[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3558, THE SPECIES PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
ACT
=======================================================================
JOINT LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,
WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS,
RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
March 14, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-95
__________
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
78-207 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (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
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. 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
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Joel Hefley, Colorado Samoa
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Chris Cannon, Utah Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Hilda L. Solis, California
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman
JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania, Tom Udall, New Mexico
Vice Chairman Mark Udall, Colorado
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 14, 2002................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 6
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, Prepared statement of................... 89
Otter, Hon. C.L. ``Butch'', a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho......................................... 5
Rahall, Hon. Nick J. II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia................................. 3
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from Guam.. 4
Letters and statements submitted for the record.......... 52
Statement of Witnesses:
Bartuska, Ann M., Ph.D., Executive Director, Invasive Species
Initiative, The Nature Conservancy......................... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Chavarria, Gabriela, Ph.D., Director of International and
Special Programs, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Eldredge, Dr. Lucius G., Department of Natural Science,
Bishop Museum, Hawaii...................................... 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Kaiser, Janette, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National
Forest System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture................................................ 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
O'Keeffe, John, Adel, Oregon, on behalf of the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association and Public Lands Council...... 76
Prepared statement of.................................... 77
Riley, Dr. Terry Z., Director of Conservation, Wildlife
Management Institute....................................... 80
Prepared statement of.................................... 81
Shannon, John T., State Forester of Arkansas, on behalf of
the National Association of State Foresters................ 71
Prepared statement of.................................... 73
Tate, Dr. James, Jr., Science Advisor, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Van Putten, Mark, President and CEO, National Wildlife
Federation................................................. 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
JOINT LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3558, THE SPECIES PROTECTION AND
CONSERVATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ACT
----------
Thursday, March 14, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, joint with
the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands and the
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.
Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee
will come to order.
We are holding a joint legislative hearing this morning on
H.R. 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the
Environment Act. This legislation is sponsored by the Resources
Committee Ranking Democratic Member Congressman Nick Rahall.
Congressman Robert Underwood, the ranking member of the
Fisheries Subcommittee and I are original cosponsors. It is a
long overdue attempt to deal with a serious and growing
problem.
Mr. Gilchrest. Nuisance non-native species are a threat to
every corner of the United States and its territories, from
microbes to mammals. This issue crosses State and national
jurisdictions to affect us all. The magnitude of this problem
is enormous. Nonnative species inflict tremendous economic and
environmental harm. Business, agriculture, fisheries, and most
importantly our native species suffer as they are outcompeted,
displaced, preyed upon and, in far too many cases, eradicated
by those invaders.
My own congressional district, the First District of
Maryland, is adversely impacted by a multitude of invasive
species. Of particular concern are nutria, large semi-aquatic
rodents native to South America, which is not in my testimony,
jet skis.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. I just throw that out. They disrupt and
fragment the habitat like the nutria do, actually. Nutria were
introduced during the 1940's to bolster the fur industry, but
have established wild populations which cause severe ecological
damage. This is also not in my testimony, but may be we should
introduce some black panthers to my district, which they have
in South America, that reduce the population of nutria, but
that is not in Nick's bill. Due to their prolific breeding and
voracious appetite for wetland plants, these animals destroy
thousands of acres of migratory bird wetland habitat every
year. In the Black Water refuge, there has been about 7,000
acres of habitat for migrating water fowl have been destroyed,
not to mention the other species that live there, including
muskrat, by these nutria.
I suspect that each Congress district across the country
has horror stories about the impact of invasive species, and it
is for that reason that I was pleased to co-sponsor this
bipartisan bill. H.R. 3558, the so-called SPACE Act, provides
grants for the planning and implementation of eradication
efforts on and adjacent to Federal lands. This program also
provides a fund for eradication projects using innovative
technologies in our National Wildlife Refuge System and for the
establishment of a rapid response capability so that newly
introduced species can be effectively eliminated before they
become established.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel and
our witnesses on this most pressing issue. This legislation is
appropriately named because we are entering a new frontier.
Failure to act is not an option because it may well doom
various ecosystems throughout the country for centuries to
come.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Good morning, today the Subcommittees on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans; National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands; and
Forests and Forest Health will be holding a joint legislative hearing
on H.R. 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the
Environment Act. This legislation is sponsored by the Resources
Committee Ranking Democratic Member Congressman Nick Rahall.
Congressman Robert Underwood the Ranking Member of the Fisheries
Subcommittee and I are original cosponsors. It is a long overdue
attempt to deal with a serious and growing problem.
Nuisance non-native species are a threat to every corner of the
U.S. and its territories. From microbes to mammals--this issue crosses
state and national jurisdictions to affect us all. The magnitude of
this problem is enormous. Non-native species inflict tremendous
economic and environmental harm. Businesses, agriculture, fisheries,
and, most importantly, our native species suffer as they are out
competed, displaced, preyed upon, and in far too many cases eradicated
by these invaders.
My own Congressional district, the first district of Maryland, is
adversely impacted by a multitude of invasive species. Of particular
concern are nutria, large semi-aquatic rodents native to South America.
Nutria were introduced during the 1940s to bolster the fur industry,
but have established wild populations which cause severe ecologic
damage. Due to their prolific breeding and voracious appetite for
wetland plants, these animals destroy thousands of acres of migratory
bird wetland habitat every year.
I suspect that each Congressional district across the country has
horror stories about the impact of invasive species. It is for that
reason that I was please to cosponsor this bipartisan bill. H.R. 3558,
the so-called SPACE Act, provides grants for the planning and
implementation of eradication efforts on and adjacent to Federal lands.
This program also provides funds for eradication projects using
innovative technologies in our National Wildlife Refuge System and for
the establishment of a rapid response capability so that newly
introduced species can be effectively eliminated before they become
established.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of witnesses
on this most pressing issue. This legislation is appropriately named
because we are entering a new frontier. Failure to act is not an option
because it may well doom various ecosystems throughout the country.
I am pleased to recognize the distinguished ranking democratic
member of the Fisheries Subcommittee, Congressman Underwood.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. At this point, I am pleased to recognize the
gentleman from Guam, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Why don't I go ahead and yield to the
ranking member of the Resources Committee.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Rahall?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. NICK J. RAHALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, ranking distinguished member, Mr. Underwood,
harmful, nonnative species or invasive species, as they are
more commonly called, do represent one of our Nation's most
critical environmental challenges. According to the National
Invasive Species Council, approximately 4,200 nonnative species
are responsible for a $137-billion drain on the national
economy. Additionally, costs to the natural environment have
not been estimated, but could be even higher.
At present, the Federal Government, mostly through the
Department of Agriculture, spends roughly $1 billion annually
to implement a variety of invasive species programs.
Unfortunately, these existing problems are either marginally
effective, too narrowly focused or of no direct benefit to fish
and wildlife resources. If anything, despite these programs,
the condition of our native fish and wildlife resources
continues to deteriorate as a result of habitat loss,
competition, and predation by these space invaders. The status
quo is not working. A new approach is desperately needed or we
risk losing our fish and wildlife heritage which is enjoyed by
millions of sportsman and outdoor enthusiasts.
That is why I introduced H.R. 3558, the Species Protection
and Conservation of the Environment Act or, as the Chairman has
said, SPACE Act, along with our distinguished Chairman, Mr.
Gilchrest, and our distinguished ranking member, Delegate
Robert Underwood.
This legislation reflects an entirely new approach which
incorporates many of the objectives found in the National
Invasive Species Management Plan. The plan was developed by the
National Invasive Species Council, as directed by a 1999
Executive Order.
At its core, the SPACE Act seeks to promote partnerships
designed to bring together Federal and other public and private
landowners to promote efforts to control the infestation and
migration of invasive species across the landscape. The bill
would provide vital grant funding and make progress on the
ground where it counts. This legislation also represents the
scientific and professional input of the National Invasive
Species Council of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other
State and nongovernmental fish and wildlife conservation
organizations which was provided through many hours of
discussion, and I thank each of them.
The numerous letters of support concerning the SPACE Act
reaffirms that this legislation is a new idea with merit and a
true prospect for success. After today's hearing, I believe
that members of the Subcommittee and the Full Committee will
come to a similar conclusion.
Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your valuable input
and cosponsorship, as well as our distinguished ranking member,
Mr. Underwood.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Rahall.
I was going to yield to Mr. Otter, but he is in the back of
the room right now.
I yield to Mr. Underwood.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,
all of you. Thank you for holding this very important hearing
on H.R. 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the
Environment Act.
I would like to thank the leadership of the Resources
Committee ranking Democrat, Mr. Rahall, as well as the work of
Fisheries Subcommittee Chair, Mr. Gilchrest. Their
collaboration on the SPACE Act demonstrates a truly bipartisan
approach to these very serious issues.
The legislation will help protect our Nation, our
communities, and our environment against the impacts caused by
the introduction and spread of harmful nonnative species. This
bill would also provide us with the tools necessary to address
the threats to native species and disruptions to the native
ecosystems brought about by the invasions of harmful, nonnative
species.
Many in the environmental and scientific communities and
the general public are familiar with the problems my home
Island of Guam has faced with the brown tree snake. Brought to
the island after World War II, the snake has been responsible
for the extinction of 9 of the 11 species of native birds, half
of the native lizard species and two native bat species over
the last 40 years. And apart from the damage to Guam's
ecological system, there are also economic and social
implications associated with the snake, which is responsible
actually for many power outages on the island.
In order to address this problem, however, I am
dissatisfied with the manner in how Federal funding has been
distributed and coordinated by the Department of Interior.
Funding should not be coming from the Office of Insular
Affairs, which has one of the smallest budgets in Interior, but
rather from Fish and Wildlife Service. There is double-digit
unemployment rates in the territories, including 20 percent in
Guam. Funding for the brown tree snake and other nonnative
species should be better coordinated within the Federal
Government to ensure that funding streams are properly
identified.
I know that the concern about nonnative species is shared
by many members of the Resources Committee and from others
across the country, including those testifying today. The coast
of California has been plagued with the European green crab.
Hawaii's forest habitat is battling miconia. West Virginia has
had problems with mile-a-minute vines, and in Maryland, nutria
have become problematic.
I recommend, Mr. Chairman, you find a more menacing name
for nutria. It sounds like a nutrition supplement.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Underwood. Island environments are particularly
vulnerable to the devastating effects of nonnative species. In
1993, the Federal Office of Technology Assessment declared
Hawaii's alien pest species problem the worst in the Nation.
Due to the evolutionary isolation of islands from continents,
endemic species are especially vulnerable to extinction when
nonnatives invade. This is the same thing that happened to
Native people when Westerners first came. Those of us with
knowledge of the peril that Pacific Islands face have a
responsibility to preserve these environments for future
generations and to prevent homogenization of the world's
biodiversity.
The SPACE Act allows for funding efforts at the local
level, where it is immediately needed. The bill encourages
territories, States, Indian tribes and others to form
partnerships and to confront the problems nonnative species are
causing and to come up with legitimate assessments and
priorities of how to deal with these harmful and nonnative
invaders.
Funding this act authorizes for the control, the
eradication of, and the rapid response to harmful nonnative
species has been shown both to be currently lacking and
historically justified. The dollars spent today on State
assessments and pilot programs within the National Wildlife
Refuge System have the potential to save tenfold the amount
spent simply by preventing problems before they are out of
control.
I encourage my colleagues to fully support this measure for
both the sake of the environment and the economy. The Federal
Government must show support of local efforts to control
harmful nonnative species, which is not just a problem of
territorial or State Governments, but is truly a national
problem.
Thank you. Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Otter, any opening statement?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I do have an opening
statement that I would like to submit for the record, but I
would like to just make a few comments, without objection.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
Mr. Otter. Idaho is inundated with all kinds of invasive
species, and as a result of that, we are starting to lose some
of our Native species, including the Otter, I would say, in
Idaho, but some of them are now starting to come from the West
Coast. The metal form problem that we are getting in most of
our natural lakes, and deep lakes as well, the zebra mussel,
which is starting to invade our waterways, and in our running
waterways, in our river and stream systems, purple loosestrife
from false indigo are starting to choke down those streams, and
of course they are not habitat for anything known to man.
Nothing will eat them, although we are trying to I think
develop some bugs that will eat them, and what are the bugs
going to do to the rest of the environment? We have a problem
with that.
But the most frustrating thing, and I think both of the
members that have talked prior to me have already mentioned the
genesis, the seed beds for most of that happens to be out of
control of the State, out of control of local Government, out
of control of the private property owners because it is under
the nature and the character of ownership and control that is
generally Federal waterways or Federal lands, and in a State
like Idaho, where 65 percent of the State is federally owned,
either through the Forest Service or the BLM, the Park Service
or the Bureau of Reclamation, it is very frustrating to know
that we try to keep up with the invasive species that we have
in plants in Idaho and then only to find out when the next
harvest season comes for wild seeds, the seeds blow from the
Federal lands onto the private grounds and onto the State
grounds.
So I would like to see us get into a very aggressive
program, where we could suppress that continued seeding, if you
will, of private and State property from the Federal property.
So I would encourage those folks that come forward before us
today to present some opportunities for us to join together in
a good partnership that can be effective in stopping the
invasive species.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Otter.
Ms. Christensen?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
thank you for holding this hearing. In our Subcommittee on
Parks and Public Lands, we just reported out Congressman
Hefley's bill on invasive weeds, but we did that realizing that
this Committee hearing was going to take place, and indeed it
was a larger issue than weeds, and so we appreciate having this
hearing and look forward to the testimony.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Acevedo-Vila?
Mr. Acevedo-Villa. No.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Inslee?
Mr. Inslee. No.
Mr. Gilchrest. We did report Mr. Hefley's bill, which is,
to a great extent, through my discussion with Mr. Hefley, is a
companion bill to Mr. Rahall's bill, and we will pursue a
strategy as we move forward with both of these bills that will
ensure the effectiveness and success of both of these bills.
Whether they are joined together or whether they remain
separate, they both have their place.
Our first panel is Dr. James Tate, Jr. Oh, before I do
this, there are some extra seats up here, for people in the
back, if you want to sit on the lower dais, you are welcome.
Just don't sit where Ms. McCollum is and J.D. is, I guess, in
case he comes in. I think there may be enough for everyone. If
the folks in the back want to come up and sit down, you may.
There are still five seats left up there.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. I mean, you can come on up if you want to. I
think they want to leave early. That may be why they want to
stay back there.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. James Tate, science adviser to the
Secretary of the Department of Interior, and Ms. Janette
Kaiser, acting associate deputy chief, National Forest System,
U.S. Forest Service. Welcome, Ms. Kaiser, Dr. Tate.
Ms. Kaiser, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF JANETTE KAISER, ACTING ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF,
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE
Ms. Kaiser. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today. I am Janette Kaiser, acting associate deputy chief
for National Forest Systems, USDA Forest Service.
My comments today represent the views of USDA on H.R. 3558,
the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act.
First, I would like to commend the Subcommittees for
recognizing harmful, nonnative, invasive species as a
significant threat to our Nation's ecosystem health. Nonnative
invasive species alter ecosystem functions and reduce
biological diversity by eliminating native species which, in
turn, can lower the water table, increase soil erosion and
runoff or increase fire frequency and intensity. Nonnative
invasive species also change the plant community used by
domestic livestock, wildlife and recreationists. These changes
in ecosystem often result in eliminating or restricting use of
our wildlands and urban areas and increase management costs.
Populations of nonnative invasive plants in the United
States are expanding annually by 7 to 14 percent. We face a
daunting challenge in managing nonnative invasive species, but
the Department is committed to working with the administration
and the Congress to identify solutions. USDA is in a strong
position to address this issue because of the broad authorities
supporting nonnative invasive species management. Various field
operations in the Department include prevention, detection,
control, monitoring and restoration, research and technology
development, technical assistance to States, tribes and private
landowners, financial assistance, including cooperative
agreements and grants and international collaboration.
Although USDA supports the objectives of H.R. 3558 to
address the problem of nonnative invasive species, we do,
however, have concerns. The Department has numerous programs
and delivery systems already in place under existing statutory
authorities to address nonnative invasive species management.
Within the Forest Service in particular, there is a full range
of existing authorities to support an integrated program of
research and development, management of nonnative invasive
species on public land, and technical assistance to private
landowners.
These programs focus on invasive insects, such as the Asian
longhorn beetle and gypsy moth, invasive pathogens such as
Sudden Oak Death Disease and invasive plants that grow after a
fire, such as starthistle. The programs that are implemented on
National Forest System lands emphasize management of nonnative
invasive species, the same focus areas that are in H.R. 3558.
For reasons I will detail in my testimony, USDA strongly
supports the concept of controlling nonnative invasive species
at the local level, with support provided by a multitude of
partners. However, H.R. 3558 raises a number of questions to
USDA. The Department would like to engage the Committee in more
detail regarding, first, compatibility with existing
authorities in USDA; second, implementation and accountability;
and, last, the establishment of demonstration projects.
I will address compatibility with existing authorities in
USDA first.
Currently, within USDA there are six agencies that have a
leadership role in dealing with the introduction and spread of
nonnative invasive species, and are involved in research,
regulation, operations, partnerships, technical and financial
assistance and education.
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, commonly
known as APHIS, is the front line of prevention, dealing with
interdiction at borders, interstate movement, detecting and
mitigating disseminations, and providing eradication of new
introductions.
The USDA research agencies, the Agriculture Research
Service, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service and the Forest Service provide information on the basic
ecology of nonnative invasive species, as well as detection,
monitoring and control methodologies and technologies. The
Forest Service has a broad range of authorities to address the
nonnative invasive species issue and to coordinate with other
Federal agencies with corresponding responsibility.
The Forest Service, the Natural Resource Conservation
Service, APHIS and the Farm Service Administration provide
technical and financial assistance, consultation, technology
transfer, prevention, and landscape restoration following an
invasion or to prevent an invasion following a disaster. The
nonnative invasive species program in these agencies will run
both independently and collaboratively.
The National Invasive Species Council that was created by
Executive Order 13112 is an example of a collaborative effort
among Federal agencies. The Council is an interdepartmental
council co-chaired by the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce
and Interior.
Another program involving Federal agencies is the Pulling
Together Initiative Steering Committee, sponsored by the
Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and
Exotic Weeds that are known as FICMNEW. The Pulling Together
Partnership Initiative has been ongoing since 1996 and is a
multi-agency effort that provides Federal matching grants
through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for local and
regional weed prevention and control projects.
Federal agencies involved in this effort includes the
Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park
Service, the Department of Defense, as well as APHIS. Funds
allocated from agencies involved with the Council or FICMNEW
could be affected by funding allocated for H.R. 3558.
Let me address implementation and accountability. Section 5
of H.R. 3558 provides that a qualified project must be
conducted on lands or waters under the control of the eligible
applicant and on adjacent lands or waters of a Federal agency.
The bill should be clarified to provide that the Federal agency
must approve any qualified project on land under its
jurisdiction. The Department believes these decisions should
remain within the jurisdiction of the Federal land managers.
Section 5 of H.R. 3558 establishes two programs and a
demonstration project for the Fish and Wildlife Service within
the Department of Interior, which can be enhanced by current
programs in USDA, thus avoiding any potential redundancy.
USDA also notes two aspects of administration in Sections
4, 5, and 9 of H.R. 3558 for which it would be helpful to have
more information. First, H.R. 3558 delegates the coordination
of the projects to the Invasive Species Council. However, the
Council staff is not involved in program administration.
Second, H.R. 3558 allocates 5 percent of the funding for
administrative expenses. USDA is concerned whether this applies
to the preparation of an environmental document, as the
percentage may not be sufficient for what is needed to conduct
an environmental analysis.
Last, let me address the establishment of demonstration
projects.
H.R. 3558 addresses the implementation of demonstration
projects on National Wildlife Refuge System lands. The
Department believes National Forest System lands could also
serve as a site for a demonstration project to conduct field
tests and demonstrate applied research activities which are
vital components and essential for success of management goals.
USDA has found that research and technology development is
critical to successful land management, including cooperative
efforts with State and local partners. Similarly, restoration
actions, following nonnative invasive species treatment, are
often key to sustaining control and ecosystem health over the
long term. Options are needed for supporting applied field
tests, technology development and restoration actions when
these are essential components of an effective, on-the-ground
management strategy.
The Forest Service National Forest System, Research and
Development and State and Private Forestry mission area could
implement a demonstration project.
In conclusion, nonnative invasive species threaten forest
and rangeland sustainability and ecosystem viability. Although
there are points of concern related to this bill, the
Department believes this bill is a commendable effort to
address nonnative invasive species management on public and
private lands. The Department would like to work with the
Committee to review existing authorities and determine if there
is a need to amend those authorities. This concludes my
testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions that
you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kaiser follows:]
Statement of Janette Kaiser, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National
Forest System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
To the Chairmen and members of the subcommittees, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Janette Kaiser, Acting
Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, USDA Forest Service. My
comments today represent the views of USDA on H.R. 3558, the Species
Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act.
First, I would like to commend the subcommittees for recognizing
harmful nonnative invasive species as a significant threat to our
nation's ecosystem health. Nonnative invasive species alter ecosystem
functions and reduce biological diversity by eliminating native
species, which in turn can lower the water table, increase soil erosion
and runoff, or increase fire frequency and intensity. Nonnative
invasive species also change the plant community used by domestic
livestock, wildlife, and recreationists. These changes in the ecosystem
often result in eliminating or restricting the use of our wildlands and
urban areas and increase management costs. Populations of nonnative
invasive species in the U.S. are expanding annually by 7 to 14 percent.
We face a daunting challenge in managing nonnative invasive species,
but the Department is committed to working with the Administration and
the Congress to identify solutions. USDA is in a strong position to
address this issue because of the broad authorities supporting
nonnative invasive species management. Various field operations in the
Department include prevention, detection, control, monitoring and
restoration; research and technology development; technical assistance
to States, Tribes and private landowners; financial assistance
including cooperative agreements and grants; and international
collaboration.
Although USDA supports the objectives of H.R. 3558 to address the
problem of nonnative invasive species, we do however have concerns. The
Department has numerous programs and delivery systems already in place
under existing statutory authorities to address nonnative invasive
species management. Within the Forest Service in particular, there is a
full range of existing authorities to support an integrated program of
research and development, management of nonnative invasive species on
public land, and technical assistance to private landowners. These
programs focus on invasive insects such as the Asian longhorn beetle
and Gypsy Moth, invasive pathogens such as Sudden Oak Death Disease,
and invasive plants that grow after a fire such as starthistle. The
programs that are implemented on National Forest System lands emphasize
management of nonnative invasive species, the same focus areas that are
in H.R. 3558.
For reasons I will detail in my testimony, USDA strongly supports
the concept of controlling nonnative invasive species at the local
level with support provided by a multitude of partners. However, H.R.
3558 raises a number of questions for USDA. The Department would like
to engage the Committee in more detail regarding (1) compatibility with
existing authorities in USDA; (2) implementation and accountability;
(3) and establishment of demonstration projects.
Compatibility with Existing Authorities in USDA
Currently, within USDA there are six agencies that have a
leadership role in dealing with the introduction and spread of
nonnative invasive species and are involved in research, regulation,
operations, partnerships, technical and financial assistance, and
education. USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is
the front line of prevention, dealing with interdiction at borders,
interstate movement, detecting and mitigating disseminations, and
providing eradication of new introductions. The USDA research agencies,
the Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service, and the Forest Service, provide
information on the basic ecology of nonnative invasive species, as well
as detection, monitoring and control methodologies and technologies.
The Forest Service has a broad range of authorities to address the
nonnative invasive species issue and to coordinate with other Federal
agencies with corresponding responsibilities.
Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, APHIS and
Farm Services Administration provide technical and financial
assistance, consultation, technology transfer prevention, and landscape
restoration following an invasion or to prevent an invasion following a
disaster. The nonnative invasive species programs in these agencies run
both independently and collaboratively.
The National Invasive Species Council that was created by Executive
Order 13112 is an example of a collaborative effort among federal
agencies. The Council is an inter-Departmental Council, co-chaired by
the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior. Another
program involving federal agencies is the ``Pulling Together Initiative
Steering Committee'' sponsored by the Federal Interagency Committee for
Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW). The Pulling Together
Partnership Initiative has been ongoing since 1996, and is a multi-
agency effort that provides federal matching grants through the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for local and regional weed
prevention and control projects. Federal agencies involved include the
FS, BLM, FWS, Bureau of Reclamation, NPS, Department of Defense, and
APHIS. Funds allocated from agencies involved with the Council or
FICMNEW could be affected by funding allocated for H.R. 3558.
Implementation and Accountability
Section 5 of H.R. 3558 provides that a qualified project must be
conducted on lands or waters under the control of the eligible
applicant, and on adjacent lands or waters of a Federal agency. The
bill should be clarified to provide that the Federal agency must
approve any qualified project on land under its jurisdiction. The
Department believes these decisions should remain within the
jurisdiction of Federal land managers.
Section 5 of H.R. 3558 establishes two programs and a demonstration
project for the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the
Interior, which can be enhanced by current programs in USDA, thus
avoiding any potential redundancy.
USDA also notes two aspects of administration in Section 4, 5, and
9 of H.R. 3558 for which it would be helpful to have more information.
First, H.R. 3558 delegates the coordination of projects to the Invasive
Species Council; however, Council staff is not involved in program
administration. Second, H.R. 3558 allocates five percent of the funding
for administrative expenses. USDA is concerned whether this applies to
the preparation of an environmental document, as the percentage may not
be sufficient for what is needed to conduct an environmental analysis.
Establishment of Demonstration Projects
H.R. 3558 addresses the implementation of demonstration projects on
National Wildlife Refuge System lands. The Department believes National
Forest System lands could also serve as a site for a demonstration
project to conduct field tests and demonstrate applied research
activities, which are vital components and essential for success of
management goals. USDA has found that research and technology
development is critical to successful land management, including
cooperative efforts with State and local partners. Similarly,
restoration actions following nonnative invasive species treatment are
often key to sustaining control and ecosystem health over the long-
term. Options are needed for supporting applied field tests, technology
development and restoration actions, when these are essential
components of an effective on-the-ground management strategy. The
Forest Service National Forest System, Research and Development, and
State and Private Forestry mission areas could implement a
demonstration project.
In conclusion, nonnative invasive species threaten forest and
rangeland sustainability and ecosystem viability. Although there are
points of concern related to this bill, the Department believes this
bill is a commendable effort to address nonnative invasive species
management on public and private lands. The Department would like to
work with the Committee to review existing authorities and determine if
there is a need to amend those authorities.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Kaiser. That was
very helpful.
Dr. Tate?
STATEMENT OF JAMES TATE, JR., SCIENCE ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Dr. Tate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Jim Tate. I am the
science advisor to the Secretary of Interior, and on behalf of
the Secretary, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before
your Committee to present our views on the Species Protection
and Conservation of the Environment Act of 2001.
The Department of Interior commends Congress for
recognizing this serious threat to the United States that is
posed by invasive species. We are particularly concerned about
invasive species with respect to the health of our natural
resources, for which we have great trust responsibilities in
Interior, and of course for the strength of our national
economy because they affect both very strongly.
The Department of Interior programs on invasive species
need your support in order to help build the partnerships at
the State and local levels for managing invasive species on our
lands and waters, that is, those that we are responsible for
and those of our neighbors. These cooperative efforts will make
otherwise limited programs effective by allowing us to work
with partners who have adjacent lands and adjacent waters, and
that is one of the strengths that you present to us here.
We have to recognize that in the wake of September 11th
that we have to identify the possible costs of everything we
do, everything that comes before us. We must ask how anything
that we are funding new that we might approach would affect the
current budget climate, the priorities reflected in the
President's budget, and the priorities of our Nation as a
whole.
A few comments that I think support your ideas. Mr. Rahall
mentioned earlier that $137 billion had been identified as a
cost to our economy. That is the study done at Cornell by David
Pimentel and others. We know that invasive species degrade the
habitats for native fish and wildlife. They disrupt the
equilibrium of plant and animal communities across the country,
an equilibrium that has been established on a broad and long
scale, longer than the scale of time that invasive species have
been such an issue, and in regard to our environmental law, the
Endangered Species Act, we have linked invasive species to the
decline of more than a third of all of the threatened and
endangered listed species in our country. That is David
Wilcove's study that made that correlation.
Managing invasive species is, in fact, a priority for our
Department. The National Invasive Species Council just referred
to is co-chaired by the Secretary of Interior, along with the
Secretaries of Commerce and Agriculture. We coordinate the
invasive species efforts of 10 different Federal departments
and agencies to ensure our actions are effective and efficient.
In addition to our economy and our natural resources, it is
also clear that our Nation's abundant natural resources can be
threatened at the drop of a shoe by invasive species, something
of great concern to us.
The Department of Interior's program investment in invasive
species is second only within the Federal Government to that of
USDA. In fiscal year 2000, we spent $31 million, which was 5
percent of the total Federal invasive species expenditures, and
spending has accelerated significantly from $17 million in 1999
to $41 million in 2002. We do propose to spend about $40.8
million in 2003.
At the Department of Interior, the Invasive Species Council
is our guest. We are the host to the Council itself. The
Invasive Species Advisory Committee works directly with, and
advises the Council, and that advisory committee directly
builds stakeholder involvement in collaboration between Federal
agencies and non-Federal partners, which is one of the
strengths of your bill.
We also support the management principles embodied in your
legislation. We strongly support the need to promote strong
partnerships. We recognize that Federal land management
agencies in Interior, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation play key roles
in managing invasive species, particularly at the local level
where communities are struggling with means to protect their
environment, maintain sustainable agriculture and continue
economic stability.
The concepts in your bill represent several mechanisms
where the Federal sector could better cooperate and consult
with its potential partners. We also applaud the Committee's
interest in utilizing the Fish and Wildlife Service's National
Wildlife Refuge System for demonstration projects to develop
new techniques and procedures to restore and manage invasive
species issues.
We have identified several concerns with the bill. They are
minor concerns. I don't think I need to outline them here at
this time. They can be found in my written comments, but we do
appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee, and
I wish to thank you on behalf of Secretary Norton for your
efforts to address these important issues. Secretary Norton's
stated principle of communication, consultation and cooperation
apply to the invasive species issue as well as any of the
issues, and we applaud your efforts for conservation in this
regard. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Tate follows:]
Statement of Dr. James Tate, Jr., Science Advisor, U.S. Department of
the Interior
Mr. Chairmen, my name is Jim Tate, and I am the science advisor to
the Secretary of the Interior. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before your Committee to present the views of the Department of the
Interior on H.R. 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the
Environment Act of 2001.
The Department commends Congress for recognizing the serious threat
to the United States posed by invasive species, particularly with
respect to the health of the environment and the strength of our
national economy. Our programs on invasive species need the support of
the Congress to in order to help build capacity at State and local
levels for managing invasive species on our lands and waters and those
of our neighbors, especially in pursuit of cooperative conservation
goals. We are encouraged by this bill and others introduced in prior
sessions of the Congress that emphasize streamlined efforts to focus
efforts on-the-ground projects. However, we need to identify more
clearly the possible costs of this proposal and how it would be funded
within the context of the current budget climate and the priorities
reflected in the President's budget.
Researchers at Cornell University estimate that invasive species
are costing Americans approximately $137 billion per year (Pimentel et.
al. 2000). Invasive species degrade habitats for native fish and
wildlife, disrupt the equilibrium of plant and animal communities
across the country, and have been linked to the decline of more than a
third of all threatened and endangered species. (Wilcove, D.S., et. al.
1998, ``Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States''
BioScience 48: 607-615.) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates
that $29,000,000 of the Tier 1 projects identified in the Refuge
Operations Needs is attributed to increasing impacts from invasive
species. Managing invasive species is a priority for the Department.
The National Invasive Species Council, which is co-chaired by the
Secretary of the Interior, together with the Secretaries of Commerce
and Agriculture, coordinates the invasive species efforts of ten
different Federal departments and agencies to ensure that our actions
are efficient and effective. We look forward to the opportunity to work
with Congress to strengthen our nation's ability to identify, control,
and eradicate these incipient invaders.
The Department of the Interior's program investment in invasive
species is second only to USDA. In fiscal year 2000, DOI spent $31
million, approximately 5 percent of the total Federal invasive species
expenditures (U.S. General Accounting Office 2000). Spending
accelerated significantly from $17M in fiscal year 1999 to $41M in
fiscal year 2002. The Department proposes to spend $40.8 million in
2003:
(1) Lto fight invasive plants and animals on National Wildlife
Refuges, National Parks (including Exotic Plant Management
Teams under the Natural Resources Challenge), BLM lands
(including removal of weeds contributing to unnatural wildfire
cycles and post-fire restoration), and waters under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation;
(2) Lto stem the onslaught of aquatic nuisance species such as
the sea lamprey, Caulerpa alga, Eurasian ruffe, Giant Salvinia
water fern, and the Asian swamp eel primarily through the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), BOR, and USGS;
(3) Lto build partnerships with private landowners to eliminate
harmful alien species and to restore native plant and animal
communities (FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife and the Pulling
Together Initiative of the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation); and
(4) Lto provide research and information sharing tools for
monitoring, prevention, and control and accountability in the
U.S. Geological Survey.
The Department provides support for the National Invasive Species
Council and the Invasive Species Advisory Committee to build direct
stakeholder involvement and collaboration between federal agencies and
non-federal partners fighting accelerating bioinvasions. Interior plays
a major role in invasive species activities: leadership and
coordination, prevention, early detection and rapid response, control
and management, restoration, international cooperation, research,
information management, and education and public awareness.
We support the conservation principles and findings embodied in
this legislation, and strongly support the need to promote strong
partnerships among Federal, State, Tribal, local, and private
landowners. We recognize that Federal land management agencies such as
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the
Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service play key roles
in managing invasive species, particularly at the local level where
communities are struggling to find support for protection of the
environment, sustainable agriculture, and economic stability. The
concepts included in H.R. 3558 represent several mechanisms where the
Federal sector could increase the amount of support it has to offer.
The bill also expands invasive species prevention and control on public
lands by increasing the capacity of Federal landowners to manage native
systems by reducing the impacts of invasive species. We applaud the
Committee's interest in utilizing the National Wildlife Refuge System
for demonstration projects to develop new techniques and procedures to
restore native fish and wildlife habitats through the control of
invasive species. We support the bill's objective of enhancing the
cooperative efforts between the public and private sectors in the
battle against invasive species.
H.R. 3558 establishes Federal cost-share grant programs similar to
other invasive species management bills sponsored in both the House and
the Senate over the past year, including H.R. 1462 on which I testified
during the last session. The Department has identified several concerns
with the bill. I will outline these concerns and several clarifying
modifications briefly in this statement. It is our understanding that
other Federal agencies may have additional concerns.
H.R. 3558 expands invasive species prevention and control
partnerships through four grant programs. The first establishes a
mechanism to develop State assessments, or plans, which identify State
priorities for controlling invasive alien species. The bill details a
Federal cost-share program that will fund States to help build the
capacity of individual, local, State, and Federal landowners to
restore, manage, or enhance native fish or wildlife and their habitats
through control of invasive species, including aquatic species.
Providing technical and financial assistance for the development of
State assessments on aquatic invasive species is an important role of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. H.R. 3558 recognizes this role and
provides such assistance. We point out that Section 4 of this bill
provides a different mechanism for the development of State/Interstate
Management Plans than those being developed under the authority of the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990
(NANPCA) reauthorized as the National Invasive Species Act (NISA).
Under NANPCA, plans developed by the States must follow specific
guidelines and are submitted to the Task Force for approval. Once
approved, States can receive funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to implement the State plans. Although H.R. 3558 allows the
Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to accept plans
developed prior to the enactment of this bill, the development of plans
under Section 4 should complement and not conflict with existing
programs. In addition, the process for developing and implementing
these plans would need to be transparent and easy for States to follow,
possibly through guidance that provides the necessary detail to allow
for the submission of comprehensive and consistent plans.
The second grant program authorized by H.R. 3558 promotes greater
cooperation among Federal, State, local, and private landowners to
prevent and control invasive species through a voluntary, incentive-
based financial assistance program, known as The Aldo Leopold Native
Heritage Program. This program provides additional financial support
for needed on-the-ground management activities. We note that similar
cost-share programs are currently supported by the Department of the
Interior in concert with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
such as ``Seeking Common Ground'', ``Bring Back the Natives'', and,
particularly, the ``Pulling Together Initiative.'' The ``Pulling
Together Initiative'' is a grant program for private, State, and
Federal entities that leverages funds to conduct on-the-ground invasive
plant management. The ``Pulling Together Initiative'' is also supported
by the Departments of Agriculture and Defense. The program has grown to
nearly $19 million per year, including matching funds from states that
participate in the program. We view the requirements and grants
established by this bill as complementary to existing programs such as
``Pulling Together'' and other native fish and wildlife habitat
restoration cost-share programs.
While we applaud development of State assessments to set priorities
and increase accountability, we are concerned that many otherwise
eligible participants in the Aldo Leopold Native Heritage Program may
not qualify for funding until the assessments are completed. This may
limit the program's effectiveness, particularly if the State
assessments take years to complete. In the case of State invasive
species plans developed under NANPCA, only nine State/Interstate
Aquatic Nuisance Management Plans have been developed over the past 10
years. One of the key elements of a successful invasive species
management program includes the ability to respond rapidly to new or
small infestations. We are concerned that there may be a significant
number of private landowners, local organizations, and other partners
prepared to conduct scientifically-sound invasive species control
projects, but whose projects will not qualify for grants because of the
restrictions in Section 5 of H.R. 3558. Language that would lift this
restrictive requirement, while continuing to require accountability and
effective coordination of projects funded under Section 5, would
address this concern.
Section 5 of the bill also requires projects to have objectives
that have no negative impact on the bioregion in which they are carried
out. Although we agree with this concept, it may prove difficult to
ensure that no negative impacts will occur, depending upon the scale on
which the impacts are measured. Minor, short-term negative impacts may
be a necessary phase of a science-based native fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement project that has a long-term goal of restoring a
bioregion. It would be helpful to clarify this point, and to amend the
term ``bioregion'' to correspond to the ecoregions of the United States
as determined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Additionally, Section 5 of H.R. 3558 requires that projects must be
conducted in partnership with a ``Federal Agency.'' The term ``Federal
Lands'', as defined in Section 3 of the bill, is limited to all lands
and waters owned and administered by the Department of the Interior or
the National Forest Service or held in trust by the Federal Government
for an Indian tribe. We are concerned that limiting the definition of
``Federal Lands'' in Section 3 may conflict with the Federal Agency
requirement in Section 5, particularly in the case of partnerships to
restore native fish and wildlife habitats on military lands and waters.
Expanding the definition of ``Federal Lands'' to include military and
other Federal lands and waters, or developing a definition of ``Federal
Agency'' which would include agencies within the Department of Defense,
Department of Transportation, Department of Commerce, and other
agencies involved with the National Invasive Species Council would help
strengthen this section.
Section 5 of H.R. 3558 states that projects must be conducted on
Federal lands and adjacent non-Federal lands or waters. Since many
invasive organisms spread easily through the watercourses within a
watershed, the term ``adjacent non-Federal lands'should be defined
broadly to allow for projects anywhere in the same watershed. This
would allow for projects to be conducted in remote locations that can
reasonably be expected to act as a source for invasive species on
Federal lands and in waters adjoining Federal lands.
Section 5 of H.R. 3558 also details the contents of a 2-year report
required to be submitted by the grantee. We are concerned that several
of the requirements entail extensive biological sampling that could be
very expensive, time consuming, and may limit the number of partners
that are interested in taking part in the program. We are also
concerned about the administrative burden of compiling and analyzing
the monitoring data. Clarification that the Council could delegate
duties to the appropriate agency, if necessary, while maintaining an
oversight role would address this concern. We believe this Section
should be modified to achieve accountability goals that facilitate the
collection of useful data, yet prevent the expenditure of excessive
resources on reporting that may limit on-the-ground accomplishments,
and to develop inventorying and monitoring criteria that would meet the
intent of the bill while using the best available science.
The third initiative in H.R.3558 establishes a demonstration
program, utilizing the National Wildlife Refuge System, to develop new
technologies and methods to restore native fish and wildlife habitats
by controlling aquatic and terrestrial invasive alien species. This
program will complement a new fish and wildlife research demonstration
program underway in the National Wildlife Refuge System. We note that
other Federal bureaus and agencies may wish to implement similar
demonstration programs on Federal lands and waters, thus expanding the
role of all Federal land and water management agencies in the
development of new strategies for invasive alien species prevention and
control. Appropriate modifications to this section of the bill would
facilitate such implementation.
The fourth program authorized by H.R. 3558 would provide financial
assistance to States for conducting rapid response activities to
eradicate and/or prevent the spread of new infestations of harmful non-
native invasive species. We are encouraged by the desire of the
Committee to improve the capacity of the States to respond rapidly to
new invasive species infestations and conduct preventative response
efforts to control the spread to new locations. The bill could be
modified to require the Secretary to coordinate with existing early
detection and rapid response programs and other Federal agency programs
that deal with invasive species. Additionally, the bill could also be
strengthened by including language to allow the responsible agency to
enact administrative polies for the cost-share program.
H.R. 3558 appears to us as though it may interfere with other
authorities and laws not related to acquisition of lands and waters or
interests therein. Language should be included that would prevent such
interference.
Finally, the Administration has additional concerns, such as
appropriate cost share amounts and grant award criteria that would
benefit by further clarification to sharpen its focus on priorities and
performance.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee to
discuss the issue of invasive species and I wish to thank you,
Representative Rahall, as well as Chairman Gilchrest and Representative
Underwood, for your efforts to address this issue. We support the
mutual goal of assisting States, Tribes, and private landowners to
prevent, control, and manage non-native invasive species while
recognizing the need to maintain a strong partnership with neighboring
federal lands and waters.
This concludes my formal remarks. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Dr. Tate.
Ms. Kaiser and Dr. Tate. I have a few questions. I know the
questions that most of us ask here today, each response, based
on the complexity of the science could be quite lengthy. But
because we have a limited amount of time, sometimes a yes or no
answer would be fine.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. And we will read your testimony fully as we
progress through this process and take your recommendations
into serious consideration.
Ms. Kaiser, Dr. Tate, is this problem of invasive species
beyond our control nationwide, worldwide?
Dr. Tate. Let me say that in some instances we have gone so
far with the invasive species that being able to manage them
will be most difficult. We do want to restore equilibrium in
our plant and animal communities that allows for sustainable
use of those communities, and invasive species in some cases
are a major challenge.
Ms. Kaiser. I would answer yes and no. We have demonstrated
the ability in many cases to be able to manage invasive species
on a case-by-case basis. But there is the larger question of
what is the long-term effect, so I will stand with yes or no.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there a system of priorities where you
have hot spots in certain areas of the country that need the
most attention and then other areas where they are not too bad,
but if you pay attention to them right away, they can be fixed
on an ongoing basis? Do zebra mussels, for example, making
their way from the Great Lakes to Lochsa River or Moose Creek
in Idaho--I think that is probably a priority--but also I would
say is there something we can do with brown tree snakes in
Guam?
But let me move on. I asked Mr. Underwood, if he gets
elected to Governor of Guam if he would hire me to be the
principal eradicator of the brown tree snake, I would move down
there.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Are existing programs working, and if they
aren't, is it because of lack of funding, lack of coordination?
Will this legislation move us in the direction we need to go?
Dr. Tate. We have funding as identified in the budget to do
many of the things that you are asking for. What we need and
what your bill provides is authority to work especially with
some of our partners on private lands, and is one of the things
we support strongly in your bill.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Ms. Kaiser. I think the key to success for any of these
programs is being integrated and collaborative and working with
both public and private sectors together. I think that our
delivery mechanisms are working because of increased attention
for this issue, and the technology and the capabilities we are
able to bring to the table.
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Kaiser, you recommended that not only
there be a demonstration project with the refuge system, but
also with National Forest, which I think that is only
appropriate because that sends it over to another committee,
the Agriculture Committee, but I think maybe they would waive
their jurisdiction if we included that.
Would either one of you recommend somewhere in the country
a demonstration project such that Mr. Otter suggested earlier,
where the demonstration project would be specific to let's say
where a refuge or a national forest butts up against private
property where there is a spillover problem with invasive
species?
Dr. Tate. We absolutely support the demonstration project
portion of what you are suggesting here, but frankly, there is
not a refuge in the country that is not affected by adjacent or
nearby lands or waters, that we could almost pick any refuge
you want and get the results you need.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Ms. Kaiser. Within the Forest Service I think there are so
many opportunities I would recommend that we would work with
either your Committee or other mechanisms that we have to
collaborate, so your Committee or any of the other arenas and
identify some of those opportunities.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. The last question--and I probably
shouldn't have said keep your answers short, because it seems
like you are holding back, so you can make them as long as you
want for the rest of the members.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Tate, I think you said $137 billion cost
to the economy with invasive species.
Dr. Tate. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. There is 31 or 40 some million dollars from
Interior spent on invasive species, and I would guess a little
bit more than that with the Forest Service, but I would also
guess that it is well under $100 million that we spend
nationally on invasive species. Now I am sure throughout the
entire Federal Government there is maybe a little bit more than
that, but considering $137 billion cost to the economy by
invasive species, what in your background, history, experience,
engagement in this problem, have you ever thought about would
be an appropriate amount to make a dent or begin to overcome
this problem? Can you give us a figure? Not a practical figure
politically or a pragmatic figure politically, but the figure
you think you know between your heart and brain would be a
figure that would solve the problem?
Dr. Tate. The short answer is no, I can't give you that
figure, but the longer answer, let me explain what I mean by
that.
When David Pimentel and the others examined the situation
and found $137 billion, this is a matter of economists and
scientists looking at the impacts on our economy under a
situation once up a time a few years back. Things have changed
drastically in all regards since then.
Here is what we are doing. We have initiated, late last
year, a budget crosscut examination, looking at what money is
spent not only in Interior but in Agriculture, Commerce and all
the people trying to deal with the invasive species cost issue.
And the results of that project, when they come out--and I
predict not a long time, in time for the next budget cycle is
what we are hoping for--that we will be able to answer you
better where money is truly being spent on invasive species and
where we can find economies, and we can find new opportunities
for leveraging Federal dollars, and working with partners so
that we actually are spending our money and their money most
effectively.
The other part of the question, are there hot spots, are
there places where we should be spending our attention,
directing our attention? A lot of it appears in the management
plan. These are very optimistic goals in here, many of which we
have already missed because of long transition and things of
that nature, but the kinds of things that are here are an
organized examination of what the concerns are and a
prioritization to some degree. We are going to improve on the
prioritization, and hopefully we can give you the numbers you
ask for very soon.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Ms. Kaiser. I would just add that I don't have a figure for
you either. If I had to guess for the Department, it would be
somewhere in the $100 million range, but that is a very broad
guess.
But I would like to comment. Any funding that you look at
needs to be long term and sustained because these issues won't
be resolved short-term. And we should also look at it in the
context that it is a pay-me-now pay-me-later issue. The quicker
we engage the costs will be much less. The longer we wait, the
costs will be much higher.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. And your comments and
recommendations have been very helpful.
Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you very much for your testimonies this morning.
They, and understandably so, reflect a great deal of concern
about the way the legislation would actually impact the
organization of the agencies that you work with, yet at the
same time that we draw attention to them, I guess the real
import of the legislation for us here is to make the case, and
I think some of the studies help us make that case that the
problem of invasive species is so pervasive that we have to
triangulate and develop new structures to deal with it, that
cut across various agencies, that try to organize and get us to
better understand the amount of resources that we are devoting
to this and to comprehend whether those resources are up to the
challenge.
In line with that, I am just interested, Dr. Tate, in terms
of the $137 billion figure on economic impact, is there any--I
know you have probably thought about this a lot. Is there any
element of that estimate that you take issue with?
Dr. Tate. I wouldn't use the term ``take issue with.''
There is one area of it in which I believe we have not focused
as strongly, and that is in the Department of Interior's
Natural Resource trust responsibilities. Our natural resources
are subject to tremendous challenges from invasive species on
all fronts. While we have programs in place that deal with the
various interfaces, for example, agriculture and natural
resources, they tend to emphasize areas other than the natural
resource side of our great riches here in the United States.
An example might be appropriate so that you know what I am
talking about. There is a disease in deer and elk called
chronic wasting disease. It is related possibly to or caused by
a similar circumstance as mad cow disease and a syndrome that
occurs in humans. That disease is now endemic in a portion of
the Colorado/Wyoming border. It extends, we discovered
recently, over to Nebraska, and it extends west to Rocky
Mountain National Park. That is both good news and bad news
that it is in Rocky Mountain National Park. The good news is
now we have Department of Interior resources focusing on it
more and more than we did before. Department of Agriculture has
responded to chronic wasting disease very effectively and moved
forward. I should let them describe it, but they have moved
forward by trying to take care of certain captive elk herds
that are infected with it.
But my point is that the natural resource side would be,
could be better supported because it would be terrible to have
to say that we would have to remove all of our wild deer and
elk because of the possibility of controlling this disease, and
that is my example of the kinds of things we would have to do
with our current technologies.
Mr. Underwood. I wish there were a way to infect the brown
tree snake with that disease, and then would solve a number of
other problems.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Tate. Emerging technologies is your answer there.
Mr. Underwood. In prefacing your remarks you drew some
attention, and you gave the sense that concern over nonnative
species, the way the bill outlines it and proposes a funding
level, you gave the sense that this would bump up against other
priorities, and that is pretty standard when we are talking to
administration representatives. I know you live in a different
world in terms of trying to identify resources for your own
activities. But would you say that this is too generous a bill?
Dr. Tate. The bill is too generous in what regard?
Mr. Underwood. In terms of the kinds of funding that is
proposed and outlined.
Dr. Tate. What we have discovered that we really like is
your help in creating partnerships, in leveraging what funding
we have, in leveraging what programs we have, by making it
possible for us to reach to other communities and other
stakeholders, and in terms of funding we have turned in our
budgets and we will continue to develop our budgets with this
in mind. And I can't tell you beyond that where we would go
with it, but I do know that you have given us new opportunities
to make taxpayers money go further.
Mr. Underwood. Ms. Kaiser, in your testimony you indicated
that you wanted to see USDA included in the pilot project, and
I think it is something that--I think you also mentioned it,
Dr. Tate, in your testimony, that you wanted to consider
including a whole number of Federal agencies since this is an
issue that cuts across all of these agencies. Yes, Ms. Kaiser,
in your testimony, you--I mean I expect that you would be proud
of the work of USDA in what you are doing, but the question
that the Chairman asked I think was very appropriate to begin
with, was are nonnative species out of control? And you
answered both yes and no, but in your testimony you gave us the
sense that there is a lot of activity that is devoted to this
and a lot of resources in various parts of USDA. It seems to me
that they are out of control, and it would seem to me that it
would call for this kind of legislation and this kind of
approach which would cut across all of the agencies.
Ms. Kaiser. We applaud the effort to address this issue on
a broad basis. When I said yes or no, it was, is there any
hope; are we so out of control that there is no hope or that
kind of thing. We have been very successful in--I would just
suggest that there are delivery mechanisms in place in a
variety of organizations, and some within, many within USDA,
that can deliver on issues such as research and development,
technology transfer, land management activities, best
management practices, a variety of those things. And I would
think that the type of funding you are talking about would be a
great complement to the existing opportunities that we have,
the existing delivery mechanisms within the Federal Government
today, and I would encourage you to look at those.
Mr. Underwood. OK. Well, thank you, and I also look forward
to seeing a precise accounting of what kind of resources are
used to combat nonnative species, if indeed, we are able to
figure out the economic costs associated with this we ought to
be able to at least figure out how much resources we are
spending to combat it.
I did just want to make a brief statement, Mr. Chairman. I
believe we only received these testimonies yesterday, and I
remember in my previous four terms we heard repeatedly about
how tardy administration officials were in submitting their
testimony, so I hope that we can speed that up a little bit.
Mr. Gilchrest. I think the administration officials realize
how busy Members of Congress are, and we probably wouldn't look
at it until the night before anyway.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. I am not sure if that is the comment my
staff wanted me to make.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Underwood. Well, that is right. That is the comment
that my staff gave to me.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Tate and Ms. Kaiser, thank you for your
testimony. We appreciate you coming down here today and we look
forward to working with you as the bill moves through the
process. Thank you very much.
Ms. Kaiser. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Our next panel is Mr. Mark Van Putten,
President, National Wildlife Federation; Dr. Chavarria,
Director of International Special Programs, National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation; Dr. Ann Bartuska, Executive Director,
Invasive Species Initiative, The Nature Conservancy; Dr. Lucius
Eldredge, Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum.
Thank you very much for coming today, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. Van Putten, you don't have any Russian ancestry?
Mr. Van Putten. No, sir, I am a Hollander and it is Van
Putten.
Mr. Gilchrest. Maybe Mr. Putin has Holland ancestry. And it
is Van Putten?
Mr. Van Putten. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming
this morning. We look forward to your try, and, Mr. Van Putten,
you may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF MARK VAN PUTTEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WILDLIFE
FOUNDATION
Mr. Van Putten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. My name is Mark Van Putten. I am President of
National Wildlife Federation, and I appreciate the opportunity
to testify this morning on H.R. 3558.
National Wildlife Federation is America's largest not-for-
profit conservation, education and advocacy organization with
more than 4 million members and supporters. We also are a
federation of state and territorial organizations, and we were
founded in 1936.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that my written
testimony be included in the hearing record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Van Putten. The conversation of our Nation's natural
ecosystems in a healthy and abundant state provides innumerable
and irreplaceable benefits to society. To conserve these
ecosystems and realize these benefits, there are many complex
issues to be addressed, including human population growth,
pollution, sprawling development, unsustainable agricultural
processes, and global climate change. All of these are
important issues and we work on all of them, but another
pernicious threat that has been too often overlooked is the
subject of today's hearing, the harm brought upon our natural
ecosystems by invasive and nonnative species.
That threat has been recognized by the delegates to the
National Wildlife Federation, who set our policies. And I have
appended to my testimony the two resolutions that have been
passed by our delegates in recent years, addressing the issue
of invasive nonnative species. And I would associate myself
with Dr. Tate's response to the question about the need for
increased emphasis on the impacts that invasive nonnative
species have on natural ecosystems as well as the impact that
they have on agriculture and in other situations.
After habitat loss itself invasive nonnative plants are the
second greatest threat to native species. At least 5,000
nonnative species, including more than 2,100 exotic plants and
2,000 insects have invaded North America since the arrival of
European explorers. And many of these species have been harmful
to wildlife and ecosystems. They overwhelm native species and
out compete them for food, space, water and other needs, and in
some cases, they prey on native species and directly alter
their habitat.
In my written testimony I have cited two very compelling
examples, the examples of melaleuca in the Everglades, and the
Great Lakes experience, and I will not in my oral remarks go
into any further detail, but they are two very compelling
examples of the impacts on native ecosystems.
The answer to this includes the remedies in this
legislation and a broader public education, and the National
Wildlife Federation has been dedicated to educating the broader
public about the threat of invasive nonnative plants.
For example, our Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program, through
which we have helped homeowners and certified over 30,000
backyards as Backyard Wildlife Habitat, emphasizes the use of
native plants in landscaping, and our various activities on the
World Wide Web similarly provides people with information on
how they can use native species and the advantages of using
those native species.
The National Wildlife Federation strongly supports H.R.
3558 and commends its authors and this Committee for that
legislation, and looks forward to working with you as we
proceed.
I would, however, like to identify two concerns that we
have in addressing the issue of nonnative invasive species.
First of all, the ultimate test of Congress and our collective
commitment to dealing with this problem will be appropriating
the funds necessary to deal with it. Unless adequate funds are
appropriated, the problem of invasive nonnative species will
continue to grow unchecked, and I would also associate myself
with the comments of the Representative of the Department of
Agriculture, that is, either pay now or pay later, and it will
be cheaper to pay now.
Second, we have a concern that we need to be sure that the
cure is not worse than the disease, that some of the techniques
that are used to control or remove nonnative species need to be
carefully assessed to ensure that those techniques are host
specific and nonharmful to other species and to our natural
ecosystems. We are concerned about the need to minimize the use
of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals, and to be very
careful as we evaluate proposed solutions.
The list and examples of invasive nonnative species
destroying native communities is long and growing. H.R. 3558
will help address this problem by encouraging cooperation among
affected parties including private and Government interest and
authorizing funding to initiate needed programs. We strongly
support this bill and look forward to working with the
Committee as it moves through the legislative process.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Putten follows:]
Statement of Mark Van Putten, President and CEO, National Wildlife
Federation
On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), I would like
to thank the Chairman, Ranking Minority Member and Committee members
for this opportunity to testify on the Species Protection and
Conservation of the Environment Act (H.R. 3558). Thank you
Representatives Rahall, Gilchrest and Underwood for authoring H.R.
3558.
I am Mark Van Putten, President and CEO of the National Wildlife
Federation. We are the nation=s largest not-for-profit conservation
education and advocacy organization with more than four million members
and supporters, and nine natural resources centers throughout the
United States. National Wildlife Federation's family also includes
forty-six state and territorial affiliate organizations, including the
Utah Wildlife Federation and West Virginia Wildlife Federation. Founded
in 1936, the National Wildlife Federation works for the protection of
wildlife species and their habitat, and for the conservation of our
natural resources.
Mr. Chairman, I request that my full written testimony be included
in the hearing record.
The conservation of our nation's natural ecosystems in a healthy
and abundant state provides innumerable and irreplaceable benefits to
society. To conserve these ecosystems and realize their benefits for
all of us, we must address many complex issues, including human
population growth, pollution, sprawling development patterns,
unsustainable agricultural practices and global climate change. All of
these are important issues and the National Wildlife Federation is
actively working on each of them. However, another pernicious threat
too often overlooked and the subject of today's hearing is the harm
brought upon our natural ecosystems by invasive non-native species.
H.R. 3558 addresses this threat by authorizing cost-share grants to
states for projects consistent with state plans; creating the Aldo
Leopold Native Heritage Grant Program for implementing effective
control programs; encouraging demonstration projects on national
wildlife refuges where ecologically sound methods of controlling
invasive non-native species can be tested; and promoting the
development of a rapid-response capability. This latter measure will
help us address urgent threats before they become ecological disasters
beyond our control. Each of these measures is a necessary and vital
step in tackling the problem of invasive, non-native species. The
National Wildlife Federation therefore strongly supports H.R. 3558.
The National Wildlife Federation's affiliated organizations across
the United States adopted a position statement on invasive non-native
species in 2000, a copy of which is appended to my testimony. Our
concern is that invasive non-native species can so radically change an
area's physical and biological environment that the habitat
requirements for native plants and animals no longer exist. After
habitat loss, invasive non-native plants are the second greatest threat
to native species. At least 5,000 non-native species, including more
than 2,100 exotic plants and 2,000 insects, have invaded North America
since the arrival of European explorers. Many of these species have
been harmful to native wildlife and ecosystems. They overwhelm native
species for food, space, water, and other needs. In some cases these
species prey on native species and alter their habitat.
Hawaii, perhaps more than any other state, has suffered severe
impacts from introduced species. At least 23 native bird species have
become extinct and another 32 bird species endangered in the last 200
years in Hawaii. The non-native Indian mongoose, roof rat and feral cat
are the primary reasons for this devastation of native fauna.
The impacts of invasive non-native species are not confined to our
natural ecosystems. Agricultural and rangelands can be severely harmed
by the spread of invasive non-native species such as cheat grass and
Russian thistle, which absorb valuable nutrients and deplete soil
moisture. Navigation on many of our nation's waterways has been
hampered by dense growths of aquatic invasive non-native plants such as
hydrilla and water hyacinth. Industry also has suffered due to the
spread of invasive non-native plants and animals into equipment and
piping.
The harm to natural ecosystems caused by invasive non-native
species is illustrated by two well-known species, melaleuca and the
zebra mussel.
The Everglades and Melaleuca
Invasive non-native plants have become rampant in Florida in the
last thirty years. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), just one species--melaleuca, a non-native tree introduced from
Australia--is invading the greater Everglades ecosystem at a rate of
about 11 acres per day. Melaleuca has already infested hundreds of
thousands of acres in South Florida creating monocultures that destroy
native plant diversity and provide little benefit to native wildlife
species. Furthermore, the dense stands of melaleuca transpire enormous
quantities of water, contributing to lowering of the water table in the
Everglades, further expanding their impact on the natural wetlands that
define the Everglades. The insidious spread of melaleuca and other
invasive non-native plants like Brazilian pepper represent a serious
threat to Florida's natural ecosystems and the habitat of endangered
species such as the Florida panther, all at a time when we are
embarking on an unprecedented effort to restore the greater Everglades
ecosystem from decades of environmental mismanagement.
Once an invasive non-native species takes hold, it is often very
expensive, if not impossible to eradicate. It has taken more than a
decade to find a natural predator of melaleuca that will not threaten
native flora and fauna. The USDA is now releasing melaleuca leaf
weevils from Australia to control the spread of the tree, reducing the
need to use potentially hazardous chemical controls.
The National Wildlife Federation has been educating people in the
greater Everglades watershed about the threat of invasive non-native
plants. Our Backyard Wildlife Habitat ``, and Keep the Wild Alive--
educational programs have sponsored events focusing on habitat. NWF has
shown people how to identify invasive non-native plants, especially
melaleuca, replace them with natives in their own communities and take
part in restoration activities in rural and wilderness areas. One event
we co-hosted with the USDA last year took Boy Scouts out into panther
habitat to collect weevils from one area of forest and release them
into another forest currently being invaded by melaleuca.
The Great Lakes and Zebra Mussels
For decades, the National Wildlife Federation has worked to protect
the biological integrity of the Great Lakes from numerous environmental
threats. One of the most alarming threats to the Great Lakes, however,
comes from invasive non-native plants such as Eurasian water milfoil,
non-native fish such as the Eurasian ruffe and round goby, and the
zebra mussel. These and other species were introduced into the Great
Lakes from ballast water discharged by foreign ships using our coastal
and inland waterways. Native to the Balkans, Poland, and the former
Soviet Union, the zebra mussel is spreading across North America at an
astounding rate. Dense zebra mussel colonies grow in pipes and on other
hard surfaces, severely impacting water flow at power plants, water
treatment systems and other facilities. Although the full biological
impact of zebra mussels is not entirely known, it is clear that where
zebra mussels invade, native mussel species quickly decline.
So great is the problem of invasive non-native species in the Great
Lakes, that just last Friday, March 8, 2002, the National Wildlife
Federation's affiliated organizations adopted the resolution
``Protection of the Great Lakes from Exotic Species.'' In this
resolution, which I have appended to my testimony, we identify the need
for additional federal and state legislation requiring the treatment of
ballast water in ships entering the Great Lakes.
Legislation
The Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act
(H.R. 3558), is an important component of what should be a broad and
diverse effort to minimize the impact of invasive non-native species,
control their spread and prevent their introduction in the first place.
The problem of invasive non-native species is so widespread and
pervasive that no single program or action can address it
comprehensively. This is particularly true where the spread of invasive
species may be exacerbated by other environmental problems.
For example, last month National Wildlife Federation published a
book entitled, Wildlife Responses to Climate Change, North American
Case Studies. This book explores how global climate change has the
potential to significantly increase the rates, intensities, and extent
of species invasions and could correspondingly worsen the impacts of
invasions on ecological systems throughout the United States. A summary
of the study as it relates to invasive species is included with my
written testimony.
Thousands of non-native plant and animal species, all with their
own unique life history characteristics, have the potential to severely
impact our natural ecosystems, not to mention agriculture and industry.
Invasive non-native species are of concern on both public and private
lands and water features, and will thus require private and public
cooperation, including local, state, regional and federal agencies, to
effectively address the problem.
Already, encouraging efforts are under way. On February 3, 1999
President Clinton signed Executive Order 13112 ``Invasive Species''
which established the National Invasive Species Council (Council). The
Council helps coordinate the activities of 10 federal agencies with
respect to invasive non-native species, including research, management
and monitoring. H.R. 3558 takes a positive step forward by assigning
the Council important consultation functions as grant programs
authorized by the bill are designed and implemented.
The National Wildlife Federation would also look favorably on
federal legislation permanently establishing the National Invasive
Species Council and providing it with adequate funding. Such
legislation would help ensure the continuity of programs and sustain
focus during changing administrations, and therefore would help in
effectively controlling invasive non-native species.
We are also encouraged by the introduction of other legislation to
address the invasive non-native species problem. Specifically, I am
referring to the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act (S.1034). This
legislation would finally close the loop hole which exempts ships
entering the Great Lakes declaring that they have no ballast on board
from regulation under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act of 1990. Experience has shown that these exempted ships can
still transport invasive non-native species to the Great Lakes and
other areas.
Although we embrace legislation authorizing funding for the control
of invasive non-natives, two precautionary notes are in order. First,
the ultimate test of Congress's commitment to controlling invasive non-
native species is in the annual appropriations process. Unless adequate
funds are appropriated, the problem of invasive non-native species will
continue to grow unchecked.
Second, programs to control and manage invasive non-native species
must be developed and implemented in such a manner that they are not
harmful to our natural ecosystems. The introduction of non-native
species to control other non-native species must be vigorously screened
to ensure the species is host specific and non-harmful to other species
and our natural ecosystems. Furthermore, all control methods should
seek to minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals.
In the few cases where use of chemicals may be appropriate, this use
must be tightly regulated and carefully monitored to avoid harming non-
target native species. All projects and programs addressing invasive
non-natives should be evaluated according to their success in
implementing appropriate environmental controls.
Conclusion
The list of invasive non-native species destroying our native
communities is already too long and is still growing. H.R. 3558 will
help address the problem by encouraging cooperation among affected
parties, including private and government interests, and authorizing
funding to initiate needed programs. We strongly support H.R. 3558 and
look forward to working with this committee as H.R. 3558 moves through
the legislative process.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to answer any questions that Members may have.
______
National Wildlife Federation
Resolution Number 1
2000
INVASIVE SPECIES
WHEREAS, some non-indigenous invasive plants, animals and other
organisms have an adverse impact upon indigenous communities by
reducing available light, water, nutrients, and space and can cause
other long term changes in the area's hydrology, soil chemistry and
erodibility, and the frequency of fires; and
WHEREAS, some introduced non-indigenous plants, animals and other
organisms are highly invasive, capable of rapid reproduction and/or
growth resulting in the displacement of indigenous species, and can
radically change an area's physical and/or biological environment so
that the habitat requirements for indigenous plants, animals and other
organisms no longer exist; and
WHEREAS, non-indigenous invasive plants, animals and other
organisms by nature are easily spread from one area to another; and
WHEREAS, the impact of non-indigenous invasive species threatens
regional biodiversity in a manner that is not easily quantified; for
example, the loss of an indigenous plant community to non-indigenous
invasive species may mean the loss of an insect, animal or indigenous
plant dependent upon that community; and
WHEREAS, according to the National Park Service, invasions of non-
native plants are the second greatest threat to native species after
direct habitat destruction; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated, ``an estimated
42% of the nation's endangered and threatened species have declined as
a result of encroaching exotic plants and animals''; and
WHEREAS, the problem of non-indigenous invasive plants is
widespread and, according to federal and other accounts, now extend
into more than 1.5 million acres of national park land and are
spreading at a rate of 4,600 acres per day into federally owned land;
and
WHEREAS, it is ``estimated that in the 20th century, just 79
introduced plant and animal species have cost the U.S. economy $97
billion in losses to such industries as forestry, ranching, fisheries,
tourism, and utilities''; and
WHEREAS, research is required to establish best management
practices to control and prevent the spread of non-indigenous invasive
species; and
WHEREAS, international trade agreements and rules, regulations, and
protocols related to international transportation and trade can
significantly affect the possible transportation of non-indigenous
invasive species into the United States and other countries;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Wildlife
Federation in its Annual Meeting assembled March 16-18, 2000, in
Seattle, Washington, supports the President's efforts in establishing
the Invasive Species Council to integrate efforts of federal agencies
to combat the problem and to prepare and issue the first edition of a
National Invasive Management Plan that shall ``detail and recommend
performance-oriented goals and objectives and specific measures of
success for federal agency efforts concerning invasive species''; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation
supports increased federal funding for non-indigenous invasive species
management in National Parks and on other federal lands and/or waters,
and the continued funding of the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP) that, in part, provides cost sharing for private initiatives to
control non-native (invasive) plants from natural ecosystems; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation
encourages state and federal agencies, universities and other groups to
work together to identify and list the highly and potentially invasive
non-indigenous species specific to that state, and to promote that the
list be used as an educational and managerial tool; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation calls
upon state and federal agencies to carefully formulate regulations to
control, reduce, or, if necessary, prohibit the introduction,
transportation, propagation, sale, or distribution of non-indigenous
plants known to be harmful or otherwise undesirable; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation
encourages state and federal agencies, universities, and other groups
to work with the nursery industry to establish policies to control and
prevent the further introduction and spread of non-indigenous invasive
species, and to promote a list of alternative, preferably native
plants, that can be the basis of educational programs that will benefit
growers, the public, and the environment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation
encourages state and federal entities engaged in research and
development involving management of vegetation to intensify their
studies of ecology and control of invasive non-indigenous plants; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation urges
monitoring of areas that have endangered or threatened species and/or
are relatively free of non-indigenous invasive species and encourages
careful management practices to be used in the removal of non-
indigenous invasive species; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation urges
the Congress and federal agencies to ensure that the United States'
international trade obligations, including the World Trade Organization
and its Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, are formulated and
implemented to provide sufficient flexibility to allow for regulations
to control and prohibit intentional or unintentional introduction of
non-indigenous invasive species and other organisms into the United
States and other countries; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation urges
the Congress of the United States to recognize the high environmental
and economic costs associated with non-indigenous invasive plants,
animals and other organisms and to appropriately fund efforts to
control this enormous national environmental crisis through educational
programs, research, and cost-share incentives to restore native
habitats.
______
National Wildlife Federation
Resolution Number SC-2
2002
PROTECTION OF THE GREAT LAKES AND OTHER WATERS FROM EXOTIC SPECIES
WHEREAS, our Great Lakes, estuarine habitats, coastal and inland
waters continue to be invaded by exotic (non-native) aquatic organisms
and pathogens transported from foreign waters; and
WHEREAS, these organisms arrive in the ballast water discharged by
ships using our estuarine, coastal and inland waterways; and
WHEREAS, previously introduced exotic species, such as Eurasian
ruffe and round gobies, are being carried in ballast water from one
Great Lakes port to another; and
WHEREAS, once introduced and established, these non-native aquatic
organisms are expensive to control and almost impossible to eliminate;
and
WHEREAS, the impact on sport and commercial fisheries is immense
and disrupts the aquatic diversity of the Great Lakes, estuarine
habitats, coastal and inland waters; and
WHEREAS, moreover, shoreline communities in the Great Lakes region
alone are being forced to spend an estimated $500 million annually on
control measures to protect drinking water, power plants, and
recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS, some of these aquatic organisms, such as zebra mussels and
Eurasian water milfoil, are now making their way into inland lakes and
streams across the United States where they are displacing native
animal and plant species; and
WHEREAS, the ballast water that harbors these invaders is used to
maintain the stability of cargo vessels when they are empty or only
partially loaded and is pumped in or out of large holding tanks, as
needed, before the ships enter or leave port; and
WHEREAS, although U.S. and Canadian laws currently require ships
entering the Great Lakes to exchange their ballast water at sea, ship
design makes it impossible to eliminate all of the ballast water; and
WHEREAS, the majority of ships entering the Great Lakes do so with
``No ballast on Board'' and ships in this condition are commonly
referred to as NOBOBs; and
WHEREAS, ships in the NOBOB condition still carry sediment in their
ballast that can harbor exotic species; and
WHEREAS, the average ship retains 42,000 gallons of ballast water
and sludge when entering the Great Lakes or moving between ports; and
WHEREAS, exotic organisms are flushed into the lakes as ships take
on and discharge residual ballast water in the course of their voyages;
and
WHEREAS, ships in the NOBOB condition are currently exempt from
requirement to exchange their ballast under federal law; and
WHEREAS, federal laws as they are currently administered have
clearly failed to prevent exotic species in this residual ballast water
from reaching the Great Lakes, estuarine habitats, coastal and inland
waterways; and
WHEREAS, in the 106th Congress a bill was introduced that would
have amended the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Control and Protection
Act of 1990 and require ships traveling in and out of the Great Lakes,
estuarine habitats, coastal and inland waters to replace or purify
their ballast water or certify that any discharge or exchange within
U.S. waters will not introduce any non-indigenous organisms; and
WHEREAS, the National Wildlife Federation believes the ultimate
control has to come from the Federal government working in concert with
Canada; and
WHEREAS, the National Wildlife Federation and many other
organizations recognize the threat posed to the Great Lakes, estuarine
habitats, coastal and other inland lakes and streams of the United
States by the continued introduction of non-indigenous aquatic
organisms carried in the ballast water of ocean going vessels.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Wildlife
Federation, at its Annual Meeting assembled March 7-9, 2002 in Stone
Mountain, Georgia, support the enactment of federal legislation to
protect the Great Lakes, estuarine habitats, coastal and inland waters
from undesirable exotic species and pathogens, by requiring treatment
of ballast water of all ships entering or moving between the Great
Lakes, estuarine habitats, coastal or inland ports, including ships
with no ballast on board (NOBOBs) to eliminate viable exotic organisms
without damage to the environment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National Wildlife Federation
encourages the development, funding, and use of environmentally sound
technologies that prevent the introduction of exotic species into the
aquatic environment by minimizing or eliminating the uptake of
organisms into ships' ballast tanks; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National Wildlife Federation
supports equally effective state legislation to regulate ballast water,
including ships in the NOBOB condition in individual state waters to
provide interim protection until such time as federal legislation is
enacted to adequately protect all our Great Lakes, estuarine habitats,
coastal and inland lakes and rivers.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.023
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Van Putten.
Dr. Chavarria.
STATEMENT OF GABRIELA CHAVARRIA, DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL AND
SPECIAL PROGRAMS, NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION
Ms. Chavarria. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Gabriela
Chavarria, and I am Director of International Programs at the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The Foundation is
pleased to testify before you today as you address the silent
spread of invasive and noxious plant species as one of the
greatest threats to the biological diversity, ecological
stability and the economy of an increasing number of areas in
the United States and the world.
Impacts from exotic invasive species are second only to
direct habitat loss as a factor in the decline of fish,
wildlife and plant diversity. Of the 5,000 introduced plant
species established in the United States, 476 are
scientifically recognized as pests with aggressive and invasive
characteristics. Experts estimate that invasive and noxious
plants have infested well over 100 million acres and the area
affected continues to increase by 8 to 20 percent annually.
These plants have encroached upon millions of acres,
supplanting native plants, disrupting ecosystem structure and
function, and infecting agricultural crops, causing billions of
dollars in lost revenue.
In 1996 the Foundation, along with the Bureau of Land
Management and the USDA Forest Service, created a private/
public partnership to aid in the prevention, management and/or
eradication of invasive and noxious plants, and to increase
public awareness of the adverse impacts. This partnership is
called the Pulling Together Initiative or PTI. This initiative
has served as an implementation program to the National
Strategy on Invasive Noxious Weeds produced in 1996--and you
have a copy of this--and is now part of the National Invasive
Species Management Plan. You also have a copy of that.
We represent demonstration projects that go on every day.
Over the past 6 years this program has become a joint effort
between the Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the
National Park Service, the USDA Forest Service, the USDA
Animal, Plant and Health Inspection Services, and the
Department of Defense.
To date, 220 grants have treated invasive species in 36
States and 2 U.S. possessions. The program has provided over $7
million in Federal funds that have been leveraged by over $30
million in non-Federal funds for a total of over $21 million
for on the ground projects.
The program promotes greater cooperation among the various
stakeholders to implement ecologically based strategies to
eradicate, mitigate and control harmful nonnative plant species
through a voluntary and incentive-based financial assistance
grant program. This program helps in the development of long-
term weed management projects within the scope of an integrated
weed management strategy. Projects range from pulling yellow
star thistle in Idaho to releasing biological control agents on
leafy spurge in Colorado, to selective spraying of giant
salvinia in the lower Colorado River.
Our program provides support on a competitive basis for its
public/private partnership through the formation of local weed
management area partnerships nationwide. This is critical in
that it serves to engender public awareness and increase
interest in further eradication efforts to protect, enhance,
restore, and manage native habitats for native fish and
wildlife.
We recognize limits on Federal resources and build into our
program a 5-year plan of funding for individual projects. This
5-year plan gives the grantee important startup monies to
leverage with a myriad of local resources. These local
resources range from volunteer labor to chemical donation to
neighborhood sharing of equipment.
These projects are not selected by the Foundation alone.
They are selected by a national steering committee, which is
comprised of 22 invasive weed species experts from the Federal,
private and corporate sectors.
The PTI success remains rooted in the principle of public/
private partnerships at the national and local levels. Bringing
a national presence to the invasive species issue, we empower
local weed management entities to fight the battle at a
landscape level. This approach also focuses resources on the
important component of public outreach and awareness. As the
general public learns more of the ecological and economical
threat, they become engaged in preventing the establishment of
these invasive species in their communities. Attention such as
this at every level is a key precursor to a successful fight
against invasive weed species.
We commend this Committee for taking action and introducing
legislation that is a much-needed step in the right direction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee for
the opportunity to testify before you today. This concludes my
remarks, and I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chavarria follows:]
Statement of Gabriela Chavarria, Ph.D., Director of International and
Special Programs, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (the Foundation) is
prohibited from testifying on behalf of specific legislation but
appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement as it relates to
the growing problem of invasive species on both public and private
lands.
The Foundation is a private, non-profit, 501(c)3 tax-exempt
organization, authorized by Congress in 1984 to conserve fish,
wildlife, and plants, and the habitats on which they depend. We have
funded nearly 5,000 projects and leveraged over $175 million in federal
dollars for more than half a billion dollars in funding for on-the-
ground conservation, conservation education, and organizational
capacity building. The Foundation is non-partisan and does not support
lobbying, political advocacy, or litigation. The Foundation's primary
conservation ingredient is its grantees and other partners--the
hundreds of federal, state, tribal, corporate, and private
organizations that have leveraged federal dollars, identified the
worthy projects, and conducted the conservation projects. In
particular, our core federal agency partners provide vital matching
funds through its appropriations and budgets, and invaluable program
direction and technical assistance. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USDA-Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Agency for
International Development, Environmental Protection Agency, and USDA-
Natural Resource Conservation Service are the eight core agencies
providing this support.
The Foundation's conservation investments have resulted in over 20
million acres of restored wildlife habitat--an area nearly equal to the
State of Indiana, and over 11,000 miles of restored streams and
waterways. We have helped develop new models for private land
stewardship, created new hope for countless species, and built
educational programs that nurture the next generation of stewards.
The Foundation commends Congress on its efforts to recognize the
silent spread of invasive and noxious plant species as one of the
greatest threats to the biological diversity, ecological stability, and
the economy of an increasing number of areas in the U.S. and the world.
Impacts from exotic invasive species are second only to direct habitat
loss as a factor in decline of fish, wildlife, and plant diversity. Of
the 5,000 introduced plant species established in the U.S., 476 are
scientifically recognized as pests with aggressive and invasive
characteristics. Experts estimate that invasive and noxious plants have
infested well over 100 million acres and the area affected continues to
increase by 8 to 20 percent annually. These plants have encroached upon
millions of acres, supplanting native plants, disrupting ecosystem
structure and function, and infesting agricultural crops, causing
billions of dollars in lost revenue.
In 1996, the Foundation, along with the Bureau of Land Management
and the USDA-Forest Service, created a private/public partnership to
aid in the prevention, management, and/or eradication of invasive and
noxious plants and to increase public awareness of the adverse impacts.
This partnership is called the Pulling Together Initiative (PTI). PTI
has served as an implementation program to the National Strategy on
Invasive Noxious Weeds produced in 1996 and is supported by over 100
private, federal and corporate organizations, and is now part of the
National Invasive Species Management Plan.
Over the past six years, PTI has become a joint effort between the
Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, the
USDA-Forest Service, the USDA-Animal Plant and Health Inspection
Services, and the Department of Defense. Since weeds do not respect
boundaries, our agency partners recognized the need to form
partnerships without borders.
To date, 220 grants have treated invasive species in 36 states and
two U.S. Possessions. The PTI program has provided $7,279,174 million
in federal funds that have been matched by $13,777,922 million in
nonfederal funds, for a total of $21,057,096 million for on-the-ground
projects. A map showing the distribution of the projects is enclosed
for your review (Attachment A).
PTI promotes greater cooperation among the various stakeholders to
implement ecologically based strategies to eradicate, mitigate, and
control harmful nonnative plant species through a voluntary and
incentive-based financial assistance grant program. This program helps
in the development of long-term weed management projects within the
scope of an integrated pest management strategy. An integrated pest
management strategy is significant in that it includes mechanical,
chemical, and biological control.
Projects range from pulling yellow star thistle in Idaho, to
releasing biological control agents on leafy spurge in Colorado, to
selective spraying of leafy spurge in remote areas in North Dakota.
PTI provides support on a competitive basis for its public/private
partnership through the formation of local weed management area (WMA)
partnerships nation-wide. The significance of the WMA is to ensure that
implementation of the integrated pest management approach is understood
from acre to acre, parcel to parcel, state to state. These partnerships
are critical in that they serve to engender public awareness and
increase interest in further eradication efforts to protect, enhance,
restore, and manage native habitats for native fish and wildlife.
PTI recognizes limits on federal resources and builds into its
program a five-year plan of funding for individual projects. This five-
year plan gives the grantee important startup monies to leverage with
myriad local resources. These local resources range from volunteer
labor, to chemical donations, to lending a tractor.
PTI has been effective in initiating working partnerships,
demonstrating successful collaborative efforts, and building on those
successes to develop permanent funding sources for the maintenance of
WMAs from the involved parties.
PTI projects are not selected by the Foundation alone. They are
selected by a National Steering Committee, which is comprised of
twenty-two invasive weed species experts from the federal, private, and
corporate sectors. A list of these members is attached as attachment B.
After six years, the success of PTI remains rooted in the principle
of public/private partnerships at the national and local levels.
Bringing a national presence to the invasive species issue, PTI
empowers local weed management entities to be successful in their
partnership efforts to fight the battle at a landscape level. With this
national local backing, PTI also focuses resources on the important
component of public outreach and awareness. As the general public
learns more of the ecological and economical threat, they become
engaged in preventing the establishment of these invasive species in
their communities. Attention such as this at every level is a key
precursor to a successful fight against invasive weed species.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee to
discuss the issue of invasive species. We would like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and Members of this Committee, for your efforts to address
this important issue. This concludes my remarks and I am happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.021
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Dr. Chavarria.
Dr. Eldredge, welcome. I am sorry, I got my names mixed up.
Dr. Bartuska. Thank you. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF ANN M. BARTUSKA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INVASIVE
SPECIES INITIATIVE, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Ms. Bartuska. Good morning. My name is Ann Bartuska. I am
the Executive Director of the Nature Conservancy's Invasive
Species Initiative. And I would like to thank the Chair and the
Committee for inviting the Conservancy to testify before you
today on H.R. 3558.
I would like to submit my full testimony to the record and
just briefly summarize my remarks.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
Ms. Bartuska. Thank you.
The Nature Conservancy is fully dedicated to preserving
plants, animals and natural communities that represent the
diversity of life on this earth. We are trying to do that with
our presence in 50 States and 28 countries worldwide.
And our concern on invasive species has really become
critical, especially after we surveyed our member organizations
nationwide and internationally last year, and determined that
75 percent of our units have identified invasive species as the
No. 1 critical threat to achieving our mission. Because of
that, we feel we can't ignore the whole invasive species issue,
and appreciate the opportunity today to talk about H.R. 3558
and the role that might play in contributing to the fight
against invasives.
What I would like to do today is just summarize a few of
our comments that we have about the bill, and also to identify
some areas that we think could be further improved or analyzed
as the discussions continue about this bill, and then to
conclude with some remarks on future opportunities, always
taking advantage of an opportunity like this to put some new
things on the table.
We believe that any program that provides mechanisms to
work across land ownerships, Federal, State and private, to
deal with the invasive threat is a very positive step forward,
and we commend the members of the Subcommittees for putting
this together as part of H.R. 3558. We think it does bring some
valued attention to the invasive species issue and does provide
some opportunities among all land ownerships to address the
problem. We also support the idea of looking at all taxa,
looking at plants, animals, insects, diseases, the full array
of invasives that we have out there and not limiting to any
particular threat as part of the overall package in the long
run.
In terms of some of the areas that we support, providing
resources to the areas of greatest need I think is one thing
that is identified in the bill that really helps get resources
at the local level to where we have the greatest threat. Being
able to have local entities make those decisions and to utilize
the full information available through the Federal and State
programs will certainly help us to address the problem where it
exists. We also believe that the fact that the bill allows us
to address prevention, eradication, rapid response and control
and management, all encompass a very powerful way of looking at
invasive species.
Second, the emphasis in the bill on prevention and rapid
response is a much-needed effort, and I think really highlights
those areas where you do get the biggest bang for the buck,
getting out early, taking care of a species infestation before
it becomes a significant threat, before it becomes an
established population is something that is a very high
priority for all of us. We have seen that with fires, where if
you address fires before they get established, your investment
is much lower and your success rate is much higher.
And then last, the idea of capacity building for the Fish
and Wildlife Service to help support the backlog of invasive
species management opportunities on the refuges is something
that we support just generally in addressing Federal lands and
getting ahead of the invasive species problems. So we continue
to encourage that kind of an outcome in addressing the
invasives problem.
There are a few areas that we feel need to be further
addressed, the areas of the State management plans. There is
some opportunities for confusion in comparing what is in H.R.
3558 with what has been identified through the Aquatic Nuisance
Task Force, under NISA for the Co-op Forestry Assistance Act
with the Forest Service on their Insect and Disease Management.
So a more comprehensive look at State plans I think could be
very beneficial.
We also would like to encourage that the allocation to
refuges or to Federal lands not be limited by adjacencies, that
again, you go to where the greatest need is based on priority
setting.
And we are also concerned about the cost of monitoring. A
question came up earlier about adequacy of resources. We
believe that the dollars authorized for monitoring are probably
not adequate to address the full needs of monitoring out there.
The last point I would like to raise is with regard to the
National Invasive Species Council. We are glad to see that that
body has been given fuller authority to provide some oversight
for the bill, but we believe that there are greater
opportunities to give the National Invasive Species Council
full statutory authority to be able to provide more oversight
and accountability among the Federal agencies in terms of both
the allocation of resources and the accountability measures.
And I know my time is up. I have one other comment I would
like to include, and that has to do with rapid response. I
really would like to just comment for the members of the
Committee to take a look at what authorities we have for rapid
response to build upon the GAO report that identified some
areas of weaknesses within the Federal sector on rapidly
responding and to further bolster that particular part of the
battle on invasives, both early detection and rapid response.
So I thank you very much for the opportunity to provide
comments, and of course, I am available for questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bartuska follows:]
Statement of Ann M. Bartuska, Ph.D., Executive Director, Invasive
Species Initiative, The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this testimony for the record on H. R. 3558,
Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act. In
particular, the Nature Conservancy is grateful to the Committee for
introducing H.R. 3558 which is helping to bring needed attention to the
serious harm caused by invasive species to our biological heritage and
economic resources.
The Nature Conservancy is dedicated to preserving the plants,
animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on
Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The
Conservancy has approximately 1 million individual members and over
1,900 corporate donors. We currently have programs in all 50 states and
in 28 nations. To date our organization has protected more than 90
million acres in the 50 states and abroad, and has helped local partner
organizations preserve million acres in other nations. The Conservancy
itself owns more than 1,390 preserves--the largest private system of
nature sanctuaries in the world. Our conservation work is grounded on
sound science, strong partnerships with other landowners, and tangible
results at local places.
Why is The Nature Conservancy concerned about invasive species?
LAn internal survey of the Conservancy found that
approximately 75% of the operating units believe invasive species are a
killer threat preventing the accomplishment of our conservation
strategies.
LUp to 46% of the plant and animal species listed as
endangered in the United States have been negatively impacted by
invasive species--In this regard, invasive species are a threat second
only to habitat loss.
LThe economic costs to the people of the United States
alone are estimated at $137 billion annually. Damages by invasive
plants has led to annual losses in agricultural productivity of $20
billion. Globally the costs are much higher.
LTaking action on invasive species provides powerful
common ground with our partners--public and private, national and
international.
Comments on H.R. 3558
There is no question that invasive species--both aquatic and
terrestrial--pose a huge problem to the natural resources of the United
States. In addition, Federal and state agencies and private landowners
face a management challenge with inadequate resources--personnel,
management options, and funding. Any program that provides mechanisms
to work across land ownership to solve the challenge of invasive
species management is a positive step forward. HR. 3558 contributes to
the further implementation of the National Invasive Species Management
Plan, and enhances the capacity of private, State and Federal entities
to manage invasive species. We commend the members of the Committee for
raising the awareness regarding the significant impacts of invasive
species of all taxa to our environment, and ultimately to our economy.
1. Providing resources to areas of greatest need. The prevention,
eradication, control and restoration of invasive species are, to a
significant extent, a matter of local management. We believe it is
important to provide mechanisms that stimulate local stakeholders to
take action and the resources to see the action to a successful
conclusion. H.R. 3558 makes an important effort to stimulate local
action through its provisions addressing assessment, planning,
monitoring and subsequent action on private, state and Federal lands.
The legislation greatly expands the public/private model of invasives
action presented by the ``Pulling Together Initiative''. This model for
action has been used successfully by the Conservancy and many others
throughout the country.
2. Prevention and rapid response. The emphasis in the bill on
prevention and rapid response highlights very constructively those
management activities that most effectively minimize the establishment
of invasive species. Natural resource managers need sufficient
resources to eradicate incipient populations of invasive species
wherever possible. The need for enhanced rapid response capability
associated with non-agricultural lands is clear. This capacity must be
matched, however, by sufficient resources to implement an early
detection system that is the triggering mechanism for the response.
3. Capacity building for Fish and Wildlife Service. As with many of
the Federal agencies, there is a growing gap between the need to manage
invasive species and the resources available for even the highest
priority management activities. The backlog in invasive species
management on the National Wildlife Refuge System is a serious threat
to fish and wildlife habitat. The implementation of demonstration
projects in the refuge system could contribute to reducing this backlog
and help test new management tools.
Areas of concern:
1. State management plans. There is the potential for confusion
between the goals and target groups of the grant programs within this
bill and the ``Partners for Fish and Wildlife'' program managed by the
Fish and Wildlife Service. Similarly, state management plans are called
for through the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force under the authority
of the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) which is scheduled for re-
authorization in 2002. Through the Forest Service implementation of the
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, States also are called upon to
develop plans to address forest insects and disease, including non-
native invasive species like gypsy moth. The National Invasive Species
Council should be required to develop guidance which leads to
comprehensive and consistent state plans for invasive species
management
2. Scope of lands covered by grants. Language relevant to the Aldo
Leopold Native Heritage Program suggests that projects on State and
private lands are currently limited to those adjacent to Federal lands.
However, invasives know no boundaries and federal funds should be
directed to where the greatest resource needs are located. We recommend
language that allows the use of federal funds on either federal, state,
or private lands, or some combination of these lands, depending on
where the greatest resource need is in a particular area.
3. Costs of monitoring. It has become standard practice to include
statements that call for monitoring of projects and program
implementation. However, insufficient resources and accountability for
monitoring are all too often provided for this purpose. We recommend
increasing the funding level authorized to a level commensurate with
the need for monitoring.
4. Federal versus local focus. Success in the fight against
invasives requires to a great extent cooperation among federal, state
and private stakeholders. It is important to stimulate as much activity
in organizing local stakeholders to fight invasives as possible. We
would like more of the focus of decision making regarding funding of
projects to involve local stakeholders, and less of the decision making
to be made at the headquarters level.
5. Implementation through the National Invasive Species Council.
The Council is a potentially powerful mechanism to harmonize,
standardize and integrate the actions of all federal agencies who deal
with invasive species. Authorizing the Council to implement activities
within H.R. 3558 will significantly contribute to coordination among
agencies and Departments.
Future Opportunities
The Nature Conservancy would like to take this opportunity to
identify several areas not covered by H.R. 3558 which we believe must
be addressed in the future to more effectively use Federal and State
processes and programs:
1. Authorize the National Invasive Species Council. The Council was
established through an Executive Order in 1999 and has been given the
broad responsibility for implementing the Executive Order and the
components of the National Invasive Species Management Plan. We believe
the full potential of the Council--administratively and legislatively--
will not be achieved until it is codified and provided more permanent
status.
2. Encourage the development and support for a cross-cut budget to
implement the National Invasive Species Management Plan. Until a cross-
cut budget is deployed, federal and state efforts to address invasive
species will continue to be fragmented and inconsistent and ultimately
will not lead to the performance outcomes we should expect from federal
funding. Congress can boost the development of such a budget through
appropriations language and other communications with the
Administration.
3. Bolster Rapid Response. Rapid response, by definition, means the
rapid deployment of people and resources to eradicate a plant or animal
population prior to establishment. On Federal lands, rapid response is
hampered by procedural requirements associated with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While TNC fully supports the use of
NEPA as an important tool in achieving conservation goals, we also
believe that new and creative solutions in the application of NEPA
requirements is essential. NEPA streamlining is one area of opportunity
being explored through the National Fire Plan and more recently by NISC
staff, and we support expanding these efforts to include rapid response
to invasive species.
4. Establishment of a permanent fund. We also encourage the
establishment of a permanent fund to fight invasive species. The annual
appropriations process, coupled with the inability of Federal agencies
to maintain funds for invasive species management across fiscal years,
is a serious limitation to Federal and non-Federal rapid response
capabilities. While APHIS has the broadest authority currently to
address invasive species, this authority has generally been used only
for agricultural systems. The GAO identified other barriers to a
comprehensive Federal rapid response effort in a June 2001 report
entitled ``Obstacles Hinder Federal Rapid Response to Growing Threat.''
We believe their recommendations have merit.
In summary, The Nature Conservancy believes HR 3558 is consistent
with the needs identified in the National Invasive Species Management
Plan and provides for important support to States and to private
landowners to increase their capability in prioritizing and managing
invasive species. We look forward to working with the Committee to make
further improvements to H.R. 3558 and other legislation on invasive
species.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Bartuska.
And the gentleman from Hawaii, who gets the most miles
traveled award, a free trip to--well, you name it--Dr.
Eldredge. Thank you very much, sir, for coming, and give us
your expertise.
STATEMENT OF LUCIUS G. ELDREDGE, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
SCIENCES, BISHOP MUSEUM
Mr. Eldredge. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3558.
Let me introduce myself. I am Dr. Lu Eldredge. I have lived
in the Pacific Islands of Hawaii and Guam for more than 40
years, and have seen many, many changes brought about by
nonnative and invasive species. I have also worked very closely
through the University of Guam with the South Pacific Regional
Environment Program which looks at the 27 countries of the
Pacific and helped them develop their technical program and
their plans and strategy. I have been at the Bishop Museum at
this time for 13 years. Many of you don't know, the Bishop
Museum is 113-years-old. It has 24 million specimens and
objects. It is the largest collection of material on Hawaii and
the Pacific in any one place in the Pacific area and probably
outside the Smithsonian, the largest place.
The major staff members at the museum have been working
with biodiversity and conservation, and almost every staff
member has some aspect of working with introduced and nonnative
species, from snails to fish to plants and seaweeds.
The Hawaiian Islands, by virtue of their geographic
isolation and rich volcanic soils, and enormous topographic and
climactic diversity, have produced a highly endemic flora and
fauna, which includes many of the world's outstanding examples
of adaptive radiation. The biota includes more than 23,000
species. Hawaii accounts for only two-tenths of a percent of
the land area of the United States, but it has 31 percent of
the Nation's endangered species and 42 percent of its
endangered birds. Of the 1,072 species of native flowering
plants, 73 are down to 20 or fewer individuals in the wild, and
9 are down to 1 individual. Nearly one-third of the more than
8,000 insects in the Hawaiian Islands are nonnative. Almost 75
percent of the historically documented extinctions of plants
and animals in the United States have occurred in Hawaii. Not
only is Hawaii the extinction capital of the world, the
Hawaiian Islands are also the introduced species capital of the
world with 5,047 species. Approximately 22 percent of the biota
of the Hawaiian Islands is nonnative.
These figures have been pulled together through our
activities of the Hawaii Biological Survey which was created by
the State Legislature in 1992 to develop and maintain and
disseminate information on the biota of the Hawaiian Islands.
The Bishop Museum is also the coordinating activity for the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve,
which is the second largest coral reef ecosystem in the world.
We are assembling information on literature and will be
convening a symposium on past and present research of the
Northwest Islands.
Very few figures like this are available for other places
in the Pacific other than 63 percent of the flowering plants of
Guam are considered to be nonnative. The problems with
nonnative plants and animals, land plants and animals have been
fairly well recognized. We have all watched the brown tree
snake expand and so forth. There are other examples, but the
freshwater ecosystems have not shared this extensive study. The
U.S. mainland fresh waters, zebra mussel, purple loosestrife
and so forth have attracted much attention, but the Pacific
Islands, there have been very little known about the nonnative
freshwater species. Most fish introductions have been the
result of aquaculture through escape or intentional release. A
total of 86 freshwater fish species have been introduced in the
Pacific Islands. Not all of them have been successful. 72
species have been introduced to the Hawaiian Islands and 59
have become established. Papua New Guinea has received 30
species of which 19 have been established. Guam and Fiji, each
have received 24 species, of which 17 and 12 species have been
established, respectively
The flora and fauna of the coastal ecosystems is the least
known. Nonnative marine species are difficult to distinguish.
Through a series of established criteria, that is, sudden
appearance, association with other nonnative species in harbors
and docks and pilings, and disjunct distributions, like an
animal has been found in Norway, the Panama Canal and Pearl
Harbor, is an indication that these are perhaps introduced or
cryptogenic, which means not demonstratively native or
introduced. Really don't know.
The majority of these marine species are dispersed by ships
either in ballast water or attached to hulls, anchors, chains.
Fouling organisms are also attached to drilling platforms,
drydocks, buoys and so forth. Fisheries and marine aquaculture,
including stock enhancement are major pathways by escape or
intentional release.
Numbers of nonnative marines species in Hawaii include 343
species, which is more than San Francisco Bay has at this
point. Of these, 287 are invertebrates, 24 algae, 20 fish and
12 flowering plants. 212 or or more than 70 percent of these
animals and plants are thought to have arrived through hull
fouling. The majority of the species are from the Western
Pacific and the Philippines, but an amazing 10 percent are from
the Caribbean, more than 10 percent from the Caribbean.
In Hawaii, our biggest problems at the present time are
marine algae. The first to be recognized arrived on a cement
barge, on a hull of a cement barge from the Philippines in
1950. It is an now displacing much of the native algae all
along the coastal areas. Three other species were introduced
intentionally in the 1970's for potential commercial reasons.
These have grown extensively and are now covering over areas as
Kaneohe Bay and almost an entire single-phase species from a
complex coral reef species to a single-phase algae species.
There is a proposal in to work some sort of eradication on that
project at the present time.
Another species has invaded Waikiki and is covering up most
of the coral reefs and the whole area of the community is
changing tremendously.
Mr. Gilchrest. Excuse me, Dr. Eldredge, the species you are
talking about are species of algae, the last two?
Mr. Eldredge. Yes, yes. Algae that were all introduced,
intentionally introduced, and have escaped from their culture
ponds.
Approximately 20 species of marine fish are nonnative to
the Hawaiian Islands. They were introduced in the 1950's from
French Polynesia in a stock release, and at least three of
those species are now competing with local native fishes on an
extensive basis.
And, of course, we also have the salt-tolerant tilapia that
is coming out on the reefs and eating coral polyps.
In various harbors and embayments in Hawaii, the percentage
of nonnative species is quite high: for Pearl Harbor, we say 23
percent nonnative; 17 percent for Honolulu Harbor; much lower,
1.5 percent and 1 percent for Midway and Johnson Atoll. We are
currently studying areas in Kaneohe Bay and Waikiki, and we
find about 7 percent are nonnative. These percentage figures
can be misleading. The zebra mussel in the Great Lakes is less
than 1 percent of the fauna, so the percentages are kind of a
tricky thing to talk about.
The only similar comparative figures we have is that from
Guam approximately 6.5 percent of the invertebrates surveyed
were considered nonnative.
We very much support the directives of H.R. 3558. We feel
that the first line of defense is prevention followed by early
detection and rapid response. We are actually now in the
process of developing with NOAA, the National Ocean Service, a
marine species early detection system, and by having protection
and early detection, we can perhaps keep the coastal waters of
Hawaii, of the mainland to a lower minimum number of species.
We fully support the components of the bill, and the
activities fall under our Hawaii Biological Survey at Bishop
Museum, and we would be glad to do what we can do to help.
I thank you. This concludes my testimony, and if you have
any questions, I would be glad to answer them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eldredge follows:]
Statement of Dr. Lucius Eldredge, Department of Natural Science, Bishop
Museum, Hawaii
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on H.R. 3558
``Species protection and conservation of the environment''.
Please let me introduce myself: I am Dr. Lu Eldredge. I have lived
in the Pacific islands of Oahu and Guam for more than 40 years and have
observed many changes in the environment during these times. First
arriving in Hawaii in August 1959, I attended the University of Hawaii
where I received a Ph.D. in Zoology in 1965. Following that I was a
professor at the University of Guam for 22 years. I assisted in the
development of the University Marine Laboratory and was very active
with the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, which allowed me
to participate in many activities throughout the Pacific islands. I was
a member of the SPREP Invasive species advisory group and participated
in the development of SPREP's invasive species technical review and
regional strategy. I have been at the Bishop Museum in Honolulu for the
past 13 years. Bishop Museum has been the foremost museum in the
Pacific during its 113 years, and with its 24 million specimens and
objects contains one of the largest collections of Hawaiian and Pacific
material in the world. As a leader in biodiversity and conservation in
the region, the Museum's staff includes a major core group, studying
nonindigenous and invasive species throughout the Pacific.
The Hawaiian Islands, by virtue of their geographic isolation, rich
volcanic soils, and enormous topographic and climatic diversity, have
produced a highly endemic flora and fauna, which includes many of the
world's outstanding examples of adaptative radiation. The biota
includes more than 23,000 species. Hawaii accounts for only about 0.2%
of the land area of the United States, but has 31% of the nation's
endangered species and 42% of its endangered birds. Of the 1072 species
of native flowering plants, 73 are down to about 20 or fewer
individuals in the wild, and nine are down to one. Nearly one-third of
the more than 8000 insect species are nonnative. Almost 75 % of the
historically documented extinctions of plants and animals in the United
States have occurred in Hawaii. Not only the ``extinction capital of
the world'', the Hawaiian Islands are also the ``introduced species
capital of the world'' with 5047 species of the total of 23,150 being
introduced. Approximately 22% of the islands' biota is nonnative.
These figures have been compiled through the activities of the
Hawaii Biological Survey at the Bishop Museum. The Hawaii Biological
Survey was established by the Hawaii State Legislature in 1992 to
develop, maintain, and disseminate information on all the biota of the
Hawaiian Islands. The Bishop Museum is also coordinating activities in
the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve through
assembling information on the literature and specimens from the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and will be establishing standardized
monitoring techniques as well as convening a symposium on past and
present research activities to develop priorities for future study.
Similar figures are not known for the other U.S.-affiliated islands
in the Pacific. On Guam approximately 63% of the flowering plants are
thought to be nonnative. All these islands need much more study.
The problems of nonnative land plants and animals are fairly well
documented. For more than 20 years I watched the brown tree snake
spread on Guam from the harbor area northward. When we first arrived on
Guam, the Guam rails would carry out their courtship dances in our
children's sandbox, and the cardinal honeyeater would sip the red
hibiscus just outside the front door. Now these species are extinct, at
least in the wild, having been preyed upon by the brown tree snake.
Many other examples could be enumerated. The aquatic (freshwater
and marine) ecosystems have not shared in this extensive study. In U.S.
mainland freshwaters the zebra mussels, purple loosestrife, round
blenny, and others have attracted much attention and much research has
been carried out on them. In the Pacific islands very little is known
about nonnative freshwater species. Most fish introductions have been
the result of aquaculture, either by escape or intentional release. A
total of 86 fish species have been introduced into fresh (and some
brackish) waters in the Pacific and Hawaiian Islands; not all have been
successful. Seventy-two species have been introduced to the Hawaiian
Islands, 59 have been observed or established since 1982. Twenty of
these 59 species resulted from aquarium releases. New Guinea has
received 30 species with19 being considered established. Guam and Fiji
each have 24 introduced species; 17 species established on Guam and 12
species established in Fiji.
The flora and fauna of the islands' coastal ecosystems is the least
known. Nonnative marine species are more difficult to distinguish.
Through established criteria'sudden appearance, association with
nonnative species in artificial (harbors, docks, pilings, etc.) sites,
disjunct distributions (i.e., Norway, Panama Canal, Pearl Harbor)'their
status can be determined as either introduced or cryptogenic (not
demonstratively native or introduced).
The majority of marine species are dispersed by ships either in
ballast water or attached to the hull, anchors, chains, or to floating
cargo as fouling organisms. Fouling organisms are also attached to
drilling platforms, dry docks, buoys, and so forth. Fisheries and
marine aquaculture, including stock enhancement, are major pathways
either by escape or intentional release. The ornamental pet industry
and public aquaria have been responsible for accidental or intentional
releases.
Numbers of nonnative marine species in Hawaii include 343 species--
287 invertebrates, 24 algae, 20 fish, and 12 flowering plants. Two
hundred twelve or 90% are thought to have arrived through hull fouling.
The majority of species had their origin in the western Indo-Pacific
and Philippines; the origins of many are unknown or worldwide in
distribution. More than 10% have originated in the Caribbean region.
In Hawaii, five species of marine algae have become very invasive.
The first to be recognized arrived on the hull of a cement barge from
the Philippine Islands in 1950. This species, Acanthophora spicifera,
has displaced native species. Hypnea musciformis, intentionally
introduced for commercial reasons has been recorded to accumulate beach
drift of 20,000 pounds per week at coastal Maui. Two additional species
were deliberately introduced for potential commercial development and
currently cover much of the coral reef in Kaneohe Bay. Gracilaria
salicornia has invaded several reef areas overgrowing most of the reefs
at Waikiki. All of these species are undergoing a community phase shift
overgrowing a complex reef community and changing it to a single
species algal community. Such rapid shifts (on the order of months)
further demonstrates that these ecosystems are highly susceptible to
changing physical and biological conditions.
Approximately 20 species of marine fish are nonnative to Hawaiian
waters. Three species, intentionally introduced from French Polynesia
in the 1950s for stock enhancement, have become well established and
may be competing with local native fishes. Salt-tolerant tilapia is
feeding on coral polyps.
In harbors and embayments in Hawaii the percentage of nonnative
species increases greatly--23% for Pearl Harbor, 17% for Honolulu
Harbor, but 1.5% and 1.0% for Midway Island and for Kahoolawe,
respectively. Current studies in Kaneohe Bay and Waikiki show about 7%
nonnative species. Percentage figures can be misleading, since an
example like the zebra mussel, less than 1% of the fauna of the Great
Lakes, has caused the greatest amount of damage.
The only comparative figures are for Guam where about 6.7% of the
total number of invertebrates surveyed are considered to be nonnative.
In order to further the directives of H.R. 3558, more studies need
to be conducted in the coastal areas of the United States. There is a
great need to further understand the pathways and dispersal mechanisms
of nonnative species. The first line of defense is prevention, followed
by early detection and rapid response. Through these the coastal waters
of the United States be able to keep the introductions of nonnative
species to a minimum.
I fully support all the components of H.R. 3558. All these
activities fall under the purview of the Hawaii Biological Survey at
Bishop Museum and its information gathering and dissemination
activities, and its activities with the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve.
Thank you, Chairman and Members of the Committee.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Eldredge.
Mr. Underwood said he has served with you in some capacity
in the past.
Mr. Eldredge. Well, we were both at the University of Guam
on the faculty at the same time, and Dr. Underwood was very
helpful in organizing, help us organize the Pacific Science
Inter-Congress last June on Guam.
Mr. Gilchrest. Robert may want to talk to you later about a
consortium for sea grant.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. He needs some support on that issue.
Dr. Eldredge, could you tell us, where do most invasive
species come from?
Mr. Eldredge. In marine and estuarine areas, they are
mainly from the Western Pacific, for Hawaii, Western Pacific
and the Philippines. They have mainly come in on ship hulls as
fouling organisms. But we still have 10 percent coming in from
the Caribbean.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are most of the introductions of invasive
species up to this point accidental?
Mr. Eldredge. Yes. A few have been intentional releases for
stock enhancement and for fisheries, but primarily, more than
90 percent are accidental. Just in the last month or so, we
have had two new ones that we have found: a soft coral and
Kaneohe Bay that is covering over the corals that have never
been seen before, and a very small, stinging cubomedusa in
Waikiki that hasn't been seen before. It is a nighttime
swimmer.
Mr. Gilchrest. And that is an invasive--
Mr. Eldredge. Right. Western Pacific forms.
Mr. Gilchrest. I am going to mispronounce your name again,
Dr. Chavarria.
Ms. Chavarria. No. You said it correctly.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, did I? So most invasive species that
reach either Hawaii or Guam or the Great Lakes or Florida or
Colorado come in through some type of trade, would you say, on
a ship?
Ms. Chavarria. The majority of them. I mean, a lot of them
can come terrestrially. People carry them. But in the case of
Hawaii, the majority come through trade.
Mr. Gilchrest. It is through trade or the movement of
people.
Ms. Chavarria. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Unaware of what they are bringing in.
Ms. Chavarria. Exactly.
Mr. Gilchrest. If that is the case--and I am looking at the
bill that we are trying to move through our system--is there
something we can do in the legislation to help more clearly
identify those agencies or NGO groups or local governments, or
whoever, to be a greater, more efficient front-line defense?
Ms. Chavarria. I believe there are a lot of groups already
doing a lot of work, a lot of really good work, and it is
probably just a matter of getting all of us together and
increase our efforts. And we don't need to duplicate a lot of
the efforts.
The National Wildlife Federation has wonderful programs.
The Nature Conservancy is a great implementer in a lot of these
issues. So we just need better collaboration. We need to also
make a lot of the agencies, the Federal agencies that are not
aware of these issues, how can they help, because they are
probably indirectly already doing something.
Mr. Gilchrest. Federal agencies seem to be unaware of this
issue?
Ms. Chavarria. Exactly.
Mr. Gilchrest. Could you name one of them, or two?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Chavarria. Well, particularly in our program, for
example, we would love to see the Department of Transportation
being part of our program, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Mr. Gilchrest. The Corps of Engineers I guess could be--
Ms. Chavarria. Yes, well, we work already with the
Department of Defense. We would love to see the Corps per se
working in this effort because they are already doing a lot on
the ground.
Mr. Gilchrest. So the number of species that are released
or become invasive, we can move to an understanding of a
collaborative effort to be a front-line defense for accidental
introductions of invasives, to the extent that that is
possible.
Is there any effort in the international arena, for
example, when a number of different countries around the world
begin finding out that salmon or tilapia or striped bass, or
whatever, might be good for fish farming because they can make
large sums of money, is there any effort to help the
international community understand the potential for a
nonnative species to escape into the wild and the damage it
could do?
Ms. Chavarria. Well, the international community right now,
there is a consortium called the Global Invasive Species
Program that is a consortium of many organizations in the
world, governments of the world, all working right now at the
level of creating awareness, because a lot of the countries are
not aware that invasive species are a problem. So if these
countries don't realize that they do have a problem and they
are importing this problem somewhere else, we can't do
anything.
So right now I think the major emphasis should be in
awareness. We are doing a really good job within the United
States, but also how can we do that internationally? But Global
Invasive Species is doing that. I believe the State Department
also has been actively engaged in that effort.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Bartuska?
Ms. Bartuska. If I could just add to that comment or to
that response, there is another set of groups that are trying
to look at multilateral approaches, and that is the plant
protection organizations, which historically have been more
agriculture based but increasingly places like the North
American Plant Protection Organization, the European Plant
Protection Organization are going beyond just an agricultural
focus to a natural resource focus. In this country, APHIS has
been playing a fairly significant role in that, and that is a
very positive sign in looking at it from a regulatory
standpoint and having those kinds of dialogs between countries.
Mr. Van Putten. May I add to the list also?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Mr. Van Putten. You asked in terms of Federal agencies, and
I would add the U.S. Trade Representative. Your initial line of
questioning was very astute. If you look at the resolution
passed by our delegates in 2000, appended to my testimony, you
will notice there is a section specifically talking about
international trade and how critical it is that the World Trade
organization, and particularly the sanitary and phytosanitary
agreement associated with it, specifically allow as trade
agreements are negotiated or as countries look at the
importation of a particular kind of product, allow the invasive
species issues to be considered and recognize that as a
legitimate basis on which a country might want to restrict or
prohibit the importation of not only a product but the packing
materials, as we have seen, or I think it is the Asian longhorn
beetle which came in in packing materials.
In our trade environment program, this has become an
increasing concern about the need to integrate concern with
invasive species. And as my colleagues on this panel have
noted, prevention is the most cost-effective approach. And so
the USTR should be added to the list of Federal agencies that
need to be part of addressing this.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. Excellent suggestion.
I have one more question, and I guess each of you could
answer in your different capacities.
Dr. Bartuska, in the Nature Conservancy, you deal with, I
would suspect, the private sector and local governments in
numerous ways. And it seems to me we have discussed the idea
that $137 billion economic damage done by invasive species,
give or take a few billion, whatever number you want to look
at, a very tiny amount of resources are directed between
Federal and State governments and the private sector, toward
understanding and trying to fight the invasives problem. And
much of that effort is very fragmented across the country.
The Nature Conservancy, in particular, do you see--well,
actually, everybody on the panel. It seems to me that with the
limited resources that are available, a collaborative effort is
fundamental and absolutely necessary if we are going to even
begin to make a dent into this global problem, a collaborative
effort between the international community, the trade czar of
the United States, his or her counterpart around the world, the
myriad of Federal programs that are out there, and State
programs. But to a great extent--I was looking at, Dr.
Chavarria, the map that shows zebra mussels in 1988 and zebra
mussels in 1999 on page 46 of ``Invasive Species Challenge.'' I
am not sure. Was that your back, this book, on page 46?
The point is, unless we involve the decisionmakers of land-
use practices right down to the local jurisdiction, it is going
to be very difficult to resolve this issue. We can do what we
can at the borders. Fish and Wildlife, USDA can do what they
can to keep zebra mussels off boats traveling from Michigan to
Washington, or whatever.
In your efforts, do you have a policy, do you see the need
for a policy to go to the planning and zoning commission of
each town or county to explain these issues to those people?
Ms. Bartuska. I think you have hit on one of the major
challenges we have through invasives because there are so many
different components to it. Trying to get those all together in
a more organized way to take some action across jurisdictions
is fundamental. And I guess what I would suggest is let's look
at what has been done with the fire programs. Nationwide and
internationally through several decades of always being able to
not work together, there are now statutes in place that force
the integration at the Federal, State, and local level, and to
try to work across jurisdictions through some common standards
and some common approaches. I think that is a model for us in
the invasives community to begin working toward not necessarily
just a top-down approach, but having at the local level
understanding of what that issue is, why there is a commitment,
but also having the carrots and the sticks to make sure that
the working together occurs.
The concern I would have, if you limit it to any one
jurisdiction, is that invasives do know no boundaries. You
could very rapidly have a gypsy moth infestation in the middle
of the woods in Washington State that came into a harbor in Los
Angeles because containers have moved at that great distance
very rapidly. How do you get a handle on that unless you have
multi-jurisdictional, cross-boundary collaboration?
Mr. Gilchrest. I think you do need cross-boundary
collaboration regionwide, nationwide. But you talk to those
cousins of the county commissioners that are appointed because
they are a cousin to the planning and zoning commission at the
local level about the region, nation, international problem.
There seems to be a vast army out there of volunteers,
different groups ready to go out and cut down that purple
loosestrife that happens to be local or the--I can't remember
the name of that vine that started in the southern part of the
United States.
Ms. Bartuska. Kudzu.
Mr. Gilchrest. Kudzu. It is now all over the place. People
are craving to look for projects to do in their local level.
I know this is broadening this, and it might be beyond the
scope of what anybody can do in this particular room. But it is
an area that seems to a large extent is untapped, but it is an
area that is almost necessary if we are going to deal with
these kinds of problems.
Ms. Bartuska. I think that is at the heart of a really good
early detection and rapid response system, to mobilize all
those people who do have interests out there to be looking for
organisms according to some protocols, and to then mobilize
that incredible workforce to address the problem. That is
something that the Conservancy has a very strong interest in,
local action and trying to promote that at the local level. But
I would also put that within the context of a much more
integrated, more standardized approach so that we have the
experts at the table who can help that early detection. That to
me is the real critical link, once we get past the prevention
side, which is the best approach, but is probably not
foolproof.
Mr. Van Putten. May I speak to that point, sir?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Putten. Your use of the zebra mussel example is a
good example of where some of the answers lie. In that
instance, it is anglers and boaters often who have helped
transport it. So broad public education is necessary to enlist
people who care about and enjoy our natural resources as allies
in preventing the spread.
Second, we have seen through our affiliates and our
regional offices tremendous interest in volunteers getting
involved in controlling invasive species. In fact, we have a
volunteer team at our headquarters in Reston, Virginia, that
maintains native species and controls the invasive species.
Third, with respect to local governments, I think you have
really hit on something important in terms of outreach
education and enlisting them, because what we have seen across
the country in a number of instances with our backyard wildlife
habitat program is homeowners who are landscaping with native
species, violating local weed ordinances. And you actually see
local governments with outdated ordinances that favor, you
know, nonnative type, lawn-looking species, and those who are
trying in their own backyards to be part of the solution are
actually in violation. We have actually filed friends of the
court briefs in cases around the country to try and help
educate local officials on the need to update those kinds of
ordinances and to encourage it.
We see in the West homeowner associations with new large
developments that include the use of nonnative species that
require watering, a lot of water. So there are tremendous
advantages to enlisting local governments to update those kinds
of ordinances and to encourage the use of native species.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Don't give up on that.
I will yield to Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much for all of your testimonies. They, of course, were all, I
guess, roughly on the same side of this issue. I don't know
anyone who is going to speak on behalf of invasive species
today.
But just trying to sort out some issues, I think the
Chairman has touched on this a little bit at length, and all of
you have as well; and, that is, trying to understand what the
relationship is between all the various agencies that are
involved, whether they go down to the city and county level or
whether they are at Customs or they are at agricultural
inspection stations. I have a lot of personal experience with
trying to deal with the issue of pests. I try to bring betel
nut into Hawaii, as I go through Customs in Hawaii, and there
are always a few challenges with that. I have killed a couple
of brown tree snakes this year already, so there is a lot of
personal experience in this.
I am trying to figure out what is the best system for
dealing with this. It seems that the complexity of all the
governments that are involved, if we want to--and I think in
the legislation we pay particular attention to that, where we
want to make sure that everything we do is incorporated or will
be consistent with relevant State plans. And we want to make
sure that we honor that because States have a great deal of
authority over pest control. And perhaps they have a particular
point of view on that.
I just want to get your assessment across the board briefly
on the panel. Are States up to the challenge in dealing with
invasive species? Can you make some general characterizations
about that based on your experience?
Ms. Chavarria. Not all the States are up to the challenge.
Some of them are more advanced than others. And we have seen
through our program, through the Pulling Together Initiative,
that we work so at the local level, but some States, some
counties are really up to speed, and they are moving into other
counties, and they are expanding the program.
The idea of having these State plans is really, really
good, but at the same time, within the legislation it worries
me that a lot of these local efforts might feel a little bit
left alone when a lot of these plans start to be implemented.
And maybe through a lot of these local levels, the States, a
lot of the States that don't have a State plan, can buildup on
their State plan.
Mr. Eldredge. I would like to comment about Hawaii. Each of
the island groups has an invasive species committee, Oahu
Invasive Species Committee, Maui, Big Island. And each one of
those, they all are grass-roots operations started by people
who got together on their own as individuals to go work on
invasive species problems. There are major volunteer efforts to
go collect miconia and other things.
There is also at a city government level the Coordinated
Group on Alien Pest Species, referred to as CGAPS. CGAPS and
the invasive species committees now all have some minor support
from the State legislature to do programs, hire people, get
field workers going out, and doing things in the field. And it
seems like a very logical way of getting all the island groups
within the islands and then coordinated among all the islands.
We have a list server and so forth. So there is a lot of
information that goes among all of the groups.
Mr. Van Putten. If I might respond to that, I think that is
a critically important question, and it is a question that
implicates not only the adequacy of resources at the State
level or their awareness of the problem, but also how do the
States across their agencies coordinate the management.
You heard Dr. Tate refer to chronic wasting disease. At the
National Wildlife Federation we have been very concerned with
that, with brucellosis in bison, with sylvatic plague in
prairie dogs as we see exotic diseases in wildlife populations.
We are very concerned, as Dr. Tate alluded to, that the natural
resource side of this needs to be considered as well as the
agricultural side. We are concerned sometimes when the
immediate response, particularly to the wildlife disease
situation, is eradicate the wildlife because of concerns about
agricultural implications or deny public lands to native
wildlife as a result of concerns for what it might mean for
cattle that graze there.
So the coordination particularly at the State level between
State veterinarians, State agriculture agencies, and bringing
to the table the State natural resource, the State fish and
wildlife agencies, to be sure as we look at how we respond in
this area that the concerns about native ecosystems and fish
and wildlife populations are also considered as response
strategies are developed.
So it is a very finely textured question, and it really
gets to the integration of management at the State level as
well as at the Federal level.
Mr. Underwood. Go ahead, and I have a point I would like to
make after that point, Dr. Van Putten.
Ms. Bartuska. I would just like to add to my colleagues'
comments, which I think are right on point. As a resource, you
may want to look at the Environmental Law Institute's upcoming
report where they looked at the State authorities and
capabilities on invasive species in quite detail. In
particular, they are setting up three standards, not ascribing
them to any particular State, but three standards of how might
a State be structured to address invasive species so that a
State could then look at how those standards match up to what
they currently have and decide if that, in fact, is the way
they want to operate for invasives.
So I think it gives us some basis for how would States be
operating and how might they respond to the overall invasives
problem.
Mr. Underwood. Well, thank you for those answers, and also,
thank you, Dr. Eldredge, for pointing out about the importance
of community involvement. I am always amazed that if you get a
few community people involved, a few high school students, a
couple of organizations on Guam--Marine Mania, Kids for Coral--
they really do make a difference in terms of public perception
and public involvement.
Going back to the point about how States intersect with
this and the emphasis given to agriculture, a lot of that
obviously is driven by the economic impact. And that is why I
think the figure of $137 billion still comes back, trying to
figure out how real that figure is and how important that
impact is, because that is the only--I think it is one of the
strategies that is available for us involved in this effort to
try to gain the kind of public attention and institutional
attention that this issue deserves. And, you know, there has
been a couple--and I don't want to overburden the Committee
with examples from brown tree snakes, but, you know, there was
a period of time when the Discovery Channel ran a series of
programs on the brown tree snake. The Discovery Channel
departed from their usual scientific basis for their
programming and said that brown tree snakes were hanging like
spaghetti from trees and made really a lot of assertions about
it which were not founded, were not true. You know, I would
expect that--and I did get that one time in a supermarket in
Hawaii when I was going through the line. I saw there was a
National Enquirer article that said there were 750,000 snakes
per square mile in Guam. And so I was calculating, how do I
even get to my car in the morning?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Underwood. So I expected that from the National
Enquirer, but I didn't expect that from the Discovery Channel.
But the point being that in order to get the kind of attention
you want, you need to make a dramatic case. You obviously don't
want to stretch it, and if you did a paper search, any kind of
documentary search on Guam today, you will see countless
articles about the brown tree snake, because that seems to
attract a lot of attention. But I am not sure it is attracting
the right kind of attention. But the point being that the $137
billion impact is a real basis upon which we can make the case
that you pay now instead of paying later. That is an important
part of this puzzle that we need to get out. I think it is in
combination with the kind of grass-roots efforts and
educational efforts which we all know are necessary, so that
all of our assertions are scientifically based and based on
real knowledge and based on real facts and figures.
But when you think of the attention, immediate attention
that is given to the Mediterranean fruit fly because of the
enormous impact on agriculture and on people who have money.
But there is nothing like that, you know, in terms of our own
efforts.
So I think we really have to hone in on that as a policy
issue. I think we have to rely on the kinds of expertise this
panel brings to the table in terms of understanding that and in
order to help us make the case.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your testimony, and we
appreciate your help in this issue. Have a safe trip home.
Mr. Gilchrest. Our third panel: Mr. John Shannon, State
Forester, Arkansas Forestry Commission, on behalf of the
National Association of State Foresters; Mr. John O'Keeffe,
National Cattlemen's Beef Association; Dr. Terry Riley,
Director of Conservation, Wildlife Management Institute.
Welcome, gentlemen.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
I would like permission to submit for the record these letters
of support for the proposed legislation, H.R. 3558, from the
following organizations: Audubon, American Fisheries Society,
National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, Western
Governors' Association, Wildlife Society, American Plant
Alliance, and Chair of the Department of Land and Natural
Resources, State of Hawaii.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection, so ordered, Mr.
Underwood.
[The letters and statements referred to follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78207.019
Mr. Gilchrest. Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming, I
guess this morning still. Mr. Shannon, you may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN T. SHANNON, STATE FORESTER, ARKANSAS FORESTRY
COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE
FORESTERS
Mr. Shannon. Yes, sir. I guess we have the Irish brigade
ready to mop up your testimony this morning.
Mr. Gilchrest. Shannon, O'Keeffe, Riley. That is right.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Are there any Scots out there?
Mr. Shannon. You will get the truthful and helpful
testimony now, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. I knew we could.
Mr. Shannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. We could sing an Irish tune.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. I am sure you all know a couple, but we will
do that a little bit later over lunch.
Mr. Shannon. Thank you for inviting the State foresters to
come and testify today. We appreciate it very much.
I listened to the Chairman's introductory comments and
those of several other members, and it is right on the button.
Plainly, we all agree that invasives are harmful, there is a
problem, and we need to do something about it.
I think 3558 is a good step in the right direction. I want
you to know the State foresters support this bill. We like the
bill. We have submitted written comments. What I would like to
do is just talk to the Committee for a few minutes and very
briefly give you a few of our suggestions on how to improve the
bill.
Mr. Gilchrest. We will submit the comments to the record.
Mr. Shannon. Thank you, sir.
We have six suggestions for improving the bill:
No. 1, State foresters think we should expand the scope of
the bill. The bill ought to protect native plants in addition
to game and fish species. USDA ought to be involved. You have
heard this before. The U.S. Forest Service has a really
crackerjack team of forest health protection specialists, and
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has experience
in rapid response to invasives. We need to get them involved.
They ought to be helping us meet the objectives of this bill.
The demonstration projects are currently limited to the
National Wildlife Refuges, and since the problems exist on all
Federal lands, we think all Federal lands ought to be eligible
for the demonstration projects.
The last expansion of the scope includes going from
strictly native habitats to including agricultural lands. The
bill plainly is concerned about environmental harm and economic
harm, and if you really want a fuller assessment of the
economic harm, I think we need to take a look at what invasives
are doing to agricultural land.
The second suggested change to the bill, let's really
emphasize the role of the States. Mr. Chairman, the State
foresters are on the ground. We have employees in every
forested county in the United States, so we know all these
county commissioners you were talking about. We know all of
these forest landowners. I really think we could help make a
difference on the ground. And I would suggest that the State
foresters or State game and fish officials become involved
right from the start, and that includes drafting the grant
applications and reviewing the grant applications and help
deciding priorities for the grants.
The third suggestion, for 3558, no matter how much money
you pour into it, it is not going to protect a single acre or
kill one of these brown tree snakes I have heard about. You
need people to apply for grants, get the money, and do the work
on the ground. You need folks on the ground making the efforts,
and what that means is, please make the administration as
simple as you possibly can and still be accountable.
For instance, if the grant application comes to us and it
is the size of a small-town telephone book, you know, we have
got a problem. You are scaring away people who want to help
with the problem.
In the Aldo Leopold grants, there is a requirement for a
Federal partner. In some parts of the country, that requirement
is pretty artificial, particularly in the South where the
private lands that have real problems with invasives are miles
and miles away from the nearest Federal landowner. So we want
partnerships, but I think there should be some flexibility in
the Leopold grants to have partnerships with the Nature
Conservancy or local forest landowners associations, for
instance.
On this next suggestion, I may differ a bit with an earlier
witness today. Definition number 7 in the bill speaks to
environmental soundness, and 7(B) I think pretty directly
suggests that using chemicals is environmentally unsound. And I
think that is incorrect. And if it is environmentally unsound,
you are virtually out of luck trying to get a rapid response
grant. So I am suggesting to the Committee that if, after a
real scientific review, there is a decision to apply chemicals
in strict accord with label instructions, that is
scientifically sound and we ought to allow the use of
chemicals. We need to keep our eyes on the prize, Mr. Chairman.
We are going after these invasive plants. When we go after
gypsy moth in Arkansas--and it has been a pretty successful
eradication effort--I am glad we are able to use chemicals.
Finally, State foresters, since we do live pretty close to
nature, we like to get stuff done. So I hope--we are not asking
for more money, but I hope with the amount of money available
we can shift it, to the extent science and accountability
allows, away from assessments and more to work on the ground,
things that are measurable: the Leopold grants, the rapid
response grants, and the demonstration projects.
The staff of the National Association of State Foresters is
delighted to work with the Committee staff on any language that
may need to be revised, and I thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shannon follows:]
Statement of John T. Shannon, State Forester of Arkansas, on Behalf of
the National Association of State Foresters
INTRODUCTION
On behalf of the National Association of State Foresters (NASF), I
am pleased that Chairman Gilchrest and Chairman McInnis have asked us
to testify on this bill. NASF is a non-profit organization that
represents the directors of the State Forestry agencies from all fifty
states, eight U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. The State
Foresters manage and protect state and private forests across the U.S.,
which together encompass two-thirds of the nation's forests.
I am representing NASF in my role as Chairman of the Forest Health
Protection Committee. The spread of harmful non-native species is an
important issue to the State Foresters, private landowners, and our
partners. NASF applauds the efforts undertaken in this bill to address
the pervasive problem of invasive species on both public and private
lands. We support the bill, and believe that it can be strengthened
even more.
In this testimony, I would like to address the topics you raised in
your invitation to testify: (1) the need for the measure; (2) whether
it can become an effective mechanism to deal with the growing problem
of invasive species on public and private lands; (3) if the proposed
funding levels are adequate to address this problem; and (4) our
recommendations on any proposed changes that could improve this
proposal.
NEED
There is clearly a call for measures to control, mitigate, and
eradicate invasive species on forestland and elsewhere. Invasive
species are a growing concern among foresters and other land managers.
Indeed, addressing the spread of exotics is one of the objectives of
the NASF Forest Health Protection Committee, and it is of high priority
for the Committee this year. We agree with the inclusion of U.S.
Territories and Tribal lands in the definition of ``state'' as these
lands have specific needs for control of nonnative invasive species.
EFFECTIVENESS
This bill provides an important mechanism to deal with the growing
problem of invasive species, and we believe it can be strengthened in
several critical ways.
emphasize role of state and local government
State forestry and other state and local agencies play key roles in
invasive species management. State forestry agencies, in particular,
have longstanding relationships with private landowners and federal
partners, and we can assist in the development of priorities and
selection of grantees. Our technical experts on the ground, who
interact daily with private landowners, have first-hand understanding
of local needs and solid relationships with landowners and local
government officials. This places state forestry agencies in an ideal
position to help ensure that on the ground management stemming from
this bill will be effective in dealing with invasive species when and
where they threaten forested habitats.
expand involvement of federal agencies
If we are to successfully tackle the problem of invasive species,
we need to devote resources to those federal lands and programs where
the greatest progress on the ground can be made. Most importantly, the
bill must include the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
specifically the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), as key partners. The USFS, one of
our traditional partners, has an excellent Forest Health Protection
Unit that deals with invasive species issues on forested land. The USFS
is also home to Cooperative Forestry, a vital link between private
landowners and cost share assistance that funds management on private
land. Invasive species remain core management issues for the National
Forest System and Research and Development within the USFS, as well.
Likewise, APHIS, which has a rapid response program in place, has the
capacity to quickly detect and respond to exotic pests that threaten
agricultural crops and natural habitats. In addition to the National
Wildlife Refuge System, there are other lands managed by the Department
of Interior, and also Department of Defense lands, which contain
habitats threatened or affected by invasive nonnative species. It is
essential to identify these federal agencies as partners in this
legislation.
Building upon existing federal programs that deal with invasive
species issues, and encouraging agencies that control large amounts of
public land to participate, will most effectively address harmful
nonnative species across public and private lands. We need the
flexibility to detect and rapidly respond to invasive species when and
where they occur, and limiting the demonstration projects to wildlife
refuges, which is a small geographic subset of federal lands, may not
ensure that our limited federal dollars will be spent in the most
effective and efficient manner.
keep grants accessible / keep administration simple
The process of applying for, reviewing, and administering grants
must be as simple as possible. If grants are too demanding, key
applicants will not apply for these much needed funds. Our experience
has shown us that some states, especially in the South, lack adequate
staffing and other resources necessary to participate in the programs
identified in this bill. In order to achieve the greatest good on the
ground, the requirements of the bill must provide accessibility to all
partners.
In addition, we believe the Aldo Leopold Native Heritage Grant
Program would be more effective if the requirement for a federal
partner were expanded to allow projects with either state or federal
partners. Quick and aggressive action on state and private lands could
actually prevent the spread of invasive species to federal lands. The
requirement that grants may only be issued for projects with adjacent
federal lands or waters may disqualify important projects.
broaden scope of state assessments
NASF recommends broadening the State Native Species Protection
Assessment Grant Program to allow and encourage the states to assess
the impacts of invasive species on the broad range of sectors that
contribute to their own states' economy and the national economy,
rather than just impacts to native habitats. Our experience at both the
state and national level has shown that a broad range of sectors (e.g.,
agriculture, tourism, and transportation) contribute to the propagation
and spread of invasive species. These sectors hold the promise for
innovative and incentive-driven solutions, and these constituents
should be at the table in developing state, regional, and national
assessments and solutions. The preparation of statewide assessments
will help identify strategic regional approaches to priority invasive
species. This will also bring more public support for the investments
needed to tackle invasive species problems over the long run--all of
which will help native habitats. State assessments will be helpful to
states and regions that have not already conducted assessments.
However, to effectively address the protection of natural habitats and
processes, a broader assessment of the risk from invasive nonnative
species is needed, which may include altered habitats such as
reservoirs or other lands and waters that are no longer in a natural
condition.
expand definition of environmental soundness
Defining ``environmental soundness'' as only projects that
emphasize non-chemical measures may restrict the control and
eradication of some invasive species, especially plants. It is
important to recognize that, in some cases, chemicals provide the most
effective and environmentally sound technique for control and
eradication.
recognize invasive species are long term problems
Long term programs with ongoing funding are needed if we are to
successfully control, mitigate, and eradicate harmful nonnative species
on public and private lands. The two to four year limit for grants,
along with the 2008 sunset for the Act, do not provide the levels of
continuous public investment that are needed to fully address these
problems. This is due to both the extended survival or dormancy of
seeds and the continuous threat of new species introductions from
overseas.
FUNDING
NASF believes this bill will improve efforts to take action on the
ground in areas where the problems of invasive species are most
prevalent, if we can focus primarily on rapid action. When management
actions are hampered by assessment processes, the problems associated
with invasive species intensify. The successful management and control
of invasive species requires the ability to quickly and aggressively
respond to emerging threats. We would like to see a greater proportion
of funding directed towards the Rapid Response Program and the Aldo
Leopold Grants Program, where on the ground management happens.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary, NASF believes that this bill provides an effective
mechanism for dealing with the growing problem of invasive species on
public and private lands and waters, and it will be strengthened
through the following recommendations:
LEmphasize the important role that state and local
government can play in setting priorities and selecting grantees.
LExpand the involvement of federal agencies within the
U.S. Department of Agriculture that have expertise and programs in
invasive species management to include the USFS and APHIS.
LExpand the involvement of federal agencies and
departments controlling large acreages of public land, including the
Bureau of Land Management and other land management agencies in the
U.S. Department of Interior, the USFS in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of Defense.
LKeep the requirements for the programs as simple as
possible, which will encourage the participation of states and other
key partners.
LBroaden the scope of state assessments to include the
impact of invasive nonnative species on states' economies and altered
lands that are no longer in a natural condition.
LExpand the definition of ``environmental soundness'' to
include the use of chemicals where needed to control and eradicate
invasive species.
LAlong with considering reauthorization of the bill in
2008, we encourage you to extend grants beyond the two to four year
limitation currently detailed in the bill.
LShift the balance of funding towards on the ground
management, particularly the Rapid Response program. There is value in
being ready to handle outbreaks of invasive species before they occur.
CONCLUSION
NASF looks forward to the opportunity to work with the
Subcommittees and the sponsors to develop and carry out an effective
program to address the spread and control of nonnative species. We
commend representatives Rahall, Gilchrest, and Underwood for your work
on this important legislation. We are willing to work with you to
refine specific language as the bill progresses, and we appreciate the
opportunity to provide testimony and answer your questions today.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
I had a problem with bagworms on some evergreen trees.
Quite a few of them.
Mr. Shannon. There are still lots of them.
Mr. Gilchrest. This was about 10 years ago when my kids
were teenagers, and I gave them a penny for every--well, they
were younger than teenagers. I gave them a penny for every
bagworm.
Mr. Shannon. Perhaps they should apply for a grant.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, they thought they had a grant.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. But I was running out of money, and we
weren't affecting those bagworms at all. So we did have to use
some chemical application, according to the label, and it
worked.
We have a vote on, and what I would like to do, the
Committee will take about a 15-minute recess, and then we will
come back and continue. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gilchrest. The Subcommittee will come to order. Thank
you very much for your immense tolerance and patience of the
democratic system here in Washington, where we don't stop for
breaks or lunch except in very erratic, sporadic ways. So we
appreciate your indulgence. We will work through this, and I
would hope that all of you will go have a very pleasant,
relaxed lunch when this is over.
Mr. O'Keeffe?
Mr. O'Keeffe. Thank you--
Mr. Gilchrest. Do all of you know where your heritage is in
Ireland?
Mr. O'Keeffe. County Cork.
Mr. Shannon. County Cavan.
Dr. Riley. Tralee.
Mr. Gilchrest. Tralee. The Rose of Tralee.
Mr. O'Keeffe?
STATEMENT OF JOHN O'KEEFFE, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF
ASSOCIATION AND PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL
Mr. O'Keeffe. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, distinguished
members of this Committee, on behalf of the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association and the Public Lands Council,
thank you for your interest in my comments concerning invasive
species. My wife and I, our two sons, and my mother operate our
family ranch in eastern Oregon. We run our cow-calf operation
on about 16,000 private deeded acres and lease about 120,000
acres from the BLM and Forest Service. Therefore, I have a
vested interest in my own land as well as the management of
Federal lands surrounding my private acreage.
NCBA and PLC appreciate the attention the Committee has
directed to invasive species issues and also appreciate the
opportunity to speak to the joint Subcommittees on H.R. 3558.
We all know the economic and environmental harm caused by
invasive species and have urged the Federal Government to
recognize invasive species as a priority issue and to develop a
national effort to address the problem. We support the
Executive order on invasive species and the efforts of the
National Invasive Species Council. We have also worked with the
Congress through appropriations and other legislative processes
to direct resources to and focus attention on invasive species
issue.
H.R. 3558 is important legislation, as it elevates the
significance of invasive species and underscores the need for
Congress to focus more attention on this issue. It strengthens
the ability for Federal, State, and private entities to develop
partnerships and to coordinate activities and also emphasizes
rapid response to outbreaks of harmful nonnative species. We
are encouraged by the efforts of this Committee to provide
mechanisms for States and private landowners to manage all
invasive species.
However, we are concerned that H.R. 3558 duplicates current
programs and competes with ongoing efforts that direct
resources to problem areas not adequately addressed. There are
at least six programs within the Department of Interior that
offer grants or funding to Federal agencies, States, or private
landowners to protect, conserve, or restore fish and wildlife
habitats. Current funding levels do not come close to
addressing the noxious weed problem on public and private
lands.
For instance, for 2003, BLM plans to treat 245,000 acres
for weeds. This acreage is the same as last year and 7,000
acres less than in 2001. I find it interesting that, for an
agency managing 264 million acres of Federal land, nearly one-
eighth of our country's land mass, only one acre out of every
1,100 acres will be treated.
Current estimated annual loss to the productivity of
agricultural lands are as high as $20 billion. New money should
be directed to a program that gives States maximum flexibility
to direct funds where they can be utilized by local
decisionmakers most effectively. Federal red tape and
administrative requirements must be minimized to ensure that
the dollars are getting to the ground where they are needed
most.
For Federal lands, we also need a programmatic
environmental impact statement so the agencies can deal with
all weeds at all times rather than one at a time.
I have been fighting weeds on our ranch all my life, but my
individual efforts are not enough. If more effort, particularly
Federal funding, is not devoted to combat invasive species, we
are all fighting a losing battle, and rural communities such as
my own will face severe economic crisis.
The best method of fighting these invasions is to act
locally. Currently, we have a limited amount of resources. We
need to have additional funding diverted to the local level to
assist those who know best how to manage land and treat the
problem. I feel H.R. 3558 fails to devote adequate resources to
the local level and burdens any effort with red tape and
bureaucracy. Also, H.R. 3558's call for a State assessment
front-loads work on an issue that has already been defined by
local weed management groups. These groups ask that Congress
provide Federal funding while streamlining the process. We
simply just need more Federal dollars reaching the local level.
In closing, we support the goals of H.R. 3558 and the
effort of this Committee to address invasive species issues.
However, we are concerned that H.R. 3558 will not adequately
address the invasive species problems, particularly noxious
weeds. Nonetheless, we look forward to working with the
Committee to ensure that our efforts to manage and control
these harmful species are targeted in the most efficient manner
possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your
Committee. I will gladly answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Keeffe follows:]
Statement of John O'Keeffe, Adel, Oregon, on behalf of the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association and Public Lands Council
Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman McInnis, Chairman Hefley and
Distinguished Members of the House Resources Committee:
On behalf of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), the
trade association of America's cattle farmers and ranchers, and the
marketing organization for the largest segment of the nation's food and
fiber industry, and the Public Lands Council (PLC), a non-profit
organization representing over 27,000 federal grazing permittees, thank
you for your interest in my comments concerning invasive species.
I am a member of NCBA, the PLC and the Oregon Cattlemen's
Association (OCA). I also chair the Public Lands Committee of the
Oregon Cattlemen's Association and PLC's Sage Grouse Committee. My wife
and I, our two sons and my mother operate our family ranch in south
central Oregon. We run our cow-calf operation on about 16,000 private
deeded acres and lease about 200,000 acres from the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS).
Therefore, I have a vested interest in what happens on my own land as
well as how federal lands surrounding my private acreage are managed.
NCBA and PLC appreciate the attention the Committee has directed to
invasive species issues and also appreciate the opportunity to speak to
these joint subcommittees on H.R. 3558, the Species Protection and
Conservation of the Environment Act. We have long been aware of the
economic and environmental harm caused by invasive species and have
urged the Federal Government to recognize invasive species as a
priority issue and to develop a national effort to address the problem.
We support Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species. We support the
National Invasive Species Council (NISC) that was established by the
Executive Order and provided input into the preparation of ``Meeting
the Invasive Species Challenge'' (the national management plan
developed by NISC), through participation in the Invasive Species
Advisory Council. We have also worked with Congress through the
appropriations and other legislative processes to direct resources to,
and focus attention on, invasive species issues.
Our priorities for invasive species legislation are perhaps easier
to articulate than they are to implement, but we nonetheless believe
that every effort needs to be made to provide a strong foundation for
efficient distribution of federal funds, strive to avoid duplication,
coordinate activities between Federal and State agencies and private
landowners, and provide the flexibility for decisions to be made
locally where the problems arise.
H.R. 3558 is important legislation, as it elevates the significance
of invasive species and underscores the need for Congress to focus more
attention on this issue. It strengthens the ability for Federal, State,
and private entities to develop partnerships and coordinate activities,
and also emphasizes rapid response to outbreaks of harmful nonnative
species. We are encouraged by the efforts of this Committee to provide
mechanisms for States and private landowners to manage all invasive
species.
We do have several concerns with the legislation that I will
summarize below:
H.R. 3558 is designed to provide grants to States for activities to
protect, conserve, and restore native fish, wildlife, and their natural
habitats on Federal lands. We are concerned that the legislation
duplicates current programs and competes with on-going efforts that
direct resources to problem areas not adequately addressed. Federal
dollars are appropriated every year to fund programs that protect,
conserve, and restore fish and wildlife and their habitats. For
example, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program directs funds for
wildlife habitat restoration and we are concerned that H.R. 3558 may be
duplicative of these efforts. Another example is the Department of
Interior's Landowner Incentive Program (LIP). For fiscal year 2003, the
Department budgeted an additional $10 million over last year's budget
for a total budget request of $50 million. The LIP provides landowners
with technical and financial assistance to private landowners for
habitat protection and restoration. Yet another example is the
Cooperative Conservation Program, proposed funding for this program is
$50 million. This program offers grants to states for habitat
protection, wetlands restoration and riparian area protection. Other
examples where H.R. 3558 essentially duplicates current efforts of
Department of Interior programs (and proposed funding amounts in the
Department's fiscal year 2003 budget request) include programs such as
the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund ($43.56 million),
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund ($91 million), and the
National Wildlife Refuge Fund ($14.558 million). All these programs
offer grants or funding to states, private landowners or federal
agencies to protect, conserve or restore fish and wildlife habitats.
However, existing sources of funds for addressing invasive weeds do
not come close to addressing the needs we are facing on public and
private lands. There currently is no existing independent federal fund
to address these needs. In BLM fiscal year 2003 budget request, the
agency plans to treat 245,000 acres. This acreage is the same as last
year and 7,000 acres less than 2001's total acres. I find it
interesting that for an agency responsible for managing 264 million
acres of federal land--or nearly one-eighth of the country's landmass--
only one acre out of every 1,078 acres will be treated. To me, this
number is shocking. More federal dollars need to allocated for treating
more acreage. While the cattle industry recognizes the threats posed by
all invasive species and supports all efforts to manage them, our
primary concern is the threat posed by invasive weeds. Weeds are also
the invasives where I have the most personal experience, as reflected
in this testimony.
The Federal Interagency Weed Committee has estimated that annual
losses in the productivity of agricultural lands are as much as $20
billion. These losses are personal to cattle producers--so each of us
has a vested interest in the health of the land that we own or manage
and in minimizing financial impacts caused by invasive weeds. New money
should be directed to a program that gives states maximum flexibility
to direct funds where they can be utilized by local decision makers
most effectively. Federal red tape and administrative requirements must
be minimized to ensure that the dollars are getting to the ground where
they are needed most. For federal lands, we also need a programmatic
environmental impact statement so the agencies can deal with all weeds
at all times, rather than one at a time.
I have been involved with fighting non-native species, particularly
noxious weeds, for about 20 years now. I helped organize our county's
weed board, the Lake County Weed Board. In fact, I am still serving as
vice chairman. The principle function of the weed board is to advise
our county commissioners on weed management and what can be done to
help fight the struggle. About five years ago, I also helped establish
the Warner Weed Working Group. I still serve as the chair of this
group. This group seeks to target weed control and eradication through
cost-share efforts, education and awareness. My involvement also
includes assisting landowners and other cattle producers by commenting
on federal land management proposals to ensure non-native invasive
species, such as noxious weeds, are adequately addressed in the
proposed action.
As I stated earlier, I have been fighting weeds on my own land for
over 20 years. I spray, learn what I can about control and management
and even break out the shovel to eradicate weeds such as the Canadian
thistle. But my individual efforts are not enough. In my area, we are
currently facing invasions of whitetop, perennial pepperweed and
Russian knapweed. If more effort, particularly federal funding, is not
devoted to combat invasive species, we are all fighting a losing battle
and rural communities such as my own will face severe economic crises.
If there is one thing I have noticed in all my years of fighting
these non-native species is that if something is not done fast we will
lose a lot of land that will never be recovered. For instance, fighting
cheatgrass is a lost cause. One might as well try to empty the ocean
with a bucket. Cheatgrass is a prime example of what can happen if
proactive measures are not taken immediately.
The best method of fighting these invasions is to act locally.
Currently, we have a limited amount of resources. In order to maximize
resources, I have found that resources are best utilized by those who
intuitively know the geography and flora of an area--for instance,
those who have been running up and down fields and ditches like myself
and other members of my weed board and weed working group. Furthermore,
we need to have additional funding diverted to the local level to
assist those who know best how to manage the land and treat the
problem--whether the land is federal or private.
I feel H.R. 3558 fails to devote adequate resources to the local
level and when H.R. 3558 provides resources to the local level, any
effort is burdened with red tape and bureaucracy--two things I find
totally unnecessary in the fight against invasive species. In
particular, for a project to qualify under Section 5(e), objectives
include establishing a science-based restoration of fish and wildlife
habitats. I am not a wildlife biologist but I feel this section
requires expertise beyond my capability. My expertise comes from living
on the land, working on the land, and nurturing the land in order to
reach its highest sustainability. In other words, application of common
sense local know how.
H.R. 3558 expands bureaucracy and red tape with the state
assessment requirements of Section 4 and places an additional burden on
states. Many states currently have weed management programs and directs
state dollars to local weed management boards. My own state of Oregon
customarily follows this practice. My basic thoughts are we do not need
more bureaucracy or red tape, or more government for that matter. What
we need is more federal funding to get more money on the ground, using
local folks, to attack the problem effectively.
Because invasive species know no boundaries, any Federal program
must allow for funds to be directed where they are most needed. H.R.
3558 appears to limit use of funds to only those projects on State and
private lands that are adjacent to Federal lands and also requires
there be a Federal partner to be eligible for a grant under the Also
Leopold Native Heritage Grant Program. NCBA and PLC believe that our
limited Federal dollars should be directed to projects that hold the
most promise for success, whether they are on Federal lands, State
lands or private lands, or any combination thereof.
One provision of H.R. 3558 I am particularly interested in is
Section 7, the Rapid Response Capability to Harmful Non-native species.
When it comes to fighting invasive species such as noxious weeds, I
feel we need to attack the problem as if it were a wildfire, move
resources into the problem area, eradicate the problem and don't leave
until the threat is eliminated.
In closing, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the
Public Lands Council support the goals of H.R. 3558 and support the
efforts of this Committee to address invasive species issues. However,
we are concerned that H.R. 3558 will not adequately address the non-
native invasive species problems, particularly noxious weeds.
Nonetheless, we look forward to working with the Committee to ensure
that our efforts to manage and control these harmful species are
targeted in the most efficient manner possible. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before your committee. I will gladly answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. O'Keeffe.
Mr. Riley?
STATEMENT OF TERRY Z. RILEY, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
Dr. Riley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting the
Wildlife Management Institute to speak before this Committee on
noxious weeds and House bill 3558. I am not going to read my
comments today. We have been over a lot of the stuff already,
and if you will, I please ask that my written comments be
submitted for the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
Dr. Riley. We have talked a lot about how many millions of
acres and maybe hundreds of millions of acres are impacted by
noxious weeds and other invasive nonnative species throughout
our country. However, just looking at the invasion rate, how
fast things are deteriorating from the state we are right now,
the estimate, as best we can determine, is about 10,000 acres
per day.
Now, 10,000 acres a day may seem big to some people, and
perhaps to Mr. O'Keeffe 10,000 acres isn't an awful lot to
graze on out in Oregon. But a lot of people might have trouble
with understanding what 10,000 acres is. But if you think about
a football field, within the bounds of a football field, that
is about an acre. So 10,000 of those lined up is about the rate
that weeds spread each year. Now, 10,000 football fields lined
up in a row equals approximately 567 miles in length. It would
take an 11-man team quite a long time to score a hit in that
field, obviously, because that is a tremendous amount of area.
And that is the issue. Just holding the invasion rate so that
it is not increasing any throughout a year, it takes that kind
of an effort, which requires an awful lot of money.
This is such a big problem that nobody can get their arms
around it very well, and it is perplexing to anybody out there
who is dealing with recreation, with ranching, with farming,
with all the other impacts that this has, including fish and
wildlife habitats that are, again, almost immeasurable. We
don't know what impacts these are having on all the native
species we have in the country. But we do know species like
ground nesting birds have experienced the longest long-term
decline of any species of birds in North America. Nearly 180
species of birds are declining fairly rapidly, and eventually
these birds, particularly those that nest on the ground, are
being impacted so severely that many will have to be listed as
threatened or endangered within our lifetimes, if we don't
somehow have a system or process to treat noxious weeds and
other invasive species.
Now, obviously H.R. 3558 takes the most important first
step, and that is to organize from a national level a process
that we can go out and actually begin to treat this with a
coordinated effort throughout the entire country. The next
phase, as you have done with this bill, is to empower the
States to coordinate effort among their agencies and all the
stakeholders within the State to begin to identify where those
areas are located, where the hot spots occur, and what the real
problems are. Then hopefully, those State efforts will
prioritize where the money needs to go.
If we just throw the money up in the air and hope it lands
in the right spot, we are going to do what we have been doing
for years and years and years. We have heard other people say,
well, we think we might be able to control it here or there.
But I can guarantee you, anybody who has actually treated
noxious weeds on the ground--and I was a certified pesticide
applicator for 5 years in South Dakota in one of my previous
jobs with the Forest Service, and I can tell you, all the years
that we worked there putting 10,000 pounds of Tordon down every
single year on that district, we did not stop the spread of
those weeds. Ten thousand pounds of Tordon every single year on
that district did not stop it.
So it is going to take a major effort to get this stopped.
And the only way we are going to know the cost of that is to go
out and pull together the State planning efforts, conduct an
assessment of what problems they have, and then let the States
empower the local watersheds, the local counties. We have 3,000
counties in this country right now that need to be working
toward addressing this problem.
I have a few things that I would like to recommend, just
specifics, and they do talk just specifically about a
coordinated effort from the very top to the very bottom and get
as many stakeholders at the table as possible--the State
wildlife agencies, agricultural departments, the Federal
agencies, the local governments, and all of the other people
out there who are the local people, the ranchers that Mr.
O'Keeffe said are out there and have to deal with this on an
everyday basis. Their lives and their livelihood are affected
terribly by this. There are no bright spots on the horizon for
a lot of these people, and we have to somehow make the American
people feel that we are actually going to address this.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Riley follows:]
Statement of Dr. Terry Z. Riley, Director of Conservation, Wildlife
Management Institute
Introduction
Messrs. Chairmen, I am Terry Z. Riley, Director of Conservation for
the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI). The Wildlife Management
Institute was established in 1911, and is staffed by professional
wildlife scientists and managers. Our purpose is to promote the
restoration and improved management of wildlife and other natural
resources in North America.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to offer our insights on
H.R. 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment
Act. The debate that will occur on invasive weeds is not a do or don't
proposition. The economic viability of farms and ranches is dependent
on a national, coordinated effort to control the spread of invasive
weeds, and H.R. 3558 will serve as a catalyst to bring the affected
parties together to ensure success. Production of wildlife,
agricultural crops, and livestock already have been compromised, and
farmers and ranchers are losing billions of dollars each year to weeds.
WMI commends all three Subcommittees for initiating this dialog.
The seriousness of the invasive weeds issue cannot be overstated, and
we urge the Subcommittees to complete work on H.R. 3558, or similar
legislation, that will enable our country to begin aggressive and long-
term control of invasive weeds.
We are concerned about the accelerating spread of invasive exotic
plants, or ``weeds'', on public and private land. Some estimates
indicate that exotic invasive plants are spreading at a rate of about
10,000 acres per day. The following examples of increased weed
populations on private, state, and federal lands illustrate the
devastation underway: In Montana spotted knapweed increased from a few
plants in 1920 to 5 million acres today; in Idaho rush skeleton weed
went from a few plants in 1954 to 4 million acres today; in Northern
California yellow starthistle increased from 1 million acres in 1981 to
about 15 million acres today. Imagine how concerned and vocal ranchers,
sportsmen, and environmentalists would be if 5 million acres of
rangeland or backcountry had been bulldozed or paved, or locked up and
lost for any human use. In many of these cases we are talking about
destruction of land that will be very hard, if possible at all, to
restore to its former condition. Our country has spent millions
restoring the integrity of our waters under the Clean Water Act, but
invasive weeds represent a challenge as great to that integrity as what
we faced from water pollution. Thousands of watersheds on public and
private land are undergoing the greatest permanent short-term
degradation in their recorded history--with fish and wildlife habitat
and livestock forage suffering the greatest losses.
Local cooperative approaches offer the best opportunity to prevent
and control weeds within a specific watershed, particularly when they
address problems identified in a State or regional assessment. In a few
states, Weed Cooperatives or County Weed Boards are bringing land
owners and operators, utility companies, county and state road
departments, State fish and wildlife agencies, federal land management
agencies, businesses, conservation organizations and public land users
together to attack this insidious plague of weeds.
Federal and private funds through the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation's ``Pulling Together Initiative'' already are providing
local cooperatives with the funds they need to develop and implement
long-term plans to control invasive weeds within local watersheds. Over
200 weed control cooperatives have been supported by the ``Pulling
Together Initiative'' since 1998, however, more than 250 weed
cooperatives submitted project proposals to the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation that went unfunded. A wide array of partners have
contributed millions of dollars to these cooperative weed-control
ventures, leveraging nearly 2 non-federal for each federal dollar
committed to the program. The Wildlife Management Institute has been
the grantee on one of these ``Pulling Together Initiative'' projects
since 1998 that has brought together 14 federal, state, county and
private partners to collectively control the spread of purple
loosestrife up the Missouri River and its tributaries in Nebraska and
South Dakota. These diverse groups enthusiastically come together to
fight a common enemy. Unfortunately, in most areas and in most
watersheds, these cooperative efforts to control and eradicate weeds
are not yet in place, or have not been able to secure funding.
The technology is available to cooperatively bring the spread of
invasive weeds down over the long term to a level approximating ``no
net increase''; along with making good progress at controlling and
restoring some large infestations. However, the cost to apply and
coordinate the delivery of this technology will not be low. Without
substantial long-term federal funding that is leveraged with state and
private resources, vast areas will become degraded permanently as these
invasive weeds spread across our country.
Only now are we beginning to see the danger that lies ahead. There
is great economic efficiency in increasing investments now to keep
relatively healthy watersheds from becoming severely infested by weeds.
Enormous increases in investments will be needed to restore land once
it is seriously infested. With prompt action now, these disasters can
be avoided, or at least effectively managed.
Over the past 2 years, our nation experienced some of the most
devastating wildfires we have seen in some time; burning nearly 8
million acres and destroying immense amounts of public and private
property. While most of those fires were ignited naturally by lighting
strikes, the fuels that carried those fires often were invasive weeds,
such as cheatgrass, that have invaded millions of acres of our western
rangelands.
Congress immediately responded to these disastrous fires by
allocating nearly 2 billion dollars in fiscal year 2001 to aggressively
deal with the wildfire hazards across the country on public and private
land. While exotic invasive weeds do not destroy homes as do
catastrophic wildfires, and thus do not receive the interest of the
Press, they are doing just as much if not more permanent damage to the
lives and livelihood of farmers and ranchers over a much larger area of
our country.
Recommendations
House Bill 3558 lays the foundation to aggressively address the
invasive weeds catastrophe, but we have a few concerns that you might
consider as you continue to develop this legislation. Specifically, as
your deliberations on H.R. 3558 proceed, we ask that you include
provisions in the bill to provide:
LSufficient and long-term funding on public and private
land;
LA watershed-based approach to controlling weeds;
LCoordinated weed control projects on public and private
land;
LAssurances that all nonnative invasive weeds are
addressed;
LRequirements to leverage non-federal funds;
LOpportunities to fund multi-state weed control projects;
LExpanding the role of the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation; and
LA primary focus on wildlife and fish species that are
experiencing long-term declines, but are not yet listed as threatened
or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
We strongly urge the Subcommittees to address the issue of annual
and long-term funding needed to control invasive nonnative weeds on our
Nation's public and private lands. Local cooperative efforts to control
invasive nonnative weeds must have some assurances that funding will be
available to help plan and implement their programs. Federal land
management agencies also must have the funds to control weeds on our
public lands, and there must be methods developed to ensure
coordination between weed control efforts on public and adjacent
private lands.
We strongly urge the Subcommittees to commit at least $100,000,000
per year for nonnative invasive weed control projects on private land,
and to commit at least 5 years of funding.
We also urge the Subcommittees to allocate sufficient funds to the
federal land management agencies to control noxious weeds on public
lands. For example, the Bureau of Land Management needs at least $15
million in fiscal year 2003 to implement their weed control program,
and they will need at least $30 million per year once the program is
fully implemented. Congress provided $8 million in fiscal year 2001 to
the USDA Forest Service to control invasive weeds on 150,000 acres, but
already there are over 8 million acres of the agencies' 192 million
acres that are infested by nonnative invasive weeds. Much more funding
is needed to stop the spread of weeds on federal land.
We are concerned that H.R. 3558 may reduce funding for other
natural resource programs within the Department of the Interior (DOI)
in an attempt to balance the federal budget. However, without clearly
identifying the source of funding (new money or transfer from other
programs), we believe there will be attempts to raid existing wildlife
programs within DOI. We recommend that H.R. 3558 clearly identify the
source of funds necessary to protect and restore wildlife and fish
habitats that have been impacted by invasive weeds.
Most successful efforts to control weeds have been those that
address the problem within an entire watershed. We recommend that the
H.R. 3558 be modified to require that all programs and projects using
federal dollars to control weeds must be based on a watershed planning
and implementation approach.
There are many nonnative invasive weed control programs already in
existence on public and private land. However, many of these programs
do not bring together all private and public agencies, organizations
and stakeholders to mount a coordinated effort to control weeds.
Government funding for control of invasive weeds on private land
traditionally has come from the various federal and state departments
of agriculture. We are concerned that federal funding through the
Secretary of the Interior might disrupt these traditional cooperative
ventures. We recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture be equally involved in the planning and implementation of
any nonnative invasive weed control program on public and private
lands.
We are concerned that efforts to control invasive weeds might only
focus on the widespread infestations in the western states. Our
Nation's waterways often provide the avenues by which invasive weeds
spread throughout a watershed, and many of our waterways (rivers,
streams, lakes and wetlands) are completely choked and dysfunctional
because of weed infestations. We urge the Subcommittees to address all
nonnative invasive weeds in H.R. 3558, including those weeds in
waterways, wetlands, farmlands, pasture and haylands and our western
rangelands.
Almost all local agencies, organizations, and stakeholders are
concerned about invasive weeds, and most are eager to commit their own
time and resources to provide control. The National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF) has demonstrated that it can leverage millions of
dollars from a wide array of private and public partners to control
weeds through its Pulling Together Initiative. We recommend that H.R.
3558 recognize the proven model for leveraging private resources for
weed control that has been successfully employed by the NFWF, and to
continue to use the NFWF as an integral player in achieving the goal of
promoting greater cooperation to control harmful weeds.
Often nonnative weeds infestations cross boundaries created between
administrative, political and state entities. We are concerned that
H.R. 3558 will not accommodate nor encourage cooperative efforts across
all of these boundaries, such as a multi-state weed control project. We
recommend that the H.R. 3558 provide funding to a broad array of
cooperative ventures to control invasive weeds, including multi-state
projects.
Finally, we are concerned that H.R. 3558 may not address adequately
the effects of invasive weeds on fish and wildlife species that are in
serious decline. The habitats of a large number of native fish and
wildlife species are being destroyed by invasive weeds. Species like
the sage grouse are in serious decline, but they are not yet threatened
or endangered. Sage grouse are almost completely dependent on vast
areas of sagebrush, but millions of acres of these habitats are being
destroyed by invasive weeds. Without a clear focus on declining species
in H.R. 3558, we are concerned that these native species will be
overlooked in favor of those that are listed as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We recommend that
the purpose of H.R. 3558 be modified to include the objective of
placing priority on restoring habitats of native fish and wildlife
species that are in serious decline, but are not yet listed as
threatened or endangered under the ESA.
Concluding Remarks
We thank the Chairmen and members of the Subcommittees for inviting
the Wildlife Management Institute to testify on H.R. 3558. Economic
losses to invasive weeds are staggering, and we are very concerned that
wildlife and other natural resources will suffer irreparable harm if we
do not act now. We fully support a broad array of active and
cooperative weed control ventures on public and private lands,
particularly for native fish and wildlife habitats in serious decline.
We believe significant and long-term funding is needed to assist these
partnerships in controlling weeds within all of our Nation's
watersheds. Funding for invasive weed control on our public lands is
woefully inadequate to stop the spread of these insidious pests, but we
would not support funding for any new weed control program that would
be at the expense of other federal natural resource programs or
existing cooperative weed control partnerships. Messrs. Chairmen, we
respectfully request that our written and oral comments presented here
today be entered into the permanent written record of this hearing.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Riley.
Mr. O'Keeffe, what kind of invasive problems are you
experiencing right now? And how are you working to deal with
it?
Mr. O'Keeffe. Right now in our watershed, we have got three
main noxious weeds. They are perennial pepperweed, Russian
knapweed, and white top.
Mr. Gilchrest. What was the last one?
Mr. O'Keeffe. White top. Hoary cress is another name for it
perhaps in this region. Anyway, we have got a local working
group that prioritizes the effort, and we do a triage to decide
how to spend our limited resources at the top of the watershed
where there is most chances of spreading, keep them on the
properties that are already infested, deal with the satellite
infestations.
Mr. Gilchrest. Where do they come from?
Mr. O'Keeffe. You know, it almost just showed up, like the
haying equipment sometimes will spread it, wildlife spreads it.
We have got an island on our ranch. There is an island. It is
one of the 16 places in the United States for white pelican's
nest. There has never been a cow on that island or a piece of
machinery. But one day I happened to be out there, and the
pepperweed had gotten there. It has to be a wildlife thing in
that instance.
But it just comes in. Tourists--or it gets there and gets
spread by roads and machinery, wildlife, livestock to some
extent. You know, I think livestock sometimes gets too much
blame because people like myself, we know what the weeds are.
We know where our livestock goes. We watch for the weeds. It is
the wildlife and the tourists that come out of the blue that I
think create some of the situations that are so hard to get a
handle on, or weeds you are not familiar with show up in the
middle of nowhere.
Mr. Gilchrest. You said you have a working group.
Mr. O'Keeffe. We do.
Mr. Gilchrest. Who is in that working group, and where do
the funds come from that pay for that eradication?
Mr. O'Keeffe. The working group, the landowners in the area
and the Federal agencies, the State, the Nature Conservancy,
they are a landowner but also as an environmental conservation
organization, are involved. The BLM, the Bureau of Land
Management, is providing the administration for our group so
that a rancher doesn't have to go in the evening doing the
grant writing and stuff. We apply for grants. We have gotten a
grant from the State of Oregon. The type of funding--that is
the beauty of these local groups. A lot of these problems that
the bill addresses, like addressing the fact of how the weed
got there, you know, these working groups, they are not--you
are getting the caliber of input where you are not going to put
the horse back in the barn and leave the door open. That is the
beauty of these working groups.
I know a lot has been said about a nationally coordinated
effort, and that is important. But if these working groups are
funded and have successes, they will sell themselves. And with
the time lost in providing a national coordination, maybe that
will be offset by the effectiveness of the early response.
But, anyway, a lot of these issues are taken care of by a
good, effective local working group.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is the area that you say the bill
duplicates.
Mr. O'Keeffe. The area that the bill duplicates is mainly
in like habitat restoration for wildlife. There are other areas
that that is funded from--or there are other possible areas of
funding for that.
Mr. Gilchrest. You also said that the most important thing
now, which is what you just described, is to put money on the
ground, I guess into those local working groups that will use
it right away, instead of front-loading the State
bureaucracies.
Mr. O'Keeffe. Yes. You know, our group, we already know
what we need, and the groups in neighboring counties, I would
hope that they would also. And the process of the State
assessment, while that would be valuable, I think that some of
these groups are ready to go now. And these groups are busy
people with volunteer efforts, and adding the bureaucracy to
this effort, I think we could be more effective by--I mean, we
have already done our homework. If you fund us real
efficiently--
Mr. Gilchrest. You will get going.
Mr. O'Keeffe. We will have to compete with other groups for
our grant, and if they are better organized and better able to
spend the money, that will be recognized through the grant
process.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Riley, having dealt with something
similar in the Dakotas, would you agree with Mr. O'Keeffe? I am
not sure how we would massage the legislation, just talk to the
appropriators separately to get that funding on the ground
immediately for that type of rapid response.
Dr. Riley. Well, right now we do already have money
flowing, as Dr. Chavarria talked earlier. Obviously the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and a variety of other
agencies are making many millions of dollars available in the
last 5 or 6 years to do this. And there are other entities out
there doing the same thing, and this bill should support those
entities to continue on the processes and the wins they have
already made. They have already jumped through many of the
administrative hoops that Mr. O'Keeffe is speaking of, and I
think we need to build on those and not somehow cripple them by
some new level of bureaucracy that we are dealing with.
I think local efforts are--that is the way we are going to
stop it. There is no doubt about it. When I made my statements
with respect to national and State efforts, I just don't think
you can do it just one county at a time without dealing with
all the counties around it, too. I think that is the value of
the local efforts that are going on right now, and obviously
Mr. O'Keeffe sounds like he is in a very progressive one. I
have been in one in South Dakota and Nebraska controlling
purple loosestrife from moving up the Missouri River, and we
are holding the line where the Missouri River flows from South
Dakota into Nebraska, and that is funded through the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Pulling Together Initiative.
That money comes from six different agencies, Federal agencies.
But we also have many others that are partners in that
program, including Indian tribes, local governments, and many
ranchers and farmers along the Missouri River. They all know
the problem. It is coming up the stream--I mean up the river,
and all of its tributaries, and we are doing everything we
possibly can to hold it right where it is. And that may be all
we accomplish. Those efforts are where the rubber meets the
road.
If this process somehow circumvents them or slows them
down, I think it won't be good, so we need to address that part
of it, too.
Mr. Gilchrest. We want to make sure that the language fits
the need of all areas of the country, especially your
particular situation, Mr. O'Keeffe, if you already have a
working group put together, you have a rapid response team. We
think that the bill has the capacity to do that now. The last
thing we want to do is create another layer of bureaucracy and
complicated paperwork. And I think Mr. Shannon talked about
making some of these applications for grants user-friendly,
which is what we want to ensure will happen.
Mr. Riley, you said you used--I am just curious, what was
it Tordon?
Dr. Riley. Tordon, t-o-r-d-o-n.
Mr. Gilchrest. Tordon, to eradicate noxious weeds--in South
Dakota?
Dr. Riley. The Black Hills of South Dakota.
Mr. Gilchrest. Black Hills of South Dakota. It is a nice
place, right down the street from Wal-Drug, I guess.
Dr. Riley. Yes, that is right.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Just don't let anybody on Route 90 come to
the Black Hills. You probably won't have those tourist problems
with invasive weed.
We are talking about eradicating or holding the line. You
made some comment about using Tordon, and every year you had to
continue to use Tordon. What would you do differently if you
had adequate resources to eradicate those invasive weeds?
Dr. Riley. Well, in the early 1980's, when we were using
Tordon, the biological agents we have talked about, such as
other insects or things that might affect the plants, were not
very well developed. We were trying to use those at the time.
But it is going to take an integrated approach.
Our problem is without some kind of guidance or control
about how you put the stuff down--in other words, if you don't
have a whole bunch of partners working on the same problem, you
can throw your dollars over here and throw your dollars over
there--and 10,000 pounds of Tordon might sound like a lot of
Tordon, but we probably could have used 100,000 pounds to try
to just keep up with the invasion that was going on in that
district.
It is a very insidious problem. So the only thing I can say
is from what I have learned from the early 1980's to now, we
need a coordinated effort, just like Mr. O'Keeffe is talking
about. And those parties that are involved in that, all those
stakeholders need the money to get it done on the ground. They
will get better with every succeeding year they are on it, but
it is not something that is going to just be a 5-year program.
This has to continue on for a long time because it is a very
significant plague throughout the whole country, and we have to
stay with it. And these organizations, the longer they work,
the better they will get at it, the more technology we will
have, and we will get it eventually, but we just have to stay
with it.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you feel that as the groups become more
sophisticated, the relationship strengthens, the science
becomes more readily available, that other than--there would be
a whole myriad of ways that we could eradicate a lot of these
invasive species. Is there the same kind of effort, Mr.
O'Keeffe, on your ranch with the three invasives that you
described? Could you tell us the kind of damage they do? And is
there some mechanism to plant native species that could outpace
the invasive species?
Mr. O'Keeffe. Of course, the problem with these invasive
species is that the native species aren't set up to compete
with them. We don't have at this point a viable biological
control for any of those species right now. And another thing
that concerned me about 3558 is that it is appeared to
discourage the use of pesticides, or herbicides, and I think it
is so important to realize that on the satellite infestations,
if they just start out, a timely application the first season
with a herbicide eliminates that issue. And that stops further
satellite infestations, and it prevents a situation where the
population spreads and then you have got different landowners
using herbicides in a much larger amount later.
So I think one thing to encourage is the real timely use of
appropriate herbicides on the early populations rather than
just a statement discouraging the use of pesticides. But we do
try to use an integrated approach. We wish we had a biological
agent. But we try and do all the right things, not transport
hay out of fields where the weeds are known. We feed it in
those fields. Those types of things are definitely a part of
our plan.
Mr. Gilchrest. I apologize, Mr. O'Keeffe. I forgot about a
meeting that I had with two other members at 1 o'clock, and I
think it is about 5 after 12 now, so that gives us about--is it
5 after 12:00? Oh, it is 5 after 1. We have another 50 minutes,
I guess, I am just kidding.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Two other quick questions then. On invasives
or controlling invasives, whether or not you use chemicals,
does land-use practice have anything to do with controlling the
invasives or contributing to the problem? In the East--I come
from an agricultural area, and a lot of times the rotation of
the crops can have a very positive impact on the control of
noxious weeds, invasive weeds, or things like that. And I am
not sure if you have the same rotation out there being on a
ranch instead of a grain farm.
Mr. O'Keeffe. You are very right that the practices can
have a lot to do with the weeds. The pepperweed issue that we
are faced with, we have got native meadows that we manage for
hay and livestock grazing, and the pepperweed tends to try and
create a monoculture in those. And, of course, a crop rotation
isn't appropriate there. They are still the same vegetative
community they were at settlement times, basically. So you
don't have the opportunity to do a crop rotation, but you have
other opportunities to try and minimize the disturbance, like
ditchwork and any disturbances tend to create a foothold for
weeds. So you have got to monitor those things carefully.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Shannon, I guess the last question. You gave us six
things that you would recommend. The first one was to expand
the scope of the bill and include USDA, demonstration projects,
public and private land projects, and things like that. Could
you just mention in a little more detail that process and who
we should include in the legislation to cover, let's say,
somebody like Mr. O'Keeffe and the problem Mr. Riley described,
and even some of the situations, if it is appropriate, that we
heard about in Hawaii?
Mr. Shannon. Of course, I deal with forest land and forest
landowners, and I am not the right person to answer questions
about a cattleman's concerns. I am sorry. But I can tell you
that for forest land, we have had as traditional partners for
many decades the U.S. Forest Service, and for a long time,
APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
When gypsy moth had one of these satellite infestations in
Arkansas, we went to APHIS. They were a tremendous technical
help for us, and a little financial help for us. And it was
very successful, use of chemicals to go in there quickly,
intelligently applied, and you will have a tough time finding a
gypsy moth in Arkansas today.
A good part of the reason is APHIS helped us right from the
start, and the forest health people at the Forest Service
worked with us thereafter on monitoring. So that is why I
think--there is a little language in the bill that says rapid
response is undeveloped in America now. I don't think that is
accurate. It may be underdeveloped. It needs to be better
developed. But we do have some rapid response.
I know APHIS has rapid response. It sounds like Mr.
O'Keeffe's group is ready for rapid response. So let's get USDA
involved. Let's hold their feet to the fire. They need to help
us meet the objectives of the bill.
Mr. Gilchrest. All right. Well, gentlemen, thank you very
much. Your testimony has been very helpful to all of us, and I
hope the rest of your day is a good day in Washington. At this
point we will insert statements submitted for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]
Statement of Scott McInnis, Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and
Forest Health
Expanding global trade and travel have increased the risk of
introducing new, exotic organisms. Certain non-native insects,
diseases, plants, and animals have had significant impacts on national
forests and other forest lands in recent years and have proven
difficult to control. Without natural enemies in the forests of the
U.S., many exotic organisms have spread at alarming rates. Others have
spread slowly, becoming established residents before the need for
control is evident.
A recent brochure by the Forest Service, America's Forests: 1997
Health Update, describes the effect of invasions of exotic pests on our
forests:
``Large numbers of nonnative (exotic) species are displacing
naturally occurring species in a wide array of ecosystems. They often
have no natural control factors and thus can cause extensive damage.
Their effects have been devastating over the past century--including
the demise of the American chestnut due to chestnut blight, decreases
in white pine from blister rust, loss of hardwoods to gypsy moth, and
the killing of elms by Dutch elm disease. More recently, exotic plants
such as mellaleuca and miconia have invaded large acreages in Florida
and Hawaii, respectively. These exotic plants have displaced the native
vegetation, thereby affecting wildlife habitat.''
A number of cooperative relationships exist to address the
identification, management and control of exotic pests. For example,
many state and federal agencies undertake cooperative inventory,
monitoring and control programs. Forest Service research stations and
universities conduct research to reduce the impact and improve control
of introduced pests. However, there is more we can and should do to
protect and restore our lands. I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses and partners here today to explore additional mechanisms to
aggressively treat the invasive species problems before our Nation.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. The hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:11 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-