[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE GROWING PROBLEM OF INVASIVE SPECIES
=======================================================================
JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
joint with the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-17
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
86-708 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
VACANCY
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Carolina Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex ex officio
officio
------
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 Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Tom Udall, New Mexico
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Mark Udall, Colorado
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Carolina Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Chris Cannon, Utah Dennis A. Cardoza, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Mark E. Souder, Indiana ex officio
Rob Bishop, Utah
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 29, 2003................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, Statement submitted for the record......... 126
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey.................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Arnett, G. Ray, Former Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior........ 55
Prepared statement of.................................... 57
Baughman, John, Executive Vice-President, International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.................. 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
Beers, James M., Science Advisor, American Land Rights
Association................................................ 114
Prepared statement of.................................... 116
Brandt, Dr. Stephen, Director of Great Lakes Environmental
Research Lab, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce................ 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Carlton, Dr. James T., Professor of Marine Sciences, Williams
College.................................................... 112
Prepared statement of.................................... 113
Connelly, John P., President, National Fisheries Institute... 71
Prepared statement of.................................... 72
Grau, Fred V., Jr., President, Grasslyn, Inc................. 96
Prepared statement of.................................... 97
Hyde, Myra Bradford, National Cattlemen's Beef Association... 67
Prepared statement of.................................... 69
Kraus, Dr. Fred, Department of Natural Science, Bishop
Museum, Hawaii............................................. 117
Prepared statement of.................................... 119
Lambert, Dr. Chuck, Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture........ 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Mann, Dr. Roger L., Acting Director for Research and Advisory
Services, Virginia Institute of Marine Science............. 108
Prepared statement of.................................... 110
Pauli, Bill, President, California Farm Bureau Federation.... 60
Prepared statement of.................................... 62
Ruiz, Dr. Gregory M., Marine Ecologist, Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center.............................. 98
Prepared statement of.................................... 100
Shannon, John T., State Forester of Arkansas, on behalf of
the National Association of State Foresters................ 75
Prepared statement of.................................... 80
Tate, Dr. James, Jr., Science Advisor, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Theriot, Dr. Edwin, Director of Management, Mississippi
Valley Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.............. 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Windle, Dr. Phyllis N., Senior Scientist, Union of Concerned
Scientists................................................. 84
Prepared statement of.................................... 85
Additional materials supplied:
Pacific Ballast Water Group, Letter submitted for the record. 130
Simberloff, Dr. Daniel, Professor, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, Tennessee, Statement submitted for the record... 4
Sledge, James L., Jr., President, National Association of
State Foresters, Statement submitted for the record........ 76
JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE GROWING PROBLEM OF INVASIVE SPECIES
----------
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, joint with
the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1 p.m., in room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton [Vice
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Saxton. The Subcommittees on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans and Parks, Recreation and Public Lands will
conduct this joint oversight hearing on the growing problem of
nonnative exotic and invasive species. And before I go on, I
just need to ask unanimous consent that Mr. Hefley be permitted
to participate in the joint hearing for the purpose of an
opening statement and questions. And if you, Mr. Hefley, would
like to come on over and join up with us, that will make us
look unified as we always are.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Chairman yield?
Mr. Saxton. Be happy to yield.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the Chairman and I want to extend
my personal welcome to the distinguished gentleman from
Colorado whom I have had the personal privilege of knowing, and
being an outstanding member of this Subcommittee that I want to
join the Chairman in welcoming my good friend from Colorado to
join us and to participate in our hearing this afternoon.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.
It has been estimated that there are more than 5,000
nonnative species in the country. Many of these species, like
food crops and domestic livestock, have made invaluable
contributions to our society. However, a growing number of
foreign species which are referred to as invasive are
destroying thousands of acres of critical habitat and
endangering the long-term survival of dozens of indigenous
plants and animals and undermining our entire ecosystems.
Invasive plants have infested some 100 million acres in the
United States and $14.4 billion is spent each year to offset
crop losses and for increased pesticide use because of invasive
species. According to a Cornell University study, economic
losses and associated control costs exceed some $137 billion
per year. That is a staggering figure and there can be no
denying that invasive species are a growing problem that is
adversely affecting our National Wildlife Refuges, National
Forests and National Parks.
I have another page and-a-half which I ask unanimous
consent be included in the record. With that, it gives us a
sense for the general topic today. And at this time, I will be
happy to yield to the Ranking Member also from New Jersey, Mr.
Pallone.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey
Good afternoon. Today, the Subcommittees on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans and National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands
will conduct this joint oversight hearing on the growing problem of
non-native, exotic or invasive species.
It has been estimated that there are more than 5,000 non-native
species in this country. Many of these species, like food crops and
domestic livestock, have made invaluable contributions to our society.
However, a growing number of foreign species, which are referred to as
invasives, are destroying thousands of acres of critical habitat,
endangering the long term survival of dozens of indigenous plants and
animals, and undermining entire ecosystems.
Invasive plants have infested some 100 million acres in the United
States and $14.4 billion is spent each year to offset crop losses and
for increased pesticide use because of invasive insects. According to
Cornell University, economic losses and associated control costs exceed
some $137 billion per year.
This is a staggering figure and there can be no denying that
invasive species are a growing problem that is adversely affecting our
National Wildlife Refuges, National Forests and National Parks.
As someone who has witnessed the destruction of hundreds of acres
of wetlands from non-native species, I am sadly aware that we are
losing the battle against these unwanted invaders. The list of horror
stories including species like the brown tree snake, mitten crab,
purple loosestrife, coqui frog and zebra mussels is growing each day.
It is for this reason that we have seen a host of new legislation
introduced to address invasive species. These include: the Harmful
Invasive Weed Control Act, the National Invasive Species Control Act,
the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act, the Aquatic Invasive Species
Research Act and the recently enacted Nutria Eradication and Control
Act. While the focus of this hearing is not on these legislative
measures, I am interested in hearing the extent of the invasives
problem, the amount of money being spent to eliminate these species,
whether the National Invasive Species Council has become the
clearinghouse on invasives and what are the gaps in our existing laws.
Unless an effective invasive species strategy is developed in the
near future, we will continue to see the destruction of vital habitat
and an increase in the number of species that must seek protection
under our Endangered Species Act.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and I am
pleased to join with my friend and Colleague, the Chairman of the Parks
Subcommittee, George Radanovich as we begin this hearing process.
______
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the all New
Jersey day, I guess.
Mr. Saxton. And Colorado and California.
Mr. Pallone. I was near your district over the weekend.
Mr. Saxton. He should have warned you.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. I wanted to say that I look forward to the
hearing today and I know it is a joint hearing with our
colleagues on the Parks Subcommittee.
From aquatic invaders like zebra mussels to terrestrial
culprits such as the brown tree snakes in Guam, which we heard
from our colleague in previous hearings, to plants like purple
loosestrife, invasive species leave no habitat in the United
States untouched. After habitat loss, invasive species are the
greatest threat to natural biodiversity that we face today.
Invasive species, which include plants, fish, insects and other
organisms, cost the United States more than $100 billion each
year. Annual losses associated with some of the most expensive
invasive species are in excess of $100 million per species.
Aquatic and coastal habitats have suffered serious
ecological consequences due to invasive species, and as a
representative of a largely coastal district, I am concerned
about the threats to native habitats in my home State. In New
Jersey the invasive European green crab could become a serious
threat to local clam fisheries, although New Jersey scientist
Paul Jivoff has shown that blue crabs may act as a barrier to
the spread of the green crab. We are obviously hopeful that
this biological barrier will hold.
The rapa whelk, an invasive snail that drills through
oyster shells, has begun to spread into the Delaware Bay from
the Chesapeake Bay. Additionally, invasive species of the marsh
grass Phragmites is out-competing native marsh grasses and
altering coastal and estuarine habitats. This last invader has
become a symbol of the difficulties of balancing the negative
impacts of an invasive species with the cost of eradication.
The scale of the existing invasive species problem is
striking. There are pressing needs in all States and
territories for controlling ongoing invasions. But effective
preventive measures combined with early intervention could
reduce some of the economic costs and loss of habitat
associated with establishing invasive species. I am interested
in hearing from today's witnesses how best to identify
potential threats and to prevent future introductions and hope
that today's witnesses can shed some light on whether existing
statutory authorities are adequate or whether they should be
strengthened to directly address this threat.
For example, could the scope of the Lacey Act, which
prohibits the introduction of injurious wildlife, be expanded
to include more species? Furthermore, could the Act be used
more aggressively as it was by Secretary Norton in last year's
high profile case of the northern snakehead fish in Maryland?
We have been regrettably slow in addressing invasive
species introductions and establishment in the United States,
and I look forward to this hearing as a way to gain practical
guidance in how to initiate or how to mitigate I should say the
current problems and how to most efficiently head off future
invasions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Frank Pallone, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to this afternoon's joint
hearing with our colleagues on the Parks Subcommittee to hear expert
testimony from such a diverse group of witnesses.
From aquatic invaders like zebra mussels, to terrestrial culprits
such as brown tree snakes in Guam, to plants like purple loosestrife,
invasive species leave no habitat in the United States untouched. After
habitat loss, invasive species are the greatest threat to natural
biodiversity faced today.
Invasive species, which include plants, fish, insects, and other
organisms, cost the United States more than $100 billion each year.
Annual losses associated with some of the most expensive invasive
species are in excess of $100 million per species.
Aquatic and coastal habitats have suffered serious ecological
consequences due to invasive species, and as a Representative of a
largely coastal district, I am concerned about the threats to native
habitats in my home state. For example, the invasive European green
crab could become a serious threat to local clam fisheries, although a
New Jersey scientist, Dr. Paul Jivoff, has shown that blue crabs may
act as a barrier to the spread of the green crab. We're obviously
hopeful that this biological barrier will hold. The rapa whelk, an
invasive snail that drills through oyster shells, has begun to spread
into the Delaware Bay from the Chesapeake Bay. Additionally, an
invasive species of the marsh grass Phragmites is out-competing native
marsh grasses and altering coastal and estuarine habitats. This last
invader has become a symbol of the difficulties of balancing the
negative impacts of an invasive species with the costs of eradication.
The scale of the existing invasive species problem is striking.
There are pressing needs in all States and territories for controlling
ongoing invasions. But effective preventative measures, combined with
early intervention, could surely reduce some of the economic costs and
loss of habitat associated with established invasive species. I am
interested in hearing from today's witnesses how best to identify
potential threats and to prevent future introductions.
I hope that today's witnesses can shed some light on whether
existing statutory authorities are adequate or whether they should be
strengthened to directly address this threat. For example, could the
scope of the Lacey Act, which prohibits the introduction of ``injurious
wildlife,'' be expanded to include more species? Furthermore, could the
Act be used more aggressively, as it was by Secretary Norton in last
year's high profile case of the Northern Snakehead fish in Maryland?
We have been regrettably slow in addressing invasive species
introductions and establishment in the United States. I look forward to
this hearing as a way to gain practical guidance on how to mitigate the
current problems, and how to most efficiently head off future
invasions. Thank you.
______
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Radanovich?
Mr. Radanovich. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
meeting. A brief statement to read if I may and also want to
submit for the record and ask unanimous consent to submit a
statement on behalf of Jimmy Duncan.
Mr. Saxton. Without objection.
[The statement submitted for the record by The Honorable
John J. Duncan, Jr., from Dr. Daniel Simberloff, Professor,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Dr. Daniel Simberloff,
Professor, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
I am Daniel Simberloff, and I am very grateful to the Committee
members and particularly to Congressman Duncan for permitting me to
submit this testimony for inclusion in the written record about a
matter of great concern to me, invasive introduced species. As a
faculty member at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (the Nancy
Gore Hunger Professor of Environmental Studies), I direct the Institute
for Biological Invasions. I have conducted extensive research in
environmental areas (and have published some 400 technical papers), and
much of my research program for many years has been focused on impacts
of invasive introduced species.
WHAT INVASIVE INTRODUCED SPECIES DO
Invasive introduced species have many economic and environmental
impacts. Some are obvious; others are subtler but no less important. An
estimate of their cost to the U.S. economy is US$137 billion annually.
Worldwide, introduced species are second only to habitat conversion as
a cause of species endangerment and extinction; in this matter, they
outrank harvest, pollution, disease, and global warming combined.
Impacts of introduced species such as the chestnut blight in the
eastern U.S., the sea lamprey in the Great Lakes, and the gypsy moth in
eastern North America have long been known. Other more recent invaders,
such as the zebra mussel and the Asian longhorned beetle, have burst
onto the scene with much publicity and (in the case of the mussel)
rapid ecological and economic damage. However, because these impacts
are so multifarious and often subtle, many people are unaware of the
full scope and depth of this problem. Further, introduced species
sometimes remain innocuous for decades, then suddenly explode to become
serious pests. Thus, some fraction of currently harmless introduced
species will become plagues. In sum, species introductions are a global
change of the first order, and their ecological and economic impacts
over the last century surely exceed those caused by global warming.
However, they have received insufficient public attention.
Impacts of the majority fall into several well-defined categories.
Habitat Change and Ecosystem-Wide Impacts
Because so many species are tied to particular habitats, an
introduced species that greatly changes habitat can transform an entire
community. The zebra mussel (from southern Russia) has greatly modified
many ecosystems. By 2000 it ranged over much of the eastern United
States and Canada. Most public attention has been focused on its
economic impacts through fouling and clogging water pipes, with costs
of billions of dollars. Ecological impacts are equally drastic. Its
dense aggregations smother native mussels, many of which are
endangered, and it has converted substrate in some areas into a jagged
mass of mussel shells. In addition, it decreases phytoplankton
densities, thus affecting fish, zooplankton, and other invertebrates.
The very existence of many native molluscs is threatened, and there are
many impacts on other species. Worse, this mussel interacts with other
invaders to increase the impact of both the mussel and those species,
as I will describe below.
Introduced plants more frequently cause ecosystem-wide impacts via
habitat change, because plants often constitute the habitat for an
entire community, and because terrestrial, aquatic, and marine plants
can overgrow large areas. The Japanese green alga Codium fragile (dead
man's fingers or oyster thief) has profound effects in North America.
It arrived in Long Island Sound by 1957 and has since spread south to
North Carolina and north to Canada. It attaches to molluscs and
destroys them, and it displaces native algae. In the Gulf of Maine, it
is the main species in a group of invaders that has completely
transformed native communities.
Plants can change entire ecosystems even without overgrowing native
species by modifying ecosystem traits and processes. For example, in
Florida, Australian paperbark trees, with spongy outer bark, and highly
flammable leaves and litter, have led to increased fire intensity and
frequency. These changes, in turn, have helped paperbark replace native
plants on ca. 400,000 acres, with been many subsequent changes to the
regional community. This is one of many cases in which introduced
plants, by modifying natural disturbance regimes, affect entire
ecosystems. In the arid U.S. Southwest, Mediterranean salt cedars cause
severe water loss because of their deep roots and rapid transpiration.
On the volcanic island of Hawaii, the Atlantic nitrogen-fixing shrub
Myrica faya (firebush) has invaded young, nitrogen-poor areas. As there
are no native nitrogen-fixers, native plants have adapted to the
nitrogen-poor soil, while introduced species cannot tolerate it. Now a
wave of plant invaders aided by the firebush is establishing over large
areas.
An introduced species, such as a pathogen or herbivore, that
removes a dominant plant or plants can affect a whole community. For
example, the Asian chestnut blight fungus reached New York on nursery
stock in the late nineteenth century, spread over 250 million acres of
eastern North America from Ontario to Georgia in less than 50 years,
and killed almost all mature chestnuts. Because chestnut had been a
dominant tree in many areas, impacts on the native community were
enormous. For example, several species that depended on chestnut went
extinct, and nutrient cycling was heavily effected.
Species Effects
There is a gradient between ecosystem-wide impact, as is caused by
drastic habitat change, and impact on single species. I will describe
various forces in terms of how one species affects another. There may
be little further impact on the community, or the impact may spread to
many species. Often, as in the chestnut blight case, an invasion must
have had drastic impacts on a wide swath of the community, but data do
not exist to detail the impact. For instance, all the earthworms of
much of Canada and the northern United States are Eurasian immigrants.
It is difficult to believe that the immigrant nature of animals as
crucial to ecosystem function as earthworms cannot have had major
impacts on whole ecosystems, but there has been no published research
on the problem.
Competition
Individuals of one species can prevent individuals of another from
garnering resources, by fighting, for example. Or two species can
affect one another's populations when both use the same resource. Some
of the best-known cases of competition concern impacts of introduced
species on natives. For example, the alewife, an Atlantic coastal fish,
spread through the Great Lakes by the Welland Canal. The alewife
reduced zooplankton populations, and competition for this resource
contributed to the disappearance of native salmonid fishes. Alewives
now dominate Lake Michigan and account for 70-90% of fish weight.
European brown trout interfere with feeding by brook trout by
displacing them from their favored feeding habitats, by increasing
their periods of inactivity, and by reducing feeding activity.
Introduced plants can poison the environment. For example, the African
crystalline ice plant accumulates salt, which remains in the soil when
the plant decomposes. In California, this plant excludes native plants
that cannot tolerate salt.
Predation
Many introduced species prey on native species, sometimes driving
them to local or global extinction. The sea lamprey first arrived in
Lake Ontario in the 1830s either by migrating through the Erie Canal or
by hitchhiking on ships moving through the Erie and St. Lawrence canal
systems; it then moved to Lake Erie through the Welland Canal. In
combination with other factors, lamprey predation led directly to
extinction of three Great Lakes fishes, the longjaw cisco, the
deepwater cisco, and the blackfin cisco. Along with overfishing,
watershed deforestation, and pollution, lampreys devastated populations
of all large native fish. Economic impacts were dramatic; catches of
many species declined 90% or more. Declines of these large fish rippled
through the food web, and populations of several smaller fish species
increased. As lampreys switched to these species in the absence of
larger prey, many of them declined.
There are even more dramatic impacts of introduced predators. For
example, the rosy wolf snail of Florida and Central America was
introduced to many islands around the world in a failed attempt to
control the previously introduced giant African snail. The rosy wolf
snail attacks native terrestrial, arboreal, and even aquatic snails on
these islands and has already caused the extinction of at least thirty
species, including many in Hawaii. The brown tree snake, introduced in
cargo, has eliminated ten of the eleven native forest bird species on
Guam.
Herbivory
The best known impact of herbivores is economic damage by various
insect pests of agricultural crops and forests. In 1869, the gypsy moth
came to North America from Europe in a futile effort to generate a silk
industry. It escaped in Massachusetts and occupied much of eastern
North America. The moth feeds on many woody plants. Defoliation by this
moth weakens trees and thereby increases their susceptibility to other
insects and diseases. In some areas, repeated defoliation has caused up
to 90% mortality of preferred host trees, thus greatly changing forest
composition. There are many subsequent impacts on other species after a
major infestation of woody plants. Litter amounts and decomposition
increase, thus increasing nitrogen loss in stream flow, while both
defoliation and reduction of oak mast production affect bird
populations.
The Russian wheat aphid, from southeastern Europe and southwestern
Asia, spread to Mexico in the 1980s, arrived in the United States, and
quickly spread through the western part of the United States and
Canada. It attacks not only wheat but also barley and other plants. It
has cost ca. $1 billion so far in yield losses and control costs, and
it has led to the near elimination of wheat and barley crops in some
regions. It has ecological as well as crop impacts. For example, it
infests crested wheatgrass, planted for soil conservation, and the
Eurasian seven-spot lady beetle, introduced to combat the aphid, has
displaced native ladybeetles in many areas.
Disease
In addition to major ecosystem-wide impacts as for chestnut blight,
an introduced pathogen can have huge impacts on one species. Whirling
disease is a European parasite that penetrates the head of juvenile
trout, where it causes the fish to swim erratically, impeding their
feeding and predator avoidance, and most young fish die. Spores reach
the substrate when an infected fish dies or is eaten by a predator (in
which case the spores are expelled in feces). There they withstand
freezing and drying, remaining viable for 30 years. They are eaten by
an aquatic worm, in whose gut the spore is converted to a mature form
that infects trout.
Rainbow trout are highly susceptible to whirling disease, which
reached North America in 1955 and has since spread widely in the U.S.
West. It arrived in North America by a tortuous route. North American
rainbow trout were transplanted to Europe, where they acquired whirling
disease from brown trout, a European native that harbors the parasite
but resists the disease. Frozen rainbow trout from Scandinavia were
then exported to Pennsylvania supermarkets. A stream flowing through a
residential area carried the parasite to a fish hatchery. Fish spread
the parasite from there to many other states, where it has been an
economic disaster. In many streams in Montana and Colorado, whirling
disease afflicts over 95% of the rainbow trout.
Hybridization
Introduced species can gradually change a native species, even to
the point of extinguishing it, by mating with it. Introduced rainbow
trout, for example, hybridize with five native trout species listed
under the Endangered Species Act. Gene pools of these species are
gradually coming to resemble that of rainbow trout. In addition to game
fish, fish introduced for biological control and released for bait have
caused hybridization and even extinction, and there are many similar
examples among mammals, birds, and plants.
Even if hybrids are sterile, hybridization can cause extinction.
The bull trout, a candidate for threatened status under the Endangered
Species Act, hybridizes with introduced brook trout. Because of
sterility, poor mating success, and low progeny survival, there is
almost no backcrossing into parental populations. However, the bull
trout are at a disadvantage because much of their reproductive effort
is wasted in these hybrid matings, and they are declining.
Hybridization between a native and an introduced species can even
produce a new invasive scourge. For example, cordgrass of coastal
eastern North America was introduced to England in the mid-19th
century, but it was a harmless, uncommon exotic there. Occasionally it
hybridized with the native Spartina maritima, but these hybrids were
sterile. Then, ca. 1890, one such hybrid individual underwent a
spontaneous chromosomal mutation (doubling its number of chromosomes)
to become a fertile new invasive weed, S. anglica. It has more recently
invaded northern Puget Sound, where it is the target of a so far futile
control effort because it is destroying the habitat of large intertidal
areas.
Combinations of Effects
Introduced species often interact with other factors to generate an
impact, and these interactions can be complex. Habitat loss is the most
common cause of species endangerment (85% of all imperilled species),
followed by introduced species (49%), which exceeds the sum of the next
three most common factors (pollution [24%], overexploitation [17%], and
disease [3%]). However, most species are threatened by more than one
factor, as evidenced by the fact that these percentages sum to more
than 100%. For example, the impact of sea lampreys combined with those
of overexploitation, habitat destruction, and pollution in the Great
Lakes to reduce many populations of large fishes dramatically. Recall
that one important impact of defoliation by gypsy moths is to weaken
trees, thereby rendering them more liable to death by a host of other
causes, including impacts of other insects and diseases, both native
and introduced.
One way in which an introduced species interacts with another
factor to the detriment of native species, communities, and ecosystems
is by synergism with other introduced species. Often an introduced
species remains innocuous in its new home until another species
invades, when the prior species becomes a huge problem. In south
Florida, for example, fig trees were common for at least a century,
restricted to residential settings because they could not reproduce
without specific fig wasps. Recently, the fig wasp of one fig species
invaded, and that fig is now spreading rapidly, including into natural
areas. The impact of an exotic plant species is often exacerbated by
introduced animals dispersing its seeds. For example, seeds of the
nitrogen-fixing Myrica faya in Hawaii are primarily dispersed by an
introduced bird, the Japanese white-eye.
One introduced species can also modify the habitat to favor a
second invader. Such interactions can even aid both. Zebra mussel
filtration increases water clarity, which in turn promotes growth of
Eurasian watermilfoil. In its own right, Eurasian watermilfoil is one
of the most troublesome aquatic invaders of North America, but it also
aids zebra mussel populations by providing additional settling
substrates and helping to disperse zebra mussels between water bodies.
Thus a mutualism between two damaging invaders worsens the impact of
both.
HOW WE DEAL WITH INVASIVE INTRODUCED SPECIES
We can manage introduced species in three ways. (1) We can keep
them out. (2) If they get in, we can find them quickly and try to
eradicate them. (3) If they establish widely and are harmful and
ineradicable, we can keep them at levels low enough that impacts are
acceptable.
Keeping them out
Keeping out invaders is less costly than trying to reduce or
eliminate them. Interdiction must target two categories of
introductions, planned and inadvertent ones, that call for somewhat
different procedures. Planned introductions typically account for about
half of all introductions, and detrimental effects arise from planned
introductions at least as frequently as from inadvertent ones.
Deliberately introduced horticultural plants are often especially
problematic.
The fact that many introduced species are deliberately introduced
suggests that keeping out many invaders should be straightforward--
simply decide which planned introductions carry substantial risk and
forbid them. This effort has not been very successful for several
reasons. First, there is often dispute about whether an introduction is
likely to be harmful, or whether the harm is likely to outweigh the
benefit. Second, impacts of introduced species are notoriously hard to
predict, though a well established principle is that species
problematic in one place have a high probability of being problematic
elsewhere. This unpredictability means that formal quantitative risk
assessment procedures for introduced species are at a very early stage
of development and cannot yield accurate probabilities and cost
estimates. Nevertheless, the rapid expansion of global trade and the
associated multilateral trade treaties such as those of the World Trade
Organization have led to a situation in which introductions are assumed
``innocent until proven guilty,'' and ``proof of guilt'' must be
established by formal risk assessment procedures. The upshot is that,
at the international level, it is difficult for a nation to exclude a
specific introduced species or a product that might carry one without
being charged with economic protectionism. The recent rejection by the
World Trade Organization of Australia's attempt to exclude frozen
imported salmon from Canada is partly due to the Australians' inability
to provide a quantitative assessment of the risk that the salmon would
carry disease organisms that might harm native fishes. This rejection
is in spite of the fact that whirling disease that arrived in frozen
trout from Sweden has already devastated many North American rainbow
trout fisheries.
The only way to solve this problem is to accept the principle that
potential introductions are guilty until proven innocent and subject to
expert scrutiny before they can be imported. New Zealand's 1993
Biosecurity Act enshrines this notion and has led to substantial
success in curbing harmful introductions while permitting normal levels
of trade and commerce.
Inadvertent introductions are hard to stop; these species hitchhike
on products (such as insects in plant material) or exploit pathways
that might carry many invaders, such as ballast water or untreated
wooden packing. For large ports with much shipping and passenger
activity, interdiction of such invaders is laborious, though sufficient
effort can be very effective.
Eradication
Many people believe eradication is nearly impossible, particularly
if a species is widely established. However, there have been many
successful eradications, not only from islands but from continental
regions. Unfortunately, many good eradication projects have not been
well publicized. Smallpox has been eradicated from the entire earth
(except for vials in Atlanta, Moscow, and perhaps a few terrorist
redoubts), and Anopheles gambiae, the African mosquito vector of
malaria, was eradicated from 31,000 km2 of northeastern Brazil. There
are many successful eradications of mammals from islands. It is worth
noting that, although eradication of plants is often more difficult
than that of animals, some plants have been eradicated. Two noteworthy
successful projects are the eradication of Kochia scoparia from 10,000
acres spread out over 600 miles in Western Australia and the
eradication from Laysan Island of the sandbur.
Several features typify eradication successes:
(a) A can-do attitude
In almost every instance, from the global eradication of smallpox
down to the elimination of rats from small islands, someone had to be
willing to make a wholehearted effort to eradicate in spite of
naysayers claiming it was impossible.
(b) Sufficient economic resources to complete the project
Public agencies have sometimes moved to reduce funding for a
project when it is so near to completion that the invader has ceased to
be a problem.
(c) Clear lines of authority, and enforcement powers
Because individuals can subvert an eradication campaign (for
instance, by importing and/or releasing individuals of the target
species), because some eradications must be undertaken on private
property, and because some target areas fall under several governmental
jurisdictions, it is important that someone be clearly in charge and
able to compel cooperation. For many eradications, a promised economic
or health benefit has helped to get public support, but often a few
dissenters remain, and someone has to be able to force people to
cooperate.
(d) Appropriate biology of the target organism
Although sufficient effort can probably eliminate any species over
a small area, some species are easier to eradicate than others. The
feasibility of eradicating some widespread invaders requires their
having appropriate biology. There has to be some weak link in the
species' life cycle.
Maintenance Management
If eradication fails, there are four main approaches to maintaining
low populations of a species to minimize its impact: mechanical
control, chemical control, biological control, and ecosystem
management. None is a silver bullet, but each has been effective in
particular cases.
(a) Mechanical control
Mechanical control encompasses many techniques, such as hand-
pulling plants and shooting or trapping animals. Although complex
machinery can be used, such as various gadgets to remove invasive
plants, mechanical control often involves simple methods but massive
amounts of labor. Organized volunteer labor can be effective. For
instance, the State Nature Preserves Commission of the State of
Kentucky has had good success controlling musk thistle by using
volunteers convicted of drunk driving to pull it up.
Hunting and trapping can be effective controls against some
animals, if pursued at high enough levels and with unwavering
consistency. The Alberta Rat Patrol has kept Alberta largely free of
Norway rats at low cost. First discovered at the eastern border of
Alberta in 1950, rats are primarily controlled in the province by
rigorous inspection, with food source elimination, anticoagulant baits,
and hunting by seven provincial rat patrol officers playing key roles.
The population has been reduced to a point where every year ca. 50
infestations are discovered and destroyed, and discovery of a single
rat in Calgary or Edmonton is a major news story.
(b) Chemical control
The well-known human health and other non-target impacts of early-
generation pesticides, such as DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons,
are legendary and have led to a type of chemophobia among many
environmental advocates. Many modern pesticides, however, have far
fewer (if any) nontarget impacts and, if used judiciously, can be
useful in managing invaders. Many plants and animals have been
successfully controlled partly or wholly by chemicals.
Chemicals have two frequent disadvantages as parts of maintenance
management rather than eradication programs. First, they are often
expensive, particularly if used over large areas. Second, species
evolve resistance to pesticides, so that increasing amounts are
required, and eventually the pesticide is ineffective against its
target.
(c) Biological control
Biological control entails deliberately introducing a new species--
a natural enemy of some invasive introduced pest. In agriculture and
silviculture, some striking successes have been recorded by biological
control. These successes have led some managers to advocate biological
control as a ``green'' alternative to chemical control.
However, most biological control projects do not work. Also, just
as with some pesticides, some biological control agents have non-target
impacts. Another potential problem is that biological control agents,
much more easily than chemicals, can disperse from areas of
introduction to other regions where they may cause harm. Finally,
biological control introductions are usually irreversible, as typical
biological control agents (e.g., small insects) are among the most
difficult species to eradicate. With chemical control, if the method
does not work or has unexpected side effects, one can simply stop using
it. With biological control, if the initial introduction has
established a population, active means are required to remove it, and
the probability of success is not high. Thus, although biological
control is a useful part of the arsenal in the battle against
introduced species, it must be used judiciously and is often unlikely
to succeed.
(d) Ecosystem management
It is sometimes possible to manage an entire ecosystem so as to
favor native species as a group over most invaders. For example, good
pasture management keeps musk thistle from becoming a major weed, as
native grasses outcompete it. Similarly, maintenance of a natural fire
regime in pine forests of the southeastern United States has stemmed
the invasion of introduced species. Resource management agencies have
lately become great enthusiasts of ecosystem management. However,
ecosystem management has been more a theoretical concept than a set of
management techniques, and it has rarely been tested rigorously for an
extended period.
Thus, there are many technologies for maintenance management, and
for each there are successes and also failures. No one technique is
best for managing all introductions, but each has a role to play in
particular projects, depending on the target pest, the setting, and
experience in similar situations.
HOW ARE WE DOING? CAN WE DO BETTER?
The establishment of the Federal Invasive Species Council in 1999,
pursuant to Executive Order 13112, is a promising step in bringing the
attention it deserves to the problem of introduced species. However,
progress has been painfully slow in developing policies and methods
commensurate with the scope and impact of the problem, and we are a
long way from being effective. This fact is demonstrated by Fig. 1,
which shows how, for four groups taken as examples (insects, molluscs,
plant pathogens, and terrestrial vertebrates), the number of introduced
species establishing in the United States has continued to grow at an
unabated pace for a century (data from unpublished study at the
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6708.004
There are three key reasons why the problem is out of control. Two
have been signaled by the United States General Accounting Office in
reports to Congress.
First, funding to deal with the problem is woefully small relative
to the size of the problem, and it is disproportionately aimed at a
very few invaders (cf. GAO Report GAO/RCED- 00-219, ``Invasive Species:
Federal and Selected State Funding to Address Harmful, Nonnative
Species'').
Second, lack of coordination and integrated response to invaders
greatly hinders the process of eradicating or restricting them (cf. GAO
Report GAO-01-724, ``Invasive Species: Obstacles Hinder Federal Rapid
Response to Growing Threat''). The Invasive Species Council is
attempting to address part of the latter problem by improved early
warning/rapid response systems.
Third, the introduced species community, led by the Federal
Government, has failed to develop existing technologies adequately and
especially to seek totally new approaches. The existing approaches have
become institutionalized and are typically well-established in
particular agencies. As in any institution, there is resistance to new
approaches and difficulty in recognizing that what has been done in the
past is not working well enough. The Invasive Species Council, formed
from existing Federal agencies, has constituted a major advance, but
the constituent agencies (and therefore the Council as a whole) have
tended to support approaches they are already invested in and sought
primarily to do more of the same, but better. As an example, the
management plan produced by the Council focuses management efforts for
established introduced species very heavily on biological control and
much less on the other three technologies.
It is striking that a leading component of the revolution in
biotechnology, genetic manipulation, has been largely absent from
academic and agency discussions about how to deal with introduced
species. One can easily imagine a variety of ways in which genetic
manipulation techniques could be marshaled to make introduced species
less prone to become invasive or various management procedures more
effective, but such efforts have not advanced beyond the academic
discussion stage. For example, the possibility of applying the seedless
technology patented at the University of Connecticut to neutralize the
spread of invasive ornamental woody plants is being studied at the
University of Connecticut and the University of Tennessee. Congress
should take the lead in encouraging such efforts.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE RADANOVICH, CHAIRMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Chairman of the
National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands Subcommittee, I too
am aware of the serious nature of invasive species in our
Nation's public lands, particularly in central California where
the yellow starthistle has and continues to infest the
productive ag lands of the Central Valley. This single invasive
weed is causing serious ecological damage in the valley because
it forms dense thickets and rapidly depletes soil moisture,
preventing the establishment of other species and displacing
nutritious forage and native California grasslands.
The yellow starthistle is but one example of 94 types of
nonnative weeds, not to mention thousands of other invasive
nonnative plants, animals and insects both on our land and on
our Nation's waterways that continue to attack our native flora
and fauna and costs this Nation billions annually in economic
losses. Collectively these unwelcome invaders introduce new
diseases, turn productive and dynamic rangelands, forests and
refuges into monolithic ecosystems unable to support cattle,
native wildlife and migratory birds.
While the introduction of invasive species in America
occurred almost immediately with the arrival of many of our
ancestors, it was not until international trade and
international travel made the world smaller and many of these
invading species made our work in our country.
Finally, in 1999, an executive order was issued and brought
much needed national attention to the invasive situation. The
executive order required the entire Federal bureaucracy to
develop and coordinate a national effort not only to eradicate
and control existing exotic species, but more importantly to
prevent new invaders from becoming established or even entering
the country.
Prior to 1999 while each department worked to control
invasive species under its jurisdiction, there was no national
leadership or oversight on such issues as wholesale
eradication, prevention, early detection and rapid response. It
is now 2003 and our country remains under continued attack on
all fronts from these elusive and determined unwelcomed
travelers. While we seem to be effective at keeping the brown
tree snake from becoming established in Hawaii, other exotic
species continue to take hold in our country.
I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and
look forward to the testimony from all the witnesses,
especially our administrative witnesses who I hope will update
members on the improved Federal coordination, what statutes if
any could be amended to grant the government greater authority
to prevent invasive species from entering the country and how
nongovernmental partners might help at the local level to
control the spread of exotic species.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Thank you, Mr. Saxton.
As Chairman of the National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Subcommittee, I, too, am aware of the serious nature of invasive
species on our Nation's public lands, particularly in Central
California, where Yellow Starthistle has and continues to infest the
productive agricultural lands of the central valley day by day and acre
by acre. This single invasive weed is causing serious ecological damage
in the valley because it forms dense thickets and rapidly depletes soil
moisture, preventing the establishment of other species, and displacing
nutritious forage and native California grasslands.
The Yellow Starthistle is but one example of the 94 types of
nonnative weeds, not to mention thousands of other invasive, non-native
plants, animals, and insects--both on our land and in our Nation's
waterways--that continue to attack our native flora and fauna and cost
this Nation billions--not millions--annually in economic losses.
Collectively, these unwelcome invaders introduce new diseases, turn
productive and dynamic rangelands, forests and refuges into monolithic
ecosystems unable to support cattle, native wildlife, or migratory
birds.
While the introduction of invasive species in America occurred
almost immediately with the arrival of many of our ancestors, it was
not until international trade and international travel made the world
smaller that many of these invading species made their mark in our
country. Finally, in 1999 an executive order was issued that brought
much needed national attention to the invasive situation. The executive
order required the entire Federal bureaucracy to develop a coordinated
national effort to not only eradicate and control existing exotic
species, but more importantly, to prevent new invaders from becoming
established or even entering our country. Prior to 1999, while each
department worked to control invasive species under its jurisdiction,
there was no national leadership and oversight on such issues as
wholesale eradication, prevention, early detection and rapid response.
It is now 2003 and our country remains under continued attack on all
fronts from these elusive and determined unwelcome invaders. While we
seem to be effective at keeping the brown tree snake from becoming
established in Hawaii, other exotic species continue to take hold in
our country.
I look forward to the testimony from all our witnesses, especially
our Administrative witnesses, who I hope will update Members on the
improved Federal coordination, what statutes, if any, should be amended
to grant the government greater authority to prevent invasive species
from entering the country, and how non-governmental partners are
helping at the local level to control the spread of exotic species.
______
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Our normal procedure is to
have an opening statement from the Ranking Members but inasmuch
as this is a joint hearing and inasmuch as the Congress is not
in session this afternoon, we are going to go on to others. But
if the members would kind of take their statements and we will
include your entire statement in the record, if you just get
your basic message across, because we have three panels,
including 17 witnesses, and we need to move along.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I, too, would like to thank Chairman
Pombo and our senior Ranking Member, Mr. Rahall, for their
leadership in putting this joint hearing together and you also,
Mr. Chairman, and our Ranking Member, Mr. Pallone, in bringing
this hearing to the forefront. I notice also we have such an
excellent mixture of experts from all over the country in
addressing these very serious issues from the brown tree
snakes. We have got a bunch of snails and toads that were
unheard of in my islands and I don't know what we are going to
do with them.
I would like to offer my personal welcome on behalf of my
colleague Mr. Abercrombie to Dr. Fred Kraus from the Department
of Natural Resources and the Bishop Museum in the State of
Hawaii. I look forward to hearing from him and his insight to
the problems we are faced with in the Pacific area, and I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Mr. Saxton. Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make mine
very short. I am here to listen to the experts that are going
to be witnesses today and to get an update on the brown tree
snake problem that has been affecting Guam for a number of
years as well as the State of Hawaii. And if my colleague from
American Samoa has a problem with snails, we will send you our
brown tree snakes because they will take care of that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr. Hefley.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know I
appreciate your kind words and the kind words from my friend
from American Samoa. It is good to be back here in this room
and I got to tell you I miss it, but I still have interest in
many of these issues and want to be helpful wherever I can. I
really appreciate your having this hearing today and you have
some outstanding witnesses. And from the number of people in
the room there is obviously a strong interest. And I appreciate
that as well because oftentimes when you start talking about
the problem of weeds, people think that is a gardening issue.
And I introduced H.R. 119 a year or so ago, which is the
Invasive Weed Control Act, went through the process, was ready
to go to the floor, got caught up in the last days of the
session and actually didn't make it to the floor, but we were
ready to put it out of this Committee. I don't think it was
controversial and I think it would have done some good. If I
could speak to that very quickly.
You know invasives often are trivialized as a national
policy issue, but it is a very serious subject that affects
thousands of Americans. I believe invasives to be one of the
most serious environmental problems that we really have facing
us today. It has been estimated that some of these weeds
increase their populations by 14 percent each year and if left
unchecked can render land useless for ranching and farming.
George and I certainly from the West can see this where
they spread across the prairies and just destroy the land for
any good useful purpose, and those of you who live in coastal
areas know that the aquatics do the same thing or if you travel
through the South where you see a vine that actually takes over
everything and covers it up, houses, barns, telephone lines, we
see how serious invasives can be.
Some species--we had a lot of fires in the West last year
and some of these weeds increased the fire risk twentyfold. So
in terms of just Federal land, the Bureau of Land Management
estimates invasive weeds infest over 100 million acres across
the United States. That is just Federal land, not private.
In developing my bill, I came to believe that the National
Invasives Program lacked focus. Much was spent on study or
devoted to a specific pest, but there was no coherent plan for
dealing with this ongoing problem. What my bill seeks to change
by authorizing $100 million a year for 5 years to fund local
on-the-ground weed management entities to eradicate, not to
study--you know, study is good, but we put so much time into
study while these things continue to progress--not to study but
to eradicate invasive weeds.
Groups receiving these funds would have 1 year to carry out
their projects and then report to the National Invasive Species
Council about their success or failures. This program would
operate under the auspices of policymakers at the Interior
Department as part of a comprehensive interagency effort on
invasives. H.R. 119 does not try to be all things to all
people, but through such a focused approach I believe we can
begin making headway on this problem very soon.
Two other comments: H.R. 119 contains some provisions which
were aimed at getting it to the floor last year, provisions to
include aquatic invasives and placing control of the program
under the existing Federal Interagency Committee for Management
of Noxious and Exotic Weeds. I am happy to have those stay in
the bill.
There is some talk that Mr. Gilchrest may introduce an
aquatics bill. If he does so that may want to be stripped out
of here, but I am perfectly agreeable to have it in here if
not. And there is some question about the oversight of the
program, but I believe overall policies should be set at a high
enough level to ensure the effort does not become lost in some
bureaucratic turf battles.
Over the past 3 years I think we have seen a heightened
awareness of the invasives problem. It is my hope this
heightened awareness will translate into adoption of a national
invasives program in this Congress. And with that, I will close
and again thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Joel Hefley, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, every spring for the past 17
years, a man named George Beck has visited my office from Colorado
State University to talk about weeds.
George would talk about bills to combat weeds, sponsored by Senator
Akaka, then by Senator Craig. And every year, these bills never seemed
to pass. And George would return the next year and start all over
again.
This is the bill George and weed managers across the country have
been pushing for all these years. Hopefully, this is the year, we can
enact it into law.
While funding has existed to combat weeds and other invasive
species since the 1980's, invasive weeds have for the most taken a back
seat to agriculture and hardwood pests. Unfortunately, it has been
during this period that these once benign pests have permanently rooted
themselves in our landscape, and in certain areas displaced native
vegetation altogether.
While the subject of weeds may seem to some unsuitable for the
House of Representatives to be debating, it is indeed a very serious
subject affecting thousands of Americans. Harmful, invasive weeds cost
this economy billions annually and affect millions of acres of private
and public land. In fact, some of these insidious invasive, non-native
weeds increase their populations about 14 percent per year, and left
unchecked, can easily overtake the land and displace native plant
populations rendering the land and water useless for ranching and
farming.
In addition, some of these weeds have proven themselves far more
devastating than once thought--there are examples where some species of
weeds have changed the ecology of the land increasing its fire risk
twenty fold. In terms of just Federal land, the Bureau of Land
Management estimates that invasive weeds infest over 100 million acres
across the United States. In many areas of the West, invasive weeds
have created dangerous monoculture ecosystems.
What my bill seeks to do is to authorize a substantial sum of
money--$100 million a year for five years--for a focused effort to
eradicate invasive terrestrial weeds. It would do this by directing
these funds to state and local weed management entities, though the
National Invasive Species Council and the states. Those groups
receiving funds would have a year to carry out their projects, then
report back to the Council on their successes and failures. The aim is
eradication, not study.
H.R. 119 includes a number of changes from its predecessor, H.R.
1462, in the 107th Congress. First, it eliminates the role of the
Advisory Council on Invasive Species and instead directs the Secretary
of the Interior to develop the weed program and in evaluating state
grant requests.
It requires the governor of a state to consult with the secretary
prior to allocating 100 percent of the Federal share for a project.
It clarifies that a weed management entity involving more than one
state may use the funds under this Act so long as it meets the
requirements of each state.
And it clarifies that funds from this Act are not intended to
replace assistance available under such programs as the Pulling
Together Initiative of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
There are two other portions of H.R. 119 which deserve comment--the
role of the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious
and Exotic Weeds, or FICMNEW. After the Resources Committee passed H.R.
1462 last year, some, including the Agriculture Committee, suggested
that many of the functions we assigned to the National Invasive Species
Council could be and were already being carried out by FICMNEW. In
order to get the bill to the floor before recess, we proposed to amend
the bill with a manager's amendment designating FICMNEW as the lead
body. That is the language in H.R. 119.
However, after a year's consideration of this subject, I would
favor amending H.R. 119 to restore the bill's previous intent to place
leadership in the Advisory Council on Invasive Species. In fact, many
of the people who serve on the Council are the same people who serve on
FICMNEW. My view is that the terrestrial species program should be
guided by a policy-making body--such as the council--as part of a
comprehensive national invasives eradication campaign. FICMNEW seems,
to me, to focus more on relations between various Federal agencies with
a stake in fighting invasives. While I would not rule out a role for
FICMNEW in the eradication effort, I fear placing the terrestrial
program's leadership at too low a level in the bureaucracy would result
in great deal of internal debate and little accomplished on the ground.
Second, H.R. 119 contains provisions involving aquatic weeds, a
concession to my friend from Maryland (Mr. GILCHREST). But it is my
understanding that Mr. Gilchrest plans to move an aquatics bill through
his Subcommittee this year. If this is the case, I will leave it up to
Mr. Gilchrest and the Resource Committee as a whole to determine
whether my aquatics language is needed in H.R. 119.
During the drafting of H.R. 119, we made a conscious effort NOT to
be all things to all people. Billions are spent on invasives each year
with little apparent success, I believe, because of a lack of focus.
Instead, we drafted H.R. 119 with the thought it could dovetail nicely
with other existing programs combating aquatics and animals. You are
aware of several pieces of legislation dealing with invasives in this
Congress--Mr. Gilchrest's aquatics bill and the proposal offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) to codify the Advisory Council on
Invasive Species. I believe these bills, together, would comprise a
focused, comprehensive national invasives policy.
As I stated at the beginning of this statement, I have heard about
the problem of invasive species practically since the day I arrived in
Washington 1987. And every Congress, people have agreed it was a
serious problem and, every Congress, adjournment has come with no
action. But over the past few years, there seems to be a growing
awareness in both Houses and in the Administration that something must
be done. I would hope this is the year we pass this legislation and get
on with the business of reclaiming our land.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Hefley. We would like to move
right along to our first panel of witnesses. Our first panel
consists of Dr. James Tate, Science Advisor to the Secretary of
the Department of Interior; Dr. Chuck Lambert, Deputy Under
Secretary of Marketing and Regulatory Programs, USDA; Dr.
Stephen Brandt, Director of Great Lakes Environmental Research
Lab of NOAA; Dr. Edwin Theriot, Mississippi Valley Division,
Army Corps of Engineers; and Mr. John Baughman, Executive Vice
President, International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies.
Gentlemen, welcome aboard and how about if we start over on
our left, your right, and lead off with Dr. Tate.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES TATE, JR., SCIENCE ADVISOR TO THE
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Dr. Tate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the joint
Committees.
Mr. Saxton. And by the way, let me just say if you would
make your statements as concise as possible and your entire
written testimony will be placed in the record.
Dr. Tate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome you all and
thank you for having us, Mr. Hefley in particular. I am Jim
Tate, Science Advisor to Secretary Norton. I would like to make
three points, many of which you have already made, but clarify
for you, and the rest will be in my written testimony.
First of all, this is a very costly problem we are dealing
with and we do not yet have the correct legislative answer to
the invasives species problem, but I know we are all working on
it very hard. Second, Interior is very deeply involved in these
issues, and the third thing is we need a lot more information
before we understand thoroughly what invasive species are about
and how they work.
I use the term that America is under siege. At this time I
think it is our own doing. The United States is experiencing a
tide of organisms coming into this country and only a small
percentage of those that come in multiply and become invasive.
I need to stress that the word ``invasive'' does not
necessarily mean it is a nonnative species. Some of the things
we do cause native species to become invasive as well.
You have already mentioned the $100 billion or more that
invasive species cost us. I think personally that is probably
less than really is the cost. When we start looking at cost of
invasive species, including pathogens, West Nile virus, these
are all things that are extremely costly to us and to our plant
and animal communities and things that probably cost more than
the $100 billion that was estimated 3 years ago.
At Interior we attempt to combat invasive species across
all species and across all habitats on public and private lands
through cooperative programs, also in interjurisdictional
waters. But invasive species affect us all. Their impacts can't
be parsed out. In a sense, we are all global gardeners. And our
gardening is part of the problem here. Interior is a steward of
438 million acres of public lands, 18 percent of all the lands
in the United States. Our eight bureaus manage one out of every
five acres of land in the United States, most of these of
course in the American West.
In Fiscal Year 2001, we spent approximately $38 million at
the Department of Interior. In keeping with one of our great
responsibilities at Interior as a co-chair of the National
Invasive Species Council and with the advice of the Invasive
Species Advisory Committee, we are running a program to bring
new staffing to the Invasive Species Council and to seek OMB
support for performance based budgets at the Invasive Species
Council.
Along with the 10 Federal departments that are members of
the Invasive Species Council, we are implementing the National
Invasive Species Management Plan and we are managing a crosscut
budget effort. It began in Fiscal Year 2004 where we focused on
prevention, early detection, rapid response and control. And
the White House, the OMB have seen the progress that we made in
Fiscal Year 2004. And in the current fiscal year, they have
moved into seven new areas where they are looking to ask us for
performance based budgetary activities in the Invasive Species
Council.
Last thing I want to mention is the need for additional
research. I have taken the liberty of bringing along many
copies of last week's Science News, which has a very
interesting article in it. Among the things revealed in that
article is one of our invasive species. In the Southwest we
deal with a thing called salt cedar, or tamarisk, and curiously
enough it demonstrates how little we know about some invasive
species. According to research mentioned in this Science News,
the tamarisk we have in the Southwest actually comes from two
different parts of Eurasia, two different species in Eurasia
that did there meet each other. But in the United States, those
two species have hybridized and are now creating an organism
with hybrid vigor, with additional ability to become invasive
and to deal with our native plants and our native animals.
With that, I would thank you for your time and we would be
willing to answer questions at your convenience.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Tate follows:]
Statement of Dr. James Tate, Jr., Science Advisor,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, I am Jim Tate, Science
Advisor to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton. I am pleased to be
here today to provide you with an overview of invasive species issues
that the Department of the Interior (Department) and its bureaus face
while carrying out their varied missions.
As steward of some 438 million acres of public lands, the
Department and its eight bureaus manage more than one out of every five
acres of land in the United States. The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), with some 262 million acres, is the largest Federal landholder,
and energy and mineral operations on its lands generate over $2 billion
in revenue. The National Park Service (NPS) manages more than 84
million acres in 388 parks, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) manages 93 million acres in the National Wildlife Refuge System
for wildlife conservation and recreational uses. The Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) operates a system that creates 40 billion kilowatt
hours of power and carries water to more than 31 million people in the
West.
Unfortunately, the large amount of land and infrastructure under
the Department's jurisdiction brings with it an array of invasive
species problems impacting nearly every aspect of our work.
Scope of the Problem
As an initial matter, resource management agencies have a tendency
to focus most on what we can do or are doing to address this problem.
But we are also here to discuss the scope of the problem generally.
With this in mind, it is appropriate to first highlight an important
aspect of this problem that is not always the focus of our attention:
the majority of invasive species problems can be traced directly to
everyday legitimate human activities. In this regard, our actions can
have unintended and, in some cases, far-reaching, consequences. I
highlight this point not to be critical of any particular industries or
activities but to raise awareness of an issue that can frequently be
overlooked during discussion of the technical aspects of this problem.
Perhaps we, as resource managers, should keep this issue in mind as we
work to become more proficient in forming partnerships with other
agencies, states, private landowners, and others to prevent, detect,
respond to, and control invasive species.
In plain terms, invasive species are a costly economic problem.
Invasive plants alone are estimated to cause more than $20 billion per
year in economic damage. Other estimates that include invasive animals
and pathogens push the total cost to the U.S. economy to more than $100
billion each year.
In addition to damage to the economy, our nation is losing precious
wildlife habitat and suffering mounting natural resource productivity
losses to the encroachment of invasive plants and animals. As an
estimate of ecological harm, up to 46 percent of threatened and
endangered species owe their listing in whole or in part to the
uncontrolled spread of invasive species. In fact, invasive species
threaten many fish and wildlife populations, and have the potential to
degrade entire plant and animal communities.
As noted above, each of the Department's land management bureaus
now routinely addresses invasive species issues during the course of
their day-to-day management duties.
Let me provide you with a few examples.
Invasive species affect National Wildlife Refuges from
the State of Alaska to the Caribbean Sea. As previously noted, invasive
species have caused significant declines of protected species and
degrade millions of acres of refuge lands, waters, and wetlands. These
invaders have become the single greatest biological threat to refuges
and to FWS's wildlife conservation mission. Management actions by the
FWS to control invasive species have been taken on over 300 separate
refuges. Among the most insidious plant invaders on refuges are salt
cedar, leafy spurge, perennial pepperweed, Canada thistle, Brazilian
pepper tree, purple loosestrife, Australian pine, Chinese tallow trees,
old world climbing fern, phragmites, and melaleuca. Non-indigenous
invasive animals such as brown tree snakes, nutria, and feral pigs
degrade habitat and reduce populations of native fish and wildlife.
In addition, the Lacey Act, which is administered by the
FWS, restricts the importation and interstate transportation of
wildlife deemed ``injurious''--those wildlife for which the importation
or interstate transportation could have negative impacts on the
interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, human beings, and the
welfare of wildlife and wildlife resources in the United States. There
are currently 12 genera of mammals, four species of birds, three
families of fishes, one species of crustacean, one molluscan species,
and one reptile species listed as ``injurious'' under the Lacey Act.
FWS has received petitions for listing the black carp, bighead carp,
and silver carp as injurious species.
Our national park units have not been spared from this
burden. Exotic plants currently infest approximately 2.6 million acres
in the National Park System, reducing the natural diversity of these
places. For example, Badlands National Park in South Dakota is the
largest mixed grass prairie protected by the NPS, yet over 10,200 acres
are occupied by non-native invasive plants, including 2,000 acres by
non-native grass species. Moreover, critical habitat for bighorn sheep
and elk are being invaded by and, in some localities, completely
replaced by, exotic plant species. This can result in a reduction of
carrying capacity for the habitat. Similarly, Gulf coast national parks
provide critical stopover and nesting habitats for neo-tropical birds
on their way to and from nesting and wintering habitats. Invasive
species like Chinese tallow and Cogan grass are displacing native
bottomland hardwood and other native habitat needed by these imperiled
bird species.
The Bureau of Land Management currently estimates that up
to 35 million acres--nearly 15 percent of the lands it manages--are
infested with invasive and noxious weeds which can impact the economies
of those states in which they are found. For example, spotted knapweed
alone costs the State of Montana an estimated $42 million annually;
tansy ragwort invasion has caused losses of $6 million per year to the
state of Oregon. Approximately 25 million acres of BLM lands are
infested with annual grass species such as cheatgrass or downey brome,
red brome and other Mediterranean species. These grass species
frequently are the first plants to appear after wildfire and are
rapidly invading sagebrush and desert ecoregions. It is also estimated
that over 300,000 acres of BLM lands are infested with salt cedar.
Control of salt cedar on BLM lands is especially important. I will more
to say about salt cedar later.
With responsibility for maintaining water delivery to
much of the West, the Bureau of Reclamation is also engaged in the
battle against invasive species. For example, the BOR estimates that
salt cedar consumes as much as 2.5 million acre-feet of water annually
in the arid Southwest; sometimes more than the annual rainfall.
Invasive weeds such as salt cedar and purple loosestrife overtake
habitat along rivers. Noxious weeds, like leafy spurge and yellow
starthistle, devour about 4,600 acres of western Federal lands daily.
Leafy spurge is now estimated to infest about 5 million acres in about
23 states and to cost about $140 million in damages annually in the
United States. The whole upper Rio Grande is choked with salt cedar,
which crowds out native vegetation and habitat.
Burrowing mammals can weaken canal levees and earth
embankments to cause seepage and flooding. Mitten crabs and other
exotic species multiply quickly and can overwhelm entire ecosystems.
Bacteria in wells plug screens and sand within aquifers with slime and
biomass, causing severe production losses in wells. Other threats loom
on the horizon. For example, zebra mussels, which spread to the eastern
United States from Europe in the late 1980s, attach to structures and
can clog intakes and water treatment systems. Control can cost an
average of $250,000 per facility per year.
The factors contributing to plant invasions are complex.
The number of invasive plants affecting the Department's trust
responsibilities is increasing rapidly, and the biology of most of the
invaders is inadequately understood.
In short, this is a widespread and highly complex problem.
What can be done?
In general, the Department believes that the most effective and
least costly method of reducing the impact of invasive species is to
prevent their initial introduction. In the case of unintentional
introductions, effective preventive measures involve identification of
pathways and reducing the risk associated with those pathways. Indeed,
Congress recognized this principle in the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (Act), which recognizes, for
example, that ballast water is a major pathway for the introduction of
aquatic species. As such, the Act requires mandatory regulations on
ballast water management for vessels entering the Great Lakes, and
voluntary guidelines for other parts of the country.
Similarly, a number of methods have been used to prevent the
introduction of pathogens and parasites associated with commercial
species, including raw timber, horticultural plants, and pets, to name
a few. The International Council for Exploration of the Seas has taken
another approach by developing a protocol for use with aquatic species.
In each case, the major emphasis is on preventing release of first
generation imports.
As noted above, major pathways of introduction should be identified
in order to prevent the unintentional establishment of invasive
species. After major pathways have been identified, methods of
interdiction should be developed with an eye toward causing minimal
disruption to international commerce.
After prevention, the early detection of and rapid response to new
invasions is paramount. For example, veterinarians, wildlife
rehabilitators, and epidemiologists began to share information
immediately upon discovery of West Nile virus and its impact on wild
birds and humans here in the United States. In this case, mechanisms do
exist for the Centers for Disease Control to act promptly with local
health and wildlife officials. While fighting invasive species must
necessarily compete with other budget priorities, we are continuing to
work toward development of similar systems that we hope will allow us
to work with states and private citizens to rapidly respond to invasive
species outbreaks.
Rapid response is essential to stop a newly arrived invasive
species. Control of a well-established invasive species is many times
more difficult. After establishment, a single control strategy seldom
is sufficient and an integrated management strategy is usually needed.
Integrated pest management (IPM) is a strategy that focuses on long-
term control of pests and the damage caused by them through a
combination of biological control, habitat manipulation, creative
agricultural practices, and sequence and timing of actions. Pesticides
can be used, but under guidelines established to minimize risks to
human health, beneficial, and non-target organisms.
Department of the Interior Program Highlights
Given the amount of land and diversity of resources under its
jurisdiction, the Department necessarily must be one of the leaders in
working toward the control of invasive species. With this in mind, the
Department is using existing authorities to combat invasive species on
public and private lands and in inter-jurisdictional waters. The key to
controlling invasive species is to work in partnership with a broad
spectrum of states, non-governmental organizations, and private
interests. Some brief examples of what we are currently doing on the
ground at the Department follows.
National Invasive Species Council
The Department provides administrative support for the National
Invasive Species Council (Council) and the Invasive Species Advisory
Committee to build direct stakeholder involvement and collaboration
between Federal agencies and non-federal partners. Interior bureaus
work closely with Council staff to implement the invasive species
activities called for in the first National Invasive Species Management
Plan (Plan): leadership and coordination, prevention, early detection
and rapid response, control and management, restoration, international
cooperation, research, information management, and education and public
awareness.
In keeping with that Plan, a ``cross-cut'' budget proposal for
Federal agency expenditures concerning invasive species was prepared,
for the first time, for the Fiscal Year 2004 budget. Based on the
leadership provided by the National Invasive Species Council, the
President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 focuses on seven areas for
collaboration: ballast water management technologies, all-taxa early
detection/monitoring system, sudden oak death in the southern
Appalachian mountains, Maui early warning pilot project, Asian carp in
the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal, tamarisk (salt cedar) control in
the southwest, and nutria control in Louisiana and Maryland. The
Department strongly supports the Council's efforts to identify areas of
cooperation, to define common strategic goals, and to determine
measurable performance standards. While the crosscut includes only a
subset of total invasive species activities, it is a starting point for
more comprehensive cooperative efforts that the Office of Management
and Budget has encouraged for the Fiscal Year 2005 budget cycle.
National Park Service
The principles of coordination, targeted funding, and
accountability are fundamental aspects of the nonnative invasive
species management strategy pursued under the National Park Service's
five-year Natural Resource Challenge program. As part of this program,
a new management strategy, called the Exotic Plant Management Team
(EPMT), was implemented to control harmful nonnative invasive plants.
By Fiscal Year 2002, nine teams have been fielded to identify, treat,
control, restore, and monitor areas of parks that were infested with
harmful exotic plants. The nine teams serve 95 parks, in the Chihuahuan
Desert-Shortgrass Prairie, Florida, Hawaii, the National Capitol
Region, Lake Mead, the Northern Great Plans, California, the Gulf
Coast, and the North Cascades.
The success of each EPMT derives from its ability to adapt to local
conditions and needs. Each team sets work priorities based on a number
of factors including: the severity of threat to high-quality natural
areas and rare species; the extent of targeted infestation; the
probability of successful control and potential for restoration; and
opportunities for public involvement. The EPMTs have treated more than
68,000 acres and eradicated 9 species of harmful weeds from park lands.
The Fiscal Year 2003 budget provides funding for seven additional
EPMTs. Funding of these teams will raise our capacity to control
invasive plants at 152 parks or approximately 40% of the parks in the
lower forty-eight states. These new teams are in the process of
mobilizing and will be controlling harmful weeds in the summer of 2003.
Fish and Wildlife Service
The Invasive Species program implements the Non-indigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended by the National
Invasive Species Act (NISA), and provides funding for Aquatic Nuisance
Species (ANS) Task Force personnel, Task Force regional panels and
their activities, and Aquatic Nuisance Species grants to states and
Tribes to implement state or interstate ANS management plans. It also
funds seven FWS regional coordinators and their respective invasive
species activities. These coordinators work closely with the public and
private sector to develop and implement invasive species activities.
The Program has also worked closely with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Coast Guard to develop
measures to control the introduction of aquatic nuisance species
through ballast water. Additionally, working with the ANS Task Force
Communication, Education and Outreach Committee, FWS has led the
development of a national public awareness and partnership campaign,
Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! Designed for the entire conservation
community, the campaign targets aquatic recreation users about actions
they can take to stop the spread of aquatic invasive species. The
primary resource is a national web site: www.ProtectYourWaters.net.
Currently, this campaign has leveraged $2.3 million of Federal and non-
federal funding to support aquatic invasive species outreach
activities.
Additionally, through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program,
which provides financial and technical assistance to private
landowners, FWS helps landowners improve productivity of their lands by
minimizing the spread of invasive species and improving habitat for a
variety of fish and wildlife species. FWS has funded a number of
different types of invasive species projects through the program,
including prescribed burning, physical removal, fence construction, and
restoration of native plant communities.
Over 470,000 acres were treated in Fiscal Year 2002. Further, a
National Strategy for Management of Invasive Species is being developed
that will include assessment information, monitoring recommendations,
and best management practices, and will guide invasive species
management on refuges nationwide. Preventive efforts, including an
emergency rapid response program for the Refuge System, are key to
preventing newly discovered infestations from gaining a foothold on
refuges. Plans to initiate ``strike teams,'' similar to those used by
the NPS, are proposed for funding in Fiscal Year 2004. In conjunction
with the National Wildlife Refuge Association, the Nature Conservancy,
and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a new program is being initiated
this year that will use trained refuge professionals and volunteers to
create a strong network for the early detection of invasive species.
Bureau of Land Management
The BLM is a partner in over 40 weed management areas in the
Western United States, and conducts weed treatments on over 300,000
acres of range and forestlands annually. In addition, BLM is working on
implementing the National Fire Plan to reduce invasive weeds by
managing and reducing fuels and working with partners to enhance native
plant restoration. One example is BLM's work through the Great Basin
Restoration Initiative (GBRI) to restore degraded rangelands that are
now dominated by flammable exotic grasses, like cheatgrass, and restore
these areas to perennial vegetation before they convert to noxious
weeds.
Bureau of Reclamation
The BOR is working with many partners to monitor and counter
threats from invasive species that impact the management and delivery
of water resources in the West. BOR's integrated pest management
program uses a combination of mechanical, chemical, biological, and
cultural methods to control invasive species. This program also
provides technical assistance and special studies and demonstration
projects to promote IPM concepts and solve specific pest problems. BOR
also works on coordinated programs involving research, monitoring,
education, and control to develop an effective management program.
U.S. Geological Survey
Finally, USGS provides client bureaus with research on all
significant groups of invasive organisms in both terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems--from microbes to mammals.
USGS research provides the fundamental understanding of invader
biology and factors in the vulnerability of habitats needed for
developing effective responses. USGS also provides information and
useful tools for early detection and assessment of newly established
species, monitoring invading populations, predicting their spread and
impacts, and for prevention, management and control. Through the
National Biological Information Infrastructure, USGS also has an
important role developing information networks to make reliable
information on invasive species available to stakeholders. Recognizing
the importance of expanding scientific cooperation, USGS has
established the USGS' National Institute of Invasive Species Science.
The Institute is helping to facilitate cooperation between USGS
programs and other agencies and organizations with complementary
scientific capabilities in addressing invasive species threats to our
ecosystems and natural heritage.
I hope that this brief overview makes clear that our goal is to
maximize use of not only our bureaus' expertise but also that of our
partners in state and tribal governments, as well as private
landowners, in the fight to control invasive species. In this same
vein, many of the Department's bureaus contribute to other initiatives,
like the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's (NFWF) ``Pulling
Together Initiative,'' the BLM's ``Partners Against Weeds'' (PAWS), and
the FWS's Partners for Fish and Wildlife,'' with the goal of building
partnerships with private landowners to eliminate harmful weeds and
restore native plants and animal communities. Six of the seventeen
member agencies on the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management
of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW), which works to coordinate
invasive weed management policy and information sharing, are from the
Department of the Interior.
Adequacy of existing statutory authorities
We believe that existing statutory authorities are generally
adequate to carry out effective prevention, early detection, rapid
response, and control for most invasive species. However, one of the
action items listed in the National Invasive Species Management Plan is
for the National Invasive Species Council to conduct an evaluation of
current legal authorities relevant to invasive species. This evaluation
is to include an analysis of whether and how existing authorities may
be better utilized. Once this review is finished, and if warranted,
recommendations will be made for changes in legal authority.
Conclusion
I want to thank you for providing the Department the opportunity to
offer this very general picture of the problem of invasive species and
our programs and efforts to address them. Our goal is to ensure that
our invasive species actions emphasize coordination of existing Federal
efforts and local programs in order to strengthen ongoing invasive
species programs and support new partnerships and initiatives. We look
forward to working with the Committee and our partners--states, Tribes,
and private individuals--to develop prevention, control, and management
initiatives that recognize and strengthen these existing partnerships.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I am happy to
answer any questions you or other Committee members might have.
______
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Dr. Lambert.
STATEMENT OF DR. CHUCK LAMBERT, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Dr. Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
here on behalf of USDA to discuss invasive species. As a farm
boy growing up in western Kansas I learned at an early age the
necessity of identifying and controlling invasive species. And
even today as I drive across the countryside, it is kind of
second nature for me to be on the outlook for Canadian thistle,
bind weed and other species that I learned about in my
childhood.
In today's mobile globalized world, invasive species have
the means to move quickly from one habitat to another, and USDA
does have extensive authority under the law to address these
and other invasive species. The Plant Protection Act and Animal
Health Protection Act give USDA the authority to set import
regulations that help keep exotic pests and diseases out of the
U.S. USDA officials also have authority to respond swiftly to
detections that potentially threaten U.S. agriculture, natural
resources and the environment.
Six agencies within USDA have leadership roles in
preventing and dealing with the introductions and spread of
nonnative invasive species in the U.S. APHIS, or the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, provides an integrated
safeguarding system to protect America's agricultural and
natural resources. The Forest Service addresses invasive
species that have been recently detected or have become
entrenched on Federal lands under the agency's purview. The
Natural Resources Conservation Service works with private land
owners to use funds available through the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and
the Wetlands Reserve Program.
Secretary Veneman recently announced the opening of a new
sign up for Conservation Reserve Program and released $1.8
billion for conservation assistance on working lands and to
protect environmentally sensitive lands. Funds from within
these programs can be used to eradicate, control and/or replace
invasive species to achieve conservation goals.
Other USDA agencies closely coordinating with managing
invasive species include Agricultural Research Service, CSREES
and Economic Research Service. These agencies provide vital
research and communications functions to invasive species
management.
As my longer statement describes, USDA specialized agencies
have distinct missions but they also work toward one primary
goal with protecting the Nation's agriculture and natural
resources and food supply. One of the most important
initiatives we have undertaken is to participate in the
National Invasive Species Council in the development of the
interagency crosscut budget that Jim has already discussed.
This budget helps agency personnel share information and
provides a comprehensive view of the resources that each
department and agency brings to the table for preventing and
controlling invasive species.
USDA agencies are also members of several interagency,
interdepartmental coordination groups that address invasive
species. These groups help bring coordination and focus across
the various program areas. The National Invasive Species
Council is co-chaired by Department of Interior and Department
of Commerce, and USDA brings a coordinated effort to work and
involve the Federal agencies and ensures the resources are used
widely and in a cooperative coordinated manner.
Besides the Departments represented on this panel,
Department of Defense, Homeland Security, State, Transportation
and the Environmental Protection Agency are members of the
Council. The Council helps Federal agencies communicate not
only with each other, but with State and local officials.
Coordination of State, Federal, tribal, county and local
governments and individuals are critical in the prevention and
early detection and control of invasive species.
USDA is working to fill any gaps in contingency planning
for detections of invasive species in natural or remote areas
of the country. Situations involving invasive species can be
extraordinarily complex. They cut across not only geographic
but also agency boundaries. In some cases we lack the knowledge
to properly look for and eradicate new invasive species.
I will conclude my remarks with a couple of examples that
are in addition to the brown tree snake and the coqui frog and
nutria and exotic Newcastle glassy-winged sharpshooter, citrus
canker and a whole host of other diseases that we work to
prevent and eradicate. The emerald ash borer is an exotic
forest pest recently discovered in Michigan, Ohio and portions
of Canada. Officials of the Forest Service and APHIS are
working closely with State and local representatives in
Michigan and Ohio to determine just how widespread the emerald
ash borer is and what we need to do to stop its spread. Removal
of infested trees has already begun.
Finally ARS, APHIS, the Forest Service and Department of
Interior have coordinated with State officials and local land
owners to control leafy spurge on grazing lands in the West.
Private landowners have welcomed control of this pest on
neighboring public lands that often were viewed as a source of
reseeding after controls were implemented by private property
owners.
USDA appreciates the Committee's interest not only on the
Invasive Species Program but also on the challenges we
regularly face in responding to new situations working with new
partners and taking into consideration different interests and
viewpoints. Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to
responding to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lambert follows:]
Statement of Dr. Chuck Lambert, Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing
and Regulatory Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Thank you. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture to discuss invasive species in the United States.
We do not need to spend a lot of time discussing the dangers
inherent in invasive species, those injurious animals, micro-organisms,
and plants that have the ability not only to survive, but to thrive in
new environments. That many of these species are already here in the
United States, or are being kept at bay nearby, highlights the fact
that, in today's world, invasive species have the means to move quickly
from one habitat to another. To understand how this is possible, we
simply need to trace the routes that international and domestic
travelers and cargo follow on a daily basis. As one of USDA's posters
on this subject reminds us, ``Not All Alien Invaders Are From Outer
Space.'' We know that these dangerous invaders may try to hitch a ride
in travelers' suitcases or agriculture produce bound for U.S. markets.
USDA has extensive authority under the law to address invasive
species in the United States. The Plant Protection Act and Animal
Health Protection Act, for example, give USDA the authority to set
import regulations that help keep exotic pests and diseases out of the
United States. When necessary, USDA officials can also respond swiftly
to detections of invasive species that potentially threaten U.S.
agriculture or the environment. USDA officials can quarantine affected
areas, remove affected or exposed plants or animals, and, in serious
cases, pay compensation to growers and producers in an effort to
prevent the further spread of the pest or disease.
To help prevent invasive species from making their way to the
United States, USDA enters into animal and plant health agreements with
other countries to either prohibit imports from areas in which a pest
or disease may be prevalent or to require treatments to mitigate the
potential of an infestation. USDA also may implement preclearance
inspections of imports at foreign ports, before they even arrive in the
United States. In addition, about 2,700 inspectors recently moved from
USDA to the new Department of Homeland Security. These personnel
prevent the entry of articles that can endanger U.S. agriculture
through inspections of people, cargo, and modes of transport at U.S.
borders. While these inspectors now report to the Department of
Homeland Security, they remain closely linked to the agriculture
mission and will be available to assist us should an emergency
situation arise.
Despite these efforts, the increased number of pathways available
to invasive species can jeopardize our country in numerous ways, from
public health, to the economy, to our native ecosystems. The estimated
economic harm to the United States from biological invaders runs in the
tens of billions of dollars and may exceed $120 billion annually. The
reported number of cases of West Nile virus in birds, horses, and
humans has risen dramatically each year since the disease was first
confirmed in the Northeastern United States in 1999. The Asian
longhorned beetle remains a problem in the New York City and Chicago
areas. Various introduced weeds, such as giant hogweed, yellow
starthistle, and kudzu, consume some 3 million acres of U.S. land every
year. Nutria are responsible for the loss of marsh grasses in the
Chesapeake Bay. And plant pests and diseases, such as citrus canker,
sudden oak death disease, and the glassy-winged sharpshooter, threaten
important domestic industries that employ thousands and are vital to
State economies.
The Federal Government must deal with the problem of invasive
species in a strategic manner. For this reason, the National Invasive
Species Council was created through an Executive Order in 1999 to help
plan for future challenges and coordinate prevention and response
efforts across the country.
The Council, co-chaired by USDA and the Departments of Commerce and
the Interior, coordinates the work of involved Federal agencies,
ensuring that resources are used wisely and that our experts are
consulted regularly. It helps Federal agencies communicate not only
with each other, but with members of the public, industry groups, and
State and local officials.
Of recent note, for example, the Council is working to provide
State officials with expanded roles in the planning and coordination of
efforts to address invasive species in the United States. In addition,
the Council appoints members to the Invasive Species Advisory Committee
(ISAC). The ISAC is comprised of an array of scientific and policy
experts who provide information and advice for consideration by the
Council and recommend plans and action against invasive species at the
tribal, State, and regional levels.
The most important tool at the Council's disposal is its invasive
species management plan. Developed and regularly fine-tuned by
participating Federal agencies, the plan keeps involved officials on
the same page and in contact with one another. National in scope, it is
a blueprint that not only steers Federal efforts, but also helps us
remain flexible and responsive to new situations.
For its part in the coordinated effort against invasive species,
USDA provides its partners and cooperators with expertise in the areas
of invasive species prevention, emergency response, control, and
scientific research. These are some of the things that we do best, and
we have refined our efforts in these areas over many years. The
following points offer a brief overview of USDA's primary
responsibilities with regard to invasive species, followed by more
specific examples of some of the work being done by each of USDA's
participating agencies:
Prevention of new harmful introductions: USDA provides an
integrated safeguarding system to protect America's agricultural and
natural resources against invasive species. USDA's safeguarding system
includes port inspections, quarantine treatments, detection surveys,
and eradication efforts. Domestic programs also prevent the spread and
establishment of invasive species within the United States.
Management of Federal lands: USDA works to address
invasive species that have been recently detected, or have become
entrenched over the years, on Federal lands under our purview. This
work includes controlling outbreaks and restoring impacted areas.
Providing technical advice and assistance: Working
directly with State officials and private landowners, USDA officials
can often utilize and disseminate the latest information and technology
developed by our researchers in the fight against invasive species. In
many instances, new techniques and tools developed by USDA researchers
and methods development specialists have made real differences during
emergency outbreak situations and as part of our longer, sustained
campaigns to control and eradicate invasive species.
Research and technology development: USDA actively
supports and carries out the empirical research necessary to establish
basic knowledge of invasive species already present in the United
States or located outside our borders. USDA also conducts research at
the ecosystem level. With this knowledge base, USDA and its partners
can take the appropriate steps to exclude invasive species and respond
effectively to the ones already here in our country.
Regulation: USDA works to develop science-based
regulations that protect U.S. agriculture and the environment from
invasive species and balance the needs and interests of producers,
growers, shippers, and a host of other businesses and individuals
across the country.
Within USDA there are six agencies that have leadership roles in
preventing and dealing with the introduction and spread of nonnative
invasive species into the United States. These agencies are involved in
research, regulation, operations, partnerships, technical and financial
assistance, and education.
The primary focus of our Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) is to protect American agriculture. In combination, APHIS
activities are commonly referred to as our safeguarding system and
encompass a broad range of efforts, including inspections, surveys, and
pest and disease eradication programs. APHIS' new strategic plan
emphasizes the protection of ecosystems against the establishment of
harmful and costly invasive species. To meet this goal, APHIS
officials, among other things, conduct in-depth analyses of the major
pathways invasive species can follow into the United States. With this
information, APHIS can adjust and tighten components of its
safeguarding system to close down these pathways and maintain its high
level of vigilance against the introduction and spread of harmful
invasive species.
In other areas, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) provides
USDA with the latest innovations and technological breakthroughs in the
field of invasive species management. ARS cooperates extensively with
university and private partners to conduct research on a wide variety
of pests, invasive plants, and animal diseases. These efforts are
focused on detection technology for ports of entry, systematic research
to rapidly identify exotic species, and pesticide application
technology. ARS also conducts research on biologically based pest
management, remote surveillance of pests targeted by integrated pest
management programs, and restoration of grazing lands. ARS scientists
and the Agency's stakeholders and partners can develop large scale,
multi-disciplinary research teams, as well as targeted species-specific
projects.
Agencies like the Forest Service and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service are focused on taking care of our Nation's
environmental resources. Coordination and consultation is important
between Federal and private landowners who work together to manage
nonnative weeds that grow across boundaries. The coordination and
priority setting that occurs between Federal, State, and private
partners becomes more critical as State and Federal funds that affect
multi-jurisdictional boundaries are allocated. In locations where a
national forest is adjacent to private land and invasive species have
become a serious problem, the Forest Service can allocate funding to
that location in a coordinated effort by combining resources from the
National Forest System and State and Private Forestry Deputy Areas.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service can work with private
landowners to use funds available through the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and the
Wetlands Reserve Program. Secretary Veneman recently announced the
opening of a new sign-up for the Conservation Reserve Program and
released $1.8 billion for conservation assistance on working lands and
to protect environmentally sensitive lands. Within this program, funds
can be used to eradicate, control, and/or replace invasive plants to
achieve conservation goals.
Invasive species can substantially increase the threat of
catastrophic wildfires by increasing the amount of dead and dying
vegetation on the landscape. In the aftermath of wildland fires, timely
rehabilitation and stabilization projects also are critical to
preventing additional threats to ecosystems posed by invasive species.
As part of the President's Healthy Forest Initiative, USDA and the
Department of the Interior have proposed two proposed categorical
exclusions to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that will
increase the ability of the agencies to expeditiously reduce hazardous
fuels and engage in restoration projects.
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES) supports USDA agencies at the local level with outreach
efforts and research programs at Universities and land grant colleges
as well. In addition, CSREES is working along with APHIS right now to
bolster our Nation's diagnostic laboratory infrastructure--a critical
initiative with regard to homeland security and our ongoing vigilance
against foot-and-mouth disease and other exotic pests and diseases of
concern.
And, finally, USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) conducts
research and analysis of economic issues connected to agriculture and
the environment, including invasive species, integrated pest management
programs, biodiversity, and agricultural and environmental
sustainability. ERS is also developing a new research program that will
concentrate on examining the economics involved in managing invasive
species in the United States. Research generated by this program will
assist USDA officials in making policy and program decisions and
directing resources to needed areas.
These specialized agencies have distinct missions, but they all
work toward one primary goal of protecting the Nation's agriculture,
environment, and food supply. Addressing invasive species is a large
and multifaceted part of this task, but USDA works to coordinate
efforts and present a unified front. One of the most important
initiatives we have undertaken is to participate in the development of
an invasive species interagency ``cross cut'' budget, led by the
National Invasive Species Council. The Fiscal Year 2004 crosscut
contained only a subset of USDA activities, in the Fiscal Year 2005
effort we plan to include all USDA programs and other efforts related
to invasive species. This initiative is helping agency personnel share
information and resources and reduce repetitive activities. We are also
better able to support research that gives us new tools to improve our
prevention and response programs. And we can consider and develop new
approaches to longstanding problems.
USDA agencies are also members of several interagency/
interdepartmental coordination groups that are working to address
invasive species in the United States. These groups include the Federal
Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds
(FICMNEW); a new interagency group called Managing Invasive Insects,
Animals and Diseases; and the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.
Participation in these groups, in addition to ongoing interaction with
professional societies and academia, helps our officials stay in close
contact with other Federal agencies, scientific and industry experts,
and a host of other groups all working in different areas of the
invasive species effort.
In the fight against invasive pests, USDA realizes that community
groups and residents are some of our strongest allies. USDA and our
cooperators can't be in every neighborhood, every forest, every park
simultaneously looking for exotic pests. Each extra pair of eyes, then,
that we can rely on to look for signs of plant disease, strange-looking
insects, or exotic weeds are an invaluable asset to our surveillance
programs.
In last year's homeland security supplemental funding package, USDA
received additional funding to support pest detection activities. We
have distributed this money to the States so they can help us improve
the infrastructure needed to organize, coordinate, manage, and
facilitate pest detection surveys at the State level. The objective of
this pest detective initiative is to educate and enlist the cooperation
of appropriate nongovernmental groups--gardeners, tree wardens,
university diagnostic laboratories, and nature conservancies--to be on
the lookout for exotic and indigenous plant pests and diseases. Because
these groups are on the front lines, they will likely prove most
efficient and effective in detecting signs of pests and diseases at the
field level.
In conjunction with expanded surveillance for invasive pests, we
acknowledge the absolute necessity of being able to respond to serious
pest and disease detections in a swift and coordinated manner. USDA has
specific emergency response guidelines for many of the invasive plant
and animal pests or diseases that pose a significant threat to the
United States, including foot-and-mouth disease, bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, and some exotic fruit flies. We've developed these
response plans in conjunction with our Federal, State, and local
partners and even conducted exercises to test our preparedness. To
ensure maximum speed and effectiveness, we have rapid response teams
stationed around the country ready to travel to detection sites to
coordinate Federal, State, and industry containment and eradication
efforts.
APHIS, based on the model developed by the Forest Service to manage
fire response efforts, has moved to the incident command approach to
emergency response. Incident command places teams of emergency
personnel and managers directly in the field to coordinate response
efforts. These teams, in turn, report to incident commanders on the
scene, in addition to a national incident commander and other involved
officials across the country. By virtue of their placement and size,
the teams and their commanders have a high level of autonomy, are able
to respond quickly to new or evolving situations, and can provide
extremely timely information to decisionmakers. In addition, teams from
various local, State, and Federal agencies all speak the same language
when working an emergency and can tap into a wider network of
resources.
APHIS also has a new Emergency Operations Center located within the
Agency's headquarters outside Washington, D.C. The Center is an 8,800-
square-foot, state-of-the-art facility that serves as the national
command center for management of APHIS emergency programs. During an
emergency, it can support 65 personnel and operate 24 hours a day, 7
days a week. The Center's communication capabilities include video
teleconferencing, advanced computer interfaces, and Geographical
Information System mapping. The Center, in combination with quick-
response incident command teams, gives APHIS the tools and resources
necessary to effectively coordinate and manage the comprehensive
response to emergency situations that have the potential to seriously
affect U.S. agriculture or the environment.
USDA is also working right now to fill the gaps in contingency
planning for detections of invasive species that may occur in natural
or remote areas of the country, places that are difficult to access or
located away from our routine monitoring and surveillance efforts.
USDA, for instance, is participating with FICMNEW in developing an
early warning plan for invasive plants. To protect the environment, the
public health, and agricultural industries, it is essential that we
monitor for and respond swiftly to all invasive species introductions.
As we've learned, the risk of spread and damage to our resources is too
great for us not to be prepared.
Now, while USDA has worked hard to ensure that we have the
infrastructure, tools, and support necessary to address invasive
species in today's world, there are some instances when we find
ourselves challenged by an unforeseen problem. Situations involving
invasive species can be, at times, extraordinarily complex, cutting
across not only geographic but agency boundaries. Another complication
is that in some cases we lack the knowledge to properly look for and
eradicate new invasive species. In these situations, Federal officials
must oftentimes balance quick response with patience and planning.
Emergency research also needs to be made a priority and incorporated
into response plans to give officials the information and tools
necessary to do their jobs. And, most importantly, the interests and
needs of those most affected must always remain in focus.
One example is the emerald ash borer, an exotic forest pest
recently discovered in Michigan, Ohio, and portions of Canada. This
pest, a relative of the Asian longhorned beetle, demonstrates the
frustration that can be brought about by invasive species. Many years
ago, after the exotic Dutch elm disease wiped out trees across the
country, ash trees were planted in backyards, forests, and parks. Many
of these trees have reached the size of the elms they replaced, and now
another invasive species threatens them. Officials with the Forest
Service and APHIS are working closely right now with State and local
representatives in Michigan and Ohio to determine just how widespread
emerald ash borer is and what we can do to stop its spread. Removal of
infested trees has already begun in parts of Michigan and Ohio.
Another example is that of sudden oak death disease, a newly
identified forest disease. The disease, which has killed thousands of
tanoaks and oaks in coastal areas of central California, was introduced
into the United States a few years ago. At that time, APHIS and the
Forest Service developed a National Sudden Oak Death Detection Survey
of forests through the Forest Service's Forest Health Monitoring
Program. Since the establishment of the survey, small infestations were
recently found in southern Oregon and eradication efforts have begun.
Laboratory investigations indicate that other oak species, including
northern red and pin oak, are susceptible to the pathogen. The Forest
Service and APHIS are working closely with other Federal, State,
county, and local government agencies, as well as nonprofit
organizations to ensure a coordinated sudden oak death detection survey
is implemented in high-risk areas nationwide.
In Florida's Everglades, Old World climbing fern, a plant native to
Africa, Asia, and Australia, has become well-established in many areas,
smothering shrubby and herbaceous plants on the ground and climbing
into the tree canopy. In some places, the fern has engulfed entire
Everglade tree islands, pinelands, and cypress swamps. It has even
spread across open wetland marshes. As a result, native plants have not
been able to regenerate, as thick mats of old fern material have
accumulated on the ground. And, should a fire occur, the fern can help
to spread the conflagration along the ground, up and on top of trees,
and even through wet areas. Because of these serious threats, for the
last several years, USDA and its partners in Florida have been working
to stop the spread of Old World climbing fern. While herbicides and
hand-cutting have registered some success in specific areas, these
techniques cannot be used across the entire Everglades, and herbicides
cannot be used in certain sensitive areas. USDA researchers, therefore,
are also examining the potential of employing biological control
organisms against this plant. With further research and the appropriate
approval, it may soon be possible that tiny moths, mites, or perhaps
some other organism may be deployed in the Everglades to check Old
World climbing fern.
A final example of a challenging situation involving an invasive
species is the coqui frog in Hawaii. This small, invasive frog has
become established in areas of the State, much to the displeasure of
many residents, tourists, biologists, and agricultural producers.
However, at the same time, the frog is beloved in its natural home of
Puerto Rico, and animal rights groups have objected to efforts to
address its presence in Hawaii. USDA scientists have been working to
develop suitable control techniques that may help to reduce coqui
populations in Hawaii. While USDA is currently conducting more study in
this area, our officials in Hawaii have also taken the lead in drafting
a management plan for Caribbean tree frogs in the State.
USDA appreciates the Committee's interest in not only our programs
to address invasive species, but also the problems we regularly face in
responding to new situations, working with new partners, and taking
into consideration different interests and viewpoints. As USDA's point
person for invasive species, I am learning much in these areas as well,
and I look forward to working with the Committee in the future. Thank
you for the opportunity to be here today.
______
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Dr. Lambert. Dr. Brandt?
STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN BRANDT, DIRECTOR OF GREAT LAKES
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LAB, NOAA
Dr. Brandt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Having major responsibilities for the Nation's coasts, NOAA
is keenly concerned about aquatic invasions. Aquatic invasions
cause significant ecological disruptions and economic costs to
the Nation estimated in the billions of dollars. You are
threatened by coastal invasions if you fish, swim, eat fish or
seafood, are a recreational boater, if you drink Great Lakes
water, if your power company uses water for cooling or if your
State depends on tourist dollars.
Invasive species are identified as a leading cause of the
loss of biodiversity in aquatic environments worldwide, perhaps
second only to habitat destruction. Invasive species can
replace or eliminate native species, alter habitats, change
contaminant cycling and interfere with human use of natural
resources.
New Zealand regards the problem as a national marine
biosecurity issue. Over the past few decades the rates of
invasions have accelerated. Large aquatic environments are most
vulnerable, and once established in an ecosystem an invader
changes that ecosystem. Each new invader is unique and thus
specific impacts vary from region to region.
Hundreds of invasive species have entered each of our major
coastal waterways. The large size and complexity of these
ecosystems make it difficult to initially detect a new invader
under the surface of the water and nearly impossible to
eliminate it.
As an example, the invasion of zebra mussels in the Great
Lakes has gained the attention of the Nation. The Great Lakes
are unique because they provide the gateway to America's
heartland. Zebra mussels currently threaten all freshwater
systems in the U.S., including those on the West Coast. Just
the cost of chemically treating industrial and municipal water
intakes is $100 to $400 million per year in the Great Lakes
alone. Zebra mussels also cause toxic algae blooms which can
cause taste and odor problems in drinking water, and research
has indicated that the zebra mussel is now responsible for the
loss of a bottom dwelling organism that has been in the Great
Lakes since their formation. This is harmful to the whitefish
commercial fishery and is threatening a $4 billion sports
fishery.
Similar stories could be told in San Francisco Bay,
Chesapeake Bay, Hawaii and other large ecosystems. Prevention
is critical, but we must first identify how these species are
being introduced. In our coastal systems ballast water
transport and discharge from ships is the major invasive
pathway. Over two-thirds of recent introduction are likely due
to ship borne vectors. Nine of the last 12 species that entered
the Great Lakes in the last 10 years have come from ballast
water. The rate of introductions is increasing because of the
expansion of trade and the speed of transportation. Ballast
carries organisms ranging from human pathogens to fish, and
recent research by NOAA and its partners has shown that ships
without ballast water carry enough residual material and live
organisms to pose a significant threat as well.
The NOAA Ballast Water Technology Demonstration Program has
funded a variety of projects to evaluate technologies and
practices to prevent further introductions from ballast tanks.
This work has been fruitful, but none of the technologies are
yet ready for widespread use. There are other significant
pathways as well such as inadvertent aquarium releases, hull
fouling, live bait introductions, inadvertent transfer by
boaters and canals that link different water systems. Changes
in coastal water quality and habitats can also alter their
vulnerability to invasions.
For example, the Great Lakes are currently being threatened
by the Asian carp that was an escapee from aquaculture sites,
which is moving up the Mississippi River and can enter the
Great Lakes via the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. An
electronic barrier has been set up to try to prevent entry into
the Great Lakes.
NOAA's National Sea Grant Program has also been
instrumental in helping States to develop statewide invasive
species management plans and have been leaders in working with
the bait and aquaculture industries to mitigate inadvertent
introductions.
Control activities are very costly. Educating user groups
can also be an effective way to reduce the inadvertent transfer
of species from one body of water to another. Eradication is
rare, expensive and requires true partnerships. Early
detection, rapid scientific assessment and response may help
managers to maximize successful control and also minimize
impacts.
NOAA has established a pilot project with the Bishop Museum
in Hawaii to conduct early detection monitoring for new
invaders. If successful, this program will be expanded to other
coastal regions as resources permit. To minimize ecological and
economic impacts we need to understand the basic biology of the
invader, how the ecosystem will change and what will be the
extent of the impact and can we adapt our management strategies
to accommodate its presence.
NOAA recognizes the importance of this issue and will
continue in our efforts to deal with aquatic invaders. To this
end NOAA has recently incorporated aquatic invasive species as
a major theme in its new strategic plan in consultation with
our partners and consistent with the national management plan.
Finally, research underlies all of these activities. In
order to maximize use and coordination of NOAA scientific
resources, NOAA is in the process of creating a NOAA-wide
National Center for Aquatic Invasive Species Research.
I hope this brief summary of my more extensive written
comments will be useful. Thanks for the opportunity to be here
today, and I am happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Brandt follows:]
Statement of Stephen B. Brandt, Director, Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce
Good afternoon, Chairman Gilchrest and Chairman Radanovich. My name
is Stephen Brandt. I am Director of the Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory, a research component of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research.
NOAA is the Nation's premier Federal agency, with responsibilities
for enhancing the value of and protecting the vital resources in both
marine and Great Lakes ecosystems. The Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory (GLERL) is NOAA's leading institution for aquatic
invasive species research and has authorization to carry-out such
research. Therefore, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the
scope of the invasive species problem, although I will restrict my
comments to aquatic invasive species, given the nature and mission of
my agency.
Scope of the Problem
Invasive species now constitute one of the largest present, and
future, threats to our coastal ecosystems, our coastal economies, and
human health in our coastal regions. Our coastal ecosystems are not
just inconsequential bodies of water that happen to be adjacent to the
lands we live on--rather, they support and nurture our society and our
economy, they harbor and provide valuable natural resources for human
use that both feed us (fisheries, water supply) and entertain us
(recreational boating, fishing, and swimming), and they protect our
shoreline (coral reefs, wetlands and marshes) from the extremes of
nature.
Species invasions are now a major global concern, with serious
implications and consequences for the United States at National,
regional, and local scales. Aquatic species invasions are threatening
and impacting coastal ecosystems worldwide and many coastal states are
taking or planning some form of protective action. The natural barriers
that have limited the range of aquatic organisms are being rapidly
overcome by anthropogenic activities. Let me say here that the majority
of invasive species vectors are the result of perfectly legitimate
activities, which have unintended consequences. I do not wish to be
critical of private individuals, or any particular industry, I simply
want to highlight that innocent activities can have major, cumulative,
long-term affects on our environment.
Ship-borne ballast water is the most significant vector of
introductions for aquatic invasive species worldwide (NRC, 1996). Other
significant vectors include inadvertent aquarium releases, live-bait
introductions, recreational boating and semi-submersible oil platforms.
Changes in coastal water quality and coastal habitats can alter the
vulnerability of some of the nations coasts to invasions (Carlton,
2001). Invasive aquatic species have caused significant economic losses
and ecological disruptions in the U.S. and elsewhere. Invasive species
are identified as a leading cause of species extinction and loss of
biodiversity in aquatic environments worldwide, perhaps second only to
habitat loss (Vitovsek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco and J. M.
Melillo. 1997. Human domination of Earths Ecosystems. Science 277:494-
499). Invasive species can replace or eliminate native species, change
nutrient and contaminant cycling, affect ecosystem productivity, and
can cause losses of economically valuable fisheries. Some invasive
species, such as the zebra mussel, can change the structure of entire
ecosystems and cause direct economic harm by clogging water intakes for
municipal or industrial uses. The resulting economic damages are shared
by all natural resource beneficiaries, including industrial and
municipal water users, recreational boaters, the fishing public,
riparians, vessel operators, and beach users. New Zealand, an island
nation particularly vulnerable to aquatic invasions, regards the
problem as such a major threat that at the Federal level they refer to
it as a National ``marine biosecurity'' issue.
Scientists have been quick to identify the major species invasion
``vectors,'' these ``vectors'' being the means by which species are
able to move between ecosystems. Increases and changes in ballast water
transport, hull fouling, recreational boating, semi-submersible oil
platforms, inadvertent aquarium releases, live-bait introductions,
canals, and aquaculture are the major ones (Ruiz, G. M., J. T. Carlton,
E. D. Grosholz, and A. H. Hines. 1997. Global invasions of marine and
estuarine habitats by non-indigenous species: mechanisms, extent, and
consequences. American Zoologist 37:621-632.; Ruiz, G. M., P. W.
Fofonoff, J. T. Carlton, M. J. Wonham, and A. H. Hines. 2000. Invasion
of coastal marine communities in North America: apparent patterns,
processes, and biases. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31:481-
531.; Carlton, 2001). To be certain, some natural processes, such as
storms, have been responsible for transporting species between
separated ecosystems, but human activity has surpassed and overwhelmed
both the scope and speed at which nonindigenous species are being
delivered to new ecosystems. For example, unwanted alien pests are
entering Hawaii at a rate estimated by the U.S.G.S. to be about 2
million times more rapid than the natural rate (http://www.hear.org/);
a Canadian study based on DNA and genetics calculated that human-
mediated dispersal of crustacean zooplankton now exceeds natural
dispersal by up to 50,000 times (Hebert, P. D. N. and M. Cristescu.
2002. Crustaceans, invasions and genes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
59:1229-1234).
Ballast water transport and discharge is, by far, the most
universal and ubiquitous of the major aquatic invasion vectors and
represents the greatest immediate threat to most coastal state
ecosystems. Over two-thirds of recent, non-native species introductions
in marine and coastal areas are likely due to ship-borne vectors (Ruiz,
G. M., P. W. Fofonoff, J. T. Carlton, M. J. Wonham, and A. H. Hines.
2000. Invasion of coastal marine communities in North America: apparent
patterns, processes, and biases. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 31:481-531). The rate of introductions in various coastal
ecosystems continues to increase with expansion of trade and the speed
of transportation. There are an estimated 35,000 ships plying the
oceans today. James Carlton, a noted scientist, once estimated that at
any time of day there are several thousand aquatic species being
carried in the ballast tanks of ships moving between coastal states
(Carlton, J. T. 1999. The scale and ecological consequences of
biological invasions in the world's oceans. In Invasive Species and
Biodiversity Management. O. T. Sandlund, P. J. Schei, and A. Viken,
eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. 195-212;
Carlton, J. T. 2001. Introduced Species in U.S. Coastal Waters:
Environmental Impacts and Management Priorities).
Ballast water is not only ubiquitous, but carries organisms ranging
from human pathogens to fish. The port states of Brazil and Argentina
require some ships to chemically disinfect their ballast tanks before
being allowed entry rights, because of the fear of human pathogens such
as cholera. A November 2000 report in the science journal Nature
documented the presence of both types (``serotypes'' O1 and O139) of
cholera bacteria that are associated with human epidemics in the
ballast tanks of 93% of ships sampled in Chesapeake Bay.
However, ballast water is not the only vector of importance in some
regions. There are 24 species of non-native algae in Hawaiian waters at
present, some of which have taken over whole areas of coral reef. Some
of these algae have been introduced via hull fouling. Inappropriate
release of aquarium species is a major source of nonindigenous species
in Hawaii's inland freshwater streams and ponds (ANS Task Force
Meeting, November 2002).
In the Great Lakes region, ballast water, escape from aquaculture
sites, and the aquarium and bait trades appear to be the most
significant vectors. The most recent known potential aquatic invasion
threat comes not from ballast water, but from a combination of
aquaculture and canals--as the Committee members may know, three
species of large Asian carp (silver, black, and bighead) that escaped
from aquaculture sites in our southern states are moving up the
Mississippi River system and are within striking distance of the Great
Lakes via the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. An electronic barrier
has been set up in the canal to try to stop the spread of this
introduction into the Great Lakes.
All mainland coasts of the United States--East, West, Gulf, and
Great Lakes, as well as the coastal waters of Alaska, Hawaii, and the
Pacific Islands, have felt the effects of an ever increasing number of
successful aquatic species invasions. I suspect that members of this
Committee are already familiar with some of the gross statistics--202
known or possible nonindigenous species in Chesapeake Bay (Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, Mariner Invasion
Research Lab website: http://invasions.si.edu/Regional/reg--
chesapeake.htm), over 230 in the San Francisco Bay estuary (National
Invasive Species Council. 2001. Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge:
Management Plan. 76 pp), at least 162 in the Great Lakes waters (Mills,
E. L., J. H. Leach, J. T. Carlton, and C.L. Secor. 1993. Exotic species
in the Great Lakes: a history biotic crises and anthropogenic
introductions. J. Great Lakes Res. 19: 1-54.; Ricciardi, A. 2001.
Facilitative interactions among aquatic invaders: is an ``invasional
meltdown'' occurring in the Great Lakes? Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 58:1-
13.), at least 544 in the 5-state Gulf of Mexico coastal system (USEPA
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. An Initial Survey of
Aquatic Invasive Species Issues in the Gulf of Mexico Region. Version
4.0. Table 5. EPA 855-R-00-003. September 2000.) and in Pearl Harbor
and Honolulu, almost half the species are non-native. Prince William
Sound, Alaska is the recipient of large amounts of ballast water
originating from the west coast of the U.S., including San Francisco
Bay, an invasive species hot spot.
The effects on the invaded ecosystems of many of these foreign
species have appeared--to the casual human observer--to be minimal.
However, once established in an ecosystem, an invader, by definition,
changes that ecosystem. Each new invader will have its own niche, type
of effect, degree of change it produces, and timing with which its
impact may become discernable. Losses in one part of an ecosystem can
reverberate throughout the ecosystem to affect all resources within it.
Our coastal ecosystems function in finely tuned balance that evolved
over millennia. When that balance is disrupted, such as by changes in
the structure and function of the food web through shifts and
reductions of important native food web components, the services and
benefits provided by the ecosystem are put at risk, and affect our
economy through loss of resource value or added expenses to recover,
restore, and maintain desired resource values.
Some Examples
First, from my own backyard--the Great Lakes. Great Lakes resource
managers have been cognizant of this problem, and have been dealing
with managing invasive species for nearly half a century. The sea
lamprey and alewife were two of the key invaders into the Great Lakes
in the 1950's, having reached the upper lakes aided by the
interconnecting canals. These invaders were costly to the Great Lakes.
Management efforts have been directed at control either though direct
means (with the sea lamprey) or through the introduction of a predator,
the Pacific salmon, for the alewife. The sea lamprey, the Great Lakes'
oldest documented aquatic invader, caused the collapse of fish species
that were the economic mainstay of a vibrant Great Lakes fishery.
Before sea lampreys entered through canals, the United States and
Canada harvested about 7 million kgs. (15 million lbs.) of lake trout
in lakes Huron and Superior annually. By the early 1960s, the catch was
only about 136,000 kgs. (300,000 lbs.). The fishery was devastated,
with losses in the billions (Great Lakes Fishery Commission web site:
http://www.glfc.org).
Extensive scientific research, during which over 6,000 chemicals
were tested, identified a chemical treatment leading to a program that
controls, but cannot eradicate, the lamprey. The cost to the United
States and Canada has increased over time and is now about $14M per
year. However, I would also point out that for a $14M per year expense,
lake trout and salmon recreational sport fisheries valued at an
estimated $4B became possible again and are thriving.
More recently, the zebra mussel invasion into the Great Lakes has
captured the attention of the nation on this issue. You are likely
familiar with the zebra mussel--which we refer to as the ``poster
child'' for aquatic species invaders. The Great Lakes basin is the
aquatic gateway to the heartland of America and a hot spot for aquatic
species introductions to major interior sections of the U.S. While the
spread of aquatic species introduced in most U.S. coastal ecosystems is
generally restricted to adjacent contiguous coastal ecosystems, the
Great Lakes provide a pathway for freshwater-adapted invasive species
to spread throughout the interior waters of the central and eastern
United States. One need only examine the spread of zebra mussels to
understand this--they are now found outside the Great Lakes--St.
Lawrence River system as far west as eastern Arkansas, as far south as
the Mississippi delta below New Orleans, Louisiana, and east as far as
the Hudson River estuary north of New York City. You have probably
heard of the economic costs attributed to zebra mussels clogging water
intake pipes. They have fouled industrial and municipal water intakes,
which must now be chemically treated on a regular basis throughout the
summer months to keep them flowing. Estimates of the annual cost of
zebra mussel control and mitigation range from $100 to $400 million per
year in the Great Lakes basin, but the zebra mussel has already spread
throughout most of the eastern half of the country.
Do you know that the zebra mussel is also responsible for the
repeated reoccurrence of blue-green algae blooms in certain large areas
of the Great Lakes? These algae produce a toxin known as microcystin.
These algae also cause water quality taste and odor problems in the
municipal water supplies in affected areas. Research at the NOAA Great
Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory has also implicated the zebra
mussel in the slow, but steady elimination of Diporeia, a shrimp-like
animal that has been a dominant bottom-dwelling organism in the Great
Lakes since their formation at the end of the Ice Age. Diporeia are the
primary food source for lake whitefish, a commercially valuable fish
species in the Great Lakes. Loss of Diporeia is an example of an
invasive-species caused food web disruption that can be directly linked
to declines in the body condition of lake whitefish. As a result, lake
whitefish are becoming thinner and less marketable for the commercial
fisheries. For several fish species, including bloater (Coregonus
hoyi), whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), slimy sculpin (Cottus
cognatus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and trout-perch (Percopsis
omiscomaycus), Diporeia is the principal prey. These fish are, in turn,
the primary food of the trout and salmon that support most of the Great
Lakes sports fishery. Research is examining the impact of this
disappearance on the $4B sports fishery. Moreover, declines in the
popular yellow perch population in Lake Michigan followed the
establishment of zebra mussels and are also believed to be directly
linked to some form of ecosystem or food web disruption. The more we
know, the better we can mitigate economic losses
In San Francisco Bay, the introduced clam Potamocorbula amurensis
is such an efficient filter feeder that it has eliminated phytoplankton
blooms in the northern portion of the Bay. Since phytoplankton are at
the very base of the food chain, it is expected that there will be
cascading impacts throughout the food chain. Studies have also
demonstrated that populations of zooplankton and mysid shrimp in San
Francisco Bay have dropped. Although there has been little research on
the next link in the chain, the fact that juvenile fish feed on
zooplankton and mysid shrimp should raise concern. In most food chains
the higher organisms--clams, mussels, and fish, for example- are often
the basis for economically valuable fisheries, and the implications of
cascading food web disruption include loss of fishery value, loss of
recreational (fishing) opportunity, and loss of income and jobs. A
recent study has raised another issue related to this invasive clam
species. Researchers have found very high selenium concentrations in
the clams, which could have an impact on birds and fish that feed on
them.
In the Chesapeake Bay, resource managers are very concerned about
the potential impact on native Bay species of the recent invader, the
veined rapa whelk (Rapana venosa), a gastropod mollusk originating from
the Sea of Japan. Since it feeds on bivalve mollusks, the Bay's clams
and oysters are threatened by the spread of the rapa whelk.
Also in the Chesapeake Bay, and in Louisiana, coastal wetlands are
being lost due to the voracious appetite of the introduced nutria.
A University of Hawaii study estimated the cost of invasive algae
to be $20 million per year for the island of Maui alone.
In summary, invasive species are ubiquitous and represent a global
scale problem, but with impacts and economic costs hitting us at the
national, regional, and local scales. Aquatic invasive species affect
virtually every coast of the United States. The invaders range from
bacteria and human pathogens, to plants, to small and large aquatic
animals. In aquatic ecosystems, the rate of invasions is accelerating
as the magnitude of travel and trade increases and as the speed of
transporting materials increases. There is no doubt that such invasions
have major economic and environmental consequences and affect each of
us individually.
Efforts to Prevent, Control or Eradicate
Prevention
Before touching on control activities, I think that it should be
emphasized that prevention is our first and most important line of
defense against species invasions. Control is often much more expensive
than prevention, and sometimes becomes an ongoing expenditure. The
example of the sea lamprey provided earlier in this testimony
illustrates this. An investment made to prevent an introduction is
quite often the most cost effective method of dealing with a potential
problem.
The Members of this Subcommittee are likely familiar with the
concept of ballast water exchange, its use as an invasive species risk
reduction method, and its limitations. To address the serious
limitations to mid-ocean ballast water exchange, Congress initiated a
competitive research program by adding Sec. 1104 of the National
Invasive Species Act of 1996, which is administered for the Department
of Commerce by the NOAA Sea Grant Program Office in partnership with
the Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
Maritime Administration (MARAD). This program was designed to encourage
development and demonstrate technologies and practices that will
prevent nonindigenous aquatic species from being introduced into the
Great Lakes and other waters of the United States. Projects funded
under this program are selected through an annual peer-reviewed open
competition process.
The Ballast Water Technology Demonstration Program has funded
projects covering all stages of technology development and
demonstration, from bench-scale investigations through pilot scale
demonstrations, including some full-scale field tests on ships engaged
in commercial activity. Additionally, NOAA invites the submission of
additional ballast water research proposals through the more general
aquatic nuisance species competitive grant program administered by the
National Sea Grant College Program under Sec. 1202(f) of the Act.
Shipboard tests have occurred for eight of nine ballast treatment
techniques discussed in the 1996 National Research Council report
titled, Stemming the Tide: Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous
Species by Ships'' Ballast Water, as well as for some newer
technologies not covered in that report.
Since 1998, the technologies being investigated have matured so
that more projects involve full-scale tests of ballast water treatment
equipment and fewer involve small laboratory scale experiments. These
shipboard tests have brought us significantly closer to the development
of mature ballast water treatment technologies, but none is ready for
widespread use by the maritime fleets of the world. There is general
consensus that ``there is no currently universal technological
solution, nor is there likely to be one in the very near future, and
mid-ocean ballast water exchange is currently the only practical
ballast water management option...(direct quote from Harmful Aquatic
Organisms in Ballast Water, submitted by the United States to the
International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, 48th Session, Agenda Item 2, July 17, 2002).
The difficulty arises when attempting to move these technologies to
full-scale shipboard testing under operational conditions. Limitations
of space and power on commercial vessels, and limitations in the rate
of ballast water treatment that can be achieved with systems amenable
to shipboard retrofit, have so far precluded any near-future practical
application of these technologies on all but a few small vessels in the
existing commercial fleet. In addition, actual full-scale testing of
these systems relies of the availability of suitable commercial ships
as test platforms. While the industry has been generally supportive and
has made operating vessels available for testing, commercial ships
operate on very tight, yet changeable schedules, and first and foremost
they operate to serve their commercial clients. Any experimental
testing of ballast water treatment systems must be done on a ``not to
interfere'' basis. This means that the scientists and engineers
attempting to test and verify their systems at operational scale and
under operational conditions, do not have full control over the test
timing or test conditions. Commercial ships cannot readily be delayed
or diverted to rerun an experiment or to adjust testing conditions.
NOAA recognizes that continued work is needed in all areas of
prevention, not just ballast water technology research. NOAA's National
Sea Grant Program has played a major role in defining the research
agenda on aquatic nuisance species, including ballast water research.
The 2000 report, ``Aquatic Nuisance Species Report: An Update on Sea
Grant Research and Outreach Programs,'' documented work on 22 species
in 24 states, the largest of its kind. Sea Grant programs have been
instrumental in the development of state invasive species management
plans on every coast, and have been leaders in working with the bait
and aquaculture industries to mitigate inadvertent introductions. Sea
Grant developed the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
approach to identify and correct practices that could present a risk of
invasive species. This HACCP program is now in use in fish hatcheries
in many states and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Complementing the broad resources Sea Grant brings to the
university community, the NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory is in the final year of a three-year, multi-institutional
research program to assess the risk of invasion posed by No-Ballast-On-
Board (``NOBOB'') vessels in the Great Lakes. NOBOB vessels are those
that do not carry pumpable ballast water as they enter the Lakes fully
loaded with cargo. However, residual ballast in their tanks have now
been documented by this research to contain live organisms and dormant
viable eggs of invertebrate and algal species. These residuals can mix
with lake waters brought on as ballast when cargo is offloaded at ports
in the Great Lakes, which may eventually be discharged in other ports.
The results of the NOBOB research are already being made available and
should assist the shipping industry and regulators in determining best
management practices for reducing the amount of residual sediment and
live organisms in ballast tanks. Another part of that program is
evaluating the effectiveness of mid-ocean ballast water exchange as a
barrier to potential invasions, with several experiments being planned
for this year.
In recognition of the likely long-term use of ballast water
exchange as an invasive species management option, GLERL, in
partnership with the Navy and with the assistance of the shipping
industry, is just beginning to explore the use of computer modeling and
computational fluid dynamics to better understand the mechanics and
dynamics of fluid flow in a ballast tank during exchange. We hope that
this will help identify ways to improve the consistency and efficiency
of exchange, thus improving the level of protection ballast water
exchange may provide for our coastal ecosystems. The proposal for this
research was competed and funded under the Ballast Water Technology
Demonstration Program.
Control
There is a tendency to equate control activities with eradication,
but they actually encompass a wider range of options. Once an invasive
species is established and widely distributed, eradication is often not
possible. Under such circumstances, control activities may include
reducing the size of populations, containing the invasion, or
mitigating the impact of a species. Harmful affects can often be
minimized with early detection, understanding, and prediction of
potential impacts and adaptive management.
We can learn much about controlling invasive species from our
counterparts on the terrestrial side, who, at least in the area of
agriculture, have been dealing with the issue for more than a century.
However, there are many ecological, biological, logistical and economic
issues related to controlling aquatic invaders that have no counterpart
on the terrestrial side. In these situations, new research must be
conducted and totally new control tools devised. As an example, two
summers ago we were confronted with a major bloom of Australian spotted
jellyfish in the northern Gulf of Mexico. They were so plentiful that
shrimpers had to stop fishing because they could not cast their nets
without the jellyfish clogging them. A rapid survey in areas where the
jellyfish were most abundant showed that they were removing virtually
100 percent of zooplankton from the water column. We recognized
immediately that this was a major food web disruption in the making,
but we were confronted with the fact that no one had ever tried to
control jellyfish populations in the past, and we had no idea of how to
accomplish control measures. Although this particular infestation died
off, we are researching responses for the next time the situation
occurs.
We are also having to learn how to conduct biocontrol in ways our
terrestrial counterparts have never had to consider. Biocontrol is the
introduction of a predator or pathogen that affects an invasive
species. It is a well-established technique for control of terrestrial
invasive species such as weeds. Before such an introduction takes
place, it is important to determine that the biocontrol agent does not
cause unintended harm to native species and is safe for humans. The
Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Agriculture have been
successful in finding biocontrol agents for some aquatic plants such as
alligator weed and purple loosestrife, and there is research directed
toward other aquatic plant species such as giant Salvinia, Hydrilla,
and Spartina.
However, very few biocontrol agents have been developed for aquatic
animals. With guarded optimism, I would like to report, however, that
research supported jointly by NOAA Sea Grant and FWS, may have had a
breakthrough in this area. Pseudomonas bacterium, a pathogen that
destroys the digestive gland of zebra mussels, has been discovered, and
it appears not to harm native species of mussels or other animals. The
scientists who found the Pseudomonas bacterium looked at over 600
different pathogens. Although early results are promising, it is
important that further research verify that the agent poses no risk to
native mussels, the environment, or human health.
I would also like to mention another important control activity--
education and outreach. Educating user groups can be an especially
effective tool. This is particularly true in the case of invasive
aquatic species, and the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force is making
a concerted effort in a couple of areas. One of the most significant
pathways for the spread of successful invaders such as zebra mussels
and aquatic plants is recreational users. Such species are often
carried from one body of water to another by boats. The Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force has made a concerted effort to reduce
boating as a pathway for introduction. NOAA, FWS, and the Coast Guard
have all funded efforts to educate boaters. There is evidence that such
an approach may help contain invasive species. A recent study by
Minnesota Sea Grant comparing states that had aggressive education
campaigns with states where very little was being done, showed that
education can not only increase boater awareness, but also change
boater behavior. In addition, the 100th Meridian project funded by FWS
has, so far, prevented the spread of zebra mussels to western states on
recreational boats. A major challenge looming in the near future may be
to prevent or respond to the unintentional spread of aquatic invasive
species, like the zebra mussel, during the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
celebration starting this year.
Eradication
While eradication is usually much more difficult and expensive than
prevention, it can sometimes be accomplished when the necessary players
can react quickly and work together. With fingers crossed, I would also
like to report the apparent successful eradication of a species that
has received considerable attention recently--Caulerpa taxifolia, the
so-called ``killer algae of the Mediterranean.'' Caulerpa was found in
a lagoon just north of San Diego in the summer of 2000. After two and a
half years work to eradicate a rather small infestation in a
cooperative effort involving several Federal and State of California
agencies, we now have gone two consecutive quarters without detecting
any new growth of the invasive algae.
The Caulerpa eradication project illustrates two important points.
First, eradication efforts, even small ones, are expensive. It has cost
the State of California and other contributors (including NOAA) over $4
million to eradicate this rather small infestation, and the monitoring
necessary to ensure that eradication is complete will increase this
amount. Second, in most instances, control and eradication efforts
require active partnerships with State governments. Not only do they
have primary jurisdiction over most areas, but they also have more on-
the-ground resources available.
Another example of an apparently successful eradication was
reported in connection with the African sabellid polychaete worm,
introduced into California coastal abalone farms in the mid- to late-
1980s via an imported South African species. These worms infest and
weaken the shells of the California abalone, reducing growth rates and
production, and thus, their value. Sea Grant sponsored researchers
showed that these worms can also infest many types of native marine
snails, not just abalone. In the late 1990s researchers completed a
reportedly successful project to eradicate the sabellid from a coastal
area where it had been transmitted to native gastropods. However, there
are recent reports indicating that a few isolated cases may still
remain or that the pest has reemerged in a few locations. This
illustrates just how difficult it can be to achieve total eradication
of an aquatic pest.
Early Detection and Rapid Response
Early detection is necessary before we can have any hope that rapid
response may be potentially successful. To this end NOAA's National
Ocean Service has established a pilot project with the Bishop Museum in
Hawaii to conduct early detection monitoring for new invaders in key
Oahu harbors and bays. If successful, NOAA will expand the program to
other coastal regions as resources permit. However, early detection may
prove problematic, since it is difficult to know, for any particular
ecosystem, where to focus monitoring, what to look for, and when to
look, yet the alternative, a broad an unfocused monitoring program, can
rapidly become expensive and untenable. As NOAA develops this program
it will explore these issues through applied research to develop new or
modified monitoring techniques and tools.
Rapid response to new species invasions may help managers,
industries, and researchers establish the nature of a new invasive
species, its current and potential distributions, vectors of dispersal,
potential ecological and industrial impacts, and potential control and/
or eradication options. For example, when notified of a new invasive
species in the U.S., the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, one of the oldest
invasive species-fighting organizations in the United States, organizes
a 'New Pest Advisory Group' consisting of government officials and
appropriate experts. This group meets and acts quickly to discuss the
known biology of the organism, its potential damage and range,
mitigation strategies, and possible actions. Based on these
discussions, the group makes a recommendation to APHIS to either take
action, or not, on the newly detected exotic pest. This process was
used to respond to the discovery of the invasive ``pine shoot beetle''
in 1992 on a Christmas tree plantation near Cleveland, Ohio. Within a
few days of being notified, APHIS brought together concerned parties
from industry, academia, and state and Federal agencies in a ``New Pest
Advisory Group'' to share information and develop response strategies.
Through this process, they were able to rapidly establish the extent of
its distribution and potential impacts on industry, and start the
process to develop a regulatory response.
At the present time, no framework exists to support and carry out
rapid scientific assessment of new aquatic invader populations. Yet
gathering and verifying information and compiling summary findings and
recommendations is a necessary precursor to supporting informed and
effective resource management decisions that do not waste taxpayer
funds on costly eradication attempts that have little chance of
success. When a new invasion is reported, a team of appropriate experts
needs to be quickly assembled to gather and verify information and
assess whether the invasion is a candidate for attempted eradication or
control. A framework needs to be developed under which a rapid
scientific invasion assessment team can be assembled and activated in
response to reports of new species. Rapid assessment of new AIS
arrivals can be useful in helping resource managers become aware of new
demands on the ecosystem and to plan management actions. For example,
the Fish Health Committee under the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has
developed a model program and risk assessment guidelines for evaluating
new fish diseases that may be useful in developing a similar framework
for aquatic invasive species.
What if We Fail (to Prevent, to Control, to Eradicate)
Once a species has become established in an ecosystem, the
ecosystem, by definition has changed, and the species is nearly
impossible to eradicate. An invader redefines the ecosystem. Unlike
many chemical contaminants that dissipate through time, invasive
species do not have a ``half-life'' and they are here to stay. We can
try to contain the species, but it is very difficult to actually
control the species in large ecosystems, and there is no silver bullet
for control because each new invader has its own unique life history
and place in the ecosystem. Thus, for many invasive species, control
may entail finding methods of reducing their impact, or, lacking any
viable control or eradication, humans may have to adaptively manage the
affected ecosystems and resources. Long-term changes in an ecosystem
caused by an invader may necessitate adapting our management of water
quality and economically valuable resources, such as fisheries, to the
altered conditions. This requires revision of management strategies
(i.e., adaptive management) that can only be accomplished on the basis
of scientific understanding of the changes that have occurred. How can
this be done?
Of fundamental importance are the following concerns: How does that
changed ecosystem affect the ecology and economy of the region? What
will be the extent of the impact? And can we adapt our management
strategies to accommodate its presence? This requires answers to two
critical and equally important questions:
(1) What is the basic biology, life history, and reproductive
strategy of the invasive species?
and
(2) How will this new species fit into and change the ecosystem
functioning?
The answer to the second question clearly demands that we know how
the ecosystem functions to begin with. Fundamental ecosystem
understanding and long-term data sets will lead to early detection and
evaluation. Once there is a basic understanding of the ecosystem,
assessing the role of each new invader is somewhat easier. In contrast,
once a species enters, it is too late to ask, what was the ecosystem
like before the invader arrived? A study that lasts only 1-2 years is
insufficient because the natural year-to-year variability in an
ecosystem can be high or unknown.
For example, over the last 15 years the Great Lakes have undergone
a new wave of species invasions dominated by exotic invertebrates-
zebra mussels, quagga mussels, the spiny waterflea and the fishhook
waterflea. Unlike previous invasions in which vertebrates dominated
(e.g., sea lamprey and alewife), these invertebrates inserted
themselves in the lower trophic levels and thus disruption percolates
up through the food web with potentially serious consequences to fish
communities. This bottom-up effect on the food web eliminates the
potential application and modification of existing fisheries models to
make fishery management decisions. Scientists at GLERL, in partnership
with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, are conducting research to
quantify and develop tools for forecasting the rate and extent of food
web impacts of these four invaders for use in assessing the need to
revise fishery management plans in the Great Lakes.
Legal Gaps
One of the action items listed in the National Invasive Species
Management Plan is for the National Invasive Species Council to conduct
an evaluation of the current legal authorities relevant to invasive
species. The evaluation is to include an analysis of whether and how
existing authorities may be better utilized. Once this review is
finished, and if warranted, recommendations will be made for changes in
legal authority.
The Congress anticipated one emphasis of this Administration in
1990 when it set up a structure that encouraged coordination and
cooperation among several Federal agencies. As I have pointed out in
this testimony, there are significant areas in which agencies on the
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force are establishing priorities
together, sharing expertise, and jointly funding specific actions. This
same concept has been carried through in the broader Invasive Species
Council. This Administration has made more efficient use of resources--
whether human or financial--a priority. Such cooperation and
coordination is particularly important in the area of invasive species
where partnerships with other Federal agencies and State governments
are often necessary. At the urging of the Administration, a pilot
crosscutting budget on invasive species was prepared for Fiscal Year
2004, which included interagency cooperative activities. In Fiscal Year
2005 the plan is to expand the invasive species activities included in
the crosscut.
Finally, the invasive species problem is nationwide and is most
effectively coordinated at the national level. However, implementation
at the regional (coastal) or ecosystem level is most practical and
makes the most sense, since different U.S. ecosystems will have
different invasive species issues and characteristics, i.e., the
ecological and economic impacts, source regions, mechanisms, and
pathways for invasion will not be the same, nor of the same importance.
Working to Find Solutions
We were asked how to solve this vexing problem. It will take time,
resources, long-term dedication, and the national will. I suspect that
the problem will never be totally solved. Because species invasions are
so closely linked to human economic and recreational activities, I can
guarantee you that there will be new introductions despite our best
efforts. Control efforts will still be needed both for new
introductions and for those species already here. We can, however,
reduce the number of new introductions by interdicting the most
significant pathways. There is promising new research on genetic
engineering coming out of Australia that may provide a way to eradicate
certain invasive species. And, we can reduce the impact of species that
have been introduced by detecting them and responding quickly, and by
learning how to best adapt to those that are successful.
We can also reduce the impact of invasive species by developing new
tools for control and by more effectively coordinating our utilization
of resources, not only among the various Federal agencies but also with
our partners on a State and local level. As demonstrated by the
eradication of Caulerpa through a joint State, Federal and university
partnership and by the unparalleled continuing contributions of
Federally funded programs to advancing invasive species research, and
providing useful management tools and solutions, preventing and
controlling invasive species is a task that will only be successful if
the Federal Government has adequate resources and authority to work
closely and quickly with the States, universities, and citizens in
regions affected by aquatic invasions.
Because the problem will continue into the future, we must
recognize that a continuing commitment is necessary. Although it is
certainly ambitious, the National Management Plan prepared by the
Invasive Species Council does provide a good blueprint for the range of
activities that will be necessary to fully address the invasive species
issue.
Particularly in marine and coastal areas, the science of biological
invasions is still very young, and we are still learning, yet
significant progress has been made in some areas. There is, however,
much more that remains to be accomplished. As a trustee for marine and
coastal resources, NOAA recognizes the importance of this issue and
will continue in our efforts to deal with aquatic invaders. To this
end, I am pleased to report that, under the leadership of Vice Admiral
Lautenbacher and with the active support and involvement of Deputy
Assistant Secretary Timothy R.E. Keeney, NOAA has incorporated Aquatic
Invasive Species as a major theme in its new strategic plan. GLERL and
the National Sea Grant Program Office have worked together with other
elements of NOAA towards this end. GLERL is charged with leading the
development of the NOAA-wide implementation plan. The plan will include
elements of prevention, monitoring for early detection, rapid response,
and management (eradication, control, adaptation) of successful
invaders, as well as international cooperation and information
exchange, and coordination with external programs under the National
Sea Grant Program. The plan is being developed in an inclusive cross-
NOAA process, after which it will be distributed to our constituent and
partner communities for comments and suggestions prior to being
finalized.
Underpinning all elements of the NOAA plan will be a broad program
of coordinated NOAA research, involving NOAA labs such as GLERL and
their external partners, as well as the National Sea Grant Program
network. As pointed out in the National Management Plan (National
Invasive Species Council, 2001), ``Research supports each aspect of the
Plan. Research assists policy makers in assessing gaps in authority and
program policy, and it supports invasive species resource optimization,
prioritization, and public outreach efforts.'' In order to maximize use
of NOAA's scientific resources and to assure cross-NOAA prioritization
and coordination of research activities, NOAA is in the process of
creating a National Center for Aquatic Invasive Species Research, to be
housed at and administered by GLERL.
Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman Radanovich, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my testimony for today. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to respond to any
questions that the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Dr. Brandt. Dr. Theriot.
STATEMENT OF DR. EDWIN THERIOT, MISSISSIPPI VALLEY DIVISION,
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Dr. Theriot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
here to testify on aquatic invasive species. My testimony will
focus on invasive aquatic nuisance species, which is what the
Corps of engineers addresses in the inland waterways and, where
we have specific authority, focus on those problems.
Invasive aquatic species such as hydrilla, Eurasian
watermilfoil, zebra mussels, Chinese mitten crab, mosquitoes
transporting West Nile virus and others can have a profound
effect on the function and values of water resources in the
United States. These species are out of their native habitat
and have no natural predators and their growth and reproduction
is prolific.
The Army Corps of Engineers tries to undertake research
control and eradicate aquatic nuisance species. We also have
authority to remove aquatic growth from navigable waters to
allow for navigation and flood protection. In addition, we have
through the Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control Act
of 1990, and amended in 1996, worked on aquatic nuisance
animals such as zebra mussels and others.
The Aquatic Plant Control Program has two primary
components. The first is a component for undertaking activities
to control aquatic plants in specific waters that is cost
shared, 50-50 basis, with non-Federal interests. The second is
the research component, 100 percent Federal funded, for
development of cost effective, environmentally compatible
management technologies. The objective is to develop cost
effective, environmentally compatible aquatic plant management
technologies which address national needs and priorities,
research conducted under this program and research efforts and
cooperative research efforts with other Federal agencies and
State agencies, universities, local governments and private
industry. Research efforts focus on developing capabilities to
use host specific biological agents, improve technologies for
oversight, enhance growth for native endemic plants, developing
integrated management strategies and development of techniques
to establish desirable aquatic vegetation.
In Fiscal Year 2004 the budget request was $3 million.
Since this fiscal year, the Corps' annual aquatic control
program budget request has been approximately that amount with
the focus being on the research component. In the invasive
nonplant species area there are many zebra mussels which clog
intake structures, reduce hydro power output and colonize
endangered species. The Corps is responsible for these
infrastructures.
The Chinese mitten crab burrows into flood control levees
and dams, threatening their structural integrity. The failure
of levee and dam could cause catastrophic economic and human
loss to the region. Some dredge material disposal areas have
mosquito breeding habitats located near large population
centers. We have already had to dispatch scientists to some of
these areas to investigate whether these mosquitoes harbor the
West Nile virus.
We are working with other Federal agencies and the National
Invasive Species Council to develop a more coherent program for
prevention, early detection and control of invasive species. To
date, the research has resulted in development of guidance
concerning control of zebra mussels, information systems, zebra
mussel chemical call, control handbooks for facility operators,
and the results of this research has been available to all
interested parties and will continue our efforts to find better
methods to prevent--and inexpensive effective control for
aquatic invasive species.
We are working with the National Invasive Species Council
to develop a uniform method for reporting economic costs of
invasive species impacts. We are working with NISC to improve
reporting of interdiction and management costs through invasive
species interagency costs cut budget. The Fiscal Year 2004
crosscut contained only one substantive Corps activity. In
Fiscal Year 2005 efforts we plan to expand the number of
activities included.
In general, we believe the existing statutory authority for
the Army Corps of Engineers program for research and actual
control of aquatic plant and nuisance species is sufficient.
However, one of the action items listed in the National
Invasive Species Management Plan is for the National Invasive
Species Council to conduct an evaluation of current legal
authorities relevant to invasive species, and we welcome this.
We believe the majority of the Americans are not aware of
the severity of invasive species problems in the United States
or the damage that occurs to our natural resources and our
economy. We believe that the coordinated approach and
interagency cost cutting budget and management plan now under
the NISC is sound and will lead to national multiagency
integration of prevention and management strategies.
In summary, our authorities are limited to inland waterways
and are limited to control of these species after they have
arrived. We feel that priority should be placed on preventing
their introduction; second, to allow us to do rapid response,
to eradicate species when detected early.
My time is up. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Theriot follows:]
Statement of Dr. Edwin Theriot, Director of Management, Mississippi
Valley Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairmen and members of the Subcommittees, I am Dr. Edwin
Theriot, Director of Management in the Mississippi Valley Division,
United States Army Corps of Engineers. I am pleased to be here today to
respond to your questions concerning the invasive species affecting
this Nation and the programs of the Army Corps of Engineers focused on
addressing these problems. My testimony will focus on invasive aquatic
nuisance species as that is the area most affecting the Army's Civil
Works program and where we have specific authorities focused on the
problems.
SCOPE OF THE INVASIVE SPECIES PROBLEM
In the broader picture, the introduction of invasive animals and
plant species into habitats and ecosystems is a major threat to the
well-being of the Nation. According to the National Invasive Species
Council, invasive species account for about $137 billion every year in
economic costs. The strength of this Nation is based on the diversity
and abundance of our natural resources. Our natural resources provide
food to feed our nation and others; provide the resources needed by
industry to strengthen our economy and move goods efficiently and
cheaply; provide opportunities for our people to enjoy the beauty and
benefits of these diverse habitats and ecosystems; plays major role in
the heritage of our country; and, create security for future
generations. The replacement of these natural habitats and ecosystems
with large monocultures of non-native species threatens our well-being
and the strengths that make us a great country.
Invasive aquatic species, such as hydrilla, Eurasian watermilfoil,
zebra mussels, Chinese mitten crabs, mosquitoes transporting West Nile
virus, and others, can have a profound effect on the function and
values of the water resources of the United States. These species are
out of their native habitat, have no natural predators and their growth
and reproduction is prolific. The population of a species can become so
large that it can: impact the movement of ships and/or barges moving
goods on our waterways; take up large amounts of space which
significantly reduces the ability of the water body to store water for
flood control or irrigation; slow the flow of water causing siltation
and nutrient loading; clog machinery, valves, water intakes, and pipes
that support operations affecting navigation, the generation of power
and water supply; impede or prevent recreational activities such as
boating, swimming, or fishing; and, can cause oxygen and light
deprivation that significantly decreases water quality. In cases such
as the West Nile virus the invasive species can be a direct threat to
human health.
EFFORTS TO CONTROL OR ERADICATE UNWELCOME INVADERS
The Army Corps has authorities to undertake research and other
activities to control and eradicate aquatic nuisance species. They are
the Aquatic Plant Control Program, authorized by section 104 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1958, as amended, the Removal of Aquatic Growth
program, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1916, as amended,
the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control Act
of 1990 (PL 101-646), and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996
(Subtitle C, Sec. 1202 (i)(3)(A)). In spite of these efforts and the
efforts of others, invasive species continue to be introduced and many
are spreading at an alarming rate. According to a General Accounting
Office report issued in October 2002, all current efforts by the United
States and Canada are not adequate to stop the introduction of invasive
species into the Great Lakes from ballast water alone.
Aquatic Plant Control Program
The Aquatic Plant Control Program has two primary components. The
first is a component for undertaking activities to control aquatic
plants on specific waters that is cost- shared on a 50/50 basis with
non-Federal interests. The second is a research component (100 percent
Federal funding) for the development of cost-effective, environmentally
compatible management technologies.
The focus of the control component is selective eradication of
specific types of exotic or nuisance aquatic plant infestations.
Control actions would be implemented in areas where aquatic plant
nuisance species threaten the regional economy because of negative
impacts to navigation, flood control, public health, water quality,
fish and wildlife, drainage, irrigation, and to a lesser extent,
recreation. The control component of the program is not applicable to
Federal agency projects or facilities.
The Aquatic Plant Control Research Program (APCRP) is the research
component of this program. The objective of this research is to develop
cost-effective, environmentally compatible aquatic plant management
technologies, which address national needs and priorities. Research
conducted under the APCRP involves Corps of Engineers research efforts
and cooperative research efforts with other Federal agencies, state
agencies, universities, local governments, and private industry.
Research efforts focus on developing capabilities to use host-specific
biological agents, improved techniques for using herbicides, enhanced
knowledge of the role of aquatic plants, developing integrated
management strategies and guidance, and the development of techniques
for establishing desirable aquatic vegetation. The APCRP provides water
resources managers with the tools needed to restore aquatic ecosystems
to achieve sustainable benefits provided by a healthy and diverse
native aquatic plant communities. The effective use of new technologies
is ensured through the appropriate transfer of information and
techniques using a variety of media. Some of the new tools and products
developed include the approval to release 12 insect biological control
agents, environmentally compatible and user-safe formulations of
aquatic herbicides, an ecosystem approach to aquatic plant management,
techniques for ecosystem restoration, PC-based simulation and plant
growth models, an automated system for detection and mapping of
submersed aquatic vegetation, and an Aquatic Plant Information System
on CD-ROM providing information on the identification and management of
over 60 plant species.
The Fiscal Year 2004 budget request is $3 million. Since Fiscal
Year 1996, the Corps annual Aquatic Plant Control Program budget
request has been approximately that amount, with the focus being on the
research component with the maximum return. Due to specific direction
provided by Congress, much of the funding provided has been directed at
specific control activities thereby limiting and delaying specific
research efforts to control new invasive aquatic plants such as Giant
Salvinia and Arundo donax.
Removal of Aquatic Growth
In addition, we have activities in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Texas. These activities ensure the removal of aquatic
plant nuisance species in navigation channels that would impede the
movement of commercial vessels. These activities are supported with
``Operations and Maintenance'' funding at 100 percent of Federal Cost.
The average expenditures for these operations are approximately $4
million per fiscal year.
Invasive Non-plant Species
In addition, there are many other invasive species that impact or
have a high potential to impact Corps civil works projects. Zebra
mussels clog water intake structures, reduce hydropower output, and
colonize on endangered species. The Chinese mitten crab burrows into
flood control levees and dams, threatening their structural integrity.
The failure of a levee or dam could cause catastrophic economic and
human loss to a region. Some dredged material disposal areas have
mosquito-breeding habitats located near large population centers. We
have already had to dispatch scientists to some of those areas to
investigate whether those mosquitoes harbored the West Nile virus. Carp
are causing extensive problems in river systems--eating native
vegetation and disrupting the food chain. The Chicago Sanitation and
Ship Canal Barrier system was completed last year to interdict carp
going upstream and round gobys in the Great Lakes from entering the
Mississippi River system.
We are working with other Federal agencies and the National
Invasive Species Council (NISC) to develop a more coherent program for
prevention, early detection and control of invasive species. Our
Invasive Species Research Program is currently funded at about $750,000
annually. To date the research has resulted in the development of
guidance concerning control options, a Zebra Mussel Information System,
a Zebra Mussel chemical control guide, a control handbook for facility
operators, and guidance on dispersal barrier options to prevent the
spread of aquatic invasive species. The results of this research have
been made available to all interested parties and we will continue our
efforts to find better methods for the prevention and inexpensive
effective control of aquatic invasive species. We are working with the
NISC to develop a uniform method for reporting economic cost of
invasive species impacts. We are also working with NISC to improve
reporting of interdiction and management costs through the invasive
species interagency ``cross cut'' budget. The Fiscal Year 2004 crosscut
contained only a subset of Corps activities, in the Fiscal Year 2005
effort we plan to expand the number activities included.
IS EXISTING STATUTORY AUTHORITY SUFFICIENT?
In general, we believe that the existing statutory authority for
Army Corps of Engineers programs for research and actual control of
aquatic plant and nuisance species is sufficient. One of the action
items listed in the National Invasive Species Management Plan is for
the National Invasive Species Council to conduct an evaluation of
current legal authorities relevant to invasive species. The evaluation
is to include an analysis of whether and how existing authorities may
be better utilized. Once this review is finished, and if warranted,
recommendations will be made for changes in legal authority.
We believe that the majority of the Americans are not aware of the
severity of the invasive species problem in the United States or the
damage that occurs to our natural resources and our economy. We believe
that the coordinated approach, and the interagency cross cut budget and
management plan now underway by the NISC is sound and will lead to
National multi-agency integration of prevention and management
strategies
CONCLUSION
We need research to prevent invasive species from degrading our
locks, dams, and hydropower facilities. We know, for example, that
zebra mussels accelerate the erosion rates at lock structures but we do
not have techniques to coat those structures to prevent the zebra
mussels from becoming attached. Further work needs to be done on
ballast water to prevent the introduction of new species. Again, we are
encouraged by the interagency ballast water management proposal between
the U.S. Geological Survey, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Coast
Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as a part
of the Fiscal Year 2004 invasive species cross cut budget. We would
also recommend further herbicide research to examine slow release
formulations and perform research on target specific types of
herbicides. Natural biocides also need attention as a natural way of
controlling some invasive species. Many of the species that are causing
the greatest economic and ecological impact have natural predators in
their countries of origin that keep the species populations in balance.
Finally, we think it is important that all Federal agencies inform
the public about the economic cost of invasive species and what they
can do to prevent introductions of new species to areas not infected.
We cannot overstate the importance of human intervention. We are
concerned that the U.S. population does not have a true grasp of the
full impact that invasive species have on their day- to- day lives or
understand the economic cost that these species represent. Accordingly,
we think the invasive species public awareness survey proposed by
agencies of the Department of the Interior and Department of
Agriculture as part of the invasive species interagency cross cut
budget will be an important step forward. The survey will increase our
understanding about what the public knows about invasive species, and
inform our decisions to target educational activities that address the
knowledge gaps.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this information. I would
be pleased to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Those buzzers had nothing to do with
it. Mr. Baughman.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BAUGHMAN, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Mr. Baughman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee. My name is John Baughman, and I am the Executive
Vice President of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies. All 50 State wildlife agencies, America
Samoa and Guam are among our members. I appreciate the
opportunity to present our perspectives on the topic raised in
your invitation letter.
The scope of the invasive species problem is large and
growing larger and the issues crisscross the Nation. Giant
salvinias are a significant threat to water conveyance, water
conservation, fishery resources and water based recreation in
the Southwest. Zebra mussels have demonstrated their virulence
with regard to fisheries productivity and diversity in the
Great Lakes. New Zealand mud snails apparently reduce
productivity of western trout streams without providing any
positives, and they have spread to multiple sites in the West,
including Yellowstone Park and the Grand Canyon.
The Association and its member State wildlife agencies
support a comprehensive, coordinated, practical and workable
national management approach that focuses on these species that
are truly invasive and deleterious. We believe emphasis should
be placed upon the prevention and illegal importation and
release, whether it is intentional or accidental, of invasive
species. To that end we must better fund and coordinate Federal
agencies responsible for safeguarding our borders.
We must also address opportunities for partnerships with
State and local agencies to assure better coordination of
preventive accidents. We are concerned about the implementation
of Federal policy for determining which species will be
designated, ``invasive'' in the absence of a well-defined
decisionmaking process that involves the States as appropriate
partners.
Invasive species management must recognize that not all
introduced alien species are deleterious. In fact we
productively manage many introduced species to the benefit of
the people of our States and the Nation. Pheasants and brown
trout are good examples.
A major jurisdictional concern is the potential assertion
of Federal authority over Fish and Wildlife that is not within
Federal purview. A clear process of identifying deleterious
species must be a collaborative effort with the States and
affected stakeholders. We are concerned that strategies
outlined in the National Invasive Species Management Plan may
proceed with a broader interpretation of, ``invasive'' than the
National Invasive Species Council intends.
To adequately protect our borders and effectively respond
to unwanted invasions, partnerships among Federal, State,
tribal and local jurisdictions are essential. We can only mount
effective lines of defense and responses to recognized
invasions if all partners share similar capabilities and are
coordinated in their efforts.
Building the capability and capacity of State and local
partners to respond is a must. Early detection of deleterious
species and a real ability to respond rapidly are also
essential to defend against invasives. We endorse the concept
of rapid response teams, including State, tribal and local
entities. This approach with intended Federal support may
provide the most economical means to eradicate or control
invasive species.
States welcome a well orchestrated Federal leadership role
in addressing invasives that recognizes State authority for
management of resident fish and wildlife and does not attempt
to usurp or control the management of those species under State
jurisdiction. To effectively and appropriately meet the
objectives of Executive Order 13112 and the National Invasive
Species Management Plan, greater emphasis should be placed upon
the partnership and shared authority between the Federal
Government, tribal interests, the States and other effective
stakeholders.
The Association believes that a national approach to
prevention, control and management of invasive species needs to
include nonregulatory incentive driven programs that support
and build capacity at the State and local level and encourage
voluntary cooperation of affected private entities and
communities.
Awareness by the public and industry will be key to
successful prevention and control efforts. The American public
is an educated public, and informed awareness is needed to gain
support for invasive species management coordinated lines of
defense. We need to work better with existing management and
legislative mechanisms before seeking out new pervasive Federal
authorities.
For example, the Lacey Act has been used, as mentioned
before, to help control deleterious species. Other existing
Federal and State laws and regulations should be worked on
before we seek further authorities. A mechanism for
coordinating the activities of Federal agencies already exists
with groups such as the Federal Interagency Committee for the
Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds and the Aquatic Nuisance
Species Task Forces. The Association recommends that
established interagency Committees such as these should be
utilized to their fullest potential by the National Invasive
Species Council.
In closing, the Association and its members look forward to
working with Congress and our Federal, State and local partners
to develop and implement sound national policy for prevention
control and management of invasive species.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baughman follows:]
Statement of John Baughman, Executive Vice-President,
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittees, my name is John
Baughman. I am the Executive Vice-President of the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The Association was founded
in 1902 as a quasi-governmental organization of public agencies charged
with the protection and management of North America's fish and wildlife
resources. The Association's governmental members include the fish and
wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, and Federal Governments of
the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. All 50 states are members. The
Association is a key organization in promoting sound resource
management and strengthening Federal, state, and private cooperation in
protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the
public interest.
As you are aware, the State fish and wildlife agencies have broad
statutory authority and responsibility for the conservation of fish and
wildlife resources within their borders. The states are thus legal
trustees of these public resources with a responsibility to ensure
their vitality and sustainability for present and future citizens of
their States. State authority for fish and resident wildlife remains
the comprehensive backdrop applicable in the absence of specific,
overriding Federal law. The State fish and wildlife agencies thus have
concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal agencies for migratory birds,
threatened and endangered species and anadromous fish. Because of our
responsibility for and vital interest in the conservation of fish and
wildlife resources, we have a significant vested interest in working to
address the problem of invasive species and their impact on fish and
wildlife populations and the terrestrial and aquatic habitats that
support those populations.
The Association appreciates this opportunity to present to the
Subcommittees our perspectives on the four topics raised in you
invitation letter: 1) scope of the invasive species problem; 2) efforts
to control or eradicate invasive species; 3) whether existing statutory
authority is sufficient to stop the expansion; and 4) recommendations
to solve the problem. Recommendations are offered by the Association
throughout the testimony in the hope they will contribute to solving
problems and resolving issues.
Scope of the Problem
The Scope of the problem is large and growing larger. From giant
salvinia to zebra mussel, from round goby to yellow star thistle--- the
issues crisscross the nation. Impacts to fish and wildlife resources
and wildlife-related recreation are both direct and indirect. Giant
salvinia is a significant threat in the southwest to water conveyance,
water conservation, fisheries resources, and water based recreation
(fishing, hunting, and boating). Zebra mussels have demonstrated their
virulence with regard to fisheries productivity and diversity in the
Great Lakes. New Zealand mudsnails apparently reduce productivity of
western trout streams without providing any positives, and they have
spread to multiple sites in the west, including the Grand Canyon.
The numbers provided in your letter of invitation to this hearing
give an idea of the magnitude of the problem. Estimates of over $100
billion in annual losses to the U.S. economy and 5,000 acres of public
wildlife habitat lost each day to noxious weeds underscore the need for
active management efforts to combat invasive species. The Association
and its member state wildlife agencies agree with and support a
comprehensive and coordinated approach to address this issue of
national importance by working together at the national, state and
local levels to implement a practical and workable national management
approach that focuses on those species that are truly invasive and
deleterious.
Efforts to Control and Eradicate Invasive Species
We believe that emphasis should be placed upon the prevention of
illegal importation and release of invasive species into the United
States and its territories, either intentionally or accidentally. Such
prevention, in particular at the borders of our nation, is the key to a
successful national invasive species program. To that end, we must
better fund and coordinate Federal agencies responsible for
safeguarding our borders from invasive species. We are very supportive
of this kind of funding. We must also address opportunities for
partnerships with state and local agencies to assure better
coordination of prevention activities.
Management of pathways (the means and routes by which invasive
species are imported and introduced into new environments) is the most
efficient way to address the unintentional introduction of invasive
species. The Association supports efforts underway to identify high-
risk invasive species pathways and to develop effective technology and
education programs to reduce the threat of introduction.
We are concerned about the implementation of invasive species
policy in the absence of a well-defined process. Although numerous
attempts have been made to better define and qualify ``invasive
species,'' the definition is still in question. Invasive species
management must recognize that not all introduced or alien species are
invasive. In fact, we productively manage many introduced species to
the benefit of the people of our states and of the nation. We are
concerned with the implementation of policy that lacks a clear process
for determining which species will be designated ``invasive'' and the
identification of a predictable decision-making framework for making
this designation. This is particularly important to our member states,
who have responsibilities for managing resident fish and wildlife. A
clear jurisdictional concern is the potential assertion of Federal
authority over wildlife that is clearly not within Federal purview. A
clear process must be described by which we will identify the ``bad
actors.'' A clear process, if applied to resident wildlife, must be a
collaborative process with the States and affected stakeholders. We are
concerned that strategies outlined in the National Invasive Species
Management Plan may proceed with a broader and inappropriate
interpretation of ``invasive'', broader than perhaps even the National
Invasive Species Council intends.
To adequately protect our borders and effectively respond to
invasions, partnerships among Federal, state, tribal, and local
jurisdictions are essential. A national approach to addressing the
invasive species problem must include improving expertise and building
capacity at the State and local level. We can only mount effective
lines of defense and responses to recognized invasions if allied forces
share similar capabilities and are coordinated in their efforts.
Building the capability and capacity of State and local partners to
respond is essential.
Prevention is the best defense, but it's difficult because we don't
always know the ``bad actors.'' Early detection of bad actors once
introduced is essential to the defense strategy with a real ability to
respond rapidly. We support the concept of rapid response teams as long
as their actions are conducted in close cooperation with, and include,
state, tribal, and local entities. This approach, with attendant
funding from the Federal Government, may provide the most economical
approach to eradication or control of established invasive species.
Federal regulation compliance issues need to be addressed in order to
permit rapid response teams to battle invasive species aggressively and
effectively. Existing Federal compliance requirements can delay and
impede a response to what the National Invasive Species Management Plan
terms an ``emergency'', thereby rendering the response ineffective.
The importance of a multi-jurisdictional approach to prevent,
detect, control, and eradicate invasive species cannot be overstated.
Because some Federal lands or resources on those lands are managed
either by or in cooperation with state agencies, potential conflicts
could occur if a clearly defined process is not established to require
cooperation between partners. Similarly, where Federal lands are
adjacent to state or tribal lands, invasive species management plans
must complement one another to ensure effectiveness.
We have serious concerns about implications of invasive species
management on legal jurisdictions and sovereign authorities. State fish
and wildlife agencies have primary authority and responsibility for
resident fish and wildlife species and any preemption of state
authority must, of course, emanate from Congress and not by Executive
Order. States would welcome a well-orchestrated Federal leadership role
in addressing invasive species that recognizes state sovereignty and
does not attempt to usurp or control the management of those species
under state jurisdiction. To effectively and appropriately meet the
objectives of Executive Order 13112 and the National Invasive Species
Management Plan, greater emphasis should be placed upon the partnership
and shared authorities between the Federal Government, tribal
interests, the states, and other affected stakeholders. The Association
supports the adoption by the Invasive Species Advisory Council, an
advisory committee that supports the National Invasive Species Council,
of guidelines for successful Federal/State partnerships to combat
invasive species.
The Association believes that a national approach to prevention,
control and management of invasive species needs to include non-
regulatory and incentive driven programs that support and build
capacity at the State and regional level, and encourage voluntary
cooperation of affected private entities and communities. Awareness by
the public and industry will be essential to successful prevention and
control efforts. The American public is an educated public, and
informed awareness is essential to gaining their support for invasive
species management and implementation of coordinated lines of defense.
Our messages need to be consistent and understandable.
Adequacy of Existing Statutory Authority
We need to work with existing management and legislative mechanisms
to effectively implement them before seeking out new and pervasive
Federal authorities. While we may have ineffectively implemented the
Lacey Act to date, it does offer a process for making a determination
that a species is ``injurious.'' Making the Lacey Act and other
existing Federal and state authorities effective should be the first
step in closing gaps. During the last Congress, the Association
supported timely reauthorization and improvement of the Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 as amended by the
National Invasive Species Act of 1996. We were encouraged by the
addition of provisions that provided funding to states for early
detection, pre-screening of intentional introductions, development of
state or regional rapid response plans, and stronger monitoring
efforts, which are needed for effective state management actions. We
understand that substantially similar legislation has been introduced
in this Congress and the Association will be reviewing the legislation
with the hope that reauthorization can be accomplished in a timely
manner.
A mechanism for coordinating the activities of Federal agencies
already exists with groups such as the Federal Interagency Committee
for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW) and the
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Forces (ANS). The Association recommends
that established interagency committees such as FICMNEW and ANS should
be utilized to their fullest potential by the National Invasive Species
Council.
The Association and its member agencies look forward to working
with Congress and our Federal state and local partners, including
private individuals and NGOs to develop a truly collaborative approach
to implementing sound national policy for invasive species, and a
predictable process for identification of the species invasions that we
must address together.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I am happy to answer any
questions that you or other Committee members might have.
______
Mr. Saxton. Thank you all for sharing your thoughts with us
this morning. We obviously appreciate it very much because we
look at this, as you do, as a very important set of subjects.
Let me ask this question. As legislators, when we want to solve
a problem we oftentimes look for a new law or new set of laws
or new initiatives of some kind, and this subject has been on
the minds of legislators and others for quite some time. As a
matter of fact, our staff has compiled a list of legislative
initiatives which resulted in laws, administrative initiatives
which resulted in regulations of one kind or another, which we
have listed here, and we have been able to identify 23 sets of
efforts to deal with these issues. And I am not sure that we
have made any significant progress over the broad range of
issues that face us that we generally refer to as invasive
species.
So what do you see as--do we need to kind of start at
ground zero and review everything that we have done and throw
out some of the stuff that doesn't work or what is the problem?
We need money? And I am looking inward. I am not looking
outward at you. I am trying to identify where it is that we
need to go, and I would be interested in your thoughts.
Before I do that, it has been suggested that the folks
standing in the back and I know there are more folks standing
in the hallway, if you folks would like to come up and take
these seats in the U-shaped lower tier here, so to speak. And
if somebody would like to inform the folks in the hall that
there is newly available standing room.
I can name just a few of these 23 items, the Alien Species
Prevention and Enforcement Act, the Animal Damage Control Act,
the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Seed Act, the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the Lacey Act, the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, the
National Invasive Species Act, the Plant Protection Act, the
Organic Act, the Water Resources Development Act, the Wild Bird
Conservation Act, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. These have
all been well meaning efforts, and here we are having another
hearing trying to figure out how to deal with this problem.
What do we need to do?
Dr. Theriot. Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in the
aquatic nuisance species prevention and control activities for
many years. I think we have plenty authority, but we need to
coordinate their efforts. There was a study done as part of the
Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control Act for
intentional introductions where it looked at all authorities
and tried to coordinate and make recommendations to this
Committee and Congress. And I think that needs to be picked up
again and looked at and maybe refined. But we do need
coordination and we need authority to act.
I think one of the biggest--from my perspective and our
authority within the Corps of Engineers protecting inland
waterways, we need some authority, not just the Corps but all
agencies, to rapidly respond to early detection of newly
introduced invasive species to allow us to get there quickly
and eradicate it when it is possible. Often we run into
obstacles where Federal interest is in conflict with state
authorities. We need to work in partnership with the States to
act.
Mr. Saxton. I am told here that the National Invasive
Species Council is currently conducting an evaluation on
current legal authorities relevant to endangered species to
determine whether existing authorities are sufficient or can be
better utilized. Tell us about this National Invasive Species
Council, this initiative, and when their work might be
completed.
Dr. Tate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Invasive Species
Council is one of the things that we are doing right. We need
to take the Invasive Species Council and expand it to include
State efforts, tribal efforts and in the name of cooperation
and coordination, communication, the Secretary's four Cs. The
existing legislative authorizations are in the management plan
and this is the management plan which I am sure you have seen
on other occasions. There is a list here of legislative
authorities currently extant. We have as one of our tasks to
look at whether we need more and we need better coordination.
The Council is the right place to do it, we believe, and it is
the right place to do it in an expanded fashion.
Mr. Saxton. I won't push this question from you now but I
would like to talk maybe in a less formal setting about how we
might enhance the capabilities of the Council if that is what
you are saying we need to do. It certainly seems to be a
logical way to move forward. Let me ask you a question just
from my personal experience. The question is this: If a species
from domestic United States from the West Coast, such as salmon
were introduced on the East Coast, would it be considered an
invasive species?
Dr. Tate. A species out of its original normal range and in
a new range, when it becomes invasive, starts to affect our
economy and the plant and animal communities, the answer is
yes.
Mr. Saxton. Is there a way to control--just take that
example. Somebody years ago, and that is why I am asking the
question, somebody years ago decided they wanted to introduce
some species of salmon in the Delaware River and some of us
from New Jersey and Pennsylvania were very much concerned that
it might do something to the balance of nature, if you will,
and be invasive in the Delaware River. How do we control those
kinds of introductions of species that may not be native to an
area.
Dr. Tate. Putting this in the light of your earlier
question about legislative authorities, the answer to your
specific example is we probably don't know how and when it
might become invasive, or if it would become a useful addition
to the fish fauna in the Chesapeake or the Delaware Bay. We
don't know that.
One of the things you asked about earlier is what
legislation in that list you have there--for example, there is
the tamarisk bill that is coming from Colorado right now and we
do need research on tamarisk. We have to understand how and why
it became invasive. We need to understand how in your example
that salmon in the Chesapeake or Delaware Bay would become
invasive or if it would.
These are things we simply don't know at this time. But the
most important thing probably is something I failed to mention
earlier. We have a handout on our performance-based budget,
crosscut budget, that I would like to enter into the record if
I may. What it does is it uses the money that you already are
providing for this in the most effective possible way. It is
something I failed to ask you if I could put that in the record
earlier.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. My time has expired. Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
panel's testimonies. I seem to be getting the impression--I
want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us an overview,
given the fact that there are some 23 already statutory
legislation on the part of the Congress addressing the very
issue.
I would be the last person to question your expertise, Dr.
Tate, as a scientist, but I need your help because I'm getting
somewhat of a contradictory statement from your remarks to the
extent that you say that on the one hand we know very little
about invasive species; at least that is what I seem to get
from your statement. Then on the other hand you immediately
say, but we do know it costs $20 to $100 billion a year for
this problem. I would like to know from your statement if I am
depicting this in a correct fashion.
I will say this. I am surprised, if this is the position of
the Department of the Interior, that you know very little about
invasive species; but how can we equate that if you are saying
at the same time it is costing our people $20 to $100 billion
for losses in economic well-being because of invasive species?
Can you help me with that?
Dr. Tate. I will certainly try. You are correct that it
does cost us at least $100 billion a year--us, the economy of
the United States, our ability to keep the engines of commerce
going, to achieve the lifestyle we have achieved here in the
United States. That cost is to all of us, and one of the points
I was making is that cost is because of all of us. What we are
spending, actually spending, is a very, very small percentage
of that--of public and private dollars, a very small percentage
is actually being spent.
How can we spend it effectively? I think one way of getting
at what is effective in this small amount that we do spend on
this very large problem is through the crosscut budget effort
that we are making. Another is to have focused and coordinated
research on specific things. It is in that context that we
don't know enough. The best way to manage, for example--
Mr. Faleomavaega. Let me proceed because of my time, Dr.
Tate. Maybe you could also respond to this question I have.
Among all the Federal agencies, USDA, the Department of the
Interior, the Department of Commerce, the Corps of Engineers,
and probably even the Department of Defense and even the State
Department, which Federal agency of all the agencies have more
application of resources addressing this very issue of invasive
species?
Dr. Tate. If you are directing the question to me, we spend
about $38 million in Interior, which is 5 percent of the total
Federal investment.
Mr. Faleomavaega. No, no. I'm saying which--and please
don't get me wrong, I'm not addressing this to you
specifically, to all the other gentlemen--which of all the
Federal agencies have the responsibility of having to deal with
this issue more than any other? Is the Department of the
Interior the one that is faced with this issue more so than any
other agency or what? Maybe Agriculture? I don't know. Could
you give us your best opinion on this?
Dr. Lambert. The Department of Agriculture probably has the
largest share of the budget attributed to invasive species
management. The range is from weeds to invasive animals to
diseases, and so it is a broad range of invasives that affect
not only agriculture but the natural resource base as well.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Dr. Lambert, maybe you can help me then.
What resources are at the Department of Agriculture addressing
this issue of invasive species, since it seems that your agency
more than any other Federal agency is the one faced with this
problem? Do you believe that there are enough resources
committed in addressing the issue of invasive species as far as
the Department of Agriculture is concerned?
Dr. Lambert. As always, there are never enough resources, I
guess is the simple answer. But there are resources there that
can be brought to play. We have improved our--
Mr. Faleomavaega. How much are we committing in resources
moneywise? You can submit that for the record. I'm sorry.
Dr. Lambert. We'll get back to you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. My time is getting short. I really enjoy
this. I want to join the Chairman, gentlemen, that if this is
really a real, serious issue, if it is costing the American
people $20 to $100 billion, would you agree that we need to set
up some kind of national policy through Federal legislation if
this is the only best possible procedure on how we could
address this issue? Or do you think we ought to continue
saying, let's do preventive issues with the least cost as
suggested by some of you in your statements? How can we do that
if we are really serious about addressing the issue? Or is the
issue serious in itself? Is it really a serious national crisis
that we have to address this? Or are we going to continue
holding hearings for the next weeks, months, and years, just as
the Chairman had said?
We have already put 23 things in place and I don't know if
we are in sync. Maybe it is our fault. But in developing a
national policy, should we develop a Federal statute, a Federal
law to coordinate this? Or are we just going to be adding more
problems than the problem that now exists? I would like your
honest opinions on this.
Dr. Lambert. From our viewpoint, the species that crop up
are not the ones where we have line item, ongoing budgets to
address. A year ago we didn't know we were going to have exotic
Newcastle disease in California. Three years ago we didn't know
we were going to have the Asian longhorned beetle in New York.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I know my time is up. Just one question,
Dr. Lambert, because I think you are the point man here. I
sense it. You are the point man. We might even be in the wrong
Committee hearing room, OK? You are the point man. Tell me
honestly, Dr. Lambert, with all the things we have said and the
statements that all of you have presented in an excellent way,
what is your suggestion of how we could develop this national
policy since, after all, USDA seems to be having the full load
on this responsibility?
Dr. Lambert. It still gets back to coordination,
cooperation, communication.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I could not agree with you more on that,
Dr. Lambert. What is the solution?
Dr. Lambert. Continued vigilance. Addressing these early.
Vigilance at the ports to stop them from being introduced. If
possible--
Mr. Faleomavaega. Like Homeland Security? Let's develop
Homeland Security. Do you think that this is the level that we
should develop this serious policy?
Dr. Lambert. There are roughly 4,000 positions at Homeland
Security that are dedicated to protecting the ports of entry;
2,400 of those were at Agriculture. The others came from
Immigration--INS.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, my time is up and I
apologize.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. It was an interesting line of
questioning. I just would like to add for the record in case
somebody may read this later, the Federal activities involving
obligations of invasive species activities--just let me read
this real quickly: The Department of Agriculture in the year
2000 spent $556 million, Interior spent $31 million, Defense
spent $14 million, State spent $9 million, Commerce spent $5
million, National Science Foundation spent $5 million,
Department of Transportation spent $4 million. There are some
others of lesser amounts. In spite of the fact that it is
costing us a lot of money in losses, we are making some
financial commitment to it.
Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
follow up with the funding here, because I think both the
Chairman and my colleague from American Samoa have kind of hit
the nail on the head. You mentioned, some of you, about
coordination. Does that mean that some agencies are not really
aware of others, what they are doing? Is that what you are
saying? Is there a task force or a panel of some kind that
includes all of your agencies? What is the name of that task
force or panel where you all sit down at a table and discuss
these problems?
Dr. Lambert. The National Invasive Species Council is the
one that brings the departments and agencies together, and then
internally we have coordinating mechanisms for the agencies
within the Department.
Ms. Bordallo. So then you are coordinated, is that correct?
Dr. Lambert. Absolutely.
Ms. Bordallo. The other thing is, I don't know, does
anybody have--maybe it is the Department of Agriculture that
would have a handle on the moneys part, the funding for
different problems? Because I come from a territory. We have
been inundated with the brown tree snake now for years. We are
very grateful and thank you very much to the Federal Government
for the assistance they have given us, but the problem is still
there. It has a tremendous economic impact on our island
because we depend on tourism, and nobody is going to come to an
island where there are brown tree snakes hanging from the
trees, so they say. But Hawaii and Guam are impacted. I don't
know about American Samoa as yet, but it is probably only a
matter of time. Is there going to be additional funding for
this? Does anybody have a handle on how much money?
Dr. Lambert. There is $400,000 in the 2003 budget for brown
tree snake control. APHIS does have people on the ground in
Guam that can coordinate with the Department of Defense and a
whole variety of control measures for the brown tree snake.
Ms. Bordallo. Is that the entire amount, $400,000?
Dr. Lambert. That is what is in the 2003 budget; yes,
ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. That is what is left over or has it already
been expended, do you know that? What about the 2004 budget, do
you have anything set aside? At one time there were millions of
dollars.
Dr. Lambert. There is also money in the Department of
Defense budget, $1 million. This is the USDA APHIS portion.
Ms. Bordallo. Could any of you just give me some idea of
what the funding will be, what is left for 2003 and what is
anticipated for 2004? My office would greatly appreciate that.
Dr. Tate. We would be happy to provide those numbers for
you and get back to you with it.
Dr. Tate. The Department of Interior, the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of Defense all contribute to that
effort. We just recently had a typhoon on Guam, if I recall,
and it was quite devastating. Among the things that happened
was it took down all the barriers that kept the brown tree
snakes from getting into the ports, into the airport, into the
harbor areas. When those things were down, there was another
effort being made in other places like Hawaii that was very,
very important and that was the interdiction that my associate
Dr. Lambert just referred to. That interdiction temporarily
kept, as far as we know, brown tree snakes out of Hawaii while
our defenses were down on Guam.
Those kinds of things are not necessarily budgeted but are
efforts that are cooperative under the National Invasive
Species Council's efforts.
Ms. Bordallo. To set this record straight, we had two
typhoons, 5 months apart, super typhoons. We are in dire need
of assistance. I would appreciate if you could give us some
idea of what is being done, what is going to be done, and the
funding that is going to be allocated to the territory of Guam.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. Very good.
Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize
to our witnesses for arriving late and missing most of your
testimony. I do know that there are probably more resources
that could be applied in any program over any period of time
that are needed. There is always room for more resources, no
matter what program you are in is what I am trying to say.
My question to you is--and I will just throw this one out
there--is how do you in the government deal with the
eradication of the species, whether it be flora, fauna, or
animal, when that species is cute and cuddly, whether it is the
coqui frog in California or something like that? How do you
deal with that? It's an invasive species. Public uproar has
oftentimes been a wedge between the eradication effort and
doing nothing. How do you deal with that? I will just let
anyone who wants to answer that question deal with the public
effort on that.
Dr. Brandt. I'll speak, because we deal with things
underwater and don't really deal with cute and cuddly things. I
think education is a key component to that. I think the whole
issue with the zebra mussel and stopping the spread of that
animal from lake to lake was through extensive education
efforts, largely through the NOAA Sea Grant Program and others.
I think you need to educate the public on exactly what that
animal is doing in the system.
Mr. Gibbons. Sometimes you get one of these cute and cuddly
little leopards out there that the public believes is so
important, so critical to the future of their children's
happiness that they won't let you get rid of it. No matter what
you do we can't--I know we had some kind of a pike fish in one
of the northern California lakes near the district that I
represent, that the public uproar over killing the fish
actually brought it to a halt compared to the death and
destruction that fish was doing to the other native species
that were in the area in that lake. So that would be an
underwater species that you deal with.
You obviously get into the same sort of public opinion
which makes your life, your goal, your work, your effort, far
more difficult than it should be and probably spend much of
your time in lawsuits, in court trying to deal with those
issues versus actually applying the resources to the
eradication of the species. I just would like to hear from the
other agencies, whether it is the Department of Agriculture or
the Interior, what you do when it gets down to cute and cuddly
species that are invasive.
Mr. Baughman. Mr. Chairman, I can't speak of invasives from
the Federal standpoint, but certainly being a former State
wildlife director, we dealt with all the cuddly--from grizzly
bears and mountain lions to squirrels. It is one of those
things that is a necessity of human/wildlife, of human/plant
conflicts, that there has to be some control actions at times
that are not very popular. You usually have people who are 180
degrees polarized on every one of these issues. Usually the
agency people end up right between them. We always try not to
make those spectator sports, act very professionally, very
directly, and try to keep the people informed but try not to
make public spectacles of these things.
I think this brings up an interesting point, though, that
these programs are largely going to be developed and
implemented on the ground locally by people that people in your
communities know. This is why I stressed the need for
coordination with the States. To be successful we are going to
be more effective with our money and more popular with our
programs to have the things delivered locally by the entities
that already exist, though they do not exist in the
capabilities and capacities right now to handle some of these
new emerging problems. I would just strongly recommend that we
increase those local capabilities and capacities to handle
those things through the existing mechanism and through the
people that your people in those communities know right now and
that we will be far more successful. You won't get away from
that cuddly aspect, though. It is not a popular thing when you
are destroying cuddly creatures.
Mr. Saxton. I would like to thank each of you for your
participation here this afternoon. We have a lengthy agenda.
We will move on to the next panel. Actually Mr. Gibbons is
going to take the chair for the next panel so that I can tend
to some other things. Thank you again for being here. If the
members of the second panel would take their places as soon as
this panel vacates, we would appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbons. [Presiding.] If we could get the next panel
seated at the table so we could move this hearing along, it
would be appreciated.
Ladies and gentlemen, for those of you wishing to carry on
cordial conversations, we would appreciate you taking those
conversations out to the hall so we can get the next panel
seated. I will introduce the next panel while they are being
seated. It will be Mr. G. Ray Arnett, former Assistant
Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks from the Department of
Interior; Mr. Bill Pauli, President, California Farm Bureau
Federation; Ms. Myra Bradford Hyde, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association; Mr. John P. Connelly, President, National
Fisheries Institute; Mr. John T. Shannon, State Forester of
Arkansas, on behalf of the National Association of State
Foresters; and Dr. Phyllis N. Windle, Senior Scientist, Union
of Concerned Scientists.
I would remind our witnesses that we try to limit your
remarks to 5 minutes each. Your full and complete statement
will be entered into the record. So if you want to summarize
and highlight the more salient aspects of your testimony, I
would encourage that. As I said, your testimony will be entered
in its complete written form into the record. I am not sure who
to begin with here but I would start with Mr. G. Ray Arnett,
for opening remarks. Mr. Arnett.
STATEMENT OF G. RAY ARNETT, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH
AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Arnett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. Due to the time limitation, I would like to have my
full remarks entered into the record.
Mr. Gibbons. Without objection.
Mr. Arnett. Thank you. My name is G. Ray Arnett, and I
hasten to add that other than sharing the same surname, former
MSNBC commentator Peter Arnett is not a relation of mine. I
want to make that clear.
I reside in Stockton, California and am one of the many
happy constituents of the Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman of
the House Committee on Resources. My almost six-decade career
in wildlife and national resources issues include serving
President Ronald Reagan as Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks in the Department of the Interior where the
two major agencies under my jurisdiction were the National Park
Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Prior to that, former Governor Ronald Reagan appointed me
the Director of the California Department of Fish and Game, and
I served in that capacity during both of the Governor's
administrations, 1968 to 1975. The environmental agendas that
we implemented during those years encouraged farmers, ranchers,
and other private landowners to develop, maintain, and enhance
wildlife habitat on privately owned land. Those benefits
continue to this day and serve as excellent examples of public
benefits that flow from private land ownership without
government intervention or funding.
Before arriving in Washington, D.C. in 1980, I had
volunteered 18 years of service to the National Wildlife
Federation as a member of the board of directors, including two
terms as the Federation's President-elect. I was a founder of
the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation and the Congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus. I also was a founder and CEO of the U.S.
Sportsmen Alliance, which was formerly the Wildlife Legislative
Fund of America, and the Wildlife Conservation Fund of America.
During World War II it was my privilege to defend America's
freedoms, including the right to own private property, when
serving as an enlisted man and as an officer for 4-1/2 years
with the United States Marine Corps, and another 3 years when
recalled to active duty during the Korean conflict.
As Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, I
watched helplessly as the Endangered Species Act, that
laudable, well-intentioned law, became the victim of mission
creep by zealots, not only in the Federal bureaucracy but by
the defenders of wildlife, the Environmental Defense Fund, the
Humane Society of the United States, the Nature Conservancy,
the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and a number of other
environmental and animal rights nongovernmental organizations
that historically have opposed the consumptive use of renewable
resources.
Let us not repeat the mistakes of the Endangered Species
Act, an Act that history has painfully shown--has been bad for
wildlife, bad for ranchers, bad for farmers and bad for private
landowners, and bad for our Nation's economic health.
I conclude with the following four recommendations:
The first recommendation is to enact no legislation
establishing a Federal agency for the control of invasive
species. Federal and State administrators already have adequate
authority as some of those Members of the Congress just named
23 of them. The last one that I can remember was the
Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000.
If my first recommendation is accepted, to have no invasive
species act, then the need for my other recommendations are not
there. But in case my first recommendation is not accepted, my
second recommendation is that if an invasive species act is
created, the enabling legislation must include language
requiring written permission from the landowner before entering
the landowner's property to conduct a survey, the landowner
must be provided with a copy of all the data obtained in that
survey. The United States Constitution demands that individual
rights of our citizens, which include property rights, must be
safeguarded. Enabling legislation, therefore, must include
language ensuring that the constitutional guarantee is
guaranteed.
My third recommendation is that the term ``nonindigenous''
and another term, ``nonnative,'' not be included in the
enabling legislation. To avoid any doubt when listing species
for control or eradication, the appropriate terms to use are
``harmful'' and ``noxious,'' without specifying whether they
are indigenous, nonindigenous or nonnative.
My fourth and final recommendation is the term ``invasive
species'' must be clearly defined. Under the Endangered Species
Act, for example, the term ``species'' has become corrupted.
Did legislators intend the Endangered Species Act to include
listing subspecies, races, subpopulations, population segments
and even distinct population segments? I think not.
To prevent that type of abuse, with invasive species, the
legislation must specify species only, eliminate the word
``invasive'' in exchange for the words ``noxious'' and/or
``harmful''; then include the phrase ``whether native or
nonnative to any ecosystem.''
With those modest recommendations, there should be fewer
objections to and less doubt about the intent of invasive
species legislation.
That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I thank the
members for their attention and for providing me this
opportunity to express my opposition to additional Federal
legislation and/or regulations to control species of harmful
plants and animals.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Arnett.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arnett follows:]
Statement of G. Ray Arnett, Stockton, California, former Assistant
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the
Interior
Mr. Chairmen, thank you for the invitation to testify before you
today. Your invitation is greatly appreciated.
My name is G. Ray Arnett, and I hasten to add, other than sharing
the same surname, former MS/NBC TV news commentator, Peter Arnett, is
not, and I repeat not, related to me.
I reside in Stockton, CA, and am a happy constituent of the House
Committee on Resources Chairman, Richard Pombo, who has earned great
respect during his years in Congress, and enjoys an enormous following
of supporters among residents of California's 11th Congressional
District.
My almost six-decade career in wildlife and natural resources
issues, include serving President Ronald Reagan as Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, where the
two major agencies under my jurisdiction were the National Park Service
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Prior to that, former Governor Ronald Reagan appointed me as the
Director, California's Department of Fish and Game. I served in that
capacity during both of the governor's administrations--1968 to 1975.
I am especially pleased with the environmental agenda we were able
to implement during those years, and the successes we had with programs
that encourage ranchers, farmers, and other private landowners to
develop, maintain, and enhance wildlife habitat on privately owned
land. Those benefits continue to this day, and they serve as excellent
examples of public benefits that flow from private land ownership
without government intervention or funding.
Before coming to Washington, D.C. in 1980 to serve President Reagan
again, I had given 18 years of volunteer service to the National
Wildlife Federation (NWF) (1962-1980) as a member of the board of
directors, including two terms as the Federation's president-elect
(1976-78). I was a founder of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, and
the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus Foundation, and a founder and CEO
of The U.S. Sportsmen Alliance, (formerly the Wildlife Legislative Fund
of America, and the Wildlife Conservation Fund of America ) (1978-
1980).
Prior to my professional career and commitment to wildlife
resources and the environment it was my privileged to help defend
America's freedoms, including the right to own private property, when
serving as an enlisted man and an officer for 4 1/2 years with the U.S.
Marine Corps during WWII, and another three years when recalled to
active duty during for the Korean Conflict.
As Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks during the
Reagan Administration, long after the ESA was enacted in 1973, I
watched helplessly as that laudable, well-intentioned law became the
victim of ``mission-creep'' by zealots, not only in the Federal
bureaucracy, but also The Humane Society of the U. S., The Sierra Club,
The Nature Conservancy, The Wilderness Society, and a number other
NGO's.
The Endangered Species Act, as the name implies, was enacted to
protect species of flora and fauna that were thought to be in danger of
extinction. Okay, but soon ``mission-creep'' became involved to the
point that not only was the species listed, but then their subspecies,
then their races, then their populations, then distinct populations,
and even population segments.
Let us not repeat the mistakes of the Endangered Species Act--an
Act that history painfully shows is bad for wildlife, bad for ranchers,
bad for farmers, bad for private property landowners, and bad for our
nation's economic health.
Generated by extreme environmentalists, ``mission-driven creep''
set in, and under mandates of the Endangered Species Act, private
landowner abuses became the rule rather than the exception. It is
beyond common sense to entertain a notion to provide Federal agencies
and mission-oriented NGOs, additional authority to go after flora and
fauna species that were not known to exist in North America to welcome
the Pilgrims arriving at Plymouth Rock.
Legislation or regulations concerning invasive species must be
devoid of the ``native/non-native'' designation. Non-indigenous species
should be evaluated on whether they are likely to cause economic or
environmental harm or be harmful to human health.
For example, the Noxious Weed Control Act of 2003 (S. 144 ES),
introduced by Senator Craig, a man who I admire greatly, and a number
of other bills pending, include in their language the ill-defined term
``non-native'' to an ecosystem. In other words, pre-Christopher
Columbus, and this troubles me.
Many flora and fauna species are non-native and they are
beneficial. Surely, invasive species legislation must not be intended
to eradicate beneficial non-native species. Therefore, invasive, or
non-native, species must be weighed against known beneficial utility
and desirability
Federal agencies need no additional authority to control invasive
species. Such authority already is available. There is no need to
create another costly, wasteful, dictatorial layer of Federal
bureaucracy by enacting invasive species legislation, only with the
hope that it might, someday, prevent or eradicate plant and animal
invasive species detrimental to our environment.
Let us not set into motion another system that creates another
bureaucratic Frankenstein to run roughshod over the Constitutional
rights of American citizens, while knowing there is strong doubt that
it could even marginally improve the problems that already exist with
unwanted harmful species.
In the eye of the beholder, the term ``invasive species'' is
mischievously subjective. As mentioned above, not all invasive species
are unwelcome, nor do all invasive species cause harm. America's
sportsmen pump billions of dollars into the American economy,
harvesting and managing desirable non-native (invasive) species such as
ringneck pheasants that flourish in my state of California and
throughout the Great Plains; chukar partridges in the Rockies and all
of our Western states; brown trout virtually anywhere in U.S. inland
waters; striped bass along the shores of the Pacific Ocean and in the
rivers and streams of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and salmon in
the Great Lakes.
In California alone, there are many other beneficial species, of
wildlife that historically are not native to the state, such as the
wild turkey, whitetail ptarmigan, eastern gray squirrel, rock dove, and
mute swan, to mention a few. Indeed, carrying the invasive species
logic to extreme, the horse and beef cattle are invasive species,
regardless of their benefit to man. The list is extensive, and it
concerns me that there are no safeguards to prevent an overzealous
invasive species czar from eradicating these desirable species, because
they might, someday, be thought to ``endanger'' native, pre-Columbus,
flora and fauna.
In closing, the recommendations I have to offer are as follows:
1) If my first recommendation is accepted then there is no need for
the others. My recommendation is that no legislation be enacted that
will establish a Federal agency to focus on invasive species of wild
animals and plants. Federal and state administrators responsible for
taking care of problems caused by harmful and noxious species already
have adequate authority provided in the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1970, the National Forest and Management Act of 1976, the
Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1982, the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1987, and The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000
(Title IV), to name but a few. Additional legislation creating a costly
and larger Federal bureaucracy, especially one with interagency status,
to handle harmful, species, is not only wasteful it is unneeded. No new
law is needed. There are laws and then there is action. What is needed
is action.
2) In the event my first recommendation is unaccepted, my next
recommendation is that enabling legislation must include language
requiring Federal agencies, private organizations, and/or NGO's, to
receive written permission from the landowner, not just a renter or
lessee, before entering the landowner's property to conduct a survey,
and the landowner is to receive all data obtained in a survey on his or
her property
Some who oppose this requirement are sure to claim that it is
unconstitutional to require landowner written permission. Nevertheless,
many well-informed scholars, distinguished constitutional lawyers, and
I disagree. The United States Constitution unmistakably affirms,
leaving no doubt, that the individual rights of United States citizens
must be safeguarded.
Without landowner consent, the rights of private property owners
have been trampled with impunity. The ESA has given the bureaucracy
extraordinary power and authority to trespass and impose terms and
conditions, dictating how an owner may or may not manage his or her
land. American citizens, hard working, taxpaying individuals, your
constituents, have been severely restricted in the use of, and denied
access to, many thousand acres of public land managed and controlled by
the Federal Government but belonging to the people.
Private property has been taken without fair and equitable
compensation. Property owners have been threatened with fines and/or
imprisonment for not adhering to ESA mandates. To get a fair trial
requires lengthy lawsuits and attorney expenses the average citizen
cannot afford, therefore, no contest. Government attorneys are paid by
the taxpayers; government has time to wait and wear down landowners to
the point that landowners finally give up or their property is
condemned. Government wins by default. I feel certain that these abuses
can be and will be compounded further by invasive species legislation
creating another Federal agency to enforce actions against private
property owners.
3) My third recommendation is based on my belief that the terms
``non-indigenous'' and ``non-native'' should not to occur in the
listing of invasive species targeted for special attention. ``Noxious''
and/or ``harmful'' are the appropriate words. Even the term
``invasive,'' for that matter, should not be used due to its ``non-
native,'' nebulous definition in Executive Order No. 13112. Further, to
ensure the intent of invasive species legislation is not misunderstood
or abused, intentionally or unintentionally, I recommend that the
enabling language include the phrase ``whether native or non-native to
any ecosystem.'' With those changes and the additional phrase, there
will be fewer objections to and less doubt about the intent of new
invasive species legislation.
Before listing any animal or plant, however, a full Risk Assessment
for any species proposed for any category of regulatory, advisory, or
``educational'' listing must include an economic and environmental
assessment of what the negative impact might be when listing species
currently available commercially and as game animals utilized by sport
hunters, trappers, and anglers.
In reference to the Executive Order mentioned above the problem I
see with the term ``invasive'' is due to its unclear, circular
definitions in Executive Order No. 13112, Section 1, Definitions, (f).
``Invasive species'' itself is defined as ``alien'' in that document,
which in turn refers to ``native'' and ``a particular ecosystem.'' The
definition in the Executive Order precludes precise meaning.
My fourth and final recommendation is:
4) Because a wildlife species is not indigenous, not native, nor
pre-Christopher Columbus, if you like, that is no criterion for listing
it for extermination. So, rather than using the term ``invasive
species,'' I am suggesting it is far better to use the terms ``noxious
species'' and/or ``harmful species.'' Those two words, ``noxious'' and
``harmful,'' are the appropriate and preferred terms. They are precise
in their meaning, leaving no question about what invasive species
legislation intends Only species that are noxious and harmful,
regardless of origin, will be listed for control or eradication.
The problems created by not identifying precisely the intent of
legislation and the goals to be accomplished became obvious to me as I
watched the intentional misuse of the Endangered Species Act. For
example, when ESA was enacted, the term ``species,'' was not
sufficiently defined to limit flora and fauna for listing. Because of
that, the Act's intent has become tarnished and abused.
The ESA, as I am sure you know, was intended to be an effort to
save species of flora and fauna from extinction. I suspect most
legislators supporting endangered species legislation had in mind
saving the Bald Eagle and whales. I emphasize the word ``species'' for
a purpose. In retrospect, there is doubt that Congressional Members
suspected the Act would include the listing of subspecies, much less
races, populations, subpopulations, population segments, and even
distinct population segments? Nevertheless, that is where the Act has
taken us today.
What guarantee do we have that an Invasive Species Act will not be
abused to such a ridiculous degree, too, unless the intent and language
of the Act is precise and clearly defined, leaving no room for
misunderstanding or abuse, unintended or otherwise? At this time, there
are no guarantees.
This concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I thank each Member for
their attention and for providing me the opportunity to express my
opposition to invasive species legislation and/or additional, unneeded
regulations to control harmful plant and wildlife species.
I will be happy to answer your questions if I can.
______
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Bill Pauli, you are next. I understand
that you are under a time constraint. We will understand right
after your remarks if you have to leave. That is fine, but we
would entertain your remarks at this point.
STATEMENT OF BILL PAULI, PRESIDENT,
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
Mr. Pauli. It is no problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did
submit written comments for the record. Thank you very much for
having me here this afternoon.
I am Bill Pauli, representing the American Farm Bureau. I
am a member of the American Farm Bureau board of directors and
President of the California Farm Bureau. I am also a rancher in
northern California and farm a lot of the north coast. I have
wine grapes, Bartlett pears, and I also raise and grow timber.
I have seen firsthand the impact of these invasive species on
our water supply, the impact on our fruit and vegetable
operations and on our livestock and poultry operations in
California as well.
The Farm Bureau is pleased that the Subcommittees are
holding this joint hearing on a topic that is so critical and
so important to production agriculture. Invasive plants and
animals pose an extremely serious problem for agriculture. This
afternoon I will provide you with just a few of the many
examples of how invasive species are impacting American
agriculture and how two bills, if passed, can greatly help to
eliminate or alleviate some of these impacts.
First, H.R. 119 would provide funding to the State and
local community-based partnership programs for the control of
noxious weeds. In agricultural production, invasive plants
outcompete crops for soil and water resources, reduce crop
quality, interfere with harvesting operations and reduce our
land values. On rangeland, invasive plants crowd out more
desirable and nutritious forages, cause soil erosion and poison
some wildlife and livestock species. A couple of examples of
that in my area are yellow starthistle and gorse.
Second, H.R. 1080, the National Aquatic Invasive Species
Act of 2003, will effectively address the problems of aquatic
organisms entering our waterways through the ballast water of
ships arriving from other countries. Introduced fish species
frequently alter the ecology of fish ecosystems by reducing
natural aquatic vegetation or reducing water quality by
increasing turbidity. Examples of these are obviously the
Chinese mitten crab and the zebra mussels.
Let's identify the problem. It is the cost to our farmers
and ranchers across the country and the cost and effect on our
environment. It is estimated that invasive species cost the
American people $137 billion a year. In agriculture around the
country, invasive species pose an extremely serious problem.
Unfortunately, American farmers and ranchers are being
economically impacted by the importation of exotic pests and
diseases.
Obviously two more examples, the Newcastle and the bovine
TB, are just a couple of those. Invading nonindigenous species
in the U.S. cause major economic losses in agriculture,
forestry, and to our public lands. Environmental damage
includes soil erosion and the degradation of levees and dike
systems that accelerate wetland loss and the destruction of
national wetlands and vegetation. Gone unchecked, invasive
species could have a devastating effect on the environment
which includes agriculture and many natural resources.
The good neighbor policy. Management of our public lands.
Unfortunately our efforts are often hampered by public land
managers who do not follow the same sound management practices
as our farmers and ranchers. This is a serious issue in terms
of how we manage those lands. In my home State of California,
more than 3,000 plant species have escaped into the natural
ecosystem, causing damage to both managed and natural
ecosystems. Publicly owned lands and lands under conservation
easements must be managed to control or eliminate invasive
species, not allowing them to spread uncontrolled across public
lands to our neighboring lands.
Environmental harm. Invasive species exact a heavy
environmental toll as well. One study estimates that invasive
plants and animals have caused or will cause 35 to 46 percent
of all species being listed under the Endangered Species Act.
That is really significant; 35 to 46 percent. Both plants and
animals are at risk primarily because of competition and with
predation by nonindigenous species. Studies show that at least
44 native species of fish are threatened or endangered in the
United States because of nonindigenous fish species and an
additional 27 species are otherwise negatively impacted by
these introductions, a significant environmental impact.
Measures must be taken based on sound science. As urgent as the
need for dealing with this problem is, inappropriate corrective
measures that are not based on sound science cannot be
tolerated or accepted.
What can be done? The United States needs an effective and
comprehensive national policy that does not interfere with our
private lands and private property issues and that protect and
prevent the introduction of additional species and deal with
the eradication and control of invasive species.
In closing, any program to effectively protect the
environment and economy from invasive species must consist of
exclusion, detection, and eradication through a concerted
effort of private and public stakeholders and the various
agencies. We need a comprehensive national policy addressing
the introduction and management of invasive species. This
policy should include adequate funding spent on programs based
on sound science while protecting our private property rights.
At this same time, agencies must consider the devastating
impacts of invasive species if gone unchecked while developing
environmental regulations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the joint Committee
for your efforts. Your concern about invasive species' impact
on our safe food supply is critical. Impacts on safe trade are
very important as we enter into homeland security, and impacts
on our environment must all be considered. You face a
monumental task. Proceed carefully and diligently. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Pauli.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pauli follows:]
Statement of Bill Pauli, President, California Farm Bureau Federation,
on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Pauli, President of the California
Farm Bureau Federation and a member of the Board of Directors of the
American Farm Bureau Federation. I am very pleased to be here this
afternoon to discuss the staggering problems caused by harmful invasive
species.
We are pleased that the Subcommittees are holding this joint
hearing on a topic that is so critically important to agriculture. Both
Subcommittees represented here today have jurisdiction over major
aspects of the problem--the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Subcommittee with aquatic invasive species entering the United States
by sea, and the National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands
Subcommittee with invasive plants and animals on Federal lands. Both of
these pathways are of concern to agriculture in California and across
the United States.
Invasive plants and animals pose an extremely serious problem for
agriculture. Harmful plant and animal pests devastate thousands of
acres of croplands and rangelands. While economic costs to agriculture
are difficult to pinpoint with any accuracy due to the staggering scope
of the problem, a recent study estimated that invasive plants and
animals cost the American people $137 billion every year. (Pimentel et
al., Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-Indigenous
Species in the United States, Cornell University, June 12, 1999).
A 1996 Bureau of Land Management report estimates that invasive
plants alone infest over 100 million acres across the United States.
The same report says that these plants spread across another million
acres each year--an area twice the size of the State of Delaware. It
further finds that harmful plants negatively impact an additional 4,600
acres of Federal lands in the western United States PER DAY.
Invasive weeds also substantially contribute to the threat of
catastrophic wildfires that have plagued the drought-stricken West for
the past few years. Invasive flammable weeds such as cheatgrass fuel
wildfires so that they burn hotter and spread faster.
Invasive species also exact a heavy environmental toll. Many
invasive species threaten plant, animal or human health. The recently
introduced West Nile Virus illustrates the human health risks that
invasive species can pose. Invasive species alter plant and animal
habitats and ecology. One study estimates that invasive plants and
animals have contributed to 35 to 46 percent of all species being
listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Invasive species are especially a problem in my home state of
California. California is extremely diverse in terms of land uses and
ecosystems. As a result, we produce an extremely wide array of crops
that include most of the crops grown in the United States. We also
experience most of the problems with different types of invasive
species that are encountered elsewhere across the country.
Invasive species entering California through ballast water from
ships arriving from other countries is a significant problem. Roughly
ninety percent of the planktonic and benthic organisms in the San
Francisco Bay and Delta systems are species that were not present in
California thirty years ago. Introduced fish species frequently alter
the ecology of aquatic ecosystems by reducing natural aquatic
vegetation or reducing water quality by increasing turbidity. The
Chinese mitten crab and zebra mussel are two examples of an invasive
species becoming established in California as a result of ballast
water. Farm Bureau supports H.R. 1080, ``The National Aquatic Invasive
Species Act of 2003,'' as a way to more effectively address this
problem.
Other invasive species significantly imperil California's
rangelands. It displaces more nutritious plants in rangelands,
pastures, roadsides, and agricultural areas. Today, yellow starthistle
infests more than 20 million acres in California alone, with the
potential to double that number. It severely impacts livestock grazing
because it is an unpalatable plant that displaces more desirable
grazing forage. Livestock and wildlife avoid heavily infested areas. It
also may be lethal to horses.
Harmful new species enter the United States from various sources
every day. Some can be carried great distances. Already established
invasive species spread rapidly into new areas. The costs are mounting.
Farm Bureau strongly supports an aggressive program at the local,
state and Federal levels to prevent the introduction of invasive
species into the United States, and to control or eradicate invasive
species that are already here. The management plan developed by the
National Invasive Species Council (NISC) titled ``Meeting the Invasive
Species Challenge'' provides a framework for addressing these issues.
Critical elements of a successful program include:
1. A Clear Definition of ``Invasive Species'' Must be Developed.
In addressing the invasive species issue, it is important to
understand that many non-native species are beneficial to man and the
environment and therefore should not be considered ``invasive'' merely
because they are not native to the areas in which they are found.
Agriculture depends on a large number of native and non-native plants,
animals and insects for its viability. Most cultivated crops and many
domesticated animals originated outside the United States. Corn, wheat,
potatoes, cattle, soybeans, kiwi plants--all originated outside the
United States and are ``non-native'' species. In fact, eight of the top
nine most economically significant U.S. plants came from outside the
United States.
Current examples of species considered ``invasive'' but which have
beneficial effects on agriculture include the black carp and
crownvetch. Black carp provide a significant benefit to aquaculture
producers by controlling parasitic snails and mollusks in aquaculture
facilities. They are used only in controlled settings, and only sterile
(triploid) carp are used. Properly controlled, these fish can be very
beneficial to aquaculture facilities, but could be considered
``invasive'' if they get loose in streams and rivers and multiply.
Nevertheless, Farm Bureau supports appropriate regulation of black carp
to ensure that it does not become an invasive species. Such regulation
includes the use only of triploid (sterile) black carp with adequate
inspection to ensure that only triploid black carp are used. We also
support a back-up electric fence in Illinois to guard against black
carp reaching the Great Lakes area.
Crownvetch is a non-native plant species that is very useful in
slope stabilization, beautification and erosion control on highways. It
is also useful as a living mulch for no-till corn. Yet it is considered
``invasive.''
The tendency to consider all non-native species to be harmful must
be avoided. ``Invasive species'' should not be considered synonymous
with ``non-native species,'' ``alien species,'' or ``exotic species.''
``Non-native species'' might be more appropriate targets at ports
of entry into the United States, either to prohibit their entry or to
monitor their entry and subsequent use if intentionally introduced for
some beneficial purpose. Once a species is established, the principal
factor for considering a species ``invasive'' is whether the species
causes economic and environmental harm.
Because most agricultural crops and livestock are not indigenous to
the areas in which they are raised, it is of utmost importance for
agriculture that the definition of ``invasive species'' exclude
agricultural products.
The working definition of ``invasive species'' in Executive Order
13112 and in the NISC management plan is so loosely worded that it
could be construed to include agricultural products or other beneficial
non-native species as ``invasive.'' It needs to be changed to reflect
our concerns expressed above.
2. There Must Be Effective Coordination Among Federal Agencies.
More than 20 different Federal agencies currently have some
responsibilities or authority for different aspects of the invasive
species issue. Many of these programs overlap or operate independently
of one another. Many address different aspects of the invasive species
issue, such as prevention at ports of entry or control of pests after
they have become established. Many of these programs have a different
focus or emphasis. There is a critical need that these authorities,
responsibilities and programs be coordinated to achieve maximum
results.
The NISC provides the framework for achieving the coordination to
effectively address invasive species. The Invasive Species Management
Plan provides direction for achieving the necessary coordination.
Congress and the Administration must provide the requisite priority and
funding for coordinating the substantial Federal invasive species
activities. As an administratively created body, the NISC should look
to the Executive Branch to provide the priority needed to achieve
coordinated results. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) can
also play a vital role to achieve Federal coordination with oversight
by NISC. Congress can and should provide adequate funding to carry out
the invasive species management plan.
3. Federal Coordination Should Support State and Local Invasive Species
Control Efforts.
Farm Bureau believes that invasive species issues can be most
effectively addressed at the state and local levels. States have the
primary responsibility over invasive plant and animal species within
their borders, and many states have very active programs to combat
invasive species.
Florida is a primary point of entry into the United States. Its
massive invasive species problem stems in large part from accidental
introduction. Citrus canker, which has cost more that $240 million and
resulted in the destruction of thousands of trees, was introduced
through Miami International Airport. At a recent Florida Agricultural
Pests and Disease Conference hosted by Florida Farm Bureau, exclusion
programs were identified as the top priority in Florida for addressing
the problem. National priorities cannot be developed in a vacuum--they
must be derived from the priorities of the respective states. Together,
they form national priorities.
Local, community based partnerships offer the most promise in
controlling invasive species within an area. Local partnerships allow
for control of invasive species across land ownership boundaries that
is an integral part of achieving control. Federal coordination,
technical assistance and financial support are necessary to aid these
efforts.
An example is the El Dorado County Noxious Weed Group in
California. The highly invasive spotted knapweed was detected in the
Sierra Mountains east of Sacramento a few years after a wildfire
devastated the area. It was first detected on Sierra Pacific Industries
commercial timberlands in 1999 and was probably brought in on equipment
and erosion control materials used in the fire suppression and timber
salvage efforts. This highly invasive weed chokes out native plants and
agricultural crops and increases soil sedimentation in creeks and
rivers. Hand-pulling and herbicide treatments have been somewhat
effective, but due to the steep terrain, heavy fire debris and lack of
manpower, the weed has not been eradicated on the original 20-acre
site.
The El Dorado County Noxious Weed Management Area (WMA) has raised
this project to emergency status. The project partners include
representatives from the Eldorado National Forest, Sierra Pacific
Industries, El Dorado County Department of Agriculture and California
Department of Food and Agriculture. Other members of the local Weed
Management Group, including California Native Plant Society--El Dorado
Chapter, El Dorado County Farm Bureau and private landowners, have
supported the eradication efforts. Grant funding from the state has
helped in the eradication efforts over the past three years. Additional
Federal support and funding is vital to continue the efforts.
H.R. 119 would provide needed funding through the states to local
entities for projects such as this. Farm Bureau supports the enactment
of H.R. 119 as a means of supporting local partnership efforts to
control invasive species. We urge this Committee to consider this bill
and provide swift approval.
4. There Must Be Appropriate Tools Available to Combat Invasive
Species.
Pesticides are often the cheapest, most effective way to eliminate
problem weeds and unwanted plants. There are increasing regulatory
hurdles to using effective products to deal with invasive species. In
Headwaters v. Talent, 243 F. 3d 526 (9th Cir. 2001) the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled that aquatic herbicides could not be applied
without an EPA permit under the Clean Water Act, despite the fact that
registrants are required to provide extensive data to EPA on impacts to
water in the registration process. These herbicides are necessary to
address such invasive weeds as water hyacinth and egeria densa that
clog canals and burn out irrigation pumps.
Recently another Ninth Circuit decision extended the scope of
Talent and posed a threat to the ability to combat invasive species. In
League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project v.
Forsgren, No. 01-35729 (9th Cir.) the Court stopped the Forest Service
from aerially spraying more than 628,000 acres of forest lands to
control a predicted outbreak of the pest Douglas Fir Tussock Moth
because the Forest Service failed to obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the Clean Water Act.
Such permits are required of point sources of pollution discharging
pollutants into the waters of the United States. In reaching this
result, the Court had to conclude that aerial spraying constitutes a
``point source of pollution,'' ``pesticides are pollutants,'' and
``exemptions for silvicultural activities did not apply.'' The Court
held that aerial spraying was a point source because it applied from a
``discrete conveyance'' (nozzle). More importantly, it found that
pesticides were ``pollutants.'' Having ruled on these issues, the Court
held that EPA had no discretion to carve out any exceptions such as the
one at issue in this case. The United States is considering whether to
ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case.
Aerial spraying is an absolutely necessary component of effectively
controlling large areas of noxious weeds and invasive plants,
especially in the vast areas of the West. If there is to be any hope of
containing, much less eradicating, yellow starthistle or other
widespread weeds such as leafy spurge or spotted knapweed, aerial
spraying is a must. Imposing a requirement that any aerial application
must first obtain an NPDES permit will significantly impair our ability
to control these species. The impediments thrown up by the Forsgren
decision must be addressed legislatively to control invasive species on
Federal lands.
Another court imposed restriction on the ability to address
invasive species issues involves the interface of the pesticide
registration statutes and the Endangered Species Act. The Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) imposes rigorous
data requirements on prospective registrants of a pesticide. Included
within the requirements are studies on the possible impacts of a
product on plants and wildlife, including species listed under the
Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act in turn requires
agencies such as EPA to ``consult'' with the Fish and Wildlife Service
in cases where an action--such as registering a pesticide--``may
affect'' a listed species. This results in a duplication of efforts,
since the product has already undergone rigorous scrutiny by EPA.
Several cases have been brought seeking to enjoin the use of
pesticides because they have not undergone the ``consultation''
required by the ESA. At least one Federal district court in Washington
State has ruled that such consultations must occur. EPA recently
settled a similar case in California. Fortunately, thus far the Federal
agencies directly impacted by this line of cases are working toward a
solution.
5. More Effective Partnerships Between Federal, State and Local
Agencies and Private Landowners Will More Efficiently Address
Invasive Species Problems.
The invasive species problem in the United States has reached
epidemic proportions. Success will be achieved only if all affected
entities work together to control and eradicate invasive species.
Farmers and ranchers can play an important role in combating
invasive species. They already spend billions of dollars yearly
fighting invasive species on their privately owned lands. Since many or
most invasive species occur to an extent on private lands, farmer and
rancher cooperation is essential. More effective partnerships with
private landowners can maximize efforts to bring invasive species under
control.
Government agencies should coordinate invasive species treatment
with private landowners. Especially in the West, ownership patterns
between state, Federal and private lands are intermingled. Invasive
species do not respect boundary lines. In many cases, simply
coordinating the timing and treatment method between private and
adjoining non-private landowners can achieve significant results.
Agencies should make better use of farmer and rancher management
practices to better control invasive species. Livestock grazing can be
an important tool in managing invasive plant species. It is a valuable
practice for reducing fuel loads that increase the risk of catastrophic
wildfire and the resulting emergence of invasive weeds. Stewardship
contracting for healthy forests and rangelands should recognize the
benefits of livestock grazing as an environmentally sound method for
reducing fuel loads and removing invasive species as well.
There are a number of examples in California to illustrate the
benefits that grazing can have on control of invasive species. Goats
are being used near Oakland to manage fuel breaks in East Bay Regional
Parks and to manage yellow starthistle in nearby areas. In Vasco Caves
Regional Park, sheep are used to maintain habitat for the endangered
San Joaquin Kit Fox.
Landowner conservation programs should focus on control of invasive
species. Since invasive species cause a number of environmentally
harmful impacts, almost any approved conservation program could be used
to address the issue. For example, invasive species are the second
leading cause for decline of endangered or threatened species. Grants
under the Private Stewardship Grant Program and the Landowner Incentive
Program for improvement of habitat have as a component the control or
removal of any associated invasive species. Similarly, invasive species
are a leading cause of ``unhealthy forests,'' and grants made from
stewardship contracts under the Healthy Forest Initiative might be used
for invasive species control. Conservation funds for the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Security Program and other
programs could also be used for invasive species management.
Landowner partnerships must be voluntary, cooperative and
incentive-based. Such programs should not be regulatory in nature but
cooperative. Farmers and ranchers share a common desire with the
government to eradicate these destructive pests, so cooperation instead
of regulation will achieve the best results.
6. Public Outreach and Education Are Essential.
Public outreach and education are also essential elements of an
effective invasive species policy. Individual transportation is a major
pathway for the introduction and spread of invasive species. They may
be recreational boaters, gardeners, or travelers. In most cases, these
people are unaware that they are carrying or spreading invasive
species, and they would take greater precautions or corrective actions
if they knew the consequences of their actions. Often, the introduction
or spread of invasive species results from carelessness that is easily
corrected if the consequences are known. In many cases, corrective
actions involve nothing more than proper cleaning of boats or fishing
gear, but the potential benefits may be significant.
Public education is an important component of any invasive species
management policy. An effective education and outreach program involves
more than the creation of educational materials on invasive species.
The current public outreach effort lacks a sense of importance or even
urgency to this problem. The general public must be convinced that the
actions they take to prevent introduction or spread of invasive species
are important. Affected agencies and Congress must emphasize the
importance and priority of the invasive species problem in order to
affect public behavior.
7. Research Needs.
Because so little is known about the various invasive species, and
new invasives are entering the United States, research needs are great.
Research is needed in identifying pathways by which invasive species
get into the United States so that efforts can be undertaken to prevent
their entry. This is crucial in order to prevent additional costly
control and eradication projects. Research is needed to predict which
species coming into the United States might become economically
harmful. The U.S. Geological Survey is already undertaking some of this
research and its efforts should be supported. Biological research into
life cycles of known invasive species is important in understanding how
to control them. Coordination with scientists in the country of origin
would greatly help. Research into the most effective and
environmentally sound ways to control or eradicate invasive species is
also necessary.
We are pleased that the Subcommittee is holding this hearing on
such an important issue. The American Farm Bureau Federation stands
ready to assist the Committee in addressing this serious problem.
______
Mr. Gibbons. Now we turn to Ms. Hyde from the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association. Ms. Hyde.
STATEMENT OF MYRA BRADFORD HYDE,
NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION
Ms. Hyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Myra Hyde, I
am the Director of Environmental Issues for the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, and I appreciate the opportunity
to be here this afternoon to provide comments on behalf of the
cattle farmers and ranchers across America.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association has long been
aware of the economic and environmental harm caused by invasive
species and we have urged the Federal Government to recognize
them as a priority and to develop a national effort to address
the problem. We support the Executive order on invasive species
and the National Invasive Species Council. We provided input
into the preparation of the national management plan developed
by the National Invasive Species Council and through
participation in the Invasive Species Advisory Council. We have
also worked with Congress to direct resources to and focus
attention on invasive species.
While the cattle industry recognizes the threats posed by
all invasive species and supports efforts to manage them, we
are primarily concerned about the threats posed by invasive
weeds. Grassland and shrublands or rangelands occupy about 35
percent of the land area of the lower 48 States, or about 861
million acres. They are unique ecosystems that provide clean
water, clean air and wildlife habitat, as well as societal
benefits such as open space and recreational opportunities.
They are also the lands that cattle producers primarily rely on
to feed their cattle, and the health of these lands is a
critical factor in ensuring a farm or ranch's economic
viability. But they are severely threatened by harmful
nonnative terrestrial weed species. Invasive weeds often have
little or no forage value for native animals or livestock and
they threaten the health of all rangelands by outcompeting and
replacing the native vegetation. They can also make areas more
susceptible to catastrophic fire and can radically impact the
way an ecosystem functions.
Next to habitat loss, invasives are the second greatest
threat to the survival of biological diversity. The economic
cost of invasives has been estimated to be about $138 billion
annually--that we have already discussed--but conservative
estimates to cropland, agriculture alone, have been placed at
$20 billion each year. Once invasive species are introduced,
they lack predators and they are almost impossible to contain.
So really prevention, without question, is the easiest way to
deal with it and the least costly way to deal with these
problems. But in order to prevent the introduction of
invasives, we must establish better education and awareness
programs to increase understanding of the problem. We need more
emphasis on research and funding and for technical advisers as
well.
I do know that over the last several years, many of the
research programs for rangelands alone have dramatically
declined, even though we have got increased demands to find
solutions for the problems. Once prevention has failed, the
goal should be to stop the spread of invasives before they
become economically or environmentally damaging.
New money needs to be directed to a program that gives
States maximum flexibility to direct funds where they can be
utilized by local decisionmakers most effectively. Resources
can be maximized by diverting these funds 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. We must
develop a process for setting priorities, and inasmuch as
funding will always be a limiting factor for invasive species
control activities, this priority process I think is critical.
We believe that our Federal limited 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. Most cattle ranchers spend a
lifetime fighting invasive weeds on their farms and ranches.
They 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.
There currently is legislation that has been introduced
before this Committee, and we would like to express our
appreciation to Mr. Hefley for introducing H.R. 119, the
Harmful Invasive Weed Control Act. This bill, we do believe,
does not create any new authority. We know that there are
already many, many authorities out there. What this bill tries
to do is coordinate those activities, but is primarily a
funding source, a Federal funding source to the States so that
the States can make the decisions where that money can best be
spent. It is directed to local weed management entities that
are on the ground, they know what the problems are, they know
what species are harmful and which aren't, and the local
stakeholders are involved in these weed management entities so
they can all get together and decide how that money can most
efficiently be utilized.
There is also a Senate bill that has been referred to your
Committee, S. 144, that would also attempt to do the same
thing. Both of these bills NCBA does support and we work very
hard to try and find legislation that will get resources to the
ground.
Despite all the authorities that are out there, there is
not enough money. Most of the funds are directed toward Federal
lands. Of the $137 billion that they say are the economic
costs, I am not sure how much of that is actually coming out of
the back pockets of private landowners, but they do not have a
source at this time to help them really allay those costs.
Dr. Lambert spoke earlier about the farm bill. Secretary
Veneman announced $1.8 billion in conservation funding. The
primary source of that for landowners to use would be the
environmental quality incentives program. Almost $700 million
has been authorized for 2003, but there is a $1.4 billion
backlog in EQIP contracts. That money is not going to get to
the ground to fight invasive species.
In closing, I would like to just say that we do support all
efforts to get funding and to try and coordinate efforts for
invasive species but, again, our primary focus is terrestrial
weeds. That is why we are supporting these two invasive weeds
bills.
We would like to express our appreciation to you for this
opportunity this afternoon. I stand ready to answer any
questions. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Ms. Hyde.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hyde follows:]
Statement of Myra Bradford Hyde, National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman Radanovich and Distinguished Members
of the Joint Subcommittees on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and
Oceans and National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands:
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, thank you for your interest in my comments concerning
invasive species.
NCBA appreciates the attention the Committee has directed to
invasive species issues and also appreciates the opportunity to speak
to these Joint Subcommittees on the scope of the invasive species
problem. We have long been aware of the economic and environmental harm
caused by invasive species. We 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 Invasives 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.
While the cattle industry recognizes the threats posed by all
invasive species and support all efforts to manage them, of primary
concern to us are those threats posed by invasive weeds. Grasslands and
shrublands, often called rangelands, occupy about 35% of the land area
of the lower 48 states--861 million acres. These are the lands that
cattle producers primarily rely on to feed their cattle and the health
of these lands is a critical factor in ensuring a farm or a ranch's
economic viability.
Rangelands provide more than just economic benefits, however. They
also provide clean water, clean air and wildlife habitat, as well as
societal benefits such as open space and recreational opportunities.
Grasslands and shrublands are unique ecosystems that are severely
threatened by harmful, non-native terrestrial weeds species. Invasive
weeds often have little or no forage value for native animals and
livestock, and they threaten the health of all rangelands by out-
competing and replacing the native vegetation. They also can make areas
more susceptible to catastrophic fire and can radically impact the way
an ecosystem functions. Cheatgrass is a widespread invasive plant, and
is much more likely than native plants to catch and spread fire. The
national management plan developed by NISC states that cheatgrass has
accelerated the fire cycle in the west by twenty-fold.
Invasives are the second greatest threat to the survival of
biological diversity, second only to habitat loss. The NISC management
plan estimates the economic costs of invasive species at $137 billion
annually. Whereas, conservative estimates to cropland agriculture alone
have been placed at $20 billion each year.
Invasive species are spread intentionally and non-intentionally by
an almost endless number of sources. And as we become a more global
society, the pathways increase exponentially as our methods of travel
get easier, borders open and ports of entry become more numerous.
Invasives are master hitchhikers, attaching to wildlife, livestock,
produce, recreationalists, vehicle tires, and ballast water in ships.
Many invasives have been intentionally introduced as ornamental plants.
The tropical soda apple arrived in Florida in 1988 from South
America. Seven years later it was estimated that it had invaded 1
million acres in five southern states and Puerto Rico. It spreads by
interstate shipment of cattle, hay, and composted manure from infested
areas. It replaces edible forage plants and hampers wildlife and
livestock movement.
Purple loosestrife, introduced for ornamental and medicinal uses in
the 1800's now covers about 4 million acres of wetlands nationally and
costs about $45 million a year in control efforts. It can completely
take over wetlands where it crowds out native plants and negatively
impacts native fish and wildlife.
Examples seem endless and the list continues to grow. And again,
because most non-native species lack predators, once they are
introduced they are almost impossible to contain. Prevention, without
question, is less costly than eradication or long-term control.
An awareness of the problem and a comprehensive approach to
protecting ecosystems is necessary to prevent the introduction and/or
spread of invasives. Public education and awareness programs will
increase our understanding of the problem and will aid in the
development of management plans at the Federal, state and local levels.
Unfortunately, most educational programs for wildlands, rangelands and
croplands to date have been directed mainly at rural populations.
Awareness of invasives among the general public is fairly low.
Interdiction and barriers at entry sites are critical, as are the
implementation of site-specific management and control measures to
prevent establishment and spread from sites of initial introduction.
There must also be greater coordination between private landowners and
Federal, state and local governments.
There must be accurate and timely early detection and rapid
response, which would also require proper training of border
inspectors, pest management professionals, land managers and
landowners. There currently is no comprehensive national system in
place for detecting and responding to invasions of non-native species.
Rapid response is also hindered by the lack of a centralized
communications network for reporting and disseminating information.
Research and funding for experienced technical advisors are
severely limited. In fact, funding for many rangeland research programs
has dramatically declined during the past decade, despite the increased
demands for solutions to the problems created by invasives.
Once prevention has failed, the goal should be to stop the spread
of invasives before they become economically or environmentally
damaging. A long-term management plan that integrates research, best
management practices, and integrated weed management techniques is
critical in order to even attempt to contain invasive species. The
management plan developed by NISC is a good start, but implementation
has been slow due to funding limitations and other deficiencies that
Federal officials have recognized and are working to improve.
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, a
programmatic environmental impact statement is needed so the agencies
can deal with all weeds simultaneously, rather than one at a time.
The best method of fighting these invasions is to act locally.
Currently, we have a limited amount of resources. Resources can be
maximized by diverting funds 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. And because invasive species know no
boundaries, any Federal program must allow for funds to be directed
where they are most needed.
We should develop a process for setting priorities, inasmuch as
funding will always be a limiting factor for invasive species control
activities. NCBA believes 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.
Eradication, like containment, depends on integrated, site-specific
management techniques, coordination between Federal, state and local
governments and landowners, research and public awareness programs, and
adequate funding to have any effectiveness at all. However, where
invasions are widespread, complete eradication may be impossible.
Most cattle producers spend a lifetime fighting invasive weeds on
their farms and ranches. They 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. There currently is legislation before the full Committee that
NCBA believes would provide a dedicated, coordinated Federal effort to
help in the fight against invasive weeds. We support S. 144, the
Noxious Weed Control Act of 2003'' (Craig, R-ID) that was reported by
the Senate on February 11, 2003 and referred to the House Subcommittee
on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research. NCBA also
supports H.R. 119, the Harmful Invasive Weed Control Act'' (Hefley, R-
CO). Both these proposals provide financial assistance through States
to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate harmful
weeds on public and private land. H.R. 119, however, requires that the
Secretary of Interior consult with the Federal Interagency Committee
for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds. The original draft of
this legislation established the consulting body as the National
Invasive Species Council (NISC). We believe this to be the more
appropriate consulting body for the Secretary should be NISC, which is
supported by the Invasive Species Advisory Committee, and would urge
original draft language be reconsidered.
We are aware that there currently are other legislative proposals
that have been offered on invasives beyond these two proposals and we
do not oppose those efforts. But because the resource and financial
impacts to our industry are so acute, our number one priority must be
to focus our attention on efforts to address harmful, invasive weeds.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association wishes to express its
gratitude to Chairman Gilchrest and Chairman Radanovich for holding
this hearing and for focusing attention on invasive species. We look
forward to working with the Chairmen and members of this Subcommittee
on this issue.
______
Mr. Gibbons. We turn now to Mr. John Connelly, President,
National Fisheries Institute.
STATEMENT OF JOHN P. CONNELLY, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE
Mr. Connelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this
important issue with you. NFI is the leading trade association
representing the full range of fish and seafood products from
``water to table,'' which means we represent fishermen,
aquaculturists, importers and exporters of fish, processors,
down through the retailers and the restaurants which eat this
healthy food.
Why do we care about invasive species? Invasive species
impact the essential fish habitat. They have the potential to
introduce new diseases into the environment. They prey on
traditional sources of food for the native species and they run
the risk of altering traditional fishing practices for the
native fishermen.
I would like to just relate three anecdotes, three
examples, some of which you will hear about in more detail in
the next panel so I will just highlight them. I think you may
recall in 1991 there was a very severe epidemic of cholera in
Latin America. At the same time in Mobile Bay, Alabama, there
was an indication that the ballast water coming from ships that
had recently been in Latin America contained the same strain of
cholera that existed in Latin America and caused such
devastation down in that continent. Our concern is that there
are 79 million metric tons of ballast water that come into the
U.S. every year. The Chesapeake Bay alone has 10 billion liters
of this foreign ballast water each year. The risk is that the
ballast water contains microorganisms that impact either fish
or human health and the environment. That is one example of the
kind of challenge that we face.
Dr. Mann of the next panel will talk at some length about
the rapa whelk. Mr. Pallone has already mentioned his concerns
about this. Rather than going into some of the technical issues
there, I would just note that rapa whelk can actually be
harvested and eaten, and some folks have suggested why don't we
make this a food source. The concern is that you would need to
develop a market for rapa whelk. There is no market. People
don't go out and buy this right now. It has a severe impact on
the ecosystem. Again, Dr. Mann will describe some of the
technical issues in the next panel.
The third example or anecdote is the Chinese mitten crab.
Again you have heard some of this described earlier from
earlier witnesses. Some folks would ask, a mitten crab, why is
that different from a blue crab or a green crab or any other
kind of crab? Why can't we just eat this crab? We have some
examples of some of the challenges that this crab represents.
Back in the 1930's, this was inadvertently introduced in
Germany and caused severe economic harm to the German economy
and the seaports there and the fish and seafood industry in
that country.
One of the earlier witnesses mentioned that not all
invasive species are bad or not all nonnative species are bad.
There are cases where ecosystem managers or fishery managers
will actually introduce a nonnative species into an environment
in order to help solve a problem. I think most folks are aware
that the Chesapeake Bay oyster system or fishery is in severe
straits. Some of that is caused by pollution. Some of it is
just the fishery is dying out. Why that is important, I think,
for folks that remember their sophomore year of high school
biology is that oysters actually clean water. They are actually
a natural filtration system for water. So what the Chesapeake
fishery has done is on a test basis introduce Chinese oysters
into the Chesapeake Bay as a test case to see whether that will
allow the native oyster population to recover and will
naturally continue to clean the water within the Chesapeake
Bay. What is important about that is those Chinese oysters are
sterile, so they cannot be reproduced and that is part of a
management technique that would need to be continued to look
at, is whether the Chinese oysters should actually continue to
be sterilized or whether the fishery manager in that area would
actually develop that as a separate fishery outside of a
nonnative population.
NFI strongly supports aquaculture as a way to ensure a safe
and wholesome food supply of fish and seafood. The key for
aquaculture is ensuring that the management systems are in
place to prevent the farmed fish from entering into a native
environment and causing any kind of problems in the native fish
environment. That is an important part of what our Nation needs
to do to ensure a safe and healthy food supply of fish.
As far as new authority, we believe there needs to be
better coordination among the existing authorities and with key
stakeholders. I think the Chairman had mentioned that there
were 23 laws already on the books concerning this issue. We
believe there needs to be increased funding to implement
mitigation plans and to ensure that stakeholders from the
business side and the industry side, the State side and the
Federal side, coordinate better on this.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I appreciate the
opportunity and look forward to answering any questions.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Connelly.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connelly follows:]
Statement of John Connelly, President, National Fisheries Institute
Chairmen Gilchrest and Radanovich, Congressman Pallone,
Congresswoman Christian-Christensen, and distinguished members of the
Subcommittees, on behalf of the more than 700 members of the National
Fisheries Institute (NFI), I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you on the adverse impacts of invasive marine species on
commercial fisheries. I am John Connelly, President of the NFI.
The NFI is the nation's leading trade association for the diverse
commercial fish and seafood industry. We are a ``water to table''
organization, representing fishing vessel owners, aquaculture
operations, processors, importers, exporters, distributors,
restaurants, and retail establishments. NFI's mission is to ensure an
ample, safe, and sustainable seafood supply to consumers.
The introduction of non-native species into marine and coastal
ecosystems may adversely affect commercial fisheries in a number of
ways: non-native microorganisms may infect native species with new
diseases or public health threats, non-native species may alter
essential fish habitat, or non-native species may compete directly with
or prey upon traditional commercial fish species. At a minimum these
affects can force fishermen to alter traditional fishing practices in
terms of gear or time/area of harvest. In its worst form, these
invasions may reduce otherwise sustainable harvest opportunities. In
either situation, invasions by exotic species can cause serious
economic harm to the commercial fishing sector.
I would like to focus on three examples of exotic species invasions
of marine or coastal ecosystems to highlight the impacts these
invasions may have on commercial fisheries, including:
The introduction of Vibrio cholera into Gulf of Mexico
oysters via ballast water,
The introduction of rapa whelk into the Chesapeake Bay,
and
The introduction of Chinese mitten crab into San
Francisco Bay.
Vibrio cholera and Gulf of Mexico Oysters
In 1991, a new strain of Vibrio cholera 01 (V.c.), the bacteria the
causes human cholera, was found in oysters and fish in Mobile Bay,
Alabama\1\. The strain of V.c. was identical to the strain responsible
for a cholera epidemic in Latin America at that time. The ballast water
of ships leaving Latin America and arriving in Mobile Bay, AL tested
positive for the V.c. bacteria\2\.
While this infection of Mobile Bay was brought under control and no
human illnesses occurred as a result, it certainly created considerable
concern among both the oyster industry and consumers and highlights the
potential threat of invasive microorganism introductions via ship
ballast water.
It is estimated that United States ports receive more than 79
million metric tons of ballast water from overseas each year\3\.
Chesapeake Bay alone is reported to receive 10 billion liters of
foreign ballast water each year\4\. With the United States receiving
shipments from all over the world, the potential introduction of exotic
microorganisms is tremendous. In fact, scientists estimate that, given
the diverse array of microorganisms present in ballast water, various
animal diseases and human pathogens may be introduced into U.S. coastal
waters via ballast water discharges.
The NFI appreciates the efforts of the maritime community to begin
addressing this issue through open ocean ballast exchange. We look
forward to working with them to further address the issue in the
future.
Rapa Whelk in Chesapeake Bay
In the late 1990s, the rapa whelk was detected in the mouth of the
St. James River in Chesapeake Bay. The rapa whelk is a mollusk with a
heavy, short-spired shell. It is native to the Sea of Japan. Since its
detection, everything that scientists at the Virginia Institute of
Marine Sciences (VIMS) have learned about the whelk has them concerned
that this exotic species poses a serious threat to the Chesapeake Bay
seafood industry.
The rapa whelk consumes bivalve shellfish such as oysters and
clams. VIMS scientists believe it has the potential to devastate
Chesapeake Bay shellfish stocks. A full-grown whelk can consume two
large chowder clams per week. The presence of egg masses on bridges,
pilings, and commercial fishing gear indicate the rapa whelk is
reproducing prolifically in the lower Bay, releasing millions of eggs.
If unchecked, there is a real risk that the rapa whelk could spread
throughout the Chesapeake Bay, reeking havoc on shellfish stocks such
as oysters already struggling against pollution and diseases.
Interestingly, the rapa whelk has edible meat and its eradication
may present a new harvest opportunity for Chesapeake Bay watermen.
However, this should only be seen as a short-term development. Not only
would consumers need to be educated and a market created for whelk meat
but this exotic species will require the development of new fishing
approaches for area watermen before it could be successfully developed
into a fishery. In addition, the broader ecosystem impacts of this
exotic species raise serious questions as to its desirability in the
Chesapeake Bay, even if it presented a serious and potentially
profitable harvest opportunity.
Chinese Mitten Crab in San Francisco Bay
The Chinese mitten crab was first detected in Southern San
Francisco Bay by shrimp trawlers in 1992. Since that time, the Chinese
mitten crab population in San Francisco Bay has rapidly expanded and it
appears likely that the distribution of this exotic crab will involve
most of the state of California, according to the Chinese Mitten Crab
Control Committee as reported to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task
Force.
The introduction of the Chinese mitten crab in Germany in the 1930s
caused serious negative impacts on fisheries. The crab proliferated and
spread so successfully that fisheries suffered significant losses due
to damaged catch and gear.
In California, the Chinese mitten crabs are already adversely
affecting salmon and other fish by interacting with and damaging and/or
eating juvenile fish being collected to bypass water diversions. The
economic impact incurred to the salvage operations amounted to over $1
million. In addition, commercial bay shrimp and crawfish fishermen
reported large numbers of the crabs in nets and traps in 1998 and 1999,
decreasing catch efficiency and increasing operational costs. In fact,
it has been anecdotally reported that these fishermen had to shift
their time and area of harvests to avoid Chinese mitten crab and some
fishermen reportedly simply stopped fishing in response to unavoidable
crab aggregations.
In addition to exotic species invasions of U.S. marine and coastal
ecosystems such as those just described, there are other invasive
species issues I would like to address including the intentional
introduction of an exotic species to restore a fishery or ecosystem
function and the accidental release into the wild of a non-native
aquaculture species.
Intentional Introduction of Non-Native Species
In some cases, fishery or regional ecosystem managers may wish to
intentionally introduce a non-native species in order to reestablish a
key fishery or ecosystem function. The most notable example, of course,
is the intentional introduction of Chinese oysters into the Chesapeake
Bay. Native Chesapeake Bay oysters have been decimated by historic
overharvest and exposure to lethal pollution-based diseases. With the
persistent presence of these diseases in the Chesapeake Bay for the
foreseeable future, it will not be possible for the native oyster
population to restore itself. In the absence of an oyster population,
the Chesapeake Bay loses not only an important commercial fishery but
also a critical ecosystem function of water purification by these
filter-feeding organisms. It has therefore been suggested that managers
allow the introduction of a Chinese oyster that is immune to the
pollution-based diseases that plague the Chesapeake Bay to restore
oyster benefits to the Bay. The current experiment in this regard
involves sterile individuals and could be considered an aquaculture
operation more than a restocking of the wild population.
That said, this could present a powerful new tool for improving the
health of the Chesapeake Bay and restoring an important fishery. For
these reasons, the introduction of the Chesapeake oyster seems to make
sense for the Chesapeake Bay. It may be necessary, however to continue
to ensure a lack of reproductive capability in these introduced
oysters, even in the long term. There are concerns that if established
in the Chesapeake Bay as a reproducing population, this non-native
species could expand into other U.S. coastal waters and compete with or
displace other healthy native oyster populations. The benefits as well
as the costs, therefore, need to be carefully analyzed before a full-
blown stocking effort is implemented.
Non-Native Species Aquaculture
The NFI strongly supports the development of marine aquaculture as
an important mechanism to sustainably and affordably increase seafood
production. The NFI also believes marine aquaculture operations must be
conducted in a manner that minimizes to the greatest degree practicable
the potential establishment of a non-native species in a natural
ecosystem. This should be done by focusing aquaculture projects on
native species or, where non-native species are used, instituting
management practices that minimize the chances of an accidental release
(e.g., net structure and location) as well as the probability of the
release resulting in the establishment of a viable, reproducing wild
population of the non-native species (e.g., single gender crops,
nutrition deficiencies, triploid genes).
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the NFI is concerned that the
introduction of non-native species into U.S. marine and coastal
ecosystems presents real challenges that need to be addressed both
practically and effectively. We welcome the consideration of this
important issue by these Subcommittees. Thank you.
Citations
1. DePaulo A, Capers GM, Motes ML, Olsvik O, Fields PI, Wells J et
al. (1992) Isolation of Latin American epidemic strain of Vibrio
cholera O1 from U.S. Gulf Coast. Lancet 339:624.
2. McCarthy SA, McPhearson RM, Guarino AM and Gaines JL (1992)
Toxigenic Vibrio cholera O1 and cargo ships entering Gulf of Mexico.
Lancet 339: 624-625.
3. Carlton JT, Reid D and van Leewen H (1995) The Role of Shipping
in the Introduction of Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms to the Coastal
Waters of the United States (other than the Great Lakes) and an
Analysis of Control Options. Technical Report No. CG-D11-95, U.S. Coast
Guard, Washington, DC.
4. Ruiz GM, Rawlings TK, Dobbs FC, Drake LA, Mullady T, Huq A, and
Colwell RR. (2000) Global Spread of Microorganisms by Ships. Nature
408: 49-50.
______
Mr. Gibbons. We turn now to Mr. John Shannon, State
Forester of Arkansas, on behalf of all State Foresters. Mr.
Shannon, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN T. SHANNON, STATE FORESTER OF ARKANSAS, ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS
Mr. Shannon. Yes, sir. Thank you. I am the State Forester
of Arkansas. I came here yesterday from Cammack Village,
Arkansas to visit with the Subcommittees. I represent the State
Foresters from all 50 States, from all the territories and from
the District of Columbia. Thank you for inviting us.
You have heard one clarification already that some
invasives are exotic and some invasives are native and those
distinctions may not be very helpful, as Mr. Arnett mentioned.
One more distinction is that the road for the transport of
invasives is a two-way street. We certainly receive lots of
invasives from other countries and we have sent what became
invasives to other continents.
Now, for the four issues that were outlined in the
invitation to the State Foresters. The first was the scope of
the invasives problem. As the Chairman mentioned earlier, the
scope is large and I will not repeat the statistics he gave us.
I would add two more notes. It is not a Federal issue
exclusively. State and private lands are hit hard by invasive
species and America's forests have been clobbered by invasive
species: gypsy moth, sudden oak death, chestnut blight. I have
been a forester 25 years. I have never seen a chestnut forest.
They have been obliterated in the United States. Now we have
something called balsam woolly adelgid. It is an insect that
most Americans have never heard of and it likely will kill
every fir tree growing in the Rocky Mountains. So forests have
been hurt terribly by invasive species.
Control efforts. One of the members asked earlier, do we
need to start from scratch on control efforts? My take-home
point here would be no. I think we ought to use the existing
experts and the existing authorities. For instance, there is
that National Invasive Species Council. They had prepared a
management plan. I think we ought to implement the plan. The
U.S. Forest Service has a Forest Health Protection Unit staffed
with incredibly bright, inventive experts, people who are not
only scientifically sound but they are helpful and they return
phone calls. The Forest Health Protection Unit needs to be
involved in any effort to protect our forests from invasives.
And there is a Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, Federal
law, been around for 25 years, has really established a strong
partnership between the Federal Government and the States and
tribal governments and local governments. I think that is a
great platform to start from in continuing those partnerships.
The third issue that was presented before us, is the
existing authority adequate? I think there are gaps in the
authority. One of the gaps, I believe, is insufficient
promotion of partnerships with the States and perhaps there is
a need for new Federal legislation to create some overarching
comprehensive approach.
Finally, what are the recommendations of the State
Foresters?
No. 1, please support active forest management. And if
forest supervisors in your States or territories suggest that
to control invasives we need to conduct prescribed burns or use
pesticides or cut trees, please support them.
No. 2, the National Association of State Foresters has
testified before Interior Appropriations. I hope you will
support our appropriations request. And if it please the Chair,
I would like to make that written testimony part of the record
today.
Mr. Gibbons. Without objection.
[The statement submitted for the record by James L. Sledge,
Jr., President, National Association of State Foresters,
follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by James L. Sledge, Jr., President
of the National Association of State Foresters, on Fiscal Year 2004
Appropriations, Before U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Interior and Related Agencies
INTRODUCTION
The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is pleased to
provide testimony on the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) $4.8 billion budget
request for Fiscal Year 2004. Representing the directors of state
forestry agencies from all fifty states, eight U.S. territories, and
the District of Columbia, our testimony centers around those Deputy
Areas most relevant to the long term forestry operations of our
constituents: State and Private Forestry (S&PF), Wildland Fire
Management, and Research and Development (R&D). We believe the USFS
budget for Fiscal Year 2004, which offers opportunities for advancing
the sustainable management of public and private forestland nationwide,
can be strengthened through our recommendations.
FIRE MANAGEMENT
The landscape nature of fire calls for cross-boundary management
programs grounded in interagency cooperation and stakeholder
collaboration. As a long term, collaborative approach to fire
management, the National Fire Plan (NFP) brings communities,
governments, and agencies together to accomplish activities that reduce
wildfire risk and help burned lands quickly recover. NASF urges the
Subcommittee to continue its support of the NFP through continued
financial backing and increased coordination with states and local
communities.
We support the $186.6 million increase in Fire Operations, but
recognize that with rising costs for fire suppression additional
funding will be needed in the future. With over 85% of fire suppression
dollars going to control just 2% of all fires, the cut in Fire
Preparedness funding worries us greatly. NASF recommends funding Fire
Preparedness at $640.0 million.
As we were reminded in the aftermath of last summer's wildfires,
restoration activities following wildfire are critical to reducing soil
erosion and protecting water quality. Likewise, reducing dangerously
high fuel loads across the landscape can limit the severity of
wildfires. NASF recommends funding hazardous fuels reduction at $262.1
million and rehabilitation and restoration at $63.0 million.
State Fire Assistance (SFA) and Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA)
contribute greatly to fire protection on Federal, state, and private
lands. State forestry agencies and rural fire districts rely on the
technical and financial backing of SFA for fuel treatment, hazard
reduction, fire prevention outreach, and other preparedness and
protection activities. Local volunteer fire departments, often the
first to attack wildland-urban interface fires, depend on VFA's
financial support, technical assistance, and firefighting training.
When funded adequately, the complementary programs expand state and
local firefighting capacity to better match and work in concert with
the USFS to respond to wildfires, other emergencies, and national
disasters. Our suggested increases in SFA and VFA will ensure that
communities are prepared to implement the landscape level activities
needed for effective fire management.
Community and Private Lands Fire Assistance (CPLFA), which was
authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill, helps establish defensible space
around private homes and property and educates homeowners about
wildfire prevention. By helping communities and landowners reduce their
own risk, it provides an effective way to implement the NFP, enhance
steps taken through the Healthy Forests Initiative, and reduce the loss
of resources and the cost of fighting wildfires. NASF recommends
authorizing $15 million for CPLFA, emphasizing community planning and
supplemented with funding from the Healthy Forests Initiative. CPLFA
provides the connection between the NFP and communities that will
ensure that implementation of the NFP is sustained.
FOREST STEWARDSHIP
By encouraging non-industrial private landowners to manage for
multiple objectives, forest stewardship management plans help spread
the public benefits of environmentally responsible forest management.
The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP), which provides the technical
expertise for stewardship planning, ensures that management plans are
scientifically sound and provide multiple management objectives. NASF
applauds the Administration for the $33.6 million increase in funding
for FSP over last fiscal year for hazardous fuels reduction, invasive
species management, and the sustainable management of timber and non-
timber resources. A portion of this increase could further the
Administration's objectives on a broad, national scale through a
watershed forestry assistance program that provides incentives to
enhance water quality. NASF supports allocating $20.0 million for
watershed forestry assistance and $45.6 million for FSP.
Forest Stewardship provides assistance to landowners to develop
management plans, while the Forest Land Enhancement Program, authorized
in the 2002 Farm Bill, provides incentives for landowners to implement
sound forest management practices on the ground.
NASF also supports the Forest Legacy Program (FLP), which helps to
prevent the conversion of private forestland to non-forest uses through
conservation easements and land acquisition. We support the President's
increased funding level for FLP of $90.8 million.
ECONOMIC ACTION
The Economic Action Program (EAP) provides important support for
forest-based rural development. Forest landscapes are often overloaded
with fuels and many rural communities are facing economic transitions.
The financial and technical assistance provided by EAP can help develop
industries that reduce wildfire risk, restore fire adapted ecosystems,
and enhance economic and social well-being. The opportunities provided
by EAP to market underutilized, specialty, and non-traditional forest
products while working directly with local communities offers a chance
to simultaneously revitalize rural economies and solve some of our
forest management issues facing much of the country. NASF is currently
working with the USFS to restructure the program, and significant
progress is being made. NASF recommends funding EAP under Cooperative
Forestry at $28.7 million and under the NFP at $12.5 million.
FOREST INVESTORY AND ANALYSIS
NASF has long supported the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA), an
invaluable inventory of all the nation's public and private forests.
Regular forest inventories help foresters and decision-makers adapt
management plans to changing forest conditions and document
achievements of management. Administered under R&D, the FIA program is
also involved with surveys of non-industrial private forest owners,
assessments of forest health conditions, and other data useful for
landscape level management, benefiting all Deputy Areas. NASF urges the
Subcommittee to maintain the Federal responsibility to fund baseline
forest inventories and other long term forest research.
The President's request for Fiscal Year 2004, which represents a
significant decrease in the FIA budget, would severely hamper the
program. In order to maintain base funding and support annualized
inventories for each state, NASF recommends funding FIA at $65 million,
spread across R&D, S&PF, and the National Forest System (NFS). Our
recommendation would bring FIA almost to its full implementation level
of $67 million.
URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY
The Urban and Community Forestry (UCF) program helps sustain and
enhance tree cover in metropolitan areas through education, technical
assistance, and grants that promote trees and other vegetation as
integral components of cityscapes. With about 80% of the nation's
population living in urban areas, this is an S&PF program that truly
reaches most citizens where they live, work, and play. The increased
coordination of S&PF programs across the country from city centers
through the urban-wildland interface to rural areas is exemplified by
UCF. Federal UCF monies are leveraged through state forestry agencies
with private sector involvement and initiatives. UCF includes a
competitive grants program, another way that the funds are used to
effectively reach a variety of organizations and entities to enhance
urban forestry in America. NASF encourages the Subcommittee to fund UCF
at $50.0 million to ensure the continued success of the program.
FOREST HEALTH MANAGEMENT (FHM)
The early detection, control, and prevention of damaging insects
and disease is critical to the health of forests on all ownerships.
Through its three program areas--Federal Lands, Cooperative Lands, and
the proposed Emerging Pest and Pathogen program--FHM provides an
important foundation for managing insect and disease outbreaks by
reporting on forest health trends, surveying and monitoring, delivering
technical assistance, and providing prevention and suppression. NASF
encourages the Subcommittee to provide $107 million for these programs.
We also recommend $20.0 million in targeted funding for the Healthy
Forests Initiative to address the pine beetle infestation reaching
epidemic proportions in the southern region.
CONCLUSION
NASF seeks the Subcommittee's support for a Forest Service Fiscal
Year 2004 budget that will ensure the continued delivery of a broad
range of public benefits from forests. Collaboration among stakeholders
across the landscape--federal, state, and local government agencies,
private landowners, industry, and non-profit organizations--is
necessary to manage for the wide range of forest resources and values
found on all ownerships. The S&PF, fire, and R&D programs provide these
links, and the Federal share leverages private dollars and provides an
important catalyst for collaboration in order to take the work far
beyond the usual boundaries of Federal land management. Thank you for
the opportunity to provide our testimony.
______
[An attachment to Mr. Sledge's statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6708.009
Mr. Shannon. Thank you, sir. That includes recommended
budget for the forest health protection, forest health
management work of the Forest Service, and $20 million would be
for southern pine beetle control. That is a native invasive
species. We propose that to be part of the President's Healthy
Forests Initiative.
Finally, State foresters are pragmatic people. We like
early detection and rapid response and we like to study things
only as much as we need to to take intelligent actions. There
is a great model for early detection and rapid response. That
is the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho. Well
staffed, trained staff, good facility, good technology, good
equipment. If we could match a model like that for the fight
with invasive species, we would be off to a good start. Thank
you so much.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Shannon. We
appreciate your testimony.
[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, I am
pleased that Chairman Gilchrest and Chairman Radanovich have asked us
to testify on the growing problem of invasive species. 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. 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. Addressing the spread of invasive species is an
objective of high priority for my committee, as invasive species weeds,
insects, pathogens, animals, etc. are a growing concern among foresters
and other natural resource professionals. I hope you find our comments
instructive as you consider possible Congressional legislation or other
Federal actions to help get ahead of this ubiquitous problem.
In this testimony, I will address the topics you raised in your
invitation to testify: (1) the scope of the invasive species problem;
(2) current efforts to control or eradicate invasive species; (3) the
adequacy of existing statutory authority to stop the expansion of
invasives; and (4) our recommendations on how to stop the problem.
CLARIFICATION
Before I discuss the topics you raised, I would like to offer a
point of clarification about what constitutes an invasive species.
As natural resource managers, our use of the term ``invasive'' is
often synonymous with ``exotic'' or ``non-native 'species that
presumably originate from distant corners of the world and are
transported here. Many exotic insects, plants, and animals have become
very destructive after entering the U.S. However, it is important to
remember that several species indigenous to the U.S. are equally
harmful to our environment and economy, as well as those of other
countries. In other words, not all invasive species are exotic, and the
U.S. is both a recipient and a contributor to the problem.
The red oak borer is a case in point. Populations of the native
insects recently have skyrocketed in the Ozark Highlands of Arkansas,
Missouri, and Oklahoma. Aging trees and overcrowded conditions due to
the long term suppression of fires and the lack of active forest
management, exasperated by naturally thin soils, heat waves, and
droughts, have helped to create an environment for the red oak borer to
thrive. In the Ozark Highlands today, as much as one million acres of
dead or dying oaks pose severe wildfire hazards to communities,
drinking water supplies, and the health of forests.
SCOPE OF INVASIVE SPECIES PROBLEM
As the Subcommittees are acutely aware, the problem of invasive
species is large and growing. A recent report 1 on the
status of invasive species efforts published by the Congressional
Research Service (CRS) estimates that 30,000 non-native species exist
across all the states and U.S. territories. CRS also estimates that
economic losses due to invasives are estimated to exceed $123 billion
annually in the U.S. The impact of invasives are tremendous, degrading
the environment nationwide and affecting a range of industries
including transportation, agriculture, recreation, fisheries, and
others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Corn, L.M., E.H. Buck, J. Rawson, A. Segarra, and E. Fischer.
2002. Invasive Non-Native Species: Background and Issues for Congress.
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Nov. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forestry is no exception. From coast to coast and north to south,
forests are suffering from the damaging effects of a long list of
invasives: Asian longhorned beetle, gypsy moth, hemlock and balsam
wooly adelgid, and other damaging insects; kudzu, privet, callery pear,
and other plants; and sudden oak death, apparently caused by a
pathogen. Insects, diseases, and noxious weeds especially plague
forests across the nation, and aggressive efforts must be taken to keep
them under control.
As an example, the wooly adelgids are wreaking havoc on forestlands
on both the east and west coasts. The balsam wooly adelgid, a tiny
sucking insect that was introduced (probably from Europe) to the east
coast of North America about 1900, was first detected on the west coast
in about 1930. It infests all true firs (trees in the genus Abies), but
is most damaging to North American species such as Fraser fir and
balsam fir in the east, and subalpine fir and Pacific silver fir in the
west. In some sites, susceptible species have been wiped out. The range
of subalpine fir will probably be reduced to just the highest
elevations in its current range. When this insect reaches the extensive
subalpine fir forests of the Rocky Mountains, it will likely
dramatically change those landscapes.
In the east, the hemlock woolly adelgid is destroying streamside
forests throughout the mid-Atlantic and Appalachian region, threatening
water quality and sensitive aquatic species and posing a potential
threat to valuable commercial timber lands in northern New England.
State Foresters, private landowners, and our partners are
increasingly spending our limited money and time on controlling
outbreaks of these and other invasive forest pests.
EFFORTS TO CONTROL OR ERADICATE
State Foresters are currently involved with several efforts to
control or eradicate invasives. In this testimony, I would like to
mention three of the most promising efforts underway: (1) National
Invasive Species Council; (2) USDA Forest Service programs; and (3)
2002 Farm Bill Programs.
National Invasive Species Council
One of the most important steps made in recent years toward
enhancing the capacity to control or eradicate invasive species was the
creation of the National Invasive Species Council. Established through
an executive order signed by President Clinton in 1999, the Council is
an interagency committee gathered to develop recommendations for
international cooperation, promote a network to document and monitor
invasive species impacts, and encourage development of an information
sharing system on invasives.
In January of 2001, the National Invasive Species Council released
Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge, 2 a national
invasive species management plan that represents the first major
Federal attempt to coordinate invasive species actions across
government agencies. The plan calls for several areas of emphasis for
invasive species management that should be part of any comprehensive
effort to address the problem: (1) prevention; (2) early detection and
rapid response; and (3) control and management. The plan includes the
recommendation that draft legislation be developed to authorize
matching funds for states to manage invasive species and to control
invasives on state or private lands with the consent of the owner, a
prospect that NASF highly endorses and hopes the Subcommittees will
consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Available at http://www.invasivespecies.gov/council/nmp.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA Forest Service Programs
The USDA Forest Service State and Private Forestry (S&PF) Deputy
Area has several programs that assist landowners with invasive species
management, especially those within the Forest Health Protection unit.
As authorized by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, and
amended in 1990, the State Foresters deliver S&PF programs to provide
cost-share funding and technical assistance to private landowners. The
broad authority of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act can provide
the infrastructure to jumpstart any new invasive species management
programs that the Subcommittees may propose.
Through its three program areas (Federal Lands, Cooperative Lands,
and the proposed Emerging Pest and Pathogen program), Forest Health
Protection provides an important foundation for managing insect and
disease outbreaks by reporting on forest health trends, surveying and
monitoring, supporting the delivery of technical assistance, and
providing prevention and suppression activities. In our Fiscal Year
2004 budget recommendations, 3 NASF encouraged Congress to
include targeted funding under Forest Health Protection for the
President's Healthy Forests Initiative to address the southern pine
beetle infestation, which is reaching epidemic proportions. Also in
Fiscal Year 2004, the Forest Stewardship Program has some funding for
competitive grants for the purpose of improving forest health by
treating invasive insects, diseases, and plants on state and private
forestlands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Our testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Interior and Related Agencies, which includes our Fiscal Year 2004
recommendations, can be accessed at http://www.stateforesters.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasive species management is also important to the Forest
Service's other Deputy Areas, including the National Forest System and
Research and Development. These well-established programs need
sufficient funding to effectively address invasive species over the
long term. Again I would point you to NASF's House Appropriations
testimony for our Fiscal Year 2004 budget recommendations.
The Forest Service also works closely with the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to detect and rapidly respond to
exotic pests that threaten agricultural crops and natural habitats. A
1997 General Accounting Office report 4 suggests that
despite increases in funding, staffing, and the use of technology,
APHIS is having difficulty keeping up with the increased inspections
accompanying increases in trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Agricultural Inspection: Improvements Needed to Minimize Threat
of Foreign Pests and Diseases. GAO/RECD-97-102
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Farm Bill Programs
The 2002 Farm Bill made substantial gains for invasive species
management for forestry through authorizing the Forest Land Enhancement
Program and the Community and Private Lands Fire Assistance program.
Replacing the Stewardship Incentives Program and Forestry
Incentives Program, the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP) provides
education, technical assistance, and cost-share funding to private
forest landowners. FLEP is designed to keep priorities flexible at the
state level as much as possible, with priorities determined with input
by State Forest Stewardship Committees. The program can be used for a
variety of forestry assistance purposes, including the control,
detection, monitoring, and prevention of the spread of invasive species
and pests, as well as the restoration of ecosystems altered by
invasives. The State Foresters hold great promise for FLEP in terms of
landowner assistance, but it must be recognized that invasive species
management is only one of many activities that the program supports.
The Community and Private Lands Fire Assistance program, authorized
but not funded in the 2002 Farm Bill, will also address the need to
control noxious weeds and other invasive species within areas burned by
wildfire. Without controlling noxious weeds that invade recently burned
lands, areas damaged by fire can become significant sources for the
further dispersal of weeds to other areas.
ADEQUACY OF EXISTING STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Although numerous existing Federal statutes or authorities address
invasive species, there remain large gaps in law. The publication,
Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge, described above, includes a
partial list of 40 legal authorities of the U.S. Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior, as well as the Environmental
Protection Agency and other Federal agencies (see Appendix 3, pp. 62-
70). Although work done under these authorities may limit such
introductions, many laws do not directly address invasive species
control and prevention, and those that do generally target one species
that has become problematic. To my knowledge, the U.S. lacks a
comprehensive approach to address invasive species, one that makes use
of effective partnerships between all levels of government in all
regions to identify and quickly respond to threats early (before they
become a problem), effectively control outbreaks when they occur, and
restore damaged ecosystems.
According to the CRS report mentioned earlier, comprehensive
legislation on the treatment of non-native species has never been
enacted, and no single law provides coordination among Federal
agencies. The National Invasive Species Council may have made some
headway in regard to coordination, but its management plan also noted
the need to develop legislative proposals to fill gaps in current law.
Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge specifically explains that
current law does not clearly address the prevention of biological
invasion across foreseeable pathways, nor does it provide explicit
direction on management during the critical period between the
introduction of a new non-native species and the time the species
becomes established, when focus must shift from prevention to control.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The development of a comprehensive legislative package to help
State Foresters and other resource managers aggressively tackle
invasive species issues will be key to addressing invasive species over
the long term. I hope you will keep the following principles in mind as
you consider developing any such proposals.
Active Forest Management
Emphasis must be placed on active forest management. When the
problem is compelling and the solution is clear, management needs to
happen as soon as possible. Some research is needed, but the overall
emphasis should be on doing something on the ground where and when the
problems occur.
Early Detection and Rapid Response
The early detection, control, and prevention of damaging invasive
species is critical to the health of forests on all ownerships. The
broad range of sectors that contribute to the propagation and spread of
invasive species hold the promise for innovative and incentive-driven
solutions. Constituents from these sectors should be at the table in
developing solutions.
Existing successful programs may serve as models for early
detection and rapid response. For example, the CRS publication noted
above suggests that the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), of
which the State Foresters are a key cooperator, could be a model for
Congress to consider when developing rapid response programs. Efforts
to quickly respond to wildfires face many of the same challenges of
haste, technical needs, and interagency and intergovernmental
coordination as do rapid responses to invasive species outbreaks.
A Pathways Approach
Invasive species management should focus on the variety of pathways
by which invasive species enter the U.S. We need to identify and build
capacity to respond, such as through early detection at ports or other
shipping facilities. For example, through early detection measures
targeting solid wood packing materials at ports, we might have avoided
the spread of the Asian longhorned beetle to the U.S.
Long-term Investment
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. This is due to both the extended survival
or dormancy of seeds and the continuous threat of new species
introductions from overseas.
State/Federal Partnerships
Effective partnerships between various levels of government,
especially between state and Federal agencies, will be critical to
promptly dealing with invasive species issues. In guidelines recently
adopted by the Invasive Species Advisory Committee, an advisory
committee that supports the National Invasive Species Council, the
group makes clear that effective partnerships among all levels of
government are important first steps to building our capacity to
control and eradicate invasive species across the country. The
document, Guidelines and Strategies for a Successful State Federal/
State Partnership to Combat Invasive Species, was adopted by the
committee during its most recent meeting.
The advisory committee will be recommending that the Council use
the following guidelines when developing administrative proposals or
commenting on Congressional legislation for partnerships between
Federal and state agencies:
Incentive-driven with the voluntary cooperation of the
private sector
Flexible enough to address agency and community needs at
the local level
Support the development of state-level invasive species
management plans
Rapidly respond to priority invasive species that could
spread
Share successful invasive species management techniques
among states and regions
Increase public support and understanding of invasive
species issues
CONCLUSION
Invasive species management on all lands will be strengthened
through integrated, results-oriented work. Where program areas overlap,
limited Federal dollars can be spent most effectively on integrating
new and existing programs, and making use of the experts who are
already involved with established authorities. By bolstering existing
programs as much as developing new ones, a comprehensive package can
provide an ideal opportunity to effectively address invasive species in
a multi-ownership landscape.
NASF looks forward to the opportunity to work with the
Subcommittees to develop and carry out effective, comprehensive
programs to address the spread and control of invasive species. We are
willing to help draft legislation to address these issues.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony and answer your
questions today.
______
Mr. Gibbons. We turn now to Dr. Phyllis Windle, Senior
Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists. Doctor, welcome. The
floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS N. WINDLE, SENIOR SCIENTIST, UNION OF
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
COALITION ON INVASIVE SPECIES
Dr. Windle. Good afternoon and thank you. I am a Senior
Scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, but today I was
invited to represent the National Environmental Coalition on
Invasive Species, so I would ask that you would make that
correction in the hearing record. Our coalition includes 11
environmental or conservation groups with nearly 6 million
individual members and activists. I will also address the four
topics that you requested.
First, we feel that the scope of the problem and its
magnitude are staggering, and both are likely to worsen as
international trade and travel increase.
Second, in terms of efforts to control or eradicate
unwelcome invaders, we know that a number of groups have had
notable successes and there certainly is cause for optimism in
some places. But those methods usually apply to a single
species in a limited area and at high cost. Certainly efforts
are not keeping pace with the scope of the problem.
Third, whether statutory authority is sufficient to limit
problems, we would say no, it is not, especially if we talk
about gaps in authority as including ones of legislation and
oversight but also in how Federal agencies implement their
programs, what their mandates are, and how they fund them. A
number of authors have examined this issue of authority and
gaps and they have all come to the same conclusion. Part of
that conclusion is that those 23 pieces of legislation that you
mentioned are usually partial and designed for other purposes
than the problem we are speaking about today. We do not have a
seamless system that runs through all of the steps of
preventing new introductions, of responding quickly after
detecting them early, managing them well, enforcing our
regulations and laws, doing public education and outreach and
ensuring that we have the adequate research and monitoring in
place to prepare for the future.
Lastly, our recommendations. I would say that we are
playing a desperate game of catch-up and largely losing. The
invasive species that are already here are being joined by
others that are constantly arriving. Preventing new arrivals is
absolutely key. For this reason, we would recommend that
Federal agencies' statutory commitments be clarified and
strengthened. Their aim should be to cut risks of further
damaging or potentially damaging introductions as close to zero
as is feasible. We recognize that a rigorous program of
preimport screening is also essential. We urge that that be put
in place for all intentionally introduced species as one way
that Federal agencies could implement a stronger mandate. Of
course, there will be clearly noninvasive species that could
quickly be cleared and continued through the process for
import.
We would want equally stringent means put in place to
address the pathways by which inadvertent introductions occur.
The proposed National Aquatic Invasive Species Act is probably
the best attempt for doing this for ships' ballast water and we
would urge quick passage of the two related House bills.
We also recommend that the Federal agencies explore and
quickly implement new methods to fund efforts. Relying on
Federal appropriations is clearly not working. We can tell from
the Federal backlog that many of the agencies have for
addressing the problems in front of them.
Our third recommendation is to take additional steps to
ensure that international trade is less risky. This means
strengthening the mechanisms that are in place in relevant
international bodies and ensuring that the Office of the U.S.
Trade Representative addresses invasive species issues.
Specifically we ask that the Congress not support international
agreements that are less protective than U.S. policy.
We are rich in potential legislation in this Congress--a
welcome change from what has been the case at other times.
We offer our sincere thanks to all of you who have been
involved in drafting or supporting this legislation and for the
roles that many of you will take now as these pieces of
legislation move through this Committee. We are happy to give a
general endorsement to all of the bills that we see in front of
us this year, including Mr. Hefley's H.R. 119. We look forward
to working with you on their passage and urge you to take
action quickly.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Dr. Windle and ladies and
gentlemen, thanks to each of you for your very helpful
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Windle follows:]
Statement of Dr. Phyllis N. Windle, Senior Scientist, Union of
Concerned Scientists, on behalf of The National Environmental Coalition
on Invasive Species, American Lands Alliance, Center for International
Environmental Law, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense,
Environmental Law Institute, Great Lakes United, International Center
for Technology Assessment, National Wildlife Federation, National
Wildlife Refuge Association, The Nature Conservancy, Union of Concerned
Scientists
Mr. Chairmen and members of the Committee, the National
Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species appreciates the opportunity
to address you today. It is on behalf of the eleven conservation
organizations that constitute this coalition that I am testifying.
Together, our member organizations have nearly six million
individual members and supporters. One member of our coalition has
protected millions of acres in private preserves and works with over
1,900 corporate sponsors. Several members have affiliates in at least
46 states. One coalition member is made up of more than 150 community
groups as well as groups of conservationists, hunters and anglers, and
labor unions. Our other members have long provided the scientific,
economic, and legal analyses and the responsible advocacy that are at
the heart of what we recommend today. Many of us have been tackling
issues of invasive species for more than a decade. Thus, we speak from
considerable experience.
The threat of invasive species is common ground for all of us here
today. Whether we are concerned about conservation, about maintaining
healthy rangelands; about sustainable agriculture, fisheries, and
forestry, or about trade, invasive species are a threat to our past and
future accomplishments. We all want equitable, practical, and cost-
effective solutions to this environmental problem.
You asked that we specifically address four topics today:
1. The scope of the problem--Both the scope and magnitude of this
problem are staggering and it is likely to get worse as international
trade and trade increase;
2. Efforts to control or eradicate unwelcome invaders--Groups have
had notable successes but their successes have applied to single
species, usually in limited areas, and against long odds and high
costs.
3. Whether existing statutory authority is sufficient to limit
problems--No, it is not, especially when we consider here gaps not only
in congressional law-making and oversight but also in Federal agencies'
mandates, implementation, and funding.
4. Our recommendations to solve the problem.
While our coalition has no magic bullets that can completely
redress the invasive species problem, we do offer guidance,
recommendations, and support for some of the proposals before this
Congress, along with constructive suggestions for improving them. We
believe these are good ideas that will make a difference.
First and foremost, we recommend that Federal agencies' statutory
commitments, their policies, and practices be made more stringent in
order to better prevent further introductions of invasive species.
Also, we recommend exploring and quickly implementing new methods to
adequately fund the efforts that are so urgently needed. We urge that
invasive species issues be more thoroughly addressed in arenas dealing
with international trade--a root cause of invasive species problems.
1. The Scope of the Problem
Picture the South without dogwoods, Vermont without maple trees,
the Chesapeake Bay without oysters, or the Great Lakes without lake
trout. Non-native and harmful species are increasingly recognized as a
severe threat to our nation's economy, natural resources, and health.
Most non-native organisms in the United States are either beneficial or
not harmful. A fraction, though, cause damage and, at their worst, the
environmental and economic costs are staggering.
Invasive species disrupt the function of ecosystems by altering
fire cycles, the flow of water and nutrients, or the kinds of organisms
occupying whole areas. As such alterations multiply, what were once
unique regional characteristics are beginning to blur. Decades of
conservation achievements are being undermined. And the health of
resource-based industries is being jeopardized. For example:
Invasive species are the number one cause of biodiversity
loss in the Great Lakes and are expected to be the leading cause of
extinctions in North American freshwater ecosystems this century.
In fact, invasive species represent a primary threat to
approximately 50% of the U.S.'s threatened and endangered species.
Insects and disease pathogens introduced with trade from
Europe and Asia have damaged 70% of the 165 million acres of forest in
the Northeast and Midwest and threaten both commercial and non-
commercial species.
More than one-third of the grasslands and shrublands of
the Intermountain West have been invaded by non-native plants.
Nearly eight million acres of habitat distributed among
half the 540 National Wildlife Refuges across the country are infested
by at least 675 different invasive species.
More than 200 of the 375 National Park Service units have
flagged invasive species as a significant management concern that
raises the costs of operation and contributes to their backlog of
maintenance projects.
Economic Damage
We have no complete accounting of invasive species' economic costs
across the nation, although estimates of overall annual losses of many
tens of billions of dollars have been put forth. Some well-documented
numbers indicate the magnitude of the economic damage:
Between the late 1980s when the zebra mussel arrived in
the Great Lakes and 1994, documented cumulative losses to about 50% of
the Great Lakes' water users were $60.2 million.
In the early 1990s when leafy spurge infested several
million acres in the upper Great Plains, it caused an estimated
economic loss of $130 million per year; heavy infestations have reduced
the value of some ranch land by 90%.
During the 2001-2002 fiscal year, more than $22 million
in Federal, state, and local funds were spent to manage mostly aquatic
plants on more than 53,000 acres in Florida alone.
In 2001, $10.7 million in Federal and state funds were
spent to slow the spread of European gypsy moths across a band of 56
million acres in nine southeastern and midwestern states.
Tamarisk--a weed of riparian areas--is estimated to have
extracted water worth an estimated $39-$121 million per year if the
water had been used instead for irrigation in 12 western and Great
Plains states.
Mediterranean and Mexican fruit fly outbreaks cost $37
million in 2002 and are expected to cost $63 million in 2003. If these
flies become established, losses to crop damage and export markets
could exceed $821 million per year.
As the world's largest economy, the introduction of invasive
species into the United States through trade is of primary concern. For
example, the vast majority of goods and people arriving in North
America arrive by way of the United States. Additionally, in 2000, one
in every two marine vessels in the world's active fleet visited the
United States, and the United States had 14 of the world's 30 busiest
airports by cargo volume. Only two percent of incoming shipments are
inspected, however, and other, more effective strategies for protection
have not been put in place. The result is a significant gap in our
frontline defense against preventing both terrestrial and aquatic
introductions.
Our concerns transcend regions and ecosystems. There are clear
risks to the nation's waters, forests, farmlands, rangelands, wetlands,
natural areas, and public and private property values. While much
research and management has focused on agricultural systems in the
past, we now have enough experience in non-agricultural areas to know
what sorts of policies are needed in these areas--ones that also
contribute to the nation's economy and quality of life.
2. Efforts to Control or Eradicate Unwelcome Invaders
With thousands of invasive species in the United States, curtailing
their continued spread throughout the country is an important aim.
There are exciting examples of groups successfully doing just that.
Eradicating populations of invasive species has the advantage of
providing a long-term solution. In the past, eradication was often
perceived to be nearly impossible. But recent efforts suggest that, for
a surprisingly large group of species and under the right conditions,
eradication holds promise. For example, eradication of mammals,
especially on islands and especially those that are plant-eaters, often
works. Eradication of widespread terrestrial plants is more difficult
but not impossible with persistence and--often--with sizeable budgets
and a great deal of volunteer help, too. Eradication of aquatic
invaders is likely the most to difficult to achieve, but may be
possible in cases where new species are detected early and quickly
treated.
These are among recent and anticipated successes of eradication
campaigns:
The Nature Conservancy staff reclaimed the Coachella
Valley Preserve in California from tamarisk. The trees were planted as
a windbreak but spread, out-competed native plants, and used enough
water to dry up some desert pools. Tamarisk was removed from tens of
acres of wetlands. Today the vegetation has returned to its native
composition and a spring flows that had been dry for years--a very
visible success in a high-value locale.
The National Park Service continues to protect the most
pristine rain forest remaining in Hawaii. In the late 1970s, an
invasion of feral pigs threatened a particularly valuable area of
Haleakala National Park. The University of Hawaii and the National Park
Service cooperated to study the pigs' impacts along with options for
their control. In the mid-1980's staff constructed fences and snared
the pigs inside until the entire population was removed--in about four
years. Now, snares catch the few pigs that enter the park via
occasional holes in the still-maintained fences.
Officials expect to eradicate the Asian longhorned beetle
from Chicago this year. This insect was detected in Chicago in 1998.
Since then, concerted efforts by Federal, state, and city officials
have almost succeeded in eradicating the beetle from five outbreak
areas. Experts expect to find the last active beetles this year. These
efforts involved the destruction of more than 1,400 trees and a cost of
tens of millions of dollars. Unfortunately, efforts to eradicate the
more widespread infestations in New York and New Jersey have not had
the same success and a previously unknown outbreak was discovered in
Jersey City last year. Failure to complete eradication of this insect
could result in damage exceeding $600 billion.
Federal, state, and local partners are preparing to
eradicate nutria from Maryland's Eastern shore. The nutria, an invasive
rodent from South America, is destroying thousands of acres of wetlands
from Maryland to Louisiana by feeding on the roots of wetland plants. A
team of partners, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Geological Survey, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, University
of Maryland, and local governments, groups, and landowners, is working
together to control and eradicate this animal on the Eastern Shore of
Maryland. Researchers are studying the behavior, population dynamics,
and impacts of nutria; creating models of the system; and then
evaluating strategies to effectively eliminate this species and to help
the vegetation recover. Once the best eradication strategy is
determined, partner groups will implement it.
When conditions do not permit eradication, a number of
jurisdictions have adopted a practice called ``maintenance control,''
an approach pioneered in Florida. The focus is on keeping invasive
species' populations at levels low enough for their harm to be
tolerable.
There are also notable successes with this approach:
Ongoing efforts have reduced populations of sea lampreys
by 90% in most areas of the Great Lakes. Sea lampreys reached the Great
Lakes after shipping canals were built from the Atlantic in the early
twentieth century. They are parasitic aquatic vertebrates that attach
to and prey on a wide variety of large fish--and contributed
significantly to the collapse of the Great Lakes fisheries. For
example, the U.S. and Canadian harvest of lake trout went from about 15
million pounds in Lakes Huron and Superior annually to about 300,000
pounds per year in the 1960s due to lamprey-induced mortality. Now U.S.
and Canadian officials, along with state experts and other partners,
use a combination of methods to keep sea lamprey populations low. These
include population assessments, treatment with chemical lampricides,
physical barriers, traps, and the release of sterile males, a form of
biological control.
The National Park Service's Exotic Plant Management Teams
are cutting weed problems in all parts of the nation. They have
successfully eradicated local populations of weeds or reduced them to
manageable levels for 21 plants in 19 national parks, monuments, or
other Federal properties.
Test treatments of spartina grass have been successful at
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge in southwestern Washington, the
largest estuary in the northwest United States region outside Puget
Sound. Spartina is treated from amphibious tractors equipped with a
Global Positioning System (GPS) to guide infrared precision spray
booms. This effort has resulted in immediate benefits for migratory
shorebirds.
These examples represent significant successes at controlling or
eradicating highly damaging invasive species. We know that there are
others. The time is ripe to share and replicate these successes, many
times over. Also, we can draw from these examples key lessons for
making U.S. policy more effective. We've learned that certain, single
species can have devastating effects. We know that effective management
often requires a long-term commitment, with stable funding. Relaxing
efforts for even one year can allow organisms to rebound and set back
efforts substantially. Public and private groups make such long-term
commitments because the damage of some invasive species is so high and
the benefits of their control are so sizeable.
We must note, however, that the resources we put into managing
invasive species do not approach being adequate. At present, technology
allows only localized eradications of widespread invaders. Meanwhile,
the floodgates remain open to more invaders. Given these challenges, we
believe it is time for us, as a nation, to reexamine our fundamental
approach to invasive species. While these eradication and control
efforts are laudable, ultimately prevention of introductions is the
most effective measure to protect our natural and other resources. The
Committee is wise to ask whether the legal authority exists on which to
base more effective policy.
3. Whether Existing Statutory Authority Is Sufficient
For U.S. policy and programs to successfully address the large-
scale threats posed by harmful, non-native species, there must be
authority to effectively carry out several major types of activities:
Prevention--to keep the most damaging invasive species
from reaching the United States and becoming established here.
Early Detection and Rapid Response--to monitor and detect
new, potentially damaging species quickly and to respond to them
rapidly while eradication is still possible.
Control and Management--to coordinate ongoing efforts
with local, state, regional, Federal, and international authorities to
minimize impacts of existing invasions and prevent their spread.
Public Outreach and Education--to educate the public
about the seriousness of the threat and inform individual actions that
can limit the introduction or spread of harmful, non-native species.
Research and Monitoring--to invest in effective and
environmentally sound control technologies and other tools, and in the
biologists and biological research needed to ensure long-term success.
A number of authors have examined whether adequate authority exists
and they have come to the same conclusion: current authority is not
sufficient to solve the problems we face. Existing policies and
programs typically include some combination of these elements but there
are many gaps--gaps that result from a number of sources. Agency
mandates may be confusing or incomplete. Federal agencies may fail to
fully implement existing statutory authority. Legislatively authorized
levels of funding may not match actual appropriations. Or there may be
areas where Federal efforts fall between the cracks of congressional
jurisdiction.
As a result, current U.S. policy is a jigsaw puzzle with many
holes. Most of the missing pieces were identified more than a decade
ago, yet little has been done to put them in place. These are among the
most serious gaps:
Federal agencies have no clear legislative mandate to
fully protect the nation's resources from the worst risks of
international trade.
Agencies lack a clear legislative mandate to use their existing
authority to implement a level of protection as close to zero risk of
further harmful invasions as is feasible. Too often agencies (and
especially USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS)
act as if they are mandated to promote unfettered free trade rather
than to limit international trade so as to prevent further harmful
invasions. This may appear profitable in the short-run but, in the
long-term, the environmental and economic costs will be high.
Specific gaps in statutory authority remain.
Where Federal law does exist, there are often major exceptions in
authority. For example, the Lacey Act is our nation's chief means of
restricting imports of invasive animals. However, it restricts only a
limited set of species or species groups and the process by which new
species are added is slow and cumbersome. Nor does any agency have
authority for invasive organisms, like the coqui frogs in Hawaii, that
arrived with plants but are not themselves plant pests.
In fact, many clearly harmful actions that people would probably
agree should not be allowable--like dumping water hyacinth into public
waters--are. And not all of the people either inside or outside of
government agencies agree on what current law allows their agencies to
do. Federal agencies report that they are often requested to undertake
tasks that may not be authorized under current law, like taking
emergency action. Occasionally, they will fill such gaps on an
informal, ad hoc, basis because of pressing local needs. But that can
leave agencies on shaky legal ground.
Federal agencies with existing authority sometimes fail
to exercise it in important ways, creating a gap in implementation.
Major problems in implementation are common, e.g., the brevity of
current ``dirty lists'' under the Lacey Act and the Plant Protection
Act of 2000 and the time it takes to add organisms to these lists. One
especially important such gap occurs in the way APHIS is implementing
the Plant Protection Act. This law clarified that APHIS has
responsibility to protect wetlands, grasslands, rangelands, and other
natural systems from pests, including insects, diseases, and weeds.
With a few exceptions (e.g., the Asian longhorned beetle), APHIS has
continued to emphasize agricultural systems. We fear this gap in
implementation will increase now that APHIS' port inspection duties
have been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, further
distancing inspectors from concerns regarding pests of natural systems.
The lack of adequate funding can itself create gaps where
agencies might otherwise be willing to be innovative and
entrepreneurial in applying their authority.
More proactive agencies often move forward on the basis of general
direction from Congress if their funding is generous enough to
encourage innovation. Such is not the case regarding invasive species.
For example, appropriations have never reached the levels authorized by
the National Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 or its
1996 amendments, even for the popular cost-sharing grants to states
where demand far exceeds funds available.
There is at least one key gap in jurisdiction among the
congressional committees responsible for oversight of invasive species
issues.
If APHIS should undertake the protection of natural resources, as
the 2000 law requires, it is not clear that the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees would be the most appropriate groups to conduct
oversight. No other committee has that jurisdiction now, however, and
we would support the Resources Committee seeking joint jurisdiction in
this specific area.
Federal agencies often have competing missions when it
comes to invasive species.
It is not unusual to find certain agencies promoting the same
species that others are attempting to eradicate or control. So far, no
means have been developed to resolve such differences. The interagency
National Invasive Species Council (NISC) should be in a position to do
this and its staff has begun developing a process for competing
agencies to discuss such conflicts. However, NISC has no statutory
authority for this task and therefore limited ability to change agency
practices. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has
responsibility for addressing inter-agency conflicts but it has not
become involved in this issue. However, CEQ and NISC are cooperating to
provide agencies with guidance on applications of the National
Environmental Policy Act.
The sorts of gaps described here in Federal law, policy, and
practice are often paralleled in states. Increasingly, though, state
officials are becoming impatient with lax Federal policy or with long
delays in making improvements. For example, a number of states are
moving forward with their own standards for managing the ballast water
of ships, in the absence of strong Federal measures, and establishing
their own coordinating councils to streamline state action. We expect
that such efforts will increase as the cumulative numbers of invasive
species in the country continues to rise and their economic,
environmental, and health costs are more accurately tallied.
4. Recommendations to Solve the Problem
Our intent is to strengthen Federal agency mandates, as well as
their policies and practices. Our long-term goal is to implement a
level of protection that is as close to a zero risk of further harmful
introductions as is feasible. We propose to reach this long-term goal
with a flexible toolkit of economic and other methods. Until we set
such a goal, we cannot know if our work is succeeding. And failure is
too costly--for a problem that multiples with delay.
Our top priority: preventing the introduction of additional damaging
species.
Nowhere is it truer that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure.
While the Committee on Resources is responsible for minimizing
invasive species' damage on lands and waters under Federal
jurisdiction, this effort will fail unless backed up by more effective
programs to prevent the entry and establishment of new invaders. The
current U.S. approach of creating a short list of harmful species to
regulate often limits the import of species only after extensive
private investments have been made in it, after injurious species have
already escaped into the wild, or after eradication is no longer
possible.
Therefore, we recommend that all species intentionally imported
into the United States be effectively evaluated for invasiveness prior
to import. Those known to be invasive or those highly likely to harm
native biodiversity and ecosystems and other important resources should
be kept out. Key legislation being proposed does not include rigorous
screening and agencies are moving too slowly. We consider careful and
thorough pre-import screening essential.
We envision that many clearly safe species would be exempt from
this process. Large groups of obviously useful species, like cattle,
crop varieties, and clearly non-invasive organisms could be quickly
given a green light for continued entry. We believe that such a program
can be based on science and not impose unnecessary trade barriers or
protectionism. In fact, such approaches work elsewhere, such as for
plants in western Australia, and they have been successfully tested in
Hawaii.
The Committee on Resources has jurisdiction over two statutes that
could be used in such a screening system--the Lacey Act and the
proposed National Aquatic Invasive Species Act. APHIS has chief
responsibility for controlling entry of plants, weeds, plant pests like
insects and diseases, and diseases of livestock and poultry; oversight
falls to the Agriculture Committee. Any comprehensive screening effort
would also involve agencies which this Committee oversees, e.g., the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Federal Government must also do a more thorough job of
preventing inadvertent introductions through major pathways such as
those that occur in the ballast water of ships or attached to ships;
those that arrive with solid wood packaging, logs or lumber; those that
come with living plants or as parasites on imported animals; and the
fish and mollusk diseases that are carried with aquaculture imports.
For the past decade, much effort has focused on limiting introductions
in ballast water. But unfortunately, the rate at which new aquatic
invasive species are colonizing the Great Lakes has not declined
despite implementation of Canadian ballast water exchange guidelines in
1989, followed by mandatory U.S. requirements set in 1993 for ships
entering the Great Lakes. This suggests we need to redouble our
efforts, quickly develop and implement ballast water discharge
standards to protect all national waters, and perhaps consider
alternate means of moving goods into the Great Lakes region. We support
these steps. We also support phasing out the use of wood as a packing
material and ensuring that logs, lumber, and chips imported from
everywhere except Canada be treated to eliminate invasive species.
Our second priority: adding to available funding
Relying upon Federal appropriations alone has not provided either
adequate or sufficiently flexible funding to address growing problems.
Long backlogs of needed but unfunded efforts are typical of Federal
land management agencies. For example, in 1998, efforts against
invasive species cost the National Refuge System $13 million. Today,
the backlog of known invasive species projects on refuges has increased
to more than $150 million, fully 15% of the entire operations backlog.
Likewise, the National Park Service cannot control invasive species on
93 percent of its affected lands.
Rapid response programs to manage newly detected invasive species
when their populations are still small must be one of our highest
priorities. Yet funds for emergency actions are not available to every
agency that needs them, when it needs them. Often these resources are
most needed at the end of the summer and early fall--just when Federal
agencies tighten contracting and accounting practices in preparation
for the change in fiscal years. Funding for research is woefully
scarce. The identification of potential new invaders, better knowledge
of invasive species life cycles, a more thorough understanding of their
impact would accelerate our capacity to both prevent and control
invaders. Funding for enforcement is also scarce yet we know that
stronger enforcement can enhance measures' effectiveness.
Knowing the key role that reliable funding plays, we recommend that
efficient, and effective programs have the long-term commitment of
resources they need to continue. Examples include the program to
control sea lampreys in the Great Lakes, the National Park Service's
Exotic Plant Management Teams, Federal research on forest health, and
Federal cost-sharing for states to implement their state-wide aquatic
invasive species management plans. We feel that the first
responsibility of this committee is curtailing invasive species on
Federal lands. After that, we support cost-sharing programs with other
land and water managers.
Thus NECIS recommends that additional means be explored and
implemented by which the amount of government funding available to
address all aspects of invasive species issues can be substantially
increased or supplemented with other sources for prevention; early
detection and rapid response; control and management; research and
monitoring; enforcement; and public outreach and education.
Appropriations are not enough.
We support the constructive use of economic policy tools, such as
incentives, to prevent harmful invasions and to control them when they
occur. This could include implementation of a fee-based approach, such
as has been used successfully in the past to create the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund. We suggest that NISC be charged with examining
the full range of other possible funding options and report back to the
Committee on its findings by January 1, 2004.
Our third priority: making international trade less risky.
Finally, we recommend strengthening mechanisms and regulations to
prevent the import and export of invasive species via trade in North
America and the broader international community.
There are several ways to accomplish this. First, the United States
should make more effective use of multilateral conventions, including
the Internatonal Plant Protection Convention, the Convention on
Biological Diversity, and agreements handled by the International
Maritime Organization. Second, the regulations issued by international
bodies charged with protecting plant and animal health should be
strengthened, particularly with regard to managing the major pathways
by which invasive species are moved. Third, the U.S. Trade
Representative should be advised to address invasive species'
movements, impacts, and standards for their regulation within the
negotiation of bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements.
Finally, the United States should not become party to international
agreements intended to protect ecosystems from introductions of
invasive species if the agreement is not at least as protective as U.S.
standards.
5. NECIS Positions on Pending Legislation
In this Congress, there is a wealth of proposed legislation that
addresses various issues regarding invasive species. We appreciate the
level of interest and importance the topic is now receiving. Also, we
congratulate the sponsors who have worked so hard on these bills. In
general, we support the legislation offered by members of this
Committee as well as the bills referred to it.
Here, we highlight just a few of the aspects of various bills that
we find particularly helpful and also list a few of our concerns. We
are available to suggest ways to strengthen key provisions, to
integrate similar aspects of different bills, and to ensure their
passage.
The Species Protection and Conservation of the
Environment Act (SPACE)
H.R.119 The Harmful Invasive Weed Control Act
We applaud efforts to use Federal funding as an incentive to
encourage local government agencies, private organizations, and
individuals to be more proactive in managing invasive and invading
species. The Aldo Leopold Native Heritage Grant Program offered in the
SPACE bill is commendable not only in that it provides such incentives,
but also in that it provides additional incentives for innovative
technologies, early detection, and rapid response. We are particularly
supportive of the 100 percent Federal funding proposed in SPACE for
rapid response. There is broad consensus--among organizations,
scientists, and government representatives--that such rapid action is
the single most cost-effective way to stop incipient invasions. We
further appreciate that, in SPACE, successful projects can be renewed.
Sadly, invasive species control rarely ends completely and the
accomplishments achieved in these projects will likely need additional,
although likely less expensive, follow-up management and monitoring.
As for our concerns, finding efficient ways to manage invasive
species is a shared goal of all NECIS members. These bills could
promote such efficiency, not just through the innovative technology
they already encourage, but by promoting projects and products that can
serve as models for efficient and effective control. In this regard, we
encourage the Committee to include language that mandates broad
publication of the results of good projects so that they can be
replicated elsewhere. Also, it is our hope that appropriations for
other important programs not be diverted to fund Federal cost-sharing
for these grants. Therefore we urge you to enlist the help of your
colleagues on the Appropriations Committees to provide sources of
additional funds.
H.R.1080 The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of
2003
H.R.1081 The Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act
These companion bills reauthorize legislation first passed in 1990
and updated in 1996. We support a great many of these bills'
provisions. We applaud the broader geographic and taxonomic coverage;
new efforts to monitor new invaders are important; provisions for rapid
response, identification and management of high risk pathways; and
annual updates to the lists of species whose import is limited by the
Lacey Act or the Plant Protection Act. The bill takes a very modest
step toward pre-import assessment of species' invasiveness. It aims to
move the nation away from a primary reliance on ballast water exchange
to ballast water treatment and also to develop environmentally sound
methods managing aquatic invaders.
As for our concerns, the deadlines for setting and implementing new
ballast water management standards are years away. Likewise, the
relatively weak provisions for pre-import screening will not apply for
several years and then a very large group of organisms in trade are
exempted. There is no requirement that the proposed screening process
be carefully reviewed by independent and qualified experts. Nor is a
mechanism included to ensure that funding is adequate. We would not
support Federal preemption of state ballast water standards, which is
sometimes discussed as a trade-off against setting additional fees.
H.R.989 The Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act of 2003
This bill requires that final standards for treating ballast water
to remove nonindigenous organisms be issued on a strict timeline. We
support the intent to rapidly implement provisions called for in 1996.
H.R.266 The National Invasive Species Council Act
The Species Protection and Conservation of the
Environment Act (SPACE)
The Federal response to invasive species needs to be on firmer
footing and authorizing the National Invasive Species Council in
legislation is an easy and important way to achieve that. Therefore we
support the codification of the full Executive Order that established
the Council and its Advisory Committee. We believe this will help
ensure the timely implementation of the Council's first and subsequent
National Management Plans and provide the public with recourse if
implementation slows. We believe it is essential to enact that part of
Section 2 of the Executive Order which Federal agencies have so far
done little to address--the sections asking them to identify their own
actions which affect the status of invasive species and not authorize,
fund, or carry out actions likely to promote or introduce such species
in the U.S. or elsewhere. This section also gives agencies authority
for the full range of actions needed to make U.S. policy more
comprehensive. We consider both areas essential.
As to our concerns, we are not certain that frequently rotating the
Council's chair among three Federal agencies will be workable. The
transition between Presidents delayed the Council's work by more than a
year; we fear additional time will be lost with each transition to a
new chair, and with any changes to staff that occur at the same time.
We recommend placing the Council staff within the Executive Office of
the President, which would provide a permanent ``home'' for the
Council's work while also elevating the status of the issue.
H.R.695. The Tamarisk Research and Control Act of 2003
In the absence of more comprehensive legislation, species-specific
approaches focus on critical threats to the biological diversity,
natural resources, and economy of a specific state or region. They also
provide for improvements to the science of managing the species. In the
future, we hope to see more comprehensive legislation on terrestrial
invasive species that includes many of the concepts included in this
bill, as well as in the new Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003
(P.L. No. 108-16).
6. Conclusion
In summary, NECIS believes that the problems associated with
invasive species have very real and practicable solutions. This issue
is common ground for the farmer, rancher, and the environmentalist; for
the academic and the policy maker; for the importer and the consumer;
and for developed and developing countries. Solutions require the
participation of all of us.
We look forward to working with the Committee on the tasks before
us. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am pleased to answer
any questions you might have.
______
Mr. Gibbons. I have just one question which I will throw
out there and then we will turn to the members for individual
questions. When there is a conflict between existing statutes
that this government has created--for example, the Endangered
Species Act and other species or other acts which would deal
with invasive species, statutory authority such as an invasive
species authority which would deal with the tamarask? We have
heard about the problem with tamarask versus the south willow
flycatcher which is an endangered species. The south willow
flycatcher is nesting in the tamarask. How do you deal or how
do you propose to deal with a conflict of existing statutory
authorities in the management of an endangered species versus
the elimination of an invasive species? At what point do you
draw the line and ask yourself the value of one species versus
the other?
Mr. Gibbons. And I will start over here with Mr. Arnett.
And if you have any suggestions, that would be helpful.
Mr. Arnett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the easiest
answer, perhaps not the most acceptable to many, is to bring
some common sense back into the legislation both of endangered
species and the many invasive species bills we have. It has
become so complex now that it is almost impossible to
adjudicate between what you were suggesting.
And we can't use pesticides; there are certain plants they
want to get rid of that are invasive, but also are a harboring
ground for an endangered butterfly. Someplace along the line,
some common sense has to be used, and that should be left in
the hands of State directors, whether they are agricultural
directors, fish and game directors or whoever they may be.
Most of these problems that everybody has talked about or
that I have heard anyway, I don't think anybody doubts that
invasive species is a problem and it is a worse problem in the
West, as far as the flora goes, than it is in other parts of
the country, and it should be eradicated. But it shouldn't be a
Federal responsibility to take care of that for the ranchers in
Nevada or California or wherever they may be. Someplace along
the line, the jurisdiction has to go back to where it belongs
at the State level and let them take care of their own
problems.
As an example, it should be up to the State whether they
may want to have an invasive species. In California, we have
the striped bass, a very fine sport fish. It is not necessarily
a commercial fish there, but we chose to bring the striped bass
back there in the 1800's. It is not indigenous to the Pacific
coast and the inland waters of the State of California, but it
was up to the people at that time to decide whether they wanted
that invasive species, and they brought it into the State.
So I guess my short recommendation is that someplace
Congress is going to have to look clearly at the Endangered
Species Act and see where it has gone from where it was
intended. I think it has gone far beyond its original intent
and, someplace along the line, that common sense has to be
brought back, included with the invasive species and the
endangered species so that some kind of dedicated purpose for
the benefit of mankind can be brought into play.
Other than that--
Mr. Gibbons. Does anybody else have a comment? Dr. Windle,
would you like to make a comment to that interface, that
conflict?
Dr. Windle. The conflict between Federal agencies is
nothing new and it is probably not unique to this area. When
the Office of Technology Assessment examined this question back
in 1993, they found that was frequently the case, that one
agency would be promoting a species and another agency would be
trying to get rid of it. I think that is one of the reasons why
the National Management Plan addresses this question and
suggests that maybe the National Invasive Species Council could
be a forum where people with different approaches and the
different agencies could sort out these issues.
Mr. Gibbons. In the 2 seconds I have remaining, is there a
solution in a conflict situation between species with the laws
that we have on the books? Do you feel that there is a solution
capable between the willow--south willow fly catcher and the
tamarisk that would be suitable to all parties, or are we going
to find ourselves involved in litigation from here till, you
know, whatever point in the future you want to talk about?
But is there a possible solution or are we in a position,
in a situation where we have no alternative?
Dr. Windle. I don't have a short answer for your question
about that specific example. I don't believe that the National
Invasive Species Council has the authority to mediate in
situations like that. The Council on Environmental Quality has
as its task resolving some such conflicts, but I don't think
they are involved now, either.
So there is not an immediate solution for you and I agree
that it is going to be difficult.
Mr. Gibbons. Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have
certainly been enlightened, and I appreciate your testimony.
You all have different fields. I think, in listening, what we
have come up to or come to the conclusion is that the problem
is staggering and that we need comprehensive legislation to
address these problems and work closer together.
I have just a couple of quick questions, and it has to deal
with science; and maybe Dr. Windle you would be the one to
answer it. Throughout the hearing it has become clear that
prevention is the key to our problem in the long run. What kind
of approaches can be applied and do you need a grant program or
do you have moneys? Are the scientists working on this? Because
as someone mentioned here, we have one problem, but before we
can solve it, we have another problem on hand.
So are there funds that you are requesting?
Dr. Windle. My organization is not, nor is the coalition
that I speak for. I think perhaps when Dr. James Carlton and
Gregory Ruiz speak to you on the next panel, they may have some
things that are particularly pertinent to that. One specific
piece of legislation that would reauthorize the National
Invasive Species Act is directly about research. That would be
very helpful, including an element that would provide for
education of younger scientists.
Ms. Bordallo. Of course, I am coming back to--and I want to
thank you for remembering the territories in your comments,
because many times we forget that we do have some very
important territories that belong to the United States. And we
have problems as well.
From a scientific perspective, Doctor, is there an
estimated date--or maybe some others can answer--that when we
can see that there will be an eradication of the brown tree
snake in our territory? I don't know if any work is being done
on this. All I know is we are getting money and funding from
the Federal Government to handle the problem, but what about
the prevention? What about the eradication?
Dr. Windle. I don't know any details about that, but I know
that there is a brown tree snake Committee that works under the
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, and they could probably
give you a better answer than I; and I would be happy to refer
you to them.
Ms. Bordallo. Is there anyone here on the panel of
witnesses that belongs to that?
All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I think
what we need here and what we are hearing is that we need a
comprehensive piece of legislation to address some of these
very important needs. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. [Presiding.] Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. No, thank you.
Mr. Peterson. We would like to thank the panel; we
appreciate your coming and educating us.
We now will bring the next panel forward. We will invite
Dr. Gregory Ruiz, Mr. Roger Mann, Dr. James Carlton, Mr. Fred
Grau, Mr. James Beers and Dr. Fred Kraus to now join us.If you
could take our seats here, we can get started.
Mr. Peterson. We first would like--if we could have order,
please. Thank you. We want to thank--I am going to go down in
the list here to Mr. Fred Grau, President of Grasslyn, from my
district, from Penn State; and we want to thank him for the
beautiful bouquet of invasive species on our right over here.
And he can talk about that, but it is not often that people
bring us flowers.
I am an avid gardener. This weekend I was moving my
perennials around. I guess some of those would be invasive
species, but I still love them. We want to thank you for
beautifying our room here; and welcome to Washington and please
proceed. You have a 5-minute limit.
STATEMENT OF FRED V. GRAU, JR., PRESIDENT,
GRASSLYN, INC., STATE COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Grau. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
and Committee members, for the privilege of testifying before
you here today. My name is Fred Grau and I am the President of
Grasslyn, Inc., a family owned farming and seed business based
in Snyder, Colorado, and State College, Pennsylvania.
The clear water in Slab Cabin Run, a charming brook flowing
through our Pennsylvania farm, eventually finds its way to the
Chesapeake Bay. We grow crops such as corn, but our mainstay
for the last half century has been Penngift crownvetch seed.
Crownvetch, enacted as the Pennsylvania State conservation
and beautification plant, is unsurpassed in its ability to
control erosion on steep, infertile slopes in the central and
eastern United States. It has saved countless tons of soil and
pesticides from entering the fisheries of the Chesapeake Bay.
It smothers out harmful weeds and builds top soil in the
process. It is clearly beneficial.
However, crownvetch is not native. It is an invasive
species according to the Natural Resources Conservation
Service. It is even a ``noxious weed'' according to the Federal
Highway Administration.
Yellow starthistle, the Brown Tree Snake and kudzu are
known pests. But other invasive species are useful and the
result of years of government research.
For example, tall fescue is the most important single turf
and forage species in America and is also indispensable as a
permanent slope cover. It is almost certainly a major component
of your lawn, your kids' athletic field or your local golf
course. Before you is a strip of top-quality sod composed of 50
percent tall fescue. It is the one closest to the front of the
room.
Why fescue? It requires less water, less fertilizer, less
pesticides. It is economical, functional, beautiful and
environmentally friendly.
But fescue's contributions don't end with turf or animal
feed. Ask roadside managers from Virginia or Pennsylvania
departments of transportation what two species are
indispensable to their mandate for economical, aesthetically
pleasing slope stabilization. Their response will be crownvetch
and tall fescue.
Why then does the United States Department of Agriculture
specifically term tall fescue an invasive species and prohibit
its use in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, or
CREP, in the Chesapeake and Potomac watersheds? The expressed
purpose of this program is to reduce nutrient and sediment
loading under the Chesapeake Bay agreement. Simply put, it is
nonnative and doesn't fit into the artificial, new, ``natives
are good, nonnatives are bad'' paradigm.
There is another box of turf. This is a putting green. It
is 100 percent bent grass. Bent grass is invasive according to
USDA and Virginia's Department of Conservation and Recreation,
or DCR. There is a vase of flowers. I purchased this bouquet
this morning from a local florist. Every flower here displayed
came from the florist's stockroom. Every flower is or is a
close relative of an ``invasive species.''
The daisy: Do we ban members of this family because its
subspecies cousin, the naturalized ox-eye daisy is considered
noxious by the Ohio Department of Agriculture?
Baby's breath: What would prom night be without the lad's
attempt to pin the corsage on your daughter's gown? But
California considers this a noxious weed.
The majestic iris: Do we really want Virginia DCR and their
partners, the Virginia Native Plant Society, to set the stage
for elimination of this unique beauty? Both consider a close
relation, yellow iris, to be an invasive species.
Finally, the lily: Those who prefer to drive through fly
over country cannot help but notice the small, isolated clumps
of orange radiance punctuating the green landscape of a
Piedmont summer. Maryland's Department of Natural Resources
names its virtually indistinguishable cousin, the day lily, as
invasive.
I believe an invasive species law will replicate the abuses
of subspecies listings as has occurred under the Endangered
Species Act. Federal agencies already have the authority to
control harmful species. They will still have it without the
trojan horse of a natives-only invasive species bill and the
massive bureaucratic expansion that will ensue. Harmful species
need no new law or initiative to be dealt with, as the
effective eradication of the snakehead fish in Maryland
recently demonstrates.
The basic framework of any regulation or legislation should
be harmful versus beneficial and not a misguided fixation on
native versus nonnative. If current policy mistakes are
codified, then 280 million Americans will be senselessly
shackled by the newest weapon in the extremist arsenal, an
Invasive Species Act.
Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grau follows:]
Statement of Fred V. Grau, Jr., President,
Grasslyn, Inc., State College, Pennsylvania
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Committee members for the privilege of
testifying here today.
My name is Fred V. Grau, Jr. and I am the President of Grasslyn,
Inc., a family-owned farming and seed business based in Snyder,
Colorado and State College, Pennsylvania. The clear water in Slab Cabin
Run, a charming brook flowing through our Pennsylvania farm, eventually
finds its way to the Chesapeake Bay. We grow crops such as corn, but
our mainstay for the last half-century has been Penngift crownvetch
seed.
Crownvetch, enacted as the Pennsylvania State Conservation and
Beautification Plant, is unsurpassed in its ability to control erosion
on steep, infertile slopes in the central and eastern United States. It
has saved countless tons of soil and pesticides from entering the
fisheries of the Chesapeake Bay. It smothers out harmful weeds and
builds topsoil in the process. It is clearly beneficial.
However, crownvetch is not native. It is an ``Invasive Species''
according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). It is
even a ``Noxious Weed'' according to the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA).
Yellow starthistle, the Brown Tree Snake, and kudzu are known
pests. But other ``Invasive Species'' are useful and the result of
years of government research.
For example, tall fescue is the most important single turf and
forage species in America and is also indispensable as a permanent
slope cover. It is almost certainly a major component of your lawn,
your kid's athletic field or your local golf course. Before you is a
strip of top-quality sod, composed of 50% tall fescue.
Why fescue? It requires less water. Less fertilizer. Less
pesticides. It is economical, functional, beautiful and environmentally
friendly.
But fescue's contributions don't end with turf or animal feed. Ask
roadside managers from the Virginia or Pennsylvania Departments of
Transportation what two species are indispensable to their mandate for
economical, aesthetically pleasing slope stabilization. Their response
will be crownvetch and tall fescue.
Why, then, does the United State Department of Agriculture (USDA)
specifically term tall fescue an ``Invasive Species'' and prohibit its
use in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) in the
Chesapeake and Potomac Watersheds? The expressed purpose of this
program is to ``reduce nutrient and sediment loading under the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement''. Simply put, it is non-native and doesn't
fit into the artificial, new, natives-are-good, non-natives-are-bad
paradigm.
Another box of turf: This is a putting green. It is 100% bentgrass.
Bentgrass is ``invasive'' according to USDA and Virginia's Department
of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).
Here is a vase of flowers. I purchased the bouquet this morning
from a local florist. Every flower here displayed came from the
florist's stockroom. Every flower is, or is a close relative of, an
``Invasive Species''.
The daisy: Do we ban members of this family because its subspecies
cousin, the naturalized ox-eye daisy is considered noxious by the Ohio
Department of Agriculture?
Babysbreath. What would prom night be without the lad's attempt to
pin the corsage on your daughter's gown? But California considers this
a Noxious Weed.
The majestic iris. Do we really want the Virginia DCR and their
partners, the Virginia Native Plant Society, to set the stage for
elimination of this unique beauty? Both consider a close relation,
yellow iris, to be an ``Invasive Species''.
The lily. Those who prefer to drive through flyover country cannot
help but notice the small, isolated clumps of orange radiance
punctuating the green landscape of a Piedmont summer. Maryland's
Department of Natural Resources names its virtually indistinguishable
cousin, the day-lily, as ``invasive''.
I believe that an ``Invasive Species'' law will replicate the
abuses of subspecies listings, as has occurred under the Endangered
Species Act.
Federal agencies already have the authority to control harmful
species. They will still have it without the Trojan Horse of a natives-
only ``Invasive Species'' bill and the massive bureaucratic expansion
that will ensue. Harmful species need no new law or initiative to be
dealt with, as the effective eradication of the snakehead fish in
Maryland demonstrates.
The basic framework of any regulation or legislation should be
harmful versus beneficial, and not a misguided fixation on native
versus non-native.
If current policy mistakes are codified, then 280 million Americans
will be senselessly shackled by the newest weapon in the extremist's
arsenal: an ``Invasive Species Act''.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Peterson. Dr. Gregory Ruiz, Marine Ecologist,
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center.
STATEMENT OF DR. GREGORY M. RUIZ, MARINE ECOLOGIST, SMITHSONIAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER, EDGEWATER, MARYLAND
Dr. Ruiz. Thank you for the opportunity to be here, and
good afternoon. I am a senior scientist at the Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center on the shore of Chesapeake Bay. I
have studied marine invasions for about 15 years and had the
Marine Invasion Research Laboratory, which has research staff
in Chesapeake Bay and San Francisco Bay working truly on a
national scale. Today, I wish to highlight the current state of
knowledge and some critical gaps in the science and management
of marine invasions.
What do we know? Biological invasions are a major force of
change in coastal marine ecosystems, driving significant
ecological changes and impacting many dimensions of society.
Chesapeake Bay and San Francisco Bay can be used to illustrate
the status of nonnative species in marine communities. Over 150
nonnative species are established in tidal waters of each bay.
In the Chesapeake, the nutria, a South American mammal, is
destroying salt marshes. The parasite MSX has contributed to
the demise of the native oyster fishery and undermines recovery
efforts.
In San Francisco Bay, multiple species of Spartina, and
emergent salt marsh plant are crowding out and hybridizing with
native marsh plants affecting key habitat for many animals. The
Chinese mitten crab, as we have heard about today, has impacted
water management by pumping facilities when outbreaks of
migrating crabs clog associated fish collection screens.
The rate of newly detected marine invasions has increased
exponentially for North America and shows no sign of decline
today. Each year, thousands of nonnative species are still
transferred to U.S. Waters by human activities. The door is
open for new invasions and further steps are clearly needed.
What should we do? One clear priority is prevention of new
invasions through vector management. Vector management strives
to interrupt species delivery by human transfer mechanisms or
vectors. Unlike species base management, vector management
requires no assumptions about the performance or impact of
species and can simultaneously prevent the invasion of multiple
species through interruption of the transfer process.
Management of the shipping vector is a critical first step
to reduce the rate of new marine invasions. This recognizes the
overall dominance of shipping and transfers and invasion of
marine species. Efforts being advanced for ballast water
management should reduce the rate of invasions, but there are
limitations. Among these, the level of reduction and invasions
expected for various management actions are unknown. This
results from uncertainty about the dose response relationship,
where the relationship between the number of organisms released
and those invasions that result. We simply don't know how low
to go in reducing species transfer, which complicates
identifications of the goal or standards for management such as
ballast water treatment.
In addition to vector management, considerable enthusiasm
exists for species-based management, but predictive
capabilities are extremely limited at the present time,
especially for aquatic systems. A high level of uncertainty
often exists about whether a species will become established,
spread and have severe impacts.
The current controversy about the introduction of an Asian
oyster to Chesapeake Bay provides an illustrative example. We
clearly need to develop the predictive science marine
invasions, but we are not there yet.
I wish to focus particular attention on the importance of
tracking invasion patterns and rates as the fundamental
building block for invasive science and management. Only
standardized field-based measures or surveys can inform us
about this--the spatial patterns and tempo of invasion, the
where, when and how of invasions. Only standardized surveys
provide a critical feedback loop to evaluate the effective
management actions to stem the flow of new invasions.
Further identifying which species invade is critical to the
development of predictive capability. More broadly, field-based
measures are necessary to address many key questions. Are
invasion rates changing over time? How does invasion pattern or
risk vary among regions? What factors influence susceptibility
to invasion? What is the quantitative relationship between
species transfer and invasion establishment? Is there
measurable change in the rate of new invasions that corresponds
to management actions?
There presently exists no national program designed to
collect standard, repeated, quantitative measures of marine
invasions. Without a directive survey program, we are left
guessing about the status and trends of invasions in the
country; we cannot adequately address the core questions,
invasion science or advance predictive capabilities. These
shortfalls make it difficult to achieve efficient management
and allocation of limited resources.
The national strategy for aquatic invasions should focus on
prevention primarily through vector management. It must also
include a nationwide, directed survey program providing the
science both to guide and evaluate management actions.
Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ruiz follows:]
Statement of Dr. Gregory M. Ruiz, Marine Ecologist,
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland
I am a Senior Scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research
Center (SERC), located on the shore of Chesapeake Bay. I have studied
invasions for 15 years, and I head the Marine Invasion Research
Laboratory--the largest research program in the U.S. to focus on the
invasion of coastal ecosystems by non-native species. This research
group provides synthesis, analysis, and interpretation of invasion-
related patterns on a national scale (see Appendix 1 for further
details).
Today, I wish to highlight briefly the current state of knowledge
surrounding invasions of marine and aquatic ecosystems. I also wish to
review some key gaps in our understanding that limit efforts to reduce
the risk and impacts of invasions. I will focus particular attention on
the importance of tracking invasion patterns and rates--- as the
fundamental building block for invasion science and management---
without which we are left guessing about (a) the status and trends of
invasions in the country and (b) the effectiveness of management
strategies to stem the flow of new invasions.
Current State of Knowledge
Biological invasions are a major force of change. Invasions occur
when species establish self-sustaining populations beyond their
historical range, usually as an unintended consequence of human-aided
transfer. Once established, these non-native or nonindigenous species
can spread and achieve high abundances. A subset of invasions has
strong effects, driving significant ecological changes and impacting
many dimensions of human society on local, regional, national, and
global scales.
Nonindigenous species (NIS) affect myriad aspects of aquatic
(including freshwater and marine) ecosystems throughout the world. For
example, we know that over 500 NIS have become established in coastal
marine habitats of North America, and hundreds of NIS can occur in a
single estuary. Some coastal communities are now dominated by NIS in
terms of number of organisms, biomass, and ecological processes. It is
clear that invasions have caused dramatic shifts in food webs, chemical
cycling, disease outbreaks, and commercial fisheries. Some invasions
also directly affect human health.
Chesapeake Bay and San Francisco Bay illustrate the status of NIS
in marine communities. Over 150 NIS are established in tidal waters of
the Chesapeake, based upon our research, and a larger number (>200 NIS)
are reported for tidal waters of San Francisco Bay. Although the
impacts of many species are not known, some are well documented,
underscoring the magnitude and diversity of effects.
In the Chesapeake: The nutria, a South American mammal,
is destroying salt marshes; the protistan parasite Haplosporidium
nelsoni (also known as MSX), introduced from the Pacific, has
contributed to the demise--and undermines recovery efforts for--the
native oyster fishery; several additional nonindigenous species,
including submerged plants, hydroids, and clams, have clogged waterways
and water intakes for power plants.
In San Francisco Bay and Delta: Multiple species of
Spartina, an emergent salt marsh plant, are crowding out and
hybridizing with native marsh plants, affecting key habitat for many
animals; the Asian clam Potamocurbula amurensis has altered the species
composition and abundance of plankton communities through filter-
feeding; the Chinese mitten crab Eriochir sinensis has impacted water
management by pumping facilities, when high numbers of migrating crabs
clog associated fish collection screens.
The rate of newly detected marine invasions has increased
exponentially over the past two hundred years for North America, as
well as each Chesapeake Bay and San Francisco Bay. A similar rate
increase has been observed across many habitats, taxonomic groups, and
global regions. This apparent increase in invasion rate--combined with
observed impacts--has greatly elevated public and scientific concerns
about invasions in recent years.
Each year, thousands of nonindigenous species are still transferred
to U.S. waters by human activities. A variety of mechanisms (vectors)
contribute to this transfer process, which is the precursor to
invasions. Among these, transfer of organisms by ships is considered
responsible for most marine invasions in North America--both
historically and currently. However, the relative importance of
different vectors is likely to vary among locations, such as particular
bays and estuaries.
Left unchecked, the number, density, and rate of species
transfers--primary drivers of invasions--are expected to increase. As a
result of Congressional legislative action in 1990 and 1996, we have
learned a great deal about the scope of the problem. Several efforts
have advanced to reduce the likelihood and impacts of further
invasions--implemented by multiple Federal agencies, the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force, and a wide range of partnerships with
state, university, and private entities. However, the problem is
complex, involving thousands of species and many vectors that interface
with multiple dimensions of society. The door is still open for new
invasions to arrive, and further steps are clearly needed.
Vector Management
One clear priority is prevention of new invasions through vector
management. Although management and control of established invasions
can have merit, the approach and success of such efforts are often
idiosyncratic to the particular invasion. Importantly, it remains
difficult to predict (a) which NIS will be delivered, of a potential
species pool of literally thousands of species that can be delivered by
a vector (e.g., ballast water of ships), and (b) which NIS will become
``invasive'' and have severe impacts. This latter is particularly
problematic, due to very limited information about the biology and
ecology of the majority of marine organisms. In contrast, strategies to
prevent new invasions can be directed at key transfer mechanisms (or
vectors), the sources for contemporary invasions. Unlike management of
established invasions on a species-by-species basis, a strategy of
vector management can simultaneously prevent many new invasions through
interruption of the transfer process.
Vector management involves three fundamental components: Vector
Strength, Vector Analysis, and Vector Disruption. First, an assessment
of Vector Strength is required to identify the relative importance of
various vectors. This is accomplished by analysis of data on the
patterns and rates of invasion, identifying which vectors are
responsible for invasions (i.e., the relative importance of different
vectors in space and time). Second, Vector Analysis is needed to
describe the operational aspects of how, where, when, and in what
quantity a vector delivers viable organisms (propagules) to the
recipient environment. Among other things, this component identifies
potential targets for management action. Third, some form of Vector
Disruption is designed and implemented to restrict the flow of
propagules (i.e., reduce the risk of new invasions) to the recipient
environment.
Management of the shipping vector is a critical first step, to
reduce aquatic invasions and their impacts. This recognizes the overall
dominance of shipping in the transfer and invasion by NIS. Efforts
being advanced for ballast water management should reduce the rate of
invasions but there are limitations and unknowns in this area:
Among these--the reduction in invasions expected for
various management actions is unknown, resulting from uncertainty about
the dose-response relationship (see below). We simply don't know ``how
low to go'' in reducing species transfer--- which complicates
identification of the goal or ``standards'' for treatment.
Tracking invasions, through standardized field surveys, is of
paramount importance to vector management, both to measure Vector
Strength--- or the source of new invasions---and to assess the long-
term effect of Vector Disruption on invasion rates and patterns. I wish
to focus my testimony on the role and status of contemporary surveys in
vector management, and as a source of additional information for rapid
response and various control measures.
Rationale for Measuring Invasion Patterns and Rates
Measuring invasion patterns and rates through regular,
standardized, field-based surveys is the cornerstone of invasion
science and invasion management. Without this information base, many
fundamental questions in marine invasion ecology will remain
unresolved, limiting advances for basic science as well as its ability
to guide effective management and policy.
Only contemporary, standardized field measures can inform us about
(a) the spatial patterns and tempo of invasion--- the where, when, and
how of invasions---, and (b) the efficacy of Vector Disruption to
reduce new invasions. Knowledge about contemporary patterns of invasion
is needed to guide efficiently and effectively our management and
policy decisions. Identifying which NIS invade and their attributes are
critical to development of predicative capability. Importantly,
tracking invasions pattern, and especially long-term changes in
invasion rate in association with Vector Disruption efforts, is
essential for adaptive management--- testing for the desired effect of
management action and whether further adjustments are required.
More specifically, such field-based measures are necessary to
address the following questions:
Are invasion rates changing over time?
How does invasion risk (i.e., rates and extent of
invasion) vary among regions?
Are all regions equally susceptible to invasion?
What factors influence susceptibility and risk of
invasion?
What characteristics are associated with successful
invasions?
Using analysis of Vector Strength (above), which vectors
and geographic regions are responsible for observed invasions? How is
this changing over time?
Is there measurable change in the rate of new invasions
that corresponds to management actions (i.e., Vector Disruption,
above)?
What is the quantitative relationship between species
transfer ( supply) and invasion rate, and what should the target or
standard be for Vector Disruption (e.g., ballast water treatment)?
The latter two questions are particularly relevant to current
discussion about standards or goals for Vector Disruption, such as
ballast water treatment. The ``dose-response'' relationship--between
the number of propagules (organisms) released and invasion success
(establishment)--remains poorly resolved, yet understanding this
relationship is key to developing effective standards and Vector
Disruption. Field-based measures, combined with experiments, are
necessary to understand this relationship. Moreover, only tracking of
invasions through field-based measures can confirm the efficacy of
Vector Disruption to reduce the rate of new invasions.
Although my primary focus is on use of field-based data for
prevention, I also note the important role of such data for eradication
and control efforts of established species. There has been considerable
discussion in the past 2 years about development of an ``early
detection, rapid-response'' capability in response to new invasions or
outbreaks (e.g., see recent report by the General Accounting Office).
Although the scope of this may vary, focusing only a subset of target
NIS, any rapid-response system by definition relies upon an effective
field-based detection system.
Status of Tracking Invasion Patterns and Rates
Numerous analyses now exist to describe patterns of invasion. These
analyses result primarily from literature reviews, providing a
synthesis of published reports. The Smithsonian Environmental Research
Center (SERC) has developed the National Database of Marine and
Estuarine Invasions, to summarize existing data on marine invasions.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has developed a complementary
national-level database for freshwater invasions. Under a Cooperative
Agreement, SERC and USGS are coordinating the further development of
these databases, along with analyses and electronic access of the
resulting information.
Although these existing ``ecological surveys'' have been very
instructive in highlighting the scope of invasions in aquatic and
marine habitats, the specific patterns and rates must be viewed with a
great deal of caution--- because the data include very strong temporal
and spatial biases. This bias results especially from uneven collection
effort and taxonomic expertise. In essence, the data used in these
analyses are ``by-catch'' and have limitations, as they were not
collected for this purpose. A review of these issues is presented in a
recent article entitled ``Invasion of Coastal Marine Communities in
North America: Apparent Patterns, Processes, and Biases'' (Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics 2000, Vol. 31: 481-531).
Although existing syntheses provide useful information and apparent
patterns, the information quality is insufficient to support robust
conclusions about actual rates and patterns. This creates a fundamental
weakness in our ability to guide and evaluate management efforts. In
essence, we cannot address the questions outlined above with the
existing data. For example, we cannot now estimate the rate of new
invasions, or whether more invasions have occurred, at Tampa Bay (FL),
Juneau (AK), Chesapeake Bay (MD/VA) or Port Arthur (TX).
The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 called for ``ecological
surveys'' to better understand the patterns of invasion. Multiple such
surveys have occurred, and these have provided some important insights
about the extent of invasions. However, to date, these surveys suffer
from the same issues as outlined above, because they have been
primarily literature-based surveys.
At the present time, there exists no national program designed to
collect the type of standard, repeated, quantitative, and contemporary
measures across multiple sites that is needed to measure rates and
spatial patterns of invasion. Although this has been evident for many
years, and was the focus of a workshop in 1998 (sponsored by U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and SERC, and presented to the Aquatic Nuisance
Species Task Force), a program to address this gap has not emerged to
date. Importantly, piecing together data from existing programs, as has
been suggested, will likely suffer limitations--- similar to those that
exist today--- because these programs were not designed explicitly to
measure invasion patterns.
Most recently, SERC has initiated a series of quantitative surveys
across 15-20 different bays in North America, focusing on sessile
invertebrates. Funded by Department of Defense, National Sea Grant, and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, this work is intended to compare
pattern of invasions among sites, using one standardized survey (in one
year) at each bay. Although this is not presently a sustained effort,
it moves toward developing a quantitative baseline, and could serve as
a prototype for repeated, temporal measures.
Approach to Track (Monitor) Invasions
To effectively measure invasion patterns and rates, as needed to
address the questions outlined above, requires the use of standardized,
quantitative surveys that are replicated at many sites and repeated
regularly over time. Multiple sites are necessary, because significant
variation exists among sites--- such that one or a few sites cannot
serve as a proxy for others--- but also because measures of such
spatial variation is necessary to test for (a) spatial variation in
invasibility and (b) the relationship between propagule supply and
invasion. Further, repeated measures are necessary to build statistical
confidence about the existing assemblage of species (or develop a
baseline) with which to measure temporal changes.
Oversight and coordination of the surveys is critical to develop
standardized protocols, provide continuity in taxonomic identification,
and manage, analyze, and interpret the resulting cumulative data.
Without such oversight, as is presently the case, measures of invasion
patterns and rates will remain uneven and cannot contribute to a larger
picture (beyond an individual site) or be used to address questions (as
above) on a national scale.
Beyond the specifics of survey design and implementation, parallel
measurements of environmental characteristics of surveyed sites is also
key to understanding those factors that influence susceptibility (risk)
to invasion. While direct measures of physical and chemical
characteristics are necessary to provide standardization across sites,
there are several existing programs that may prove valuable sources of
this information. For example, the EPA is characterizing many aspects
of shoreline habitats, and especially coastal wetlands, in Chesapeake
Bay. NOAA and EPA have also both developed networks of coastal sites
that collect data on physical and chemical environmental attributes.
Conclusions
Understanding invasion patterns and processes depends critically
upon high-quality empirical measures. Current observation and theory
have resulted in a conceptual framework for invasion ecology. However,
the empirical data needed to rigorously test many key hypotheses,
develop robust predictions, and evaluate the success of management
actions lag far behind. This gap is especially conspicuous for marine
systems, existing both in the quality and quantity of descriptive data.
At the present time, most analyses that evaluate patterns of invasion
or test specific hypotheses derive data from the existing literature,
or ``by-catch'' data, which is extremely uneven in space and time.
Quantitative field surveys, which employ standardized and repeatable
measures, are critically needed to remove such bias and to
substantively advance invasion science and management.
APPENDIX 1
ROLE OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION IN COASTAL INVASION RESEARCH:
MARINE INVASION RESEARCH LABORATORY,
SMITHSONIAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
(AUGUST 2002)
Overview
The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC), located on
the shore of Chesapeake Bay, is a leading national and international
center for research in the area of non-native species invasions in
coastal ecosystems.
SERC has developed the largest research program in the U.S. to
focus on coastal invasions.
A primary goal of SERC's Marine Invasion Research Laboratory is to
provide the fundamental science that is critical to develop effective
management and policy in this topic area. In short, SERC's invasion
research bridges the gap between science and policy, to develop a
scientific understanding that is key to guide and evaluate management
strategies for invasive species.
The Marine Invasion Research Laboratory has a staff of
approximately 30 biologists, who conduct research throughout the
country and overseas. Since it's inception 10 years ago, the laboratory
has been a nationwide training center in invasion ecology for roughly
45 technicians, 4 graduate students, 7 postdoctoral researchers, and 40
undergraduate summer interns. The students and technicians arrive from
all over the country, staying for 3 months to many years. Many
participants in this program have gone on to graduate training and
academic or government positions in Alabama, California, Connecticut,
Hawaii, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Washington, Washington D.C.
Research Program
As a national center, SERC's Marine Invasion Research Laboratory
provides synthesis, analysis, and interpretation of invasion-related
patterns for the country. Under the National Invasive Species Act of
1996, the U.S. Coast Guard and SERC created the National Ballast Water
Information Clearinghouse, hereafter Clearinghouse, to collect and
analyze national data relevant to coastal marine invasions (see Box 1).
Established at SERC in 1997, the Clearinghouse measures:
Nationwide Patterns of Ballast Water Delivery and
Management. All commercial ships arriving to all U.S. ports from
overseas report information about the quantity, origin, and possible
control measures for their ballast water--a primary mechanism for
transfer of non-native marine species throughout the world. At present,
SERC receives roughly 20,000 such reports per year. Every two years,
SERC provides a detailed analysis and report to U.S. Coast Guard and
Congress on the patterns of ballast water delivery by coastal state,
vessel type, port of origin, and season. A key issue is the extent to
which ships undertake ballast water exchange, a management technique to
flush potential invaders out of the tanks prior to arrival in U.S.
waters. SERC's analyses are used by U.S. Coast Guard and Congress to
assess national needs with respect to ballast water management and to
track program performance.
Rates and Patterns of U.S. Coastal Invasions. SERC has
developed and maintains a national database of marine and estuarine
invasions to assess patterns of invasion in space and time. This
database compiles a detailed invasion history of approximately 500
different species of plants, fish, invertebrates, and algae that have
invaded coastal states of the North America. Among multiple uses, the
database identifies which species are invading, as well as when, where,
and how they invaded; it also summarizes any existing information on
the ecological and economic impacts of each invader. Over the long-
term, this database will help assess the effectiveness of various
management strategies (such as ballast water management, above) in
reducing the rate of invasions. More broadly, this information is a
valuable resource for many user groups--from resource managers and
scientists to policy-makers and industry groups.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6708.001
SERC has further expanded the scope of Clearinghouse activities to
improve the quantity and quality of data on coastal marine invasions
that are used to (a) assess the rates and patterns of invasion and (b)
inform key management decisions at national, regional, and local
levels. Through competitive grants, we have initiated two components in
this area, including:
Nationwide Field Surveys. SERC has implemented an
ambitious program of field surveys to detect new invasions, as well as
measure contemporary patterns and effects of invasions, for 15-20
different bays throughout the country (see Figure 1). Our intent is to
expand this program to include additional regions, providing a national
baseline of information with which to evaluate invasion rates. The
resulting information will contribute to the national database (above)
and will be used both to document patterns of invasion and to assess
the effects of management on invasion rates (as discussed above).
Comprehensive National Database. SERC has established a
formal agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) with the U.S. Geological
Survey's Caribbean Research Center to develop a comprehensive database
of all freshwater and marine invasions in the United States. SERC
maintains a database of exotic marine species (above), and the U.S.G.S.
maintains a complementary database for exotic freshwater species. Our
goal is to functionally link these databases, creating web-based access
to key information about each species for managers, researchers,
policy-makers and the public.
In addition to the Clearinghouse role of analysis and
interpretation of national data, SERC also conducts research to
understand underlying mechanisms of species transfer, invasion, and
ecological effects of invasions. This research serves a dual purpose of
advancing our fundamental knowledge of invasion processes and using
this knowledge to improve prediction and management strategies for
invasions. Some selected examples of our research in these areas,
funded by external grants and contracts, include:
Measuring the Patterns and Processes of Species Transfer
Associated with Shipping. The Marine Invasion Research Laboratory has
measured the density and diversity of organisms in the ballast water of
approximately 450 different commercial vessels, primarily oil tankers
and bulk cargo carriers that arrived to Chesapeake Bay and Port Valdez,
Alaska. This has been a collaborative and cooperative research program
with the shipping industry, over the past 8 years, to better assess the
risks of invasion and effectiveness of various management techniques to
reduce that risk. We are now expanding this research to include
container ships arriving to San Francisco Bay, expanding existing
measures to include a different vessel type and geographic region than
the previous studies.
Assessing the Magnitude and Consequences of Pathogenic
Microorganism Transfer by Ships. Very little is known about the
relative risks of pathogens, both for humans and commercially important
species, which are transferred in ballast water. SERC's invasion
program is measuring the concentration of microorganisms and human
pathogens, including Vibrio cholerea (causative agent of epidemic human
cholera), discharged into U.S. waters with the ballast water of ships.
In addition, we are conducting experiments to test the viability and
potential significance of these transfers to result in newly
established populations, or invasions, of pathogenic organisms.
Measuring the Ecological Impacts of Non-Native Species.
SERC has implemented a broad range of field-based and experimental
studies to measure the effects of marine invasions in coastal
ecosystems, including impacts on commercial fishery resources. Much of
this work to date has focused on the European green crab (Carcinus
maenas) impacts in California and New England. We have also implemented
experiments in California and Virginia to test for effects of
particular fouling organisms on invaded communities, and the extent to
which this is exacerbated by human disturbance (e.g., pollutants,
hypoxia, etc.). The overall goal of work in this area is to understand
and predict impacts of invasions across a diverse array of coastal
communities.
Testing Invasibility of Communities. We have just begun
manipulative laboratory and field experiments to test environmental and
biological factors that influence invasibility of marine communities.
Our work in this area focuses on microorganisms and invertebrates. The
main objective of this research is to measure the dose-response
relationship between delivery of organisms and subsequent invasion, and
how this may vary across different environmental and biological
conditions. This approach has direct bearing on the effect (and target)
for management strategy to reduce the delivery of non-native organisms
by ships or other vectors.
Feasibility of Eradication and Control of Established
Marine Invasions. SERC has also initiated work to test the feasibility
of eradication and control for a non-native marine snail in San
Francisco Bay. This is effectively a demonstration project to
critically examine management strategies, based upon key habitat and
biological characteristics, and develop the decision process (i.e.,
under what conditions and for which species) and capacity for
eradication.
Geographic Coverage
SERC's Marine Invasion Research Laboratory, with staff based at
Chesapeake Bay and San Francisco Bay, has established research sites
throughout the U.S. to implement its research programs, in
collaboration with researchers from approximately 25 different academic
institutions and Federal or state agencies. For example, active
projects and collaborations are on-going in the following states:
Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, and Washington D.C.
Internationally, SERC has become increasingly active over the past
5 years. A primary goal of the international program is to foster
information exchange and build complementary, comparative, and
collaborative research programs. For example, the Marine Invasion
Research Laboratory has active collaborations in many areas of invasion
ecology with the Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CSIRO,
Australia). This includes comparative analyses of invasion patterns and
effects, as well as development of an international standard for
databases on marine invasions. Another long-term collaboration exists
with scientists in Israel, where we have measured changes in the
ballast water communities during roughly 20 different voyages between
Israel and Chesapeake Bay. SERC also has been a participant and sponsor
of international conferences and workshops on marine invasion ecology.
Although SERC programs are active at the national and international
scales, a great deal of this effort has also focused on understanding
invasion issues at the regional scale. In fact, this program has
conducted research on invasions in nearly every coastal state in the
country, producing regional understanding as well. Examples include:
Analysis of invasion patterns for Chesapeake Bay over the
past 400 years, representing the first such analysis for the Chesapeake
as well as any estuary in the eastern U.S. This documents the invasion
history of 160 non-native species established in this Bay.
Analysis of extent of invasions for Prince William Sound,
Alaska, providing the most detailed analysis in the world to assess the
risks of invasion for a high-latitude system.
For More Information about the Marine Invasion Research Laboratory
contact:
Monaca Noble, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, P.O. Box
28, Edgewater, Maryland 21037 USA; Phone: (443)482-2414; FAX: (443)482-
2380; Email: [email protected]; website--http://invasions.si.edu/
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6708.002
Mr. Peterson. Dr. Roger Mann, Acting Director for Research
and Advisory Services, VIMS.
STATEMENT OF ROGER MANN, ACTING DIRECTOR FOR RESEARCH AND
ADVISORY SERVICES, SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCE, VIRGINIA INSTITUTE
OF MARINE SCIENCE, COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY, GLOUCESTER
POINT, VIRGINIA
Dr. Mann. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is a
pleasure to be here. I thank you for the invitation. Your
invitation requested comments on four subjects, the scope of
the invasive species problem, efforts to control or eradicate
unwelcome invaders, the adequacy of existing statutory
authority, and recommendations to solve the continuing problem.
I will briefly contribute to each of those questions.
The scope of the problem is massive on both the national
and international scale. As mentioned earlier, the Convention
on Biological Diversity considers invasive species the second
biggest threat, after environmental loss, to native
biodiversity. Nonnative species have contributed to the decline
of 42 percent of U.S. Endangered and threatened species, and
the substantial annual costs of invasives to the U.S. Economy
has already been addressed in quite some considerable detail.
The problem exists and continues because the U.S. Is part
of a network of international trade that is also the vector to
facilitating a continuing supply of invading species to our
shores, mentioned by Dr. Ruiz. This will continue. The problem
will not go away. We must address it aggressively in terms of
both eradicating current invaders and preventing future
invaders.
Following up from the last panel, a couple of comments here
about Rapana. Rapa whelk is a quite remarkable softball-size
welk that originates in the Orient. It was first discovered in
the Chesapeake Bay in 1998. It is quietly eating its way
through commercial resources, shellfish resources in the
southern part of the bay, and over the past 5 years, for every
year, we have seen an increasing number of these animals.
Current collections are over 5,000 in total.
There is an important lesson to be learned not only from
observing this, but we effect this observation through a
collaboration with over 150 commercial fishermen. Public
education is enormously important in following these invasions,
telling us when they are arriving, how bad they are and what
their impacts are. The fishermen also point out something very
important: When things get out of control, they can in fact
become available as commercial resources, which sets up some
awkward problems in terms of regulation. But also the data that
they give us shows that effectively removing this animal will
also be accompanied by wanton destruction of the environment in
which it lives, which has other very difficult decisions
related to it.
As mentioned by many other panelists today, once the
invader is here, it is very difficult to get rid of it. Efforts
to control invasions and existing statutory authority to enable
control are intimately linked. While the Lacey Act probably
best defines the principles of control at the Federal level, an
abundance of Federal statutes illustrates the continuing
awareness of the invading species for well over half a century.
Something important: Lacey recognizes the role of State
statutes and defaults to State statutes where they are written
into State code. My home State of Virginia has such State code.
An important Federal statute in this field is the National
Invasive Species Act that is currently under consideration for
reauthorization, and in November of last year, I appeared
before this Committee in this room to provide testimony on the
draft revision. I recommended modest changes in the included
ballast water treatment standard, proposing a 100 percent kill
of all organisms in excess of 50 microns maximum dimension and
discharge ballast, a standard I believe provides a reasonable
operating goal for developing technology for treating large
volumes of water.
As mentioned by Dr. Ruiz, there is a distinct problem here
of how far you go and how fast you go in terms of controlling
discharges. I think, as technology develops, this will become
more and more within our capabilities, but we shouldn't be
handcuffed at this point in time. We should move forward with
that legislation and build into it capabilities for continuing
revaluation and improvement.
In general, I urge reauthorization of NISA. Enabling
legislation plays a central role in solving the continuing
problem of wanton invasions, but that legislation must be
soundly based in knowledge of how invaders arrived and why they
survived. As mentioned, the scientific community has limited
ability to predict the numbers and variety of invading species
that will successfully become established. Current levels of
research and educational--I underscore ``educational''--support
addressing the threats from invasive species are woefully
inadequate. We must do better.
Before concluding, I would like to comment on the subject
of intentional introduction, intentional introductions of
nonnative species. Selective nonnative species do provide
beneficial roles in the ecology and economy of our Nation.
Sixteen percent of the $9 trillion gross national product of
the U.S. Comes from agricultural production. European
settlement of North America included the introduction of wheat,
barley, rye, cattle, pigs, horses, sheep, goats and more; and
indeed the majority of the U.S. Agricultural production
arguably comes from species whose genetic origin was not in
North America.
The draft of the National Invasive Species Act addressed
intentional introductions, and I wholly applaud the inclusion
in that it both recognizes a continuing pressure for
introductions for commercial production, pest control and
environmental restoration, and very, very importantly, it
underscores the need to carefully examine and control such
actions in an environment of limited understanding and
potentially serious, even irreversible, ecological
impact.Again, the potential introduction of a nonnative oyster
in the Chesapeake Bay is a classic example of this dilemma.
However, I urge the final revision of this legislation to
include text recognizing the role of State's rights in addition
to the Federal responsibility and debate of this important
subject.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity. This concludes my
testimony.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mann follows:]
Statement of Professor Roger Mann, Acting Director for Research and
Advisory Services, School of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here
today in response to your invitation to provide testimony on problems
related to non-native, invasive species to the United States of
America.
My name is Roger Mann. I am a Professor of Marine Science and
Acting Director for Research and Advisory Services at the School of
Marine Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of
William and Mary. I have been a researcher in the field of marine
science for over thirty years. During that period I have maintained an
active interest in the biology of non-native aquatic species, and
actively participated in research and policy development related to
non-native species at the state, regional, national and international
levels. One of my current research projects describes the increasing
destructive impacts of an invading predatory marine snail on shellfish
resources in the Chesapeake Bay. The fact that this recent, unwanted
invader, together with many others, arrived on our shores through
ballast water vectors underscores my interest in today's discussion.
The arrival of non-native species into the United States through
ballast water and other vectors is widely recognized as a significant
threat to the integrity of native ecosystems, and hence to the nation's
economy as well as its recreational and aesthetic resources.
Your invitation requested comment on four subjects: the scope of
the invasive species problem, efforts to control or eradicate unwelcome
invaders, the adequacy of existing statutory authority, and
recommendations to solve the continuing problem. I will address these
in order.
The scope of the problem is massive on both a national and
international scale. In terms of ecological impact, The Convention on
Biological Diversity considers invasive species the second biggest
threat, after environmental loss, to native biodiversity. Non-native
species have been identified as contributors to the decline of 42% of
U.S. endangered and threatened species. The financial burden to the
U.S. economy is illustrated by the $550 million annual budget of just
one Federal agency, the USDA, for control of unwanted invasive species.
The magnitude of the problem at the state level is demonstrated by a
few examples. Hawaii has 956 native plant species compared to 861
invaders. California has 83 native freshwater fish species, but an
additional 52 invaders are also resident. Similar evidence of invasions
is noted at the global level of view. Twenty-one of 49 resident mammal
species in the United Kingdom are non-native including eight large deer
or goat species. New Zealand has 1790 native plant species compared to
1570 invaders. South Africa has 176 native freshwater fish species, but
is also home to 52 invading species. Even remote island systems are not
immune to invasion by non-native species. Tristan de Cunha in the South
Atlantic has 70 native plants but 97 invaders, and South Georgia,
surrounded by the circumpolar current of the Antarctic, has 26 native
plants but 54 invaders. The important ``take home message'' is that the
United States is but a part of the network of international trade that
historically built this country, and is vital to its continuing social
and economic wealth, but that network is also the vector facilitating a
continuing supply of invading species to our shores. In developing
responses to invaders already in residence, and providing control to
stop the continuing assault, we must lead the international community
by example for both our and their benefit. Trade routes work in both
directions, and the adoption and application of common safeguards to
all routes of passage that eliminate transport and delivery of invaders
beyond their native ranges will serve all by reducing this global
homogenization of species distributions and the subsequent ecological
and economic stress on receptor systems.
Efforts to control invasions and existing statutory authority to
enable control are intimately linked and will be addressed together.
While the Lacey Act probably best defines the principles of control at
the Federal level a litany of Federal statutes illustrates the
continuing and growing awareness of invasive species for well over half
a century. These landmark actions include the Plant Quarantine Act,
Animal Damage Control Act, Federal Seed Act, Organic Act of 1944,
Federal Plant Pest Act, National Environmental Policy Act of 1970
(NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Federal Noxious Weed Act, Alien
Species Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1992, Wild Bird Conservation
Act of 1992, Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act of 1992, and Executive
Order 13112. Lacey is worthy of special note in that it recognizes the
role of state statute and defaults to state level authority where it is
written in state code. My home state of Virginia is such an example
with the Code of Virginia designating authority over intentional
introductions of non-native species to specific state agencies.
A powerful and important controlling Federal statute is the
National Invasive Species Act of 1996 that provides a unifying theme to
extant statutes. It is currently under revision and discussion for
reauthorization. In November of 2002 I had the pleasure of appearing
before this Committee to provide testimony of the draft revision in the
form of House Resolution 5396. While I recommended modest changes to
wording in HR 5396, I urged the Congress to move forward on
reauthorization, and in doing so provide standards to reduce continuing
invasions via ships' ballast water. We must become more aggressively
proactive in preventing unwanted invasions, but we must do it without
encumbering the process of international trade. I will briefly
reiterate comment from that testimony. Innovative technologies are
currently under development in the private sector for application in
ballast water control. Interim standards set by this bill must provide
specific targets for the technology developers, for without these their
economic investment cannot be targeted at the eventual market in the
shipping industry. The U.S. has the unquestioned capability to be the
world leader in ballast water control technologies. I proposed adoption
of a standard requiring 100% kill of all organisms in excess of 50
microns maximum dimension in discharged ballast--a standard that is
both within reach of current technologies for very large volumes and
that would be successful in retaining all the life history stages,
including eggs, of the vast majority of aquatic vertebrates,
invertebrates and macroalgae. While this standard would not insure
removal of most phytoplankton and toxic dinoflagellates that cause red
tide blooms--a group that may well represent a very serious challenge
to any and all of the currently researched control technologies--it
does represent a significant advancement of current options focused on
ballast water exchange. We should not be handcuffed by the search for
ultimate control tools while good, although perhaps not perfect,
technology is within our grasp to address the ecological problem at
hand. Incremental common sense dictates employment of the best
available tools now, and better tools in due course. The draft of HR
5396 contained provision for continual review and improvement in
standards as technology improves. I applaud this provision and urge its
inclusion in the final draft of the reauthorization.
Identification of the avenues of invasion stimulates definition of
the technical problem for control. Technical problems stimulate
innovation in engineering to solve the problem when a defined goal, a
discharge standard, is set in statute. Economic opportunity drives
process, with preservation of native ecological complexity being the
eventual benefactor.
Enabling legislation plays a central role in solving the continuing
problem of environmental and economic impact of unwanted invasions. But
that legislation must be soundly based in knowledge of how invaders
arrived and why they survived to flourish in a novel environment.
Despite numerous examples of successful invasions, and probably an even
greater number of potential invasions that failed to establish, the
global scientific community has very limited ability to predict with
any level of certainty both the numbers and variety of invading species
that will successfully become established in novel receptor
environments in the near future. Future legislation must address this
deficiency by providing funds for new and continuing research on a
broad range of invasive species issues, and enable avenues to deliver
the associated results to the regulatory process. Current levels of
research and educational support are inadequate to address this
expanding problem. Knowledge is a powerful tool that we must pursue and
share to detect, control, and where possible, eradicate invading
unwanted non-native species from both terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems of the United States. We must do better. With guidance,
support, and a charge from Congress the scientific community will do
better.
Before concluding I will briefly comment on one further subject
area, that of intentional introductions of non-native species. While
there is increasing and warranted recognition of the deleterious and
often highly visible impacts of non-native invasive species in this
country, it is appropriate to note that selected non-native species do
provide beneficial roles in the ecology and economy of our nation. For
example, recent USDA data reports that 16% of the nine trillion-dollar
GNP of the United States come from agricultural production and
associated activity. More than 90% of global agricultural production is
based on 20 plant and six animal species with widespread distribution
from intentional introductions. Production in the United States
reflects this focus on non-native species--European settlement of North
America included the introduction of wheat, barley, rye, cattle, pigs,
horses, sheep, goats and more. Indeed, the majority of U.S.
agricultural production arguably comes from species whose genetic
origin was not in North America and it would be interesting to
speculate on how colonization of North America would have proceeded had
settlers been limited to agriculture based exclusively on native
animals and plants. The draft version of House Resolution 5396
contained text addressing intentional introductions for beneficial
uses. I applaud the inclusion of this in that it both recognizes a
continuing pressure for introductions for commercial production, pest
control and environmental restoration purposes and the need to
carefully examine and control such actions in an environment of limited
understanding and potentially serious, even irreversible ecological
impact. However, I urge the final version of this legislation to
include text recognizing the role of state rights, in addition to
Federal responsibility, in debate of this important subject.
In conclusion, I again thank the Committee for the opportunity to
provide testimony. This completes my testimony.
______
Mr. Peterson. Next we will hear from Dr. James Carlton,
Professor of Marine Science, Williams College. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES T. CARLTON, PROFESSOR OF MARINE
SCIENCES, WILLIAMS COLLEGE, WILLIAMSTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS, AND
DIRECTOR, WILLIAMS-MYSTIC, THE MARITIME STUDIES PROGRAM OF
WILLIAMS COLLEGE AND MYSTIC SEAPORT, MYSTIC, CONNECTICUT
Dr. Carlton. Good afternoon and thank you for the
opportunity to speak before this joint oversight hearing on
invasive species in America. My name is James Carlton. I am a
marine biologist, and I have been working with exotic species
invasions in coastal waters since 1962. I am also the founding
Editor-in-Chief of the international scientific journal,
Biological Invasions.
My words today are as they were when I spoke here before
Congress on June 14, 1990; June 19, 1990; October 27, 1993;
July 11, 1996; July 17, 1996; September 19, 1996 and July 26,
2001. My words today are the same as in my previous seven
visits except for one major difference.
Since I first spoke 13 years ago before the House
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the
Environment, there are now perhaps 500 more exotic species in
this country--on our lands, in our rivers and lakes and in our
coastal oceans. The impact of exotic species is not imagined.
It is not in doubt. It is not xenophobia.
Every element of the American hamburger--the wheat bun, the
meat, the lettuce, the tomato, the pickle, the onion--consists
of nonnative species. Rather, we have a cornucopia of clear,
abundant, overpowering, simply walloping data that thousands of
other exotic species in this country have led to vast
socioeconomic, environmental and industrial impacts costing us
billions and billions and billions of dollars. It is as simple
as that.
We have invasive species laws and they are important ones.
However, in general, they are tended to by a relatively few
hard-working people with so little funding that a few kitchen
ants--which, by the way, are native to Argentina--could carry
the money away.
We play ecological roulette, we play economic roulette, we
play industrial roulette every single minute in America with
exotic species. Our activities are simply not speeding up or
repeating natural vectors that transport species, such as winds
and birds, by bridging all natural barriers; human-mediated
dispersal transports species that would never naturally arrive
in America.
We have to get serious about exotic species. They need to
be on our radar and not below our radar. We have to get serious
funding. We have to get serious about enacting invasive species
legislation before Congress now and not later. We have to be
willing to be aggressive in addressing this absolutely
fundamental economic and environmental issue.
It is clear that Americans support this effort. The annual
Earth Day Gallup Poll taken 2 weeks ago found that 80 percent
of the public endorsed immediate action to prevent any further
major environmental disruption. By the time I come before you
and we discuss the latest most kick-butt invasions in the Great
Lakes, in Kansas, in the Chesapeake Bay, in San Francisco Bay,
it is by and large too late.
If it is raining, we close the windows and then think about
mopping up. Ladies and gentlemen, it is raining. It is raining
exotics in the continental United States. It is raining exotics
in Hawaii and in our territories and commonwealths such as
American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rico. And it is raining exotics
in our contiguous neighbors and the windows are still open.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Carlton follows:]
Statement of Dr. James T. Carlton, Professor of Marine Sciences,
Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts, and Director, Williams-
Mystic, The Maritime Studies Program of Williams College and Mystic
Seaport, Mystic, Connecticut
Good afternoon and thank you very much for the opportunity to speak
before this joint oversight hearing on invasive species in America. My
name is James Carlton. I am a marine biologist, and I have been working
with exotic species invasions in our coastal waters since 1962. I am
also the founding Editor-in-Chief of the international scientific
journal, Biological Invasions.
My words today are as they were when I spoke here before Congress
on June 14th, 1990; June 19th, 1990; October 27th, 1993; July 11th,
1996; July 17th, 1996; September 19th, 1996, and July 26th, 2001.
My words today are the same as in my previous 7 visits, except for
one major difference: Since I first spoke 13 years ago before the House
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment
there are now perhaps 500 more exotic species in this country--on our
lands, in our rivers and lakes, and in our coastal oceans.
The impact of exotic species is not imagined. It is not in doubt.
It is not xenophobia: every single element of the American hamburger--
the wheat bun, the meat, the lettuce, the tomato, the pickle, the
onion--consists of non-native species. Rather, we have a cornucopia of
clear, abundant, overpowering, titanic, and simply walloping--data that
thousands of accidentally introduced exotic species in this country
have lead to vast social, economic, environmental, and industrial
impacts costing us billions and billions and billions of dollars.
It is that simple.
We have invasive species laws, and they are important ones.
However, in general they are tended to by a relatively few hard-working
people with so little funding that a few kitchen ants--which by the way
are native to Argentina--could carry the money away.
We play ecological roulette, we play economic roulette, we play
industrial roulette every single minute in America with non-native
animals and plants. Our activities are not simply ``speeding up'' or
repeating natural vectors that transport species, such as winds or
birds--by bridging all natural barriers, human-mediated dispersal
transports species that could never naturally arrive in America.
We have to get serious about exotic species. They need to be on our
radar and not below our radar. We have to get serious about serious
funding. We have to get serious about enacting invasive species
legislation before Congress--now and not later. We have to be willing
to be aggressive in addressing this absolutely fundamental economic and
environmental issue. It is clear that Americans support this effort:
The annual Earth Day Gallup Poll taken two weeks ago found that 80% of
the public endorse immediate action to prevent any further major
environmental disruptions.
By the time I come before you and announce the latest, most kick-
butt invasions in the Great Lakes, in Kansas, in the Chesapeake Bay, or
in San Francisco Bay, it is by and large too late. If it's raining we
close the windows and then think about mopping up.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is raining:
it is raining exotics in the continental United States,
it is raining exotics in Hawaii, and in our territories
and commonwealths such as American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico,
it is raining exotics on our contiguous neighbors, and
the windows are still open.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Peterson. Next we will here from Mr. James Beers,
Science Advisor, American Land Rights Association.
Welcome and please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JAMES M. BEERS, SCIENCE ADVISOR, AMERICAN LAND
RIGHTS ASSOCIATION; CENTREVILLE, VIRGINIA
Mr. Beers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent the
American Land Rights Association, an organization of small
property owners in all 50 States. I worked for the Fish and
Wildlife Service for 30 years in four States and Washington,
D.C., as a wildlife biologist, special agent and refuge
manager.
I have enforced injurious wildlife regulations and
investigated endangered species cases both here and in Europe.
I have worked on invasive species control programs for nutria
and purple loosestrife. I have attended U.N. wildlife
conferences and represented State wildlife agencies fighting a
threatened European fur embargo. I currently write and speak
extensively about both endangered and invasive species.
Mr. Chairman, it is wrong for Congress to consider passage
of a law to confer Federal jurisdiction over any plant or
animal occurring within the United States. Such jurisdiction
was assigned to State governments by the Constitution and can
only be taken from the States by a treaty or an amendment to
the Constitution.
Invasive species jurisdiction seizure is being attempted
with 14 bills before Congress, Federal agency proposals for new
programs, and United Nations plans for a proposed treaty to
either control invasive species or restore native ecosystems,
which is the same thing.
Our Founding Fathers placed the jurisdiction over plants
and animals at the State level for, among other reasons, the
inherent responsiveness of the lowest level of government to
citizen concerns.
The Endangered Species Act verifies repeatedly the wisdom
of the Fathers in this regard. That Act has eliminated
businesses', communities' and Fish and Wildlife management
programs and their financial support. It has justified taking
without compensation that which was specifically prohibited in
the Constitution. It has made professors and science responsive
to government grants and bureaucratic regulation. It has
changed the emphasis of many Federal agencies from proactive
natural resource managers to public land locksmiths who
reintroduce unwanted and harmful native species on private
lands.
The proposed Invasive Species program will be worse. It
will start, like Endangered Species, with a modest list of a
few noxious plants like leafy spurge and yellow starthistle.
Then bureaucrats and courts will add species, subspecies,
populations, et cetera, to the list. Soon a court will affirm a
lawsuit that claims elimination of ``invasive species'' is a
Federal responsibility, so its natural goal is the restoration
of native ecosystems.
Mr. Chairman, that goal is neither desirable nor
attainable. The only beneficiaries of such a policy will be
Federal agency budgets, university grant offices and
nongovernmental organizations bent on restricting property
rights and human uses of natural resources. Our ecosystem
should be managed to reflect the needs, our needs, and our
Constitution, not the socialist intentions of environmental
philosophies.
There is no difference between ``native'' ticks
transmitting disease and invasive purple loosestrife taking
over wetlands. Management or eradication should be considered
equally based on community needs, not the species' arrival
date.
Many invasives are highly utilized food and cover for
desirable wildlife. Others, like zebra mussels, clarified Lake
Erie waters, which helped to recover a sport and commercial
fishery. Actually, any species can be alleged by some group or
scientists to harm something. Innumerable hidden agendas are
poised to take advantage of Federal invasive species authority
if it ever materializes.
The Federal Government should stick to managing the import,
export, interstate commerce and foreign aspects of the United
States plant and animal community. Federal land should be
managed to minimize harmful plants and animals. Research on
harmful species could be conducted and shared through land
grant universities and USDA research centers. Excess Federal
money could be appropriated on a formula basis to the States,
much like Pittman Robertson excise tax funds that have proven
so successful in managing and restoring desirable wildlife
species for 70 years.
Today, the National Park Service seeks to eliminate highly
desirable species like lake trout and chukars because they
weren't where they are today in 1492 A.D. Likewise, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service is eradicating Russian olive trees
that have been here over a century despite the fact that they
are an important food and winter cover for pheasants,
sharptails and migratory birds. The goal is elimination of the
invasive pheasants and trout plus the hunters and fishermen and
even hunting on refuges like Bowdoin in Montana.
Ask yourself honestly what is sacred about the year 1492.
Species have been coming and going forever. The ludicrous
nature of all this is illustrated by the Park Service recently
forming emergency ``swat teams'' to find invasive plants even
though they have ignored overabundant native deer herds
eradicating the plant communities on national parks and
neighboring lands for decades.
The Interior Department justifies eradication of invasive
salt cedar trees in spite of the fact that they are a prime
nest site for endangered willow flycatchers. They propose this
eradication based on spurious science and questionable
interpretation of law, unavailable to private property owners
who have critical habitat for and endangered species designated
on their land.
This is similar to the dumping of toxic sludge on an
endangered sturgeon spawning area in the Potomac River. This
practice, presently before the Court, involves the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers routinely flushing toxic sludge from the
D.C. Water Authority under EPA permit through a national park
for years.
Giving these agencies more authority over more species only
invites further abuse. The Founding Fathers wisely crafted our
Constitution to place that authority at the State level.
Mr. Chairman, my organization and a growing cross-section
of citizens plead with you to avoid giving the Federal
Government any more authority over plants and animals. For the
sake of property owners, natural resource users and for the
sake of our American way of life, do not go down this imaginary
pre-Columbian path. Stay to the course that history and our
Constitution have proven was well chosen when the United States
of America was created.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beers follows:]
Statement of James M. Beers, Science Advisor,
American Land Rights Association
Thank you Mr. Chairman for inviting me to testify at your hearing
today.
I represent the American Land Rights Association, an organization
of small property owners in all 50 states.
I worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 30 years in
four states and Washington, DC as a wildlife biologist, special agent,
and refuge manager. I have enforced Injurious Wildlife regulations and
investigated Endangered Species cases both here and in Europe. I have
worked on Invasive Species control programs for nutria and purple
loosestrife. I have attended UN Wildlife Conferences and represented
state wildlife agencies fighting a threatened European fur embargo. I
currently write and speak extensively about both Endangered and
Invasive Species.
Mr. Chairman, it is wrong for Congress to consider passage of a law
to confer Federal jurisdiction over any plant or animal occurring
within the United States. Such jurisdiction was assigned to state
governments by the Constitution and can only be taken from the states
by a Treaty or an Amendment to the Constitution.
Invasive Species jurisdiction seizure is being attempted with 14
bills before Congress; Federal agency proposals for new programs; and
United Nations plans for a proposed Treaty to either Control Invasive
Species or Restore Native Ecosystems, which is the same thing.
Our Founding Fathers placed the jurisdiction over plants and
animals at the state level for, among other reasons, the inherent
responsiveness of the lowest level of government to citizen concerns.
The Endangered Species Act verifies repeatedly the wisdom of the
Fathers in this regard.
That Act has eliminated businesses, communities, and fish and
wildlife management programs and their financial support. It has
justified taking without compensation that was specifically prohibited
in the Constitution. It has made professors and science responsive to
government grants and bureaucratic regulation. It has changed the
emphasis of many Federal agencies from proactive natural resource
managers to public land locksmiths who reintroduce unwanted and harmful
native species on private lands.
The proposed Invasive Species program will be worse. It will start,
like Endangered Species, with a modest list of a few noxious plants
like leafy spurge and yellow starthistle. Then bureaucrats and courts
will add species, subspecies, populations, etc. to the List. Soon a
Court will affirm a lawsuit that claims elimination of ``Invasive
Species'' is a Federal responsibility so its natural goal is the
restoration of ``Native'' ecosystems.
Mr. Chairman that goal is neither desirable nor attainable. The
only beneficiaries of such a policy will be Federal agency budgets,
University Grant offices, and non-governmental organizations bent on
restricting property rights and human uses of natural resources. Our
ecosystem should be managed to reflect our needs and our Constitution,
not the socialist intentions of environmental philosophies.
There is no difference between ``native'' ticks transmitting
disease and ``Invasive'' purple loosestrife taking over wetlands.
Management or eradication should be considered equally based on
community needs, not the species arrival date.
Many ``Invasives'' are highly utilized food and cover for desirable
wildlife. Others like Zebra mussels clarified Lake Erie waters which
helped to recover a sport and commercial fishery. Actually, any species
can be alleged by some group or scientist to ``harm'' something.
Innumerable hidden agendas are poised to take advantage of Federal
Invasive Species authority if it ever materializes.
The Federal Government should stick to managing the import, export,
interstate commerce, and foreign aspects of the United States plant and
animal community. Federal lands should be managed to minimize harmful
plants and animals. Research on harmful species could be conducted and
shared through Land Grant Universities and USDA Research Centers.
Excess Federal money could be appropriated on a formula basis to the
states much like Pittman Robertson excise tax funds that have proven so
successful in managing and restoring desirable wildlife species for 70
years.
Today, the National Park Service seeks to eliminate highly
desirable species like lake trout and chukars because they weren't
where they are today in 1492 AD. Likewise the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is eradicating Russian olive trees that have been here over a
century despite the fact that they are an important food and winter
cover for pheasants, sharptails, and migratory birds. The goal is
elimination of the Invasive pheasants and trout plus the hunters and
fishermen and even hunting on Refuges like Bowdoin in Montana. Ask
yourself honestly what is sacred about the year 1492? Species have been
coming and going forever. The ludicrous nature of this is illustrated
by the NPS recently forming emergency ``swat teams'' to find
``Invasive'' plants even though they have ignored overabundant native
deer herds eradicating the plant communities on National Parks and
neighboring lands for decades.
The Interior Department justifies eradication of ``Invasive'' salt
cedar trees in spite of the fact that they are prime nest sites for
Endangered willow flycatchers. They propose this eradication based on
spurious ``science'' and questionable interpretation of law unavailable
to private property owners who have Critical Habitat for an Endangered
Species designated on their land.
This is similar to the dumping of toxic sludge on an Endangered
sturgeon spawning area in the Potomac River. This practice, presently
before the Court, involves the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers routinely
flushing toxic sludge from the DC Water Authority under EPA permit
through a National Park for years.
Giving these agencies more authority over more species only invites
further abuse. The Founding Fathers wisely crafted our Constitution to
place that authority at the state level.
Mr. Chairman, my organization and a growing cross section of
citizens plead with you to avoid giving the Federal Government any more
authority over plants and animals. For the sake of property owners,
natural resource users, and for the sake of our American way of life,
do not go down this imaginary Pre-Columbian path. Stay to the course
that history and our Constitution have proven was well chosen when the
United States of America was created.
Further explanation of these issues may be found on the American
Land Rights Association website www.landrights.org
Thank you and I am ready to answer any questions you might have.
______
Mr. Pombo. [Presiding.] Recognize Dr. Kraus.
STATEMENT OF DR. FRED KRAUS, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL SCIENCE,
BISHOP MUSEUM, HAWAII
Dr. Kraus. Thank you. I would like to thank the members of
the Committee for the opportunity to testify today on the
invasive species problem in Hawaii, just to give you a broad
overview.
Hawaii is unique because of its geographic isolation, and
topographic and climatic diversity have led to the creation of
over 10,000 species of plants and animals found nowhere else on
Earth. Similar processes lead to high diversity on other
Pacific islands. The problem is that in the last 200 years,
more than 5,000 alien species have become established in Hawaii
and probably 300 to 500 of these create serious environmental
or economic problems.
Most of the damaging alien species are those that alter
community structure or ecosystem function, whether those
ecosystems are natural or man-made agrarian ecosystems. The
rate of introduction in Hawaii of alien species is greater than
1 million times the natural rate of colonization of the island,
and this has led to scores of species becoming extinct,
hundreds of species becoming endangered, and wholesale
replacement of native vegetation cover across many of the
islands. It has also led to wave after wave of damage to
agricultural interests in the State.
Current limitations for dealing with the invasive species
problem in Hawaii and elsewhere in the Pacific are numerous.
You have heard much already about insufficient personnel,
insufficient funding, divided and incomplete authorities and,
sometimes, insufficient scientific knowledge, so I am not going
to dwell on those. I would like to make remarks though on three
other limitations that you have probably heard less about.
The first is what I call the mainland mind-set. This is the
failure of mainland decisionmakers often to recognize the
unique biological diversity or unique biological situation and
heightened susceptibility of Hawaii and other Pacific islands
to invasive species. As a consequence, oftentimes invasives
arrive in Hawaii that should have been excluded at the national
borders, but were not because they were deemed unimportant to
temperate ecologies.
The second limitation is the historical reliance on
blacklists, such as is done in the Lacey Act. Blacklists, a
listing of those species deemed especially harmful, that are
banned import into the United States. This approach suffers
from two limitations.
One, there are hundreds of thousands or millions of
potentially invasive species and you cannot list them all. The
second limitation is that it relies on a doomed logic, which is
that almost always you need a train wreck, an invasion disaster
somewhere, before a species will become listed.
The third limitation that we have in Hawaii, as elsewhere,
is that historically the costs of alien species invasions have
been externalized across society as a whole. And I would
suggest that we need to internalize those costs to the
industries that benefit from the importing activities.
A number of successful actions have been taken in the past
few years for dealing with the invasive species problem in the
Pacific. In the realm of prevention, there is a highly
successful program protecting California and the rest of the
mainland from three species of invasive fruit flies that became
established in Hawaii a number of years ago. What we need,
though, is protection of Hawaii from pests on the mainland,
too, i.e. we need a reciprocal quarantine program.
In terms of screening, which is the best means of keeping
out potentially invasive intentional introductions, the best
screening system devised so far is the weed risk assessment
devised by the Australia Quarantine and Inspection Service. It
has been used successfully in that nation and in New Zealand
for a number of years. It has been tested in Fiji and Hawaii
and found predictive of invasiveness of plants we already have
in the State; and it is currently being modified for voluntary
use in Hawaii.
In terms of rapid response--that is, what we do with
species once they escape the prevention system and become
established already--in Hawaii, we have made considerable
progress in the last several years with so-called ``invasive
species Committees'' based on each of the four main islands,
which identify and target for eradication incipient invasive
species.
Interagency coordination is best shown perhaps by the Brown
Tree Snake program in the Pacific, an interagency cooperative
effort that has resulted in dramatic declines of Brown Tree
Snake shipment from Guam to other islands. Long-term management
has been best done by the National Park Service in the Hawaiian
Islands and has provided models for jurisdictions elsewhere.
Resources needed to protect Hawaii in a comprehensive
fashion from invasives are probably on the order of about 100
million per year, and that is based on identification of State
resources needed, done by Coordinating Group on Alien Pest
Species, an interagency group in Hawaii.
In addition, as I mentioned earlier, we need Federal
quarantine of mainland pest species arriving in Hawaii. We need
screening systems implemented to keep out invasive intentional
introductions, and we need authorities or incentives to promote
eradications of incipient invasive species on private lands and
the ability to tap contingency funds to meet those needs.
In summary, why does any of this matter? Hawaii and the
Pacific are among the hardest hit areas in the world by
invasive species. We have lost scores of species to extinction
and much of our native lands have been converted to alien
cover. Many people interpret this as a statement that the
situation in Hawaii and in the Pacific is lost, but it is not.
Many thousands of unique species still remain. Many thousands,
or hundreds of thousands, of additional alien invasive species
could be established in Hawaii making life for people there
much worse. Serious efforts to deal with invasive species
problems in Hawaii and the Pacific have only begun in the past
few years, but by providing the dedicated support and programs
needed, the remaining rich patrimony of biological wealth in
these islands could be preserved for future generations.
Thank you for your attention.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kraus follows:]
Statement of Dr. Fred Kraus, Department of Natural Science,
Bishop Museum, Hawaii
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today on
invasive alien species problems in Hawaii and the Pacific.
I am Dr. Fred Kraus and am employed as a research scientist with
the Bishop Museum in Honolulu. I have been involved with research and/
or control work with invasive alien species since 1991, when I
initiated and implemented control work for feral ungulates and invasive
plants on a privately owned island in the British Virgin Islands. From
1996 to 2001, I worked on a large variety of invasive-species policy
and programmatic efforts for the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
Resources and was active in coordinating a number of inter-agency
coalitions dedicated to addressing various aspects of the invasive-
species problem in Hawaii. For the past two years I have worked for the
Bishop Museum and have continued research into problems involving alien
vertebrates.
The uniqueness of Hawaii and other Pacific islands lies in their
isolation from continental landmasses and their great topographic and
climatic diversity. As a result, natural colonization of these islands
has been very infrequent and has often led to the generation of species
unique to particular islands and archipelagos. In the case of Hawaii,
this isolation has resulted in the evolution of approximately 10,000
species found nowhere else on Earth, out of a total biota of
approximately 18,000 native species. Topographic and soil variability
have also resulted in a mix of habitats that can place tropical
rainforests within a few miles of baked desert-like conditions,
creating climatological transects that would occur over much greater
distances in continental situations. For these reasons, Hawaii holds a
significant portion of the United States' patrimony of biological
wealth.
However, with the breaking of natural geographic isolation by human
activities, these native biota and ecosystems have been overwhelmed by
the establishment of more than 5000 species of alien plants and animals
in Hawaii in the past 200 years. This represents a rate of successful
colonization of new species that is more than one million times the
natural rate. This pattern shows no sign of abatement, and in the past
five years, the Hawaii Biological Survey has documented an average of
177 additional alien species in Hawaii each year. Under these
circumstances Hawaii's ecological meltdown is not unexpected and can be
represented in a number of ways. As one example, Hawaii has lost
hundreds of species to extinction, currently has 322 species recognized
as endangered or threatened by the USFWS (26% of the U.S. total), and
has hundreds more that are deserving of protection but unlisted. In
this latter category, at least 50 species have populations smaller than
50 known individuals. Virtually all of these endangered species, except
for the marine forms, are endangered primarily or in large part by
invasive aliens. Alternatively, if one looks at the landscape scale,
Hawaii has lost a massive percentage of its native habitats (Fig. 1).
The large majority of this habitat loss is due to replacement of native
vegetation by invasive plants--often mediated by past human habitat
clearance--or due to total removal of native plant cover by alien
ungulates, leaving large expanses of bare soil. Losses elsewhere in the
Pacific are frequently in the same range, although some islands have
fared better. Economic effects of invasives have been poorly quantified
in the Pacific but losses greater than $150 million/yr are ascribed to
one species of termite in Hawaii alone and economic and health costs of
brown treesnakes in Guam have been discussed, and Hawaii's agriculture
has been buffeted by a succession of alien pests. Despite this lack of
research, economic costs of invasives in the Pacific are likely to be
large in many cases.
No well-researched effort has been undertaken to address the
question, but a reasonable estimate is that approximately 300-500 of
Hawaii's 5200 established alien species are ecologically damaging. This
includes approximately 20-40 vertebrates, 150-200 plants, and an
unknown, but large, number of invertebrates and pathogens. Areas
invaded by individual species range from a few acres to hundreds of
thousands of acres and the damage created by them spans a similar
continuum, with the most damaging forms including many with the largest
ranges. Generally, taxa that are able to alter ecosystem function or
community structure have been especially detrimental, and prominent
examples across the Pacific include trees, grasses, feral ungulates,
mammalian predators, rats, and social insects like ants and wasps.
These species are especially notorious because their effects are often
so great as to be obvious to large segments of society. As just one
example among many, the Neotropical tree Miconia calvescens has spread
to cover two-thirds of Tahiti's forests in the past 70 years. As a
result, landslides have become more common, watershed values are
degraded, and 40-50 species now face extinction. This tree has large
populations on the islands of Maui and Hawaii and threatens to inflict
similar damage there should control efforts falter. Similar examples
from the Pacific could be multiplied to the point of tedium but I will
eschew that exercise. It is critical to remember, however, that not all
damage is created by well-known villains. As one example, the brown
treesnake, now widely recognized as the reason for Guam's near-total
loss of native forest birds, was originally rejected by many as the
cause of this loss because few could imagine a mere snake having such
devastating ecological consequences. Similarly, concerns raised in 1997
that coqui frogs would create problems in Hawaii were greeted with
derision; however, these same problems have blossomed and received
national media attention in the past few years. In many cases,
ecological degradation in the Pacific results not from just one or a
few key species but from the ``death by a thousand cuts'' inflicted by
the composite magnitude of the invasion.
The species comprising the alien invasion arrive through a variety
of pathways, but this variety may be grouped into two major categories:
intentional and unintentional introductions. Examples of the former
include released pets, garden escapes, and biocontrol organisms;
examples of the latter include hull-fouling organisms, ballast water,
and seed contaminants. The important point to note is that pathway
importance varies by taxon. Some groups, such as fish, mammals, birds,
and vascular plants, are primarily introduced purposely because someone
perceives a value for the species. Others, such as marine algae,
landsnails, insects, and pathogens are usually unintentional, and
unwanted, introductions. Efforts to address invasive-species problems
often focus on only one or a few pathways but a comprehensive program
will require that all important pathways be addressed.
A number of factors has limited the effectiveness of our responses
to invasive aliens in Hawaii and across the Pacific. A few of these,
such as rugged terrain and small tax bases, are inherent to the region
and cannot be changed. But most historical limitations are
theoretically correctable by human action. One of the greatest current
shortfalls in invasive-species programs in Hawaii is lack of dedicated
personnel to do the work. Consequently, otherwise promising initiatives
against invasives continually founder for lack of personnel to carry
out the tasks. Responsibilities for invasives are often divided among a
number of agencies, often saddling agencies with insufficient
authorities and making response coordination among agencies unused to
cooperation difficult. For example, within the State of Hawaii,
responsibility for border inspection and quarantine lies with the
Hawaii Department of Agriculture; responsibility for controlling
infestations on State lands lies with the Department of Land and
Natural Resources. But no agency has authority over most pests in the
urban interface or other private lands, where most alien invasions
begin. Hence, by the time invasions progress to State lands it is
usually too late to implement effective control. Identical problems
plague the Federal agencies. In many cases, even when these hurdles
have been overcome, we lack the requisite ecological or control-
methodology knowledge to respond effectively. There are a large number
of invasive species for which we lack even basic knowledge of their
biological susceptibilities or potentially effective control methods.
This includes most marine invertebrates, many plants, and a wide array
of vertebrates. Furthermore, when successful cooperative inter-agency
control or prevention programs have been implemented, such as the brown
treesnake control program in Guam, CNMI, and Hawaii, there has been a
failure to learn from these successes and systematize their approaches
to address other invasive pest problems. For example, fire ants and
West Nile virus are poised to invade the Pacific. The success of the
brown treesnake interdiction program could serve as a model for
proactively stopping the spread of these pests before they arrive in
the Pacific but the opportunity is not being grasped. Finally, one
severe limitation is unique to Hawaii and the Pacific and that is the
failure of mainland policy-makers to recognize the biological
uniqueness and heightened susceptibility of this region to pests that
are no cause for concern on the mainland. As a result, Hawaii has often
received via the mainland U.S. severely damaging pests that the USDA
refused to prohibit U.S. entry because the pests were tropical in
nature and would not affect mainland interests. Under these
circumstances, it is a simple matter for a tropical country to ship
goods to the mainland for immediate reshipment to Hawaii--goods that if
shipped directly to Hawaii would be barred entry by the State. This
practice has made Hawaii especially liable to decisions appropriate for
temperate decision-makers but irrelevant to our tropical situation. And
invasion in Hawaii often leads to pest expansion farther west in the
Pacific because Hawaii serves as the economic gateway for much of the
region.
To stem the flood of invasive species, a multi-tiered approach to
prevention and control must be implemented so as to capitalize on the
multiplicative protection afforded by each component. Obviously, the
most effective and efficient means of mitigating additional alien-
species problems is to prevent their introduction in the first place.
Hence, comprehensive quarantine and screening systems should form the
foundation for any alien-species mitigation program. Should alien pest
species breach the quarantine barrier, the most cost-effective means of
mitigation is to discover and eradicate newly established alien species
prior to population entrenchment. If successful, this avoids the large
costs of perpetual control. Lastly, for those species that have become
firmly established, long-term control to mitigate their worst effects
is usually the only remaining option, but this is typically expensive
and must occur in perpetuity to be effective. Each of these approaches
ideally should be coordinated with the others to provide a functional
system of protections. Progress has been made in each of these areas in
the Pacific region although successful programs have been somewhat ad
hoc and are not yet united to form a comprehensive system of protection
at any one locality, except in New Zealand and, to a lesser extent,
Australia.
Prevention includes both quarantine efforts to intercept hitch-
hiking pests in cargo and packing materials as well as screening
systems to evaluate the potential invasiveness of species proposed for
intentional introduction. The USDA's long-standing inspection service
at designated ports of entry illustrates one partially successful means
of conducting a quarantine program, although that program suffers from
a narrow focus on only agricultural pests. The same agency's quarantine
and inspection program protecting California agriculture from alien
fruit flies invasive in Hawaii is a model of how effective protection
may be afforded by a comprehensive inspection program. In this program,
all passengers flying from Hawaii to the U.S. mainland must have their
luggage screened by X-ray machines and certified free of produce. This
has kept California relatively free of three species of pestiferous
fruit flies for a number of years. A reciprocal program is needed,
however, to protect Hawaii from the host of invasive aliens it receives
from the U.S. mainland.
The most effective screening system yet developed to halt the
intentional spread of invasive aliens is the Weed Risk Assessment
devised by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. This
quick, transparent evaluation system has been used successfully in that
country and in New Zealand to exclude importation of invasive plants
for the past several years. Preliminary tests have shown its efficacy
at predicting invasiveness of alien plants in Hawaii and Fiji too and
efforts are underway in Hawaii to get a modification of this system
implemented on a voluntary basis to reduce the rate of importation of
new invasive species.
There has been success in Hawaii at implementing some level of
rapid-response protection that involves the formation, on each major
island, of a coalition of interested agency and non-governmental
personnel dedicated to removing incipient populations of known invasive
species before they become well-established and ineradicable. These so-
called invasive species committees have had considerable success in
reducing or eradicating an array of invasive species (mostly plants)
but efforts to date cannot be viewed as comprehensive because of the
large standing crop of incipient invasives in Hawaii. Cessation of
control activities for even a short period could negate many of the
gains made in recent years. These committees also serve as successful
local models of cooperation among a variety of agency and private
partners to address the invasive-species threat in Hawaii. The same is
true for the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species (CGAPS), which
serves to coordinate policy actions at a statewide scale, again
involving a wide array of government and non-governmental parties.
Perhaps the most successful example of an integrated prevention/
rapid-response/research system protecting Hawaii and the Pacific is the
inter-agency brown treesnake prevention program based on Guam and its
supportive research program based in Fort Collins, Colorado. This
program consists of comprehensive inspection on Guam of outbound cargo
and vessels and population reduction of snake populations in port
areas. Since implementation in 1995, the incidence of brown treesnake
appearance in other jurisdictions has declined dramatically. This
program could serve as a model for other species-specific prevention
programs throughout the Pacific but despite its demonstrable success it
continues to struggle for year-to-year funding, making its long-term
stability uncertain. Despite this lack of base funding, this program
does indicate one direction that a comprehensive, coordinated response
to other invasive-species threats could successfully take.
For the large number of invasive species that are already
widespread and wreaking ecological havoc in Hawaii, the best model for
long-term mitigation has been provided by the National Park Service.
Through efforts extending over the past two decades or so, park
managers have removed or seriously reduced several of the most
destructive invasive pests--including ungulates, mammalian predators,
and a wide array of plants--over large areas of Haleakala and Hawaii
Volcanoes National Parks. These efforts have served as models used by
other agencies in Hawaii and elsewhere in the Pacific. However, these
impressive gains may be mooted in the future if the current trends in
alien invasion convert these parks to postage stamps of native habitat
with an ever-larger tide of invasives lapping at their borders. In this
respect, should miconia, brown treesnakes, fire ants, West Nile virus,
or other especially severe invasives arrive at park boundaries, there
would be little hope of sustaining natural resource values within the
parks themselves. In recognition of this, it makes sense for natural
resource agencies to become more proactive in addressing invasive
species threats before they reach their lands.
Despite these successes, efforts to address invasive-species
threats in Hawaii and the Pacific in a comprehensive fashion are still
in the early stages of development and it is clear from experience that
a number of unsuccessful approaches to the problem need to be avoided.
First, it is clear that adoption of a ``black list'' approach that bars
entry to a handful of species deemed especially harmful (an approach
taken by the Federal Lacey Act) is doomed to failure. This is because
it is impossible to evaluate and list more than a small percentage of
the millions of species estimated to inhabit the planet, so large
numbers of invasives will always pass through a screen having such
large holes. More importantly, the irreversible nature of alien-species
invasions logically necessitates adoption of the precautionary
principle in order to successfully meet a reasonable standard of risk-
aversion. A black list approach does just the opposite, allowing entry
to any species unless demonstrably shown to be harmful. The problem
with this approach, of course, is that it logically requires that an
ecological disaster be in place before action is taken. The screening
systems used in Australia and New Zealand have successfully taken the
opposite approach. Second, eradication efforts that fail to secure
long-term support to ensure completion of the action should not be
undertaken. Numerous attempts at eradicating incipient pests have
failed because of underestimation of population resiliency and
consequent under-commitment of needed resources. The effort to control
miconia in Hawaii could easily meet this same fate. Third, the
historically piecemeal approach taken by Federal and state governments
in the U.S., with authorities uncoordinated among a diversity of
agencies, cannot successfully meet the challenges posed by the
magnitude of the invasive-species problems in this country. In Hawaii,
we have had some success in achieving better coordination among this
host of agencies but it is not clear if that alone will be sufficient
to meet the challenge. Serious consideration needs to be given to the
idea of unifying all invasive-species prevention and control efforts
under a single biosecurity agency. Lastly, the costs of allowing
invasive species into the U.S. have, in most instances, been
externalized across society. These costs need to be internalized so
that those who benefit by the importation activities have incentives to
reduce the danger of the activities by which they benefit. The
invasive-species problem is of such magnitude that government action
alone, without adoption of some market incentives, will be insufficient
to provide a complete solution.
Resources needed to protect Hawaii and the Pacific from further
invasive-species incursions largely fall into the categories of
increased capacities and increased authorities. Capacity needs for
prevention, rapid-response, and long-term control of invasive species
in Hawaii were comprehensively estimated by CGAPS two years ago to be
$53 million/yr in State funds (Table 1). Current total State spending
is perhaps 10% of that. Improving Federal roles in quarantine
inspection, research, and control would add several tens of millions of
dollars to this figure. Hawaii and the Pacific need a Federal
quarantine program--reciprocal to that provided the mainland--to
protect these islands from mainland goods and passengers, which have
been the source of innumerable invasive pests over the years. For
preventing intentional introduction of invasives, we need functional
plant-screening systems in place as well as research to develop similar
screening systems for animals. To provide for effective early-detection
and rapid-response programs we need expanded authorities to facilitate
operations on private lands and the ability to tap contingency funds to
eradicate pests before they explode in numbers. For this and long-term
control programs we also need considerably more research into
developing effective control methodologies.
In meeting these requirements, it is important to emphasize that
money spent earlier in the invasion process is more cost-effective than
that spent later. Hence, priority should be given to establishing
effective prevention programs that involve inspection and quarantine
for unintentional introductions and screening systems for intentional
introductions. These prevention programs should abandon the black-list
approach for a more proactive white-list approach and should
internalize programmatic costs to those benefitting from the
importation activity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
______
[An attachment to Dr. Kraus' statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6708.003
Mr. Pombo. Dr. Kraus, I would like to start with you. In
your testimony, you talked about the possibility that there
were millions of species, invasive species, thousands or
millions of invasive species.
If we were to adopt legislation like this, where would you
draw the line? Where would you say this is invasive and we have
to stop it because it is nonnative? As previous testimony has
said, there are a lot of different species that would be
considered invasive, so where do you draw the line? Where do
you say this is OK and this is not?
Dr. Kraus. You have to test for invasiveness. You have to
distinguish between alien species, those that are not native in
the area and those that are invasive, which is a small subset
of alien species that actually create economic or ecological
problems.
So far, work to predict which species will become invasive
has largely been restricted to plants. That is the weed risk
assessment system. In that case, the system, at least from a
Pacific perspective, has been sufficiently well worked out as
to be worth implementing immediately. In the case of animals,
far less work has been done for predicting invasiveness; and
so, frankly, to address that aspect of the question, we need to
invest in further research because we don't know how to predict
invasiveness in most animal groups yet.
Mr. Pombo. Let me just follow that up with--I guess the
question I have in my mind is, invasiveness is somewhat in the
eye of the beholder, and I think that is the concern that Mr.
Beers and others have is that you can make a determination that
the introduction of cattle into a certain ecosystem endangers
the native plants that exist there. In fact there was a report
that came out of the State fish and game in California on Mount
Diablo, which is a State park, and they referred to the
``nonnative, exotic game species from Europe'' which inhabited
the park, and they were referring to the cattle that they
never--anywhere in it, they never said anything about cattle.
They always referred to them as a nonnative, exotic game
species. And I think one of the concerns that a lot of people
have is that we can go--by introducing something like this into
law, we end up opening up to the bureaucracy and whatever
agenda they may hold. So I think that is a concern.
Dr. Kraus. I think it is a valid concern. If you are
talking about control programs to deal with species that are
already established, much of that work, perhaps most of it, has
to be done at a local level and perhaps should be based on
local desires.
I think the largest role for the Federal Government has to
be in preventing new species from getting into the United
States in the first place. And in that case there are such
largely opposing current authorities that I think additional
legislation is needed, additional direction is needed. The
Federal Government can help with funding because, like in the
case of the Pacific islands, most of the populations are small,
tax bases are small and that sort of thing.
When it comes to actual control work on private property,
perhaps it is not an appropriate place for the Federal
Government to get very heavily involved, but I would want them
as partners because in many States, Federal property often lies
next door and you do need a coordinated response to deal with
these problems.
Mr. Pombo. Dr. Mann, would you like to respond to that as
well?
Dr. Mann. I agree there is a role here for the Federal
Government and the prime role that I see is the prevention of
new introductions. And as I think was eloquently stated by Dr.
Ruiz, you have this open corridor of major vectors and they are
desperately in need of some attention.
Animal and plant species that are already here represent
problems that may be insurmountable in terms of their control,
depending upon the nature of the individual species. But
stopping everything else at the gate is something I think the
Federal Government should and can take the lead on.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Beers, we have talked a lot about this over
the years and what role the Federal Government should play or
can play. In 1993, I authored an amendment on the national
biological survey bill that required the Federal officials to
obtain written consent from private landowners before they
inventory species on private property.
How far would that go in alleviating what some of your
fears are in terms of going forward with this?
Mr. Beers. Mr. Chairman, I don't think it would relieve
them at all. Most of these species can be seen from the road,
can be seen on the neighboring lands, and the assumption can be
that they are there.
The Federal control, although you may not want it here in
Congress and although the agencies will say they certainly
don't want to expand it, will be placed there and caused to be
created by courts due to lawsuits by people who have other
agendas in mind. Those agendas are to interfere with the
private property owner's rights on his own property, as well as
to take public lands and make them less accessible to people.
So there is a whole range of agendas there that I really
don't think telling a Federal Government employee that they
have to have authorization to go on private land would help.
Find it in the neighborhood or nearby or something gives you
carte blanche to say, it must be there, we can see it; and you
are off to the races again either with the agency claiming they
have to do something or one of these nongovernmental
organizations going to court with a suit.
Mr. Pombo. Well, unfortunately, I think your argument has a
lot of validity to it and we have seen it over the years with
the Endangered Species Act and other Federal laws that were
started with good intentions and general agreement to do
something, but when that hits the bureaucracy and the courts
sometimes it gets interpreted very differently from that; and I
think your argument holds a lot of water in that respect.
Mr. Beers. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the
opportunity, if you have a moment, to answer a question that
was asked of the other panel, which is, the Chairman at that
time asked the question, what is--the willow flycatcher nesting
in the tamarisk or salt cedar, what is the reason or how can
the Federal Government eradicate or call it an invasive species
when it is a nesting tree for an endangered species?
I was at a briefing about a month ago where a high Interior
official explained that they had looked into the fact that
possibly those birds would do better in native plants so it is
OK for the Federal Government to go in and eradicate the tree
that they now use to nest in. And I would suggest to Congress
it probably was never your intention nor did anyone ever
imagine that you might take certain facets of a critical
habitat and because you wanted to use it--in this case, the
Federal Government--to eradicate it, that you could say that
other alternatives are available that they should use.
I suggest to you that that has never been made available to
private property owners nor will it ever be. And carrying that
activity forward in this invasive species area, I think it
addresses what you just asked, which is the way in which the
Federal Government may in fact may be doing it 5 or 10 years
from now.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, with your
concurrence, enter into the record a statement of my colleague,
our colleague, Mr. Ortiz, relative to this meeting.
Mr. Pombo. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this important
oversight hearing today. As everyone here today knows so well, the
ever-increasing problem of invasive species hits many of the different
regions of the country.
In my congressional district in South Texas, the mighty Rio Grande
River has failed to reach the Gulf of Mexico and much can be attributed
to the hydrilla in the river. Along several stretches of the River you
can see patches of this weed holding up water that many municipalities
along the border depend on.
There is lots of work, money, and coordination being done to
eradicate and control these weeds. But not enough has been done.
I look forward to hearing from the panel of witnesses as we
continue to find ways to solve this problem.
______
Mr. Grijalva. And the other request would be if we could
leave the record open for follow-up questions that might be
generated at a later time.
Mr. Pombo. As is customary, the record will be held open
for questions that would be submitted in writing to the
panelists and give them enough time to answer those questions
so it will be included in the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Just very general questions, Mr. Chairman.
And if I may, I would like to begin with Dr. Mann, based on
your comments. But the question is, what is the most pressing
policy need for managing invasive species? From the statements
you made previously, I think in the last question, I think it
would be the issue of prevention.
But if you could elaborate on that, Dr. Ruiz or Dr.
Carlton.
Dr. Mann. I would welcome comments from my colleagues. As I
see it, we have a broad spectrum of available statutes that are
available as tools to address this issue. What I think is one
of the more difficult situations, as you develop and watch
these pieces evolve, is how you actually enforce them.
The National Invasive Species Act and the ballast water
piece of that I think is a classic example of the problem we
face. We know there is a problem. How do we treat ballast
water? How do we set a standard? Amongst the academics at this
table we can debate all day what the appropriate standard
should be.
I think out in the real world there are people who are
working with technologies who can address various options that
are available. Should we wait until the academics here decide
on the perfect standard and then develop the perfect
technology? And the answer is no. But somewhere in the midst of
it, we need to move forward with getting people who are
developing technologies into the situation where we can apply.
And even though they may not be perfect at this point in time
they will assist in the process of prevention. And prevention
here is the major issue.
So we are going to be dealing with continual evolution and
evaluation and reevaluation of useful pieces of legislation
that will assist in the prevention cause. That is one part of
the role that I think the Federal statutes can play a leading
role in. And even though we may disagree on some details, I
think that is a consensus all would agree to.
The other part of that in terms of how we deal with things
that are perhaps already here, all things that might be
intended to be brought here--and the reason why I mentioned
State's rights and Lacey in this--is that there are some clear
divergent opinions between the panelists who have been here as
to what the Federal and the State roles are.
I think the real point is that the Federal, the State, the
local and the academic communities all have something to
contribute to this, and that is very important when we look at
any of the questions of either prevention at the local level,
or potential threats. Clearly threats in Alaska are different
from threats in Hawaii and different from threats in Virginia.
There is a lot of expertise that can help if we can somehow
round them all up and focus in on the issue. And that is
something that we need to do no matter whether we are looking
at prevention of potential introductions, whether we are
looking at eradication of things that are locally acknowledged
at this point; and this is why I say education is so important.
The public citizenry are really our first line of defense.
If you look at the public education that went along with zebra
mussel invasions, it was an immense and very important event.
People became enjoined. I think we need to do that in a broader
sense because they are our first line of defense in telling us,
hey, something is wrong out there.
We need to get those involved and we need to do it at all
levels. I think if what we are working with at the Federal
level can try to wrap some arms around what is available at the
State level and bring them together as a marriage rather than
as an adversarial potential divorce, I think we will be doing a
lot of good things. The pieces are there to do that. I'm not
quite sure how to construct it.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, in your comments, Dr. Carlton, you
talked about the many times that you have come before Congress
and as follow-up to that, maybe the question as to what extent
is the damage we are talking about now in invasive organisms to
our natural resource base permanent versus restorable?
Dr. Carlton. It is in general hard to reverse much of what
we have done in terms of the species that have arrived, that
have caused some of the most severe economic or industrial or
social or recreational impacts. By the time that we have
engaged a lot of our concern, many of these species are
extraordinarily widespread and would require an investment of
money that would far exceed anything that we have ever been
willing so far to attempt. That has all led us, again and again
and again, to prevention, which is that the history of the
invasions that we have seen which have changed quality of life
and many other aspects in this country of environmental and
social conditions lead us to consider that one of the best
solutions is to prevent future unwanted invasions in a
roulette-type manner. That is, species that come in through
many, many different vectors, which we cannot predict when and
where they will arrive, nor very often whether or not if they
are benign in their country of origin, they would have become a
nuisance species or pestiferous in this country. So with the
history of exotics, the history of our inability really to
reverse major damages, that bring us very much to this table of
wanting to prevent future invasions.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I think for Mr. Grau or Mr. Beers, either/or
or both, you both made the comments that many introduced
species have beneficial attributes. The question is how do you
propose managing the distribution of a species that, say for
instance, has beneficial attributes in one habitat but
devastating and harmful attributes in another? How do we manage
that?
Mr. Grau. I think one of the key issues there, you
mentioned devastating effects. Part of the problem here is who
makes the definitions. Some of these things, I think, like the
brown tree snake, I don't think you get any opposition to. But
defining these things is part of the problem. I guess to me it
is kind of a hard question to answer. However, the free market
system that has been in effect for as long as we have been
here, at least for the most part, has pretty much worked. We
don't really have a whole lot of--and of course my area is more
terrestrial plants. But when you look at all the importations,
intentional and unintentional, and look at what American
agriculture is today, where you are fed by February 2nd now,
the average person's income, you are fed by February 2nd. So
largely because of introduced species--yes, you have some
things like yellow starthistle and nap weed particularly
affecting the West, but, No. 1, these were unintentional.
So I think if I understand your question correctly, it is
the marketing system of these things that could be good in one
place and devastating in another. And I would have to think
pretty hard to find a species that is on the commercial market
today, at least with plants, that would fit your description.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me just follow up if I may, Mr. Chairman.
In a partial answer to your question and my question, how do
you determine? Would developing better--given the importance of
the State role--State assessment tools for early detection and
rapid response to help determine whether a plant or animal will
have different invasive capabilities depending on the
surrounding ecosystem, to test that benefit or test that harm.
Therefore, those assessment tools are within the State and that
empowerment that we talked about.
Mr. Grau. I don't know. I've seen some of these predictive
models that just flat wouldn't work. One of the things I have
thought about is if everybody would agree that food production
is of primary importance that perhaps the Secretary of
Agriculture would have veto power. Some of these things get
pretty bizarre when you get right down to it. I mean, orchard
grass is one that is on a lot of eastern lists.
I know I am getting back to terrestrial plants which maybe
isn't your area, but it is a good example. Here is something
that is integral in eastern beef and milk production. Yet it is
on a lot of lists. If the ag sector, maybe under the Secretary
of Agriculture or something like that could have veto power,
maybe that would help. Because when you look at the people that
are making these decisions, it is very weighted toward one
side. Take any of these State or Federal councils or whatever,
and just go down who these people are that are on these
Committees. Often there is not even anybody from the private
sector. If it is, it is like a 10-to-1 ratio.
I guess I have probably taken enough time. Sorry.
Mr. Grijalva. I don't have anything else, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. I want to thank this panel for their
testimony. Before I excuse you, I want to apologize to those of
you, I didn't hear all of your oral testimony in the previous
panels, but I want to tell you, I appreciate your testimony in
answering the questions as was asked.
The record will be held open for members to submit written
questions that will be given to you, and if you could respond
to those in writing in a timely fashion so that they may be
included in the hearing record.
Mr. Pombo. I would also like to ask unanimous consent that
a statement from Pacific Ballast Water Group also be included
in the record.
[The statement from Pacific Ballast Water Group follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6708.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6708.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6708.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6708.008
Mr. Pombo. Seeing no further business, this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the joint Subcommittee was
adjourned.]