.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. One last question, and I don't know
if you know this, Dan. Maybe we can get Glenn to stand up and
give it to us, if you don't know. Could you tell us what the
major O&M needs on Blackwater are and what they might cost?
Mr. Ashe. I am going to let Glenn answer that, but I can't
let the opportunity pass without saying something about the
mute swan. Because I really don't know much about mute swans,
but what the discussion says to me on the issue of invasive and
exotic species generally, is that we have a lot of education to
do, and it is something that we in the wildlife field don't do
very well. And I think that you can probably help us by putting
more of a burden on us to do a better job of communicating,
because people need to understand.
This is like a patriotic issue to me, because these species
are crowding out native species. I mean, we are losing our
American wildlife heritage because we are unable, our wildlife
managers are unable, not because they don't know how to do it,
but because politically they are unable to do the job. And we
have to do a better job of educating Americans about the need
for wildlife management, the need to manage mute swans, the
need to manage nutria, the need to manage salt cedar, the need
to manage phragmites.
Because a lot of times people see us out there spraying
phragmites with chemicals, or burning marshes, and they
appropriately ask us questions about that, which is their right
and privilege. But we need to increase people's understanding
of why we need to do that, because we are losing a war. We are
definitely losing. Education is the solution, and it is
something that we don't put much effort into and we don't do
very well.
Mr. Gilchrest. Maybe we can help, collectively with the
people here, strategize at least in this part of the world.
Mr. Ashe. You asked a question about the refuge O&M here,
and Glenn is much, much more capable than I to answer that
question.
Mr. Carowan. The refuge operation needs on Blackwater I
think are reflective of the needs in the system. Certainly we
can categorize those into three initiatives that we see:
Needs for people, particularly the needs reflective of the
Improvement Act with the six priority public uses. Certainly
Blackwater right now has a visitation of about a half million
people a year, and we are not really equipped, just like I
think Ron mentioned the fact that we had 1,350 people here in
this facility on one day. So certainly there is a major need to
address how we interact with our public and provide facilities
for our people.
Habitat issues on the complex, not just on Blackwater
Refuge, but there are significant problems with wetland
restoration, as we have discussed, those operational dollars
that are needed to facilitate those things.
And then our wildlife management responsibilities that we
have, again not just here at Blackwater but on the complex, to
go out and do the science that is necessary to address the
issues that we discussed today, whether it be mute swans or
whether it be nutria or invasive species, or just to address
the issue of whether or not we do intensive management versus
passive management. We need those population numbers, we need
to develop that good science.
And so that is where we see our operational needs coming on
the refuge, not just on Blackwater but again on the system as a
whole. If you want to put that in dollars, I think we have
operation needs, within our refuge operation needs system now,
probably of about $5 million worth of projects that are
identified on Blackwater and the other refuges in the complex.
So I hope that answers your question.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Glenn.
Ron?
Mr. Tillier. May I just add one comment?
Mr. Gilchrest. Sure.
Mr. Tillier. And that is, one thing that struck me in the
items that I mentioned was the fact that when we are talking
about people on the refuge, is that our outdoor recreation
planner here is one individual. But when you consider that over
a 10-year period, that this individual, because of lack of
funding for one full-time employee, had 44 part-time employees,
I ask you to consider the efficacy of this. Because the time
that she takes to train a person, and by the time that person
is trained to do anything, you know, that person leaves, so it
is really not very efficient at all, and I would suggest
probably horribly expensive vis-a-vis giving the refuge an
individual to be in the system here.
I just wanted to add that comment. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ashe, Ms. Thompson, Mr. Tillier, Mr. Johnson, and Mr.
Willey, this was, at least for me and I think probably
everybody in the room, an extraordinary two hours of exchanging
information. We will take all of this to heart and continue to
work with all of you to reach the goal of making our refuges a
place that we can be proud of, and certainly provide the
habitat for a diverse range of wildlife, and a place where
people can come and recreate and learn and wonder and ponder
about the wonders of creation, right here in Blackwater.
And I look forward to the canoe and kayak trails, and I
would like to come back down here sometime, maybe, Glenn, this
late spring, early summer, with a canoe and paddle around
through these vast and wonderful places. We can have the next
hearing with a block of canoes.
I also want to thank the staff of the Subcommittee for
setting all this up, doing a great job, and my personal staff,
and in an indirect way the nutria for getting us all together.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-