[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 6311, THE NON-
NATIVE WILDLIFE
INVASION PREVENTION ACT
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE
AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, June 26, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-80
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-302 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Chris Cannon, Utah
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jeff Flake, Arizona
Islands Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jim Costa, California Louie Gohmert, Texas
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Tom Cole, Oklahoma
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Rob Bishop, Utah
George Miller, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Bill Sali, Idaho
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Lois Capps, California Steve Scalise, Louisiana
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman
HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Samoa Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Bill Sali, Idaho
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, June 26, 2008.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina................................ 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Cravalho, Domingo, Jr., Inspection and Compliance Section
Chief, Plant Quarantine Branch, Hawaii Department of
Agriculture................................................ 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Frazer, Gary, Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat
Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior............................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Gaden, Marc, Ph.D., Legislative Liaison, Great Lakes Fishery
Commission................................................. 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Horne, George, Deputy Executive Director, Operations and
Maintenance, South Florida Water Management District....... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Marano, Nina, D.V.M., M.P.H., Branch Chief, Geographic
Medicine and Health Promotion Branch, Division of Global
Migration and Quarantine, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Meyers, Marshall, Executive Vice President and General
Counsel, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council............... 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Riley, Lawrence M., Wildlife Management Division Coordinator,
Arizona Game and Fish Department, on behalf of the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.................. 55
Prepared statement of.................................... 56
Williams, Lori C., Executive Director, National Invasive
Species Council, U.S. Department of the Interior........... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Additional materials supplied:
Hastings, Hon. Alcee L., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida, Statement submitted for the record... 67
H.R. 6311, THE NON-NATIVE WILDLIFE INVASION PREVENTION ACT.
----------
Thursday, June 26, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Madeleine Z.
Bordallo [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bordallo, Brown, Wittman, and
Klein.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. Good morning, everyone. The legislative
hearing by the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R.
6311, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. Pursuant
to Committee Rule 4[g], the Chairwoman and the Ranking Minority
Member will make opening statements.
The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans meets
this morning to hear testimony regarding my bill, H.R. 6311,
the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. Invasive
nonnative species cause harm to the economy. They cause harm to
human health and the health of other animal species.
The damages from these species are estimated to be $123
billion annually. Some of these species are introduced
unintentionally, as is the case with Guam's brown tree snake, a
significant problem in my territory. However, intentional
introduction is one of the primary pathways by which invasive
species become established.
Currently, there is no law that requires species to be
evaluated for risk before import. The Lacey Act allows species
to be placed on an injurious list, which prohibits import, but
this can occur only after the species has been initially
imported and caused serious and widespread harm to the economy,
to the environment, and to human and animal species' health.
On average, however, it takes the Fish and Wildlife Service
four years to list a species as injurious. In the meantime, the
impacts caused by a particular species are often irreversible,
thereby increasing taxpayers' costs to mitigate what can be
irremediable environmental damage.
My bill, H.R. 6311, would require species to be evaluated
for these risks before importation. Using this approach, H.R.
6311 proposes a ``white list'' of species approved for import.
Other species would be prohibited until the importer can
demonstrate that it will not cause harm.
I am pleased to have three Subcommittee Members--Mr.
Kildee, Mr. Abercrombie, and Mr. Kind--as original co-sponsors
of this legislation, and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today about the need for this legislation to prevent
the import of invasive, nonnative wildlife species.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans meets this
morning to hear testimony regarding my bill, H.R. 6311, the Nonnative
Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act.
Invasive, non-native species cause harm to the economy, human
health, and the health of other animal species. The damages from these
species are estimated to be $123 billion annually. Some of these
species are introduced unintentionally, as is the case with Guam's
brown tree snake, a significant problem in my territory. However,
intentional introduction is one of the primary pathways by which
invasive species become established.
Currently, there is no law that requires species to be evaluated
for risk before import. The Lacey Act allows species to be placed on an
``injurious list'', but this can occur only after they have caused
serious and widespread harm to the economy, environment, and to human
and animal species' health.
On average, however, it takes the Fish and Wildlife Service four
years to list a species as injurious. In the meantime, the impacts
caused by a particular species are often irreversible, thereby
increasing taxpayers' costs to mitigate what can be irremediable
environmental damage.
My bill, H.R. 6311, would require species to be evaluated for these
risks before importation. Using this approach, H.R. 6311 proposes a
``white list'' of species approved for import. This places the burden
of proof on the importer to demonstrate that the species will not cause
harm to the environment or to society.
I am pleased to have three Subcommittee Members, Mr. Kildee, Mr.
Abercrombie, and Mr. Kind, as original co-sponsors of this legislation
and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about the need
for this legislation to prevent the import of invasive, non-native
wildlife species.
______
Ms. Bordallo. And now, as Chairwoman, I recognize Mr.
Brown, the Ranking Republican Member, from South Carolina, for
any statement he may have.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY E. BROWN, JR., A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, witnesses.
Today, we will hear testimony on the recently introduced bill
to address the growing problem of nonnative wildlife species
that are being legally and illegally imported to the United
States.
According to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, invasive species are the number one environmental
threat to this country. They are permanently changing the
landscape of millions of acres, and they are partially
responsible for nearly half of all species listed under the
Endangered Species Act.
As a nation that loves exotic pets, the United States has
become the destination of choice for over 2,000 nonnative
species that are sold in the wild animal trade. Of these
species, one of the most popular has become the Burmese python,
an extraordinary snake that can grow 20 feet long, weigh 150
pounds, and eat a full-grown alligator for lunch. That is a
stretch, but that is what I have here.
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, since 2000,
more than one million pythons have been imported into the
United States for commercial sale. Nearly half of those imports
arrive at the Miami International Airport, and many were listed
on the manifests of commercial airlines as snakes on the plane.
Regrettably, owners of these snakes have released their
pets when they became too large or too expensive to keep. They
are now living comfortably in the Florida Everglades, where
they are consuming much of the native wildlife and further
impairing at least five endangered species.
In response to this crisis, the State of Florida has
petitioned to have the Burmese python listed as injurious under
the Lacey Act. This would be a relatively easy decision, as of
now, two years later, there has been no listing, and the
exploding population of pythons continues to destroy the
Everglades, which taxpayers have spent billions to restore.
It is, therefore, understandable that there is a growing
frustration with the Lacey Act. Sadly, to become listed as
injurious is a long and difficult process. There is no mandated
deadline to make a determination and no insurance that species,
like the Burmese python, bighead carp, or swamp eel will ever
be listed.
I understand the purpose of H.R. 6311 is to prevent the
introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species
into the United States. This is a noble goal, and I look
forward to hearing testimony on how this legislation will
assist in the ongoing battle against what has been described as
the ``greatest environmental problem facing this country,
unwanted foreign wildlife invaders.''
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the Ranking Member for a very
positive statement and invite you to be a co-sponsor of this
bill.
Our witnesses on the panel this morning; I welcome all of
you. We have Mr. Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Fisheries
and Habitat Conservation at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
we have Ms. Lori Williams, Executive Director of the National
Invasive Species Council at the Department of the Interior; and
Nina Marano, Chief of the Geographic Medicine and Health
Promotion Branch, Division of Global Migration and Quarantine,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
I want to thank you and welcome all of you to our hearing
this morning. I will note that, for all of the witnesses, that
the timing lights on the table will indicate when your time has
concluded, and we would appreciate your cooperation in
complying with the limits that have been set, as we have many
witnesses to hear from today.
So be assured, though, that your full statement will be
entered into the official record.
Now, at this time, I would like to invite the first
witness, Mr. Frazer, to testify for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF GARY FRAZER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR FISHERIES AND
HABITAT CONSERVATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Frazer. Chairwoman Bordallo and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for
Fisheries and Habitat Conservation, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. I also serve as co-chair of the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the effects of
invasive species and H.R. 6311, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion
Prevention Act, which would establish a framework for assessing
the risk of nonnative wildlife species proposed for
importation.
The Fish and Wildlife Service greatly appreciates the
Subcommittee's leadership and support in the fight against
invasive wildlife. Today, my testimony will focus on the
threats posed by invasive species and what the Service is doing
to address that challenge.
While we acknowledge that there may be benefits to be
gained from the approach proposed in H.R. 6311, because the
bill was recently introduced, we have not yet had time to fully
evaluate its impacts. However, as noted below, the Service
recognizes the importance, and supports the general intent, of
developing a cost-effective and scientifically credible
screening mechanism for nonnative invasive species.
There is no question that the introduction and
establishment of invasive species has harmed native species and
ecosystems. We have only to look at a history of introductions,
from the sea lamprey to the zebra mussel to tamarisks, to
understand the broad scope of the problem.
The United States continues to see a number of nonnative,
potentially invasive, species crossing our borders through
various pathways. With the global nature of our economy and
transportation systems, we expect this trend to continue.
Invasive species are among the primary factors negatively
affecting native fish and wildlife populations in the United
States, and, without question, are one of the most significant
natural resource management challenges facing the Service.
For example, as you are aware, the brown tree snake is a
major threat to the biodiversity of the Pacific region. Since
arriving in Guam in the 1940s or 1950s, brown tree snakes have
spread across the entire island and have caused, or been a
major factor, in the extrication of most of Guam's native
terrestrial vertebrates, including fruit bats, lizards, and
nine of the 13 native forest bird species. Brown tree snakes
also cause millions of dollars in damage to Guam's
infrastructure and economy.
Aquatic invasive species are impacting America's sport and
commercial fisheries, as well as their associated local
economies. In the Great Lakes region, the sea lamprey has been
extremely destructive to economically important sport fish,
including lake trout, salmon, rainbow trout, and walleye.
In the West, a nonnative parasite causes whirling disease
in wild trout and salmon populations. It is estimated that some
streams have lost 90 percent of their trout due to whirling
disease.
Zebra and quagga mussels impact both the natural
environment and human infrastructure. Both mussel species are
easily spread unintentionally by recreational boaters and
annually cause an estimated $30 million in damage to water-
delivery systems in the Great Lakes.
In early 2007, quagga mussels were discovered in Lake Mead
National Recreation Area. They have since been found in
Arizona, California, and Nevada, including our Willow Beach
National Fish Hatchery and all 242 miles of the Colorado River
Aqueduct.
Many of the Service's programs support the management and
prevention of nonnative species. We work with many partners,
including all of those at the witness table today, to address
nonnative species issues. My written statement details a number
of these efforts, but, in the interest of time, I will
highlight just a few.
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control
Act of 1990 [NANPCA] established the Service's Aquatic Invasive
Species program, as well as the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task
Force, which is co-chaired by the Service and NOAA.
Our Aquatic Invasive Species program coordinates
prevention, control, and management actions on invasive species
that span geography and jurisdictional boundaries. Our program
staff work with Service field stations, Federal and state
agencies, nongovernmental groups, and private landowners to
conduct the surveillance, implement projects, and inform the
public about invasive species issues.
The Service's Aquatic Invasive Species program also
administers our only regulatory tool regarding invasive
species, the Injurious Wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act.
The Service's Office of Law Enforcement has wildlife inspectors
stationed at 38 staff locations, where they work to detect and
deter illegal trade in protected species and prevent the
introduction of injurious wildlife.
The Service's fisheries program works with the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission to implement the successful Sea Lamprey
program on the Great Lakes.
They also work extensively to prevent the introduction and
spread of Asian carp into the Great Lakes and other waterways.
Education and outreach efforts are critical elements to the
success of invasive species prevention and control. The Service
and the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force developed the
``Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!'' public awareness campaign, which
targets aquatic recreational users and promotes voluntary
guidelines to ensure that aquatic nuisance species are not
unintentionally spread through recreational activities.
The Service primarily focuses on preventing the
introduction and spread of invasive species because we have
limited tools for long-term management and control of invasive
species once they have become established. Preventing new
introductions is the primary focus of the Service and is the
most effective strategy to protect our nation's wildlife and
habitats.
In that regard, Madam Chair, the Service greatly
appreciates your interest and that of the Subcommittee in
establishing a more effective means to control the introduction
of nonnative invasive wildlife into the U.S. The Service
recognizes the need for a new approach for managing the risk
for importing potentially invasive, nonnative wildlife.
The Service supports the intent of H.R. 6311 to develop a
risk-assessment process with scientifically credible procedures
that will be transparent and efficient so that wildlife
importers can obtain timely decisions and make investment
decisions accordingly. The Service does, however, have some
concerns with the bill, including its relationship to existing
authority and the cost and feasibility of implementation.
We would like to work with the Subcommittee to address
these issues.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to testify
before the Subcommittee on this issue and for your support in
preventing harm to the nation's fish and wildlife resources
from invasive species.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frazer follows:]
Statement of Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat
Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior
Introduction
Chairwoman Bordallo and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Gary
Frazer, Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat Conservation of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). I also serve as co-chair
of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANS Task Force). Thank you
for this opportunity to testify on the effects of invasive species and
H.R. 6311, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, legislation
that would provide for the assessment of the risk of nonnative wildlife
species proposed for importation.
The Service appreciates the Subcommittee's leadership and support
in the fight against invasive plants and animals. Today, my testimony
will focus on the threats posed by invasive species, what the Service
is doing to address that challenge. While we acknowledge that there may
be benefits to be gained from the approach proposed in H.R. 6311,
because the bill was recently introduced we have not yet had time to
fully evaluate its impacts, including the cost and feasibility of
monitoring the vast volume of international trade, or consult with
other affected agencies. However, as noted below, the Service
recognizes the importance, and supports the general intent, of
developing a cost-effective screening mechanism for nonnative invasive
species.
Risks and Threats of Invasive Species
There is no question that the introduction and establishment of
invasive species have significantly impacted the health of our native
species and ecosystems. We have only to look at a history of
introductions, from the sea lamprey to the zebra mussel to tamarisk, to
understand the broad scope of the problem. The United States continues
to see a number of nonnative, potentially invasive species crossing our
borders through various pathways. With the global nature of our economy
and transportation systems, we expect this trend to continue. Invasive
species are among the primary factors that have led to the decline of
native fish and wildlife populations in the United States and, without
question, are one of the most significant natural resource management
challenges facing the Service.
It is difficult to estimate the full extent of the environmental
damage from nonnative invasive species. However, we know that over 400
of the 1,352 species that the Service protects under the Endangered
Species Act are considered to be at risk primarily due to competition
with, or predation by, invasive species.
Invasive species can also change the functions of ecosystems. For
example, along the Rio Grande in New Mexico and Texas, salt cedar and
giant cane, two invasive plants, are reducing stream flows, increasing
water loss through transpiration, and degrading habitat value for
native wildlife in this unique riparian ecosystem.
The brown tree snake is a major threat to the biodiversity of the
Pacific region. A native of Indonesia, New Guinea, the Solomon Islands,
and Australia, the brown tree snake arrived on Guam sometime during the
1940s-1950s as stowaways. The snakes have since spread across the
entire island and have caused or been a major factor in the extirpation
of most of Guam's native terrestrial vertebrates, including fruit bats,
lizards, and nine of thirteen native forest bird species. Insect
species that are no longer naturally controlled by native birds and
lizards reduce fruit and vegetable production and their uncontrolled
numbers require greater reliance on pesticides. Brown tree snakes also
cause millions of dollars in damage to Guam's infrastructure and
economy by climbing power poles and causing power outages.
The Service is also concerned about the impact of aquatic invasive
species to America's sport and commercial fisheries. In the Great Lakes
region, the sea lamprey was accidentally introduced in the early 20th
century as a result of the construction of shipping canals. This
parasitic fish has been extremely destructive to economically important
sport fish, including lake trout, salmon, rainbow trout, and walleye.
During its life cycle, a single sea lamprey can kill 40 or more pounds
of fish, and under certain conditions, only one in seven fish attacked
by a sea lamprey will survive. Before sea lampreys invaded the Great
Lakes, about 15 million pounds of lake trout were harvested in lakes
Huron and Superior annually. However, by the early 1960s, sea lampreys
and other factors reduced the catch to 300,000 pounds 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.glfc.org/pubs/FACT_3.pdf
Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of
Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 184. Ottawa. 966
pp. as referenced at: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/
FactSheet.asp?speciesID=836
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bighead carp, black carp, silver carp, and largescale silver carp,
collectively referred to as Asian carps, are nonnative invasive species
that pose an additional threat to recreational and commercial
fisheries. Bighead, silver and largescale silver carp are planktivores
(or plankton eaters) that consume large quantities of food, grow to
large size, and compete with native species for food and habitat.
Silver carp jump several feet out of the water when boats travel past,
and have been known to cause injuries to people and damage equipment as
a result of collisions with these extremely large fish. In their native
waters, black carp feed on mollusks (snails and mussels) that are
similar to those found in many American rivers, especially those in the
southeastern United States. Adult black carp have powerful teeth that
can crush large mollusks, including those from populations of native
species that are declining, threatened, or endangered.
Our nation's trout and salmon fishery, which provides recreation
for over 7.8 million Americans annually, is also at risk from a
nonnative invasive parasite which causes whirling disease. Brought to
the United States from Europe in the 19500's, this microscopic parasite
attacks the head and spinal cartilage of the infected fish and causes a
disease named for the swimming behavior that results. In the western
United States, it is estimated that some streams have lost 90 percent
of their trout due to whirling disease. This threat to recreational
fishing has significant implications for the economy, as trout fishing
is a cornerstone of tourism in many states in the west. For example,
trout fishing has been estimated to generate $222 million annually in
recreational expenditures in Montana alone 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3951/is_200207/
ai_n9146540
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zebra and quagga mussels are invasive mollusks that impact both the
natural environment and human infrastructure. The mussels impact native
species through competition and biofouling, the undesirable
accumulation of microorganisms in very high numbers. The mussels impact
civic operations and development by clogging pipes in municipal and
industrial raw-water systems and blocking water intakes for
hydroelectric development and other industry. Both mussel species are
easily spread unintentionally by recreational boaters and annually
cause an estimated $30 million in damage to water delivery systems in
the Great Lakes. In early 2007, quagga mussels were discovered in the
Lake Mead National Recreation Area. They have since been found in
Arizona, California, Nevada, and all 242 miles of the Colorado River
Aqueduct. In January 2008, the first populations of zebra mussels were
found in the San Justo Reservoir in California and Lake Pueblo in
Colorado.
Invasive species are also one of the most significant threats to
the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), where they can destroy
habitat, displace wildlife, and significantly alter ecosystems on
refuges. Presently, about 2.4 million acres of National Wildlife Refuge
(Refuge) lands are infested with invasive plants. There are at least
4,471 invasive animal populations recorded on Refuge lands. Although
the NWRS is committed to controlling and eradicating these invaders,
the Service has only been able to treat an average of 14 percent of the
acres infested with invasive plants on an annual basis between Fiscal
Years 2004 and 2007.
In Florida, the old world climbing fern, Lygodium, represents a
greater threat than any other exotic plant to south Florida's natural
areas, including the Everglades. If left unmanaged, it is predicted to
overtake the five currently most invasive plants (melaleuca, Brazilian
pepper, Australian pine, hydrilla, and water hyacinth) in combined
coverage in south Florida by 2014. At the Arthur R. Marshall
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Lygodium currently infests over
70 percent of the refuge and occurs in varying densities within all
habitat types found on the refuge. Especially vulnerable are tree
islands, a unique and extremely rare habitat of the greater Everglades
system which provides important refugia for nesting wading birds and
terrestrial wildlife.
Meeting the Challenge of Invasive Species
The Service has a broad array of programs that substantially
supports the management and prevention of invasive species.
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990 (NANPCA), reauthorized by the National Invasive Species Act of
1996, established the Service's Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Program
as well as the ANS Task Force, an interagency Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) group with 10 federal and 12 Ex-officio members,
which is co-chaired by the Service and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The ANS Task Force encourages
Federal and State agencies to establish partnerships that will augment
work with partners to enhance our collective efforts to address aquatic
nuisance species issues. The ANS Task Force relies on the expertise of
its six Regional Panels to identify regional ANS priorities; coordinate
ANS program activities in each region; make recommendations to the ANS
Task Force; and provide advice to public and private interests
concerning appropriate methods of ANS prevention and control.
The Service's AIS Program was established to help coordinate
prevention, control, and management action on invasive species that
span geographic and jurisdictional boundaries. This program supports an
AIS Coordinator in each of the Service's eight regions who work closely
with Service field stations, state invasive species coordinators,
nongovernmental groups, private landowners and many others in their
day-to-day activities. This dedicated network also organizes
cooperative surveillance efforts with other Federal, State, and local
agencies, universities, and public interest groups to track the
distribution of aquatic invasive species, and conducts a variety of
outreach activities to inform the public about the definition, biology,
and impacts of aquatic invasive species and what they can do to help
prevent their spread. These Regional Coordinators are in tune with both
the national priorities of the ANS Task Force and the various emerging
regional priorities. This unique position allows the coordinators to
play a critical role in bridging the gap between national and regional
aquatic invasive species issues and translating the national priorities
of the ANS Task Force into on-the-ground projects.
The Service's AIS program also administers the Service's only
regulatory tool regarding invasive species, the injurious wildlife
provisions of the Lacey Act. Under Title 18 of the Lacey Act, the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prohibit the importation and
interstate transportation of species designated as injurious. Species
listed as injurious may not be imported or transported across State
boundaries by any means without a permit issued by the Service. Permits
may be granted for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific
purposes. Regulation of intrastate transport or possession is the
responsibility of each State, except for those species covered under a
Service permit issued by our Division of Management Authority.
The Office of Law Enforcement's (OLE) wildlife inspection program
forms the nation's frontline defense at ports of entry by interdicting
injurious species. Wildlife inspectors are stationed at 38 major U.S.
airports, ocean ports, and border crossings, where they monitor imports
and exports to ensure compliance with U.S. laws and regulations.
Wildlife inspectors focus on detecting and deterring illegal trade in
protected species and preventing the introduction of injurious
wildlife.
As part of OLE's efforts to prevent such introductions of injurious
wildlife, Service special agents investigate illegal interstate
commerce of injurious species (including internet sales) and assist
State counterparts with the enforcement of both Federal injurious
species prohibitions and State laws that ban the introduction,
possession, and sale of State-listed injurious wildlife.
The Service is also using partnerships to minimize new
introductions and prevent the spread of invasive species. The long-
standing partnerships formed under the 100th Meridian Initiative seek
to prevent or slow the spread of invasive species transported through
recreational vehicles, particularly zebra and quagga mussels. Now that
quagga mussels have become established in the lower Colorado River, the
need for coordinated prevention efforts is even greater in order to
keep these invasive species out of the Rio Grande, Columbia, and other
western river systems.
Since 1956, the governments of the United States and Canada,
working jointly through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, have
implemented a successful sea lamprey control program on the Great
Lakes. The Service's Fisheries Program has two Sea Lamprey Management
Offices located in Marquette and Ludington, Michigan. Jointly funded by
the Service and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, these offices
employ approximately 110 staff to implement an integrated sea lamprey
control program within United States portion of the Great Lakes. Sea
lamprey abundance has been reduced by 90 percent as a result of the
integrated control program. Congress appropriates more than $10.0
million annually through the State Department for sea lamprey
management and research.
For the past 10 years, the Service's Fisheries Program has worked
extensively to prevent the introduction and spread of Asian carp. We
have supported a feasibility study on barrier options to prevent the
introduction of these large fish into the Great Lakes; led the Asian
Carp Working Group of the ANS Task Force which completed the National
Management Plan for Asian carps; assisted in creating a Rapid Response
Plan for Asian carp in New York canals; funded research on the use of
pheromones as a deterrent to carp spread and research on native fish
alternatives to the use of black carp in aquaculture; and conducted
monitoring for early detection and rapid response. Black, silver and
largescale silver carp were listed as injurious wildlife under the
Lacey Act in 2007. Additionally, the evaluative injurious wildlife
process for bighead carp is currently underway.
The Service also assists in coordinating prevention and control
efforts for brown tree snakes in Guam and Hawaii and contributes to
preventing their introduction into the continental United States
through the North American Brown Tree Snake Control Team. Actions that
are being implemented include: intercept snakes using canine detection;
hand capture of snakes; trapping; fumigate cargo containers; use of
barriers, including chemical repellents, to exclude snakes from
critical areas, reduce movements between habitat patches, and contain
snakes if they are introduced to new areas; inhibit reproduction;
monitor snake populations and dispersal events to provide guidance to
other control efforts; and produce and disseminate public educational
materials.
The Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program provides
technical and financial assistance to private landowners and Tribes to
restore and protect habitat, including invasive species management and
the reintroduction of native plants. In 2007, the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program was a cooperator in 438 habitat improvement projects
that involved control of invasive species on approximately 80,000
acres. The Rowe Riverine Restoration Project, located along the central
Platte River in Nebraska, is restoring a section of the river that is
critical habitat for whooping cranes and one of the few remaining
successful piping plover nest locations in the State. The project will
enable the removal of invasive phragmites and Russian olive, two
invasive plant species, from 26 acres of floodplain habitat; restoring
5,300 linear feet of wetland sloughs and backwaters by removing
sediment deposits and invasive aquatic plant species; and re-seeding 80
acres of restored floodplain to a high diversity mixture of over 100
species of native grasses and forbs.
The Service's Coastal Program assists communities in conserving
coastal resources and forms partnerships to conduct on-the-ground
restoration, including invasive species control activities in coastal
areas. In 2007, the Coastal Program cooperated in 78 habitat
improvement projects that involved control of invasive species on
approximately 12,000 acres of coastal habitat.
The NWRS invasive species program focuses on early detection and
rapid response by engaging Friends groups and volunteers in the fight
against invasive species. Over a period of three years, 2,750
volunteers contributed more than 49,000 hours to the treatment,
inventory, and restoration of over 211,000 acres of refuge land through
its invasives and volunteers competitive grants program. Additionally,
five Invasive Species Strike Teams are working to control and manage
invasive species in key geographic locations, including the Everglades,
the Lower Colorado River, the Columbia-Yellowstone-Missouri River
basins, North Dakota, and the Hawaiian and Pacific Islands.
The Migratory Bird Program has as its mission the conservation of
migratory birds and their habitats. Invasive species adversely affect
bird populations directly via competition or predation and indirectly
by degrading habitat. Seabirds, typically evolved to nest on isolated
islands and headlands, are particularly vulnerable to invasive species.
Research has shown that removal of invasive species, particularly
exotic predators, can affect an immediate increase in seabird colony
productivity. Thus, developing and implementing projects to control or
eradicate nonnative species from the fragile island ecosystems used by
breeding seabirds is a priority. The Migratory Bird Program also
partnered with other organizations to remove depredating nonnative
invasive species, such as rats, from seabird nesting islands.
The Service is also utilizing an innovative management tool known
as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP). HACCP is a
step-by-step approach used to identify risks and prevent biological
contamination or the unintended spread of nonnative species, similar to
the way quality control procedures prevent contamination in food
production. The Service has been implementing HACCP plans at our
National Fish Hatcheries and providing technical assistance to the
aquaculture industry and others in the development of HACCP plans.
Education and outreach efforts continue to be critical elements to
the success of invasive species prevention and control. The Service and
the ANS Task Force have been working for many years on educational
outreach programs aimed at preventing additional introductions and
controlling the spread of invasive species. The Stop Aquatic
Hitchhikers! Public Awareness Campaign targets aquatic recreation users
and promotes voluntary guidelines to ensure that aquatic nuisance
species are not unintentionally spread through recreational activities.
Currently 670 formal campaign partners are promoting the prevention
message through Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!.
To promote prevention of introductions through other high-risk
pathways, the Service, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC),
and NOAA Sea Grant created the HabitattitudeTM Initiative.
This campaign encourages aquarium hobbyists and water gardeners to be
responsible caretakers of their plants and pets as well as to be good
environmental stewards. The Service, the pet industry, and other
partners are using HabitattitudeTM to protect native species
and their habitats by ensuring that pets are well cared for or that
hobbyists find alternatives to releasing unwanted plants and pets into
the environment, thereby preventing the introduction of potentially
invasive species. The Service is working with PIJAC to expand the
HabitattitudeTM Initiative to include reptiles and
amphibians.
Need for a New Approach
As the old proverb goes, ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure.'' The proverb resonates particularly well when addressing
invasive species. Preventing new introductions is the primary focus of
the Service and is the most effective strategy to protect our Nation's
wildlife and habitats.
The Service primarily focuses on preventing the introduction or
spread of invasive species because we have limited tools for long-term
management and control of invasive species, particularly aquatic
invasive species, once they become established. Long-term control is
costly, and established populations may spread to new areas, thus
increasing the costs. Even though there is progress in the development
of management and control tools, we need to continue to work with our
partners to improve current tools while developing new ones.
Injurious wildlife evaluations under the Lacey Act require a
significant amount of time to process. The time period to complete an
evaluation depends upon the availability of biological and economic
data and the complexity of the analyses required to comply with the
Lacey Act as well as analyses that are required under the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act, and other applicable regulatory process requirements. For
many of the species evaluations, biological information must be
gathered, and often translated into English, before an evaluation can
be initiated. The Service continues to utilize the injurious wildlife
provisions to prevent the introduction or further spread of species
that are harmful to wildlife, wildlife resources, or humans, but it has
not proven to be a nimble, timely, and cost-effective tool for
addressing importation and transport of potentially invasive species.
The Service recognizes the potential value of a new approach for
managing the risk of importing potentially invasive nonnative wildlife.
Having the opportunity to evaluate nonnative species that are proposed
for importation could be an invaluable tool to ensure that we are more
proactive in preventing the introduction of harmful invasive species.
The Service supports the intent of H.R. 6311 to develop a risk
assessment process with scientifically credible procedures that will be
transparent and efficient so that wildlife importers can obtain timely
decisions and make investment decisions accordingly. The Service does,
however, have some concerns with the bill, including concerns related
to duplication of existing authority, the cost and feasibility of
implementation, possible overlap with other agencies, and the
implications for international trade. We would like to work with the
Subcommittee to address these issues.
Conclusion
To summarize, the Service greatly appreciates the interest of
Chairwoman Bordallo, the cosponsors of H.R. 6311, and the Subcommittee
in combating invasive species. The Service supports the general intent
of H.R. 6311, to develop a scientifically sound and more proactive
approach to prevent the continued introduction and establishment of
harmful nonnative wildlife species into the United States.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the opportunity to testify before
the Subcommittee on this issue, and for your support in preventing harm
to the Nation's fish and wildlife resources from invasive species. The
Service, in cooperation with other Federal, State, Tribal, and local
agencies, and other partners, remains committed to addressing this
significant threat to our natural resources, and we look forward to
working with you as we continue our efforts in this regard.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Frazer, for
highlighting the Service's support of this legislation.
There are a few people standing in the back, and I always
like to invite them to come up to the lower dais here. There
are chairs around the table right in front of me, so if you
would like to sit to witness this hearing, please do so. It is
much more comfortable than standing up. Thank you.
Ms. Williams, it is now a pleasure for me to welcome you
before the Subcommittee, and you are now recognized to testify
for five minutes. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF LORI WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Williams. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on H.R.
6311, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, and to
address the intentional introduction of nonnative wildlife into
the United States.
The National Invasive Species Council, for which I am
Executive Director, considers this an important ecological,
economic, and health issue and thanks the Subcommittee for its
work.
To coin a phrase and introduce our topic today, you could
say that there is trouble in paradise. Some of the most
beautiful resort communities in our nation have been invaded.
On the resort island of Boca Grande, Florida, the large,
spiny tailed iguana lizards munch on ornamental plants, invade
attics in homes, and dine on eggs of threatened and endangered
turtles. Further south, in the Florida Keys, an all-out effort
is underway to eradicate the Gambian pouched rat known to be a
vector of the monkeypox virus that infects humans as well as
animals.
We will hear later about the Nile monitor lizard, and we
have already heard about the Burmese python. I have a good
picture to share with you later about a python attempting to
eat an alligator.
Closer to home, many know the story of the northern
snakehead fish that was eradicated from Crawford Pond in
Maryland, only to turn up later in the Potomac. Experts
theorize that it was likely someone decided to release the
snakehead rather than have it for dinner.
You will hear today that these problems created by invasive
nonnative animals are not limited to one, or even several,
geographical areas. You will hear stories from the Great Lakes
to Hawaii and beyond. Media stories increasingly document the
harm caused by what we at NISC like to call ``charismatic
megafauna.'' But what is really going on, and what are the
sources of these invasions, and how can we stop them, more
importantly?
An invasive species, under our executive order, is a
species that is both nonnative or alien to the Nation or region
and whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, harm to
the economy, environment, and, in some cases, animal, plant, or
human health. Invasive species may be plants, animals, insects,
or aquatic organisms.
In recognition of the scope and complexity of this problem,
Executive Order 13112 was issued establishing the Council to
provide coordination, planning, and leadership for Federal
invasive species programs.
NISC is co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior,
Commerce, and Agriculture and includes an additional 10
departments and agencies, including the witnesses at this
table.
The order also called for the establishment of the Invasive
Species Advisory Committee. This diverse, nonFederal group of
experts and stakeholders has provided recommendations to NISC
and is an invaluable part of our process.
Invasive species, as you have said, Madam Chairwoman, have
been introduced in a variety of ways. Many species are
introduced unintentionally, including the infamous brown tree
snake. They move as unknown stowaways and hitchhikers when
people and their products are transported by air, water, and
over land.
The executive order calls for a broad and comprehensive
approach to invasive species. No one tool in our toolbox can
solve all of these problems. But, first, the order called on
NISC to prepare a National Invasive Species Management Plan.
The first version of that plan was completed in 2001. Both the
order and the plan stress the importance of prevention and
early detection and rapid response as the most cost-efficient
and effective strategies to deal with invasive species.
As many have said, once an invasive species becomes
established and spreads, eradication may be extremely costly
and sometimes impossible.
Risk-based screening is one of the most important tools
available to curb intentional introductions of invasive
species. In this regard, Section 5[b] of the order requires the
first management plan to include a science-based process to
evaluate risks associated with nonnative species introductions.
The 2001 plan called for the development of this risk-based
screening process for intentionally introduced species in a
series of steps or phases, recognizing the complexity. There
has been progress working on invasive species screening
processes. Primarily, this is by the USDA Animal Plant Health
Inspection Service [APHIS], which has outlined an approach to
screen for plants for planting or horticultural plants. APHIS
has extensive legal authority, under the Plant Protection Act,
which enables this process.
NISC has made less progress in the area of invasive animals
and their pathogens. One issue is that agencies lack broad
authority over the importation of nonnative species unless, as
you heard from Gary, they are specifically listed under the
Injurious Wildlife Protection Act.
The chance of preventing establishment of invasive species
would be enhanced if nonnative species could be evaluated for
invasiveness before they are introduced into the United States.
Such a prevention tool would help to close the barn door before
the horses are out.
H.R. 6311 is the first bill NISC is aware of that calls for
the screening of nonnative wildlife before importation. As Gary
said, the bill was very recently introduced, and I cannot take
a specific position, but I would like to very briefly outline
some of the key elements that NISC has found a risk-based
screening process needs to include and suggest that H.R. 6311
is a good starting point on many of these elements:
[1] One: Defining a clear purpose to prevent the
introduction of invasive nonnative wildlife species that
clearly targets those that are the most harmful;
[2] that the process is based on scientific findings and
risk analysis;
[3] that it is flexible so that the implementing agency can
adjust the process to reflect new information and technologies;
[4] that it provides emergency authority to temporarily
restrict a species of concern, which H.R. 6311 does, and that
it establishes a robust consultation process with stakeholders,
as we have found is critical.
Finally, and maybe most challengingly, it provides
sufficient support for the design and implementation of a fully
functioning screening process. This is something that I think
we will need to work on further.
NISC thanks the Subcommittee for its work on this critical
issue and stands ready to work with the Subcommittee on this
important legislative matter. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]
Statement of Lori C. Williams, Executive Director,
National Invasive Species Council
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 6311, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion
Prevention Act, and to address the intentional introduction of
nonnative wildlife (both terrestrial and aquatic) into the United
States (US). The National Invasive Species Council (NISC) considers
this an important ecological, economic, and health issue.
To coin a phrase and introduce our topic today, you could say that
``there is trouble in paradise.'' Some of the most beautiful resort
communities in our nation have been invaded. On the resort island of
Boca Grande, Florida, the black spiny-tailed iguanas (weighing up to 10
pounds) munch on ornamental plants, invade attics and homes, and dine
on the eggs of threatened and endangered turtles. Further south in the
Florida Keys an all-out effort is underway to eradicate the Gambian
pouched rat--known to be a vector of the monkeypox virus that infects
humans as well as animals. Nile monitor lizards roam the canals of Cape
Coral, Florida and the Sanibel Island National Wildlife Refuge. These
aggressive, carnivorous lizards can grow to 7 feet long and are known
to be wide-ranging. Closer to home many know the story of the Northern
snakehead fish that was eradicated from Crawford Pond in Maryland, only
to turn up later in the Potomac. Experts believe it was likely that
someone decided to release the snakehead rather than have it for
dinner.
The problems created by these animals are not limited to one or
even several geographical areas. The Nutria--a furry, plant-eating
rodent has become established and spread in Louisiana, Maryland, North
Carolina and many other states. Hawaii has been invaded by giant
African snails which are serious plant pests that can be a vector for
human disease. A number of species of introduced fish (including
intentionally introduced species) are harming the Great Lakes. Media
stories increasingly document the harm caused by what we at NISC call
``charismatic nega-fauna''. But, what is really going on and what are
the sources of these invasions?
An invasive species is a species that is both non-native (or alien)
to a nation or region and whose introduction causes or is likely to
cause harm to the economy, the environment or (in some cases) animal,
plant or human heath. Invasive species may be plants, animals, insects,
aquatic organisms, or pathogens. In recognition of the scope and
complexity of the problem, Executive Order 13112 (Order) was issued,
establishing the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) to provide
coordination, planning and leadership for federal invasive species
programs. NISC is co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior,
Commerce and Agriculture and includes an additional 10 departments and
agencies. NISC is directed to adopt a comprehensive approach to the
invasive species problem and to work with the States and other key
stakeholders. The Order also called for the establishment of the
Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). ISAC is a group of
nonfederal experts and stakeholders representing diverse viewpoints and
tasked with making recommendations and providing input to NISC on
invasive species issues.
Invasive species have been introduced in a variety of ways. Many
invasive species are introduced unintentionally--moving as unknown
stowaways and ``hitchhikers'' when people and their products are
transported by air, water, or over land. Examples include the imported
fire ant, the Asian long-horned beetle, and the infamous brown
treesnake that drove most of Guam's native birds to extinction. Others
have intentionally been introduced for beneficial purposes, that later
turn out to be harmful, such as the nutria--introduced in the early
20th century for the fur trade.
It is very important to distinguish between nonnative species and
invasive species. Invasive species are those non-native species that
are, or are likely, to be harmful. Non-native wildlife (including
aquatic) is introduced for a variety of purposes including agriculture,
aquaculture, the pet trade, live food, display animals, and for sport
hunting and fishing. Many non-native species that have been introduced
into the U.S. have proven to be beneficial and others cause no known
harm. For example, most U.S. food crops and domesticated animals are
non-native as are pheasant and brown trout. The vast majority of non-
native species do not possess the adaptations to establish and
reproduce meaning that only a small percentage of introduced species
have proven to be harmful and thus considered invasive.
The Order calls for a broad and comprehensive approach to dealing
with invasive species, as no one single approach will solve the
problem. As mandated by the Order, NISC completed the first National
Invasive Species Management Plan in 2001 (2001 Plan). Both the Order
and the Plan stress the importance of prevention and early detection
and rapid response as the most cost-efficient and effective strategies
to deal with invasive species. Once an invasive species becomes
established and spreads, eradication may be very costly and in some
cases impossible. Prevention is particularly critical in aquatic
ecosystems where eradication and control options are more limited.
Early detection and rapid response can be an effective backup where
prevention fails. However, it is a relatively new concept in many areas
and may not yet be sufficiently robust to stop the spread of newly
established species.
Risk-based screening is one of the most important tools available
to curb intentional introductions of invasive species. In this regard,
Section 5(b) of the Order requires that the first Plan include ``...a
science-based process to evaluate risks associated with (non-native
species) introductions.'' The 2001 Plan called for the development of a
risk-based screening process for intentionally introduced species in a
series of steps or phases, including screening for nonnative land
animals and nonnative aquatic organisms. It called for separate
consideration and evaluation of newly introduced species and those
species currently moving in trade in the US.
The NISC Prevention Committee--which is jointly hosted by the
Aquatic Invasive Species Task Force (ANSTF)--has made progress
regarding the development of a phased screening process. The USDA
Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking which outlines an approach to screening plants for
planting under the authority of the Plant Protection Act, which
provides APHIS with extensive legal authority to address invasive plant
pests, including to set import regulations that help keep exotic pests
and diseases out of the United States. When necessary, APHIS officials
can also respond swiftly to detections of invasive plant pests that
threaten U.S. agriculture or, in the case of forest pests, the
environment.
NISC has made less progress in the area of invasive animals and
their pathogens (including aquatic species) that fall outside of the
traditional agricultural coverage provided by APHIS/Veterinary Services
within USDA. One issue is that agencies lack broad authority over the
importation of nonnative species, unless they are specifically listed
under the Injurious Wildlife Provisions of the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act
(18 U.S.C. 42) is administered by Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and prohibits importation into the United States of certain
categories of animal species determined to be ``injurious to human
beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to
wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States.'' The statute
does not apply to all animals. Thus far, 17 species and families have
been listed under the Lacey Act. Assistant Director Gary Frazer will
provide the Subcommittee with more specific information about these
issues later in the hearing.
The chances of preventing establishment of invasive species would
be enhanced if non-native species could be evaluated for invasiveness
before they are introduced in the United States. Such a prevention tool
would help to ``close the barn door before the horses are out'' by
requiring that the risk of the species be evaluated for potential
invasiveness before importation is allowed. All of this must be done in
a timely manner that does not unfairly restrict trade or duplicate
roles of other agencies. Such screening systems do exist. For example,
the U.S. screens fruits and vegetables prior to importation in order to
protect U.S. crops from plant pests.
Currently, there is limited invasive species coverage under
international treaties and standards that address trade in nonnative
wildlife and their pathogens. Several nations, including Australia and
New Zealand, have systems in place for screening nonnative wildlife.
Such a screening system must be tailored to a specific nation and its
legal system in order to be effective. I note that H.R. 6311 calls for
the screening of nonnative wildlife before importation. Since this bill
was introduced very recently, I cannot take a position with respect to
this legislation nor can I comment on the specific details of the bill
on behalf of the 13 NISC members. I would, however, like to offer some
of the elements that NISC believes should be included in any risk-based
screening process. These elements would include, but not be limited to:
1. Defining a clear purpose to prevent the introduction of
invasive nonnative wildlife species that clearly targets harmful non-
native species.
2. Establishing a species list in a manner that is cost effective
and not overly burdensome.
3. Establishing a process based on scientific findings and risk
analysis.
4. Providing flexibility so that the implementing agency can
adjust the process to reflect new information and technologies, as
appropriate.
5. Establishing a mechanism to adjust or change the status of any
listed species declared either invasive or benign, based on new
information, but in a manner not overly burdensome to the implementing
agency or commerce.
6. Providing emergency authority to temporarily restrict a species
of concern while seeking additional supporting data.
7. Establishing a consultation process with stakeholders and an
opportunity for stakeholders to submit data to assist the process.
8. Providing sufficient support for the design and implementation
of a fully functional screening process.
Obviously, any regulatory authority developed should be consistent
with both the statute that it implements as well as the
administration's basic regulatory principles.
NISC and ISAC and their members have actively pursued a number of
non-regulatory approaches to the prevention of intentional
introductions that have the potential to become invasive species. These
are also critically important and would complement a national screening
process. Both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches may be needed to
address the prevention issue. No one approach will be a silver bullet
and thus a variety of approaches are needed. For example,
HabitattitudTM is a fairly recent, but very successful,
effort to educate pet owners not to release their pets into the wild.
Later today you will hear from Marshall Meyers of the Pet Industry
Joint Advisory Council and a former member of ISAC, who is an expert on
this initiative. Efforts to establish best management practices,
educate stakeholders and reduce the risk that species will be released
into the wild where they might become established are all critical
efforts that we can build on to reduce the spread of invasive animals.
NISC is also working to develop early detection and rapid response
systems that would work with state and local programs to back-up
prevention efforts.
NISC thanks the Subcommittee for its work on this critical issue,
and stands ready to work with the Subcommittee to explore the potential
to add cost-effective tools, including prevention tools, to the tool
box to address invasive wildlife species that harm our environment,
economy and health.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Ms. Williams.
If the staff would please get the illustrations that she
spoke of, we would look at them while we are up here.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Williams, for your
helpful comments, and now I would like to recognize Dr. Marano.
I am looking forward to hearing from you, so please begin.
STATEMENT OF NINA MARANO, D.V.M., M.P.H., BRANCH CHIEF,
GEOGRAPHIC MEDICINE AND HEALTH PROMOTION BRANCH, DIVISION OF
GLOBAL MIGRATION AND QUARANTINE, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL
AND PREVENTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Dr. Marano. Good morning, Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking
Member Brown, and other distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee. I am Dr. Nina Marano, Chief of the Geographic
Medicine and Health Promotion Branch at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss CDC's activities
and concerns about public health risks associated with the
importation and movement of animals.
Why do we have a global trade in animals? Animals are
legally imported into the U.S. for multiple reasons. They are
used for exhibitions at zoos, for scientific, education,
research, and conservation programs, as food and products, and,
in the case of companion animals, for tourism and immigration.
Increasingly, however, animals are being imported for a
thriving commercial pet trade. In many cases, the animals that
are imported and traded are nonnative species and/or animals
not traditionally kept as pets. These animals can represent a
significant risk to human health.
In 2003, monkeypox was introduced to the U.S. when a
shipment of African giant Gambian rats was sold to dealers, one
of whom housed the rats with prairie dogs intended for the pet
trade in a U.S. distribution facility. The prairie dogs
subsequently became ill and transmitted the infection to 50
people, including prairie dog owners and veterinary staff
caring for the ill animals.
In the last several years, the U.S. has also experienced
outbreaks of West Nile virus, SARs, and highly pathogenic avian
influenza, all emerging diseases associated with global
movement of animals and vectors.
CDC's agency-wide response to SARS involved 865 staff
members working over a period of 133 days, and, for monkeypox,
it involved 215 staff members working over a period of 65 days.
CDC responds to these public health threats through
surveillance, regulation, science, and education. We currently
utilize our regulatory responsibility to control the
importation of nonhuman primates [monkeys], dogs and cats,
small turtles, African rodents, civets, and birds from certain
countries.
Nonhuman primates are imported to the U.S. for vital
medical research. It is imperative that these animals be
healthy to prevent diseases, such as tuberculosis, Herpes
virus, and Ebola virus exposures in people and to ensure that
quality of the research.
Our Nonhuman Primate Importer Registration program has
successfully prevented outbreaks of infectious diseases in
nonhuman primate research colonies, thus greatly reducing the
likelihood of human exposures.
The U.S. monkeypox outbreak illustrates the serious public
health threat resulting from introduction of nonindigenous
pathogens from exotic animals and the risks to public health
associated with keeping wild animals as pets.
In response to the monkeypox outbreak, CDC and FDA issued a
joint order prohibiting the importation of African rodents and
restricting interstate movement of African rodents and prairie
dogs, thus preventing further human exposures.
We also partner with industry to educate the public about
zoonotic disease risks at the point of purchase in pet stores
and CDC's ``Healthy Pets, Healthy People'' Web site is one of
the most popular Web sites for pet lovers, physicians, and
veterinarians seeking to counsel their patients and clients.
However, we continue to face many challenges. During the
monkeypox outbreak, CDC investigators could not locate many
potentially infected animals because no accurate records were
available to trace their movement. Many shipments of animals
imported for the pet trade also include different species
commingled, or kept in close proximity, in confined spaces,
conditions ideal for disease transmission.
For most species, there is no screening for the presence of
diseases infectious to humans prior to shipment and no holding
or testing is required on their entry into the United States.
This creates an opportunity for the widespread exposure of
humans to pathogens these animals could be carrying.
High mortality rates among some imported animals, such as
rodents, are common, and U.S. statutes and regulations do not
require importers to determine whether the animal's death is
from a pathogen that could adversely affect humans.
In July 2007, CDC published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking to begin the process of revising its animal
importation regulations, soliciting public comment and feedback
on the issue of animal importation to determine the need for
further rulemaking. More than 800 comments to the ANPRM were
received, and CDC is currently reviewing these comments to
inform new rulemaking.
Thus, CDC welcomes the opportunity to participate in the
development of broader prevention strategies, including risk-
based, proactive approaches, to prevent the importation of
animals and vectors that pose a public health risk.
In conclusion, there are a number of serious, yet
preventable, risks to public health, and we look forward to
working collaboratively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and other agencies to explore new strategies for their
prevention.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I am
happy to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Marano follows:]
Statement of Nina Marano, D.V.M., M.P.H., Branch Chief, Geographic
Medicine and Health Promotion Branch, Division of Global Migration and
Quarantine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services
Introduction
Good morning Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and other
Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am Dr. Nina Marano, Chief
of the Geographic Medicine and Health Promotion Branch in the Division
of Global Migration and Quarantine at the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). I
am pleased to be here today to talk to you about HHS/CDC's public
health activities related to the importation and movement of animals.
Under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264),
HHS/CDC oversees regulations to prevent the introduction, transmission,
and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the
United States. As part of these responsibilities, HHS/CDC currently
regulates the importation of certain animals with known linkages to
zoonotic diseases and also regulates the importation of etiologic
agents, hosts, and vectors 1 known to cause or contribute to
the spread of zoonotic diseases. Zoonotic diseases, or zoonoses, are
diseases that are transmissible from animals to people. In addition to
well known zoonotic diseases such as rabies, many other known and
emerging diseases have been increasingly linked to animal sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Etiologic agents are micro-organisms that cause disease. Hosts
are defined as an animal or plant that harbors or nourishes another
organism (parasite). A vector is carrier that transfers an infective
agent from one host to another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, I would like to 1) describe why HHS/CDC regulates specific
animal importation and movement; 2) provide examples of recent zoonotic
threats to public health; 3) share HHS/CDC's concerns with potential
transmission of disease to humans from other animal species; and 4)
describe HHS/CDC's recent regulatory activities in this area. These
issues illustrate why CDC welcomes the opportunity to work with other
agencies to explore broader prevention strategies to reduce the risk of
infectious diseases to humans from animals and vectors.
CDC works closely with other federal partners, including: USDA/
APHIS in the intersection of human health, animal health and animal
welfare; HHS/FDA in the interstate movement of animal species that
represent a risk to public health; and DHS/CBP along with DofI/FWS
which serve as the eyes and ears for CDC at U.S. ports of entry in
detecting transported animals and animal products that represent a
human public health threat.
Why HHS/CDC Regulates Animal Importation and Movement
HHS/CDC currently regulates the importation of nonhuman primates
(monkeys), dogs and cats, small turtles, African rodents, civets, and
birds from certain countries to prevent the entry of zoonotic diseases
into the United States. These animal species have been linked to
transmission of certain diseases to humans. Nonhuman primates,
particularly those recently captured in the wild, may have infectious
agents in their blood or other body tissues that can cause severe or
fatal disease in humans. Persons working in temporary and long-term
animal holding facilities and individuals involved in transporting
animals (e.g., cargo handlers and inspectors) are especially at risk
for infection. Examples of these serious pathogens include viruses
(e.g., Ebola virus, hepatitis virus, and herpes B virus), tuberculosis,
and parasites. Some monkeys imported into the United States have been
found to be infected with a virus that is in the same family of viruses
that causes Ebola, a hemorrhagic fever. While Herpes B virus naturally
infects and causes only mild or no illness in macaque monkeys, the
infection is usually fatal in humans. Fatal cases of herpes B virus
disease in humans have been caused by animal bites, scratches, or
mucous membrane contact with infected materials. Nonhuman primates,
especially macaques, are highly susceptible to tuberculosis, and most
are imported from areas of the world with a high prevalence of
tuberculosis in humans and animals. Nonhuman primates may also be a
source of yellow fever virus, which may be transmitted to humans by
mosquitoes that have previously fed on an infected nonhuman primate.
Transmission of yellow fever to persons working in nonhuman-primate
research has also occurred.
Because nonhuman primates imported into the United States from
foreign countries often have an uncertain health history and may
potentially carry diseases infectious to humans, quarantine
requirements were established to reduce this infectious disease risk.
Since 1975, CDC, through 42 CFR 71.53, has prohibited the importation
of nonhuman primates except for scientific, educational, or exhibition
purposes. Under this regulation, importers are required to register
with CDC and to renew their registration every 2 years. Imported
nonhuman primates are required to be held in quarantine for a minimum
of 31 days following U.S. entry. This regulation also requires
registered importers to maintain records on imported nonhuman primates
and to immediately report illness suspected of being infectious to
humans. Imported nonhuman primates and their offspring may not be
maintained as pets.
Additional requirements for importers of nonhuman primates were
developed and implemented in response to specific public health
threats. In January 1990, CDC published interim guidelines for handling
nonhuman primates during transit and quarantine in response to
identification of Ebola virus (Reston strain) in nonhuman primates
imported from the Philippines. In April 1990, confirmation of
asymptomatic Ebola virus infection in four caretakers of nonhuman
primates along with serologic findings suggested that cynomolgus,
African green, and rhesus monkeys posed a risk for human filovirus
infection. As a result, CDC placed additional restrictions and permit
requirements for importers wishing to import these species.
HHS/CDC restricts the importation of dogs primarily to prevent the
entry of rabies. Rabies virus causes fatal disease in humans and
animals, especially dogs. In the United States, widespread mandatory
vaccination of dogs has eliminated canine strains of rabies, and
dramatically reduced the number of human cases in this country.
However, canine strains of rabies remain a serious health threat in
many other countries, and preventing the entry of infected animals into
the United States is an important public health priority. HHS/CDC
requires rabies vaccination for dogs entering the United States. Dogs
that do not have current vaccination prior to importation must be
vaccinated and confined for 30 days to enable the animal's immune
system to respond to the vaccine and build protection against the
rabies virus.
Under 42 C.F.R. 71.54, HHS/CDC also regulates the importation of
etiologic agents, hosts, and vectors to prevent human disease. Under
this regulation, a person may not import into the United States, nor
distribute after importation, any etiologic agent or any arthropod
2 or other animal host or vector of human disease, or any
exotic living arthropod or other animal capable of being a host or
vector of human disease unless accompanied by a CDC-issued permit. As
an example, all live bats require an import permit from CDC or the U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Services. Live bats may not
be imported as pets because they are known to carry a number of
pathogens including rabies that can be transmitted to people.
Similarly, any living insect or other arthropod that is known or
suspected to contain an etiologic agent (infectious to humans) requires
a CDC import permit; snail species capable of transmitting a human
pathogen require a permit as well. HHS/CDC also implemented regulations
regarding importation of small turtles in 1975 after these animals were
found to frequently transmit salmonella to humans, particularly young
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Arthropods are a group of animals that includes insects,
spiders, and crustaceans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Zoonotic Threats
Today's highly globalized world has given infectious agents ready
access to new populations and areas. Moreover, the increasing overlap
between human and animal environments has served to facilitate
transmission of zoonotic infections. A notable example is the 2003
outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), a newly
recognized human disease that spread worldwide, causing more than 8,000
cases and 770 deaths. The causative agent, SARS coronavirus, was found
in civets, a carnivorous mammal sold for food in marketplaces in China.
HHS/CDC issued an order to ban the importation of civets because of
concerns that these animals were involved in the transmission of SARS
to humans. The emergence of SARS is an example of how a previously
unrecognized zoonotic disease can spread rapidly, with devastating
consequences. In addition to its tremendous public health impact, the
disease had profound economic consequences. Worldwide, the economic
impact of SARS was estimated at $30-$50 billion.
Another recent zoonotic threat is highly pathogenic avian influenza
(HPAI) H5N1. Since 2003, HPAI H5N1 has become established as a threat
to both human and animal health throughout the world. Although bird
populations in several countries have been affected, cases among humans
have been less frequent, with no evidence of sustained human-to-human
transmission. Live birds used for consumption, live birds used as pets,
and bird products (including eggs) imported into the United States from
countries with HPAI H5N1 could pose a risk for human or avian
infection. In 2004, HHS/CDC issued orders to ban the importation of
birds and bird products from specific countries with HPAI H5N1; these
orders mirror similar regulatory actions taken by USDA/APHIS to prevent
the importation of birds with avian influenza H5N1.
I would like to describe in more detail an outbreak of human
monkeypox that occurred in the United States in May and June of 2003.
These cases represented the first outbreak of monkeypox in North
America and clearly show why HHS/CDC continues to be concerned about
the importation of wild animals into the United States.
Monkeypox is a sporadic, zoonotic, viral disease that occurs
primarily in the rain forest countries in central and western Africa.
The illness was first noted in a monkey in 1958, but serologic evidence
of monkeypox infection has been found in other animals in Africa,
including some species of primates and rodents. African rodents are
considered to be the most likely natural host of the monkeypox virus.
In humans, monkeypox is marked by skin rashes that are similar to those
seen in smallpox; other signs and symptoms include fever, chills and/or
sweats, headache, backache, swelling of the lymph nodes, sore throat,
cough, and shortness of breath. A person develops signs and symptoms of
the illness about 12 days after becoming infected. In Africa, the death
rate from monkeypox for humans ranges from 1%-10%, although higher
mortality rates have been seen.
In 2003, an outbreak of monkeypox in Midwestern United States
caused nearly 50 probable or confirmed cases of the disease. Public
health investigations revealed that the patients had become infected
primarily as a result of contact with pet prairie dogs that had
contracted monkeypox from imported diseased African rodents. These
rodents had been included in a shipment of more than 800 small mammals,
including rodents, imported from Ghana by a Texas animal distributor in
April 2003. Laboratory testing confirmed the presence of monkeypox
virus in six rodent species 3 from the shipment. Rodents
from the original shipment were traced to animal distributors in six
states, including one distributor in Illinois who also sold prairie
dogs. In early May 2003, this Illinois distributor sold some prairie
dogs and one rodent from the Ghana shipment to another animal
distributor in Wisconsin. It was at this time that several of the
prairie dogs appeared to be ill, and several of the animals died. By
late May, the first human cases were reported in Wisconsin (including
the Wisconsin animal distributor). Other human cases were later
reported in Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The six rodent species are: Tree Squirrels, Rope Squirrels,
Dormice, Gambian Giant Pouched Rats, Brush-tail Porcupine, and Striped
Mice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most patients in the outbreak had direct or close contact with
prairie dogs. For example, 28 children at an Indiana day care center
were exposed to two prairie dogs that later became ill and died. Twelve
of these exposed children reported handling or petting the prairie
dogs, and seven of these children later became ill with symptoms that
were consistent with monkeypox infection. In Wisconsin, more than half
of the human monkeypox cases occurred through occupational exposure to
infected prairie dogs, with veterinary staff being at greater risk of
acquiring monkeypox than pet store employees. The human cases in the
United States included children as young as 3 years old. Nineteen
people were hospitalized, although some were hospitalized primarily for
isolation purposes. The initial signs or symptoms seen in some patients
included skin lesions or fever with drenching sweats and severe chills.
Two children suffered serious clinical illnesses. One child had severe
encephalitis that improved during a 14-day hospital stay. Another child
had pox lesions on many parts of her body, including lesions inside her
mouth and throat which created difficulty in breathing and swallowing.
At least five patients (three adults and two children) developed fevers
and severe rashes, and one adult patient had symptoms for about five
months.
In June 2003, HHS/CDC and HHS/FDA issued a joint order 4
prohibiting, until further notice, the transportation or offering for
transportation in interstate commerce, or the sale, offering for sale,
or offering for any other type of commercial or public distribution,
including release into the environment of prairie dogs and six
implicated species of African rodents. In addition, HHS/CDC implemented
an immediate embargo on the importation of all rodents from Africa.
These emergency orders were superseded in November 2003 when the two
agencies issued an interim final rule creating two complementary
regulations restricting the domestic trade of prairie dogs and the six
implicated rodent species and importation of all rodents of African
origin. This rule was intended to prevent the further introduction,
establishment, and spread of the monkeypox virus in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ HHS/CDC has regulatory responsibility for the importation of
these animals to the U.S. HHS/FDA has regulatory responsibility over
the interstate transportation of these animals within the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. monkeypox outbreak illustrates the serious public health
threat resulting from introduction of non-indigenous pathogens from
exotic species of animals and the risks associated with the exotic
species interacting with U.S. animals, including pets. keeping wild
animals as pets. During the monkeypox outbreak, HHS/CDC investigators
could not locate many potentially infected animals because no accurate
records were available to trace their movements. The importation of
these types of animals poses a health risk because most shipments
involve a high volume of animals, most of which are wild. Many
shipments also include different species co-mingled or kept in close
proximity in confined spaces, conditions ideal for disease
transmission. For most species, there is no screening for the presence
of diseases infectious to humans prior to shipment, with no holding or
testing required upon their entry into the United States. This creates
an opportunity for the widespread exposure of humans to the pathogens
that these animals could be carrying. High mortality rates among some
imported animals, such as rodents, are common. Imported animals shipped
over long distances in uncontrolled environments are more likely to
suffer ill affects. In addition, current U.S. statutes and regulations
do not require importers to determine whether the animal's death is
from a pathogen that could adversely affect humans.
HHS/CDC Concerns about Disease Transmission from Other Animal Species
Although HHS/CDC already regulates importation of some animal
species, numerous other species present concerns. HHS/CDC recently
analyzed data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's Law Enforcement
Management Information System (LEMIS) to assess the impact of the
African rodent ban on the importation of rodents to the United States.
The LEMIS database records the entry of wildlife species to the United
States. HHS/CDC analysis showed that, since 2003, the ban has
effectively limited legal importation of African rodents. The illegal
trade of such rodents and other prohibited animals is difficult to
quantify and difficult to prevent. CDC partners with industry to
educate the public about zoonotic disease risks at the point of
purchase in pet stores, and CDC's ``Healthy Pets Healthy People''
website is one of the most popular websites for pet lovers, physicians
and veterinarians seeking to counsel their clients. CDC also
participates with USDA and FWS to enhance surveillance of animal
contraband imported from known high-risk origins.
However, the commercial pet market has found a new niche in rodents
from other parts of the world, as the number of rodents from Asia,
Europe, and South America has increased by 223%. Rodents harbor
Hantaviruses, which have caused more than 100,000 hospitalized cases of
hemorrhagic fevers in Europe and Asia. Rodents are also associated with
rickettsial diseases such as Scrub typhus and murine typhus, which
cause hundreds of thousands of cases annually. Rodents have several
traits that make them good hosts for zoonotic diseases. They reproduce
rapidly and, unlike other species of wild mammals, can be found in our
gardens, storage buildings and our homes.
HHS/CDC is also concerned about other animals, such as shrews.
There is some new evidence that Hantaviruses are associated with
shrews, although it is not clear whether these shrew-associated
hantaviruses are human pathogens. While humans rarely have contact with
shrews, this could change if shrews begin to be imported as pets.
In May 2006, HHS/CDC hosted a public meeting on the subject of
infectious disease threats associated with the growing importation and
trade of exotic animals. Stakeholders, including the National
Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, the Wildlife
Conservation Society, and the American Veterinary Medical Association,
submitted a variety of positions and views for the public meeting. Of
the 22 statements received, 7 indicated a measure of support for
increased restrictions on the importation and sale of exotic species,
while 15 expressed support for alternatives to regulatory or legal
restrictions, or opposition to possible restrictions.
Animal Importation: Current Activities and Future Challenges
HHS/CDC's current approach to controlling zoonotic disease threats
has involved issuing emergency orders or rules prohibiting importation
of implicated animals. These actions are usually taken after an
outbreak occurs, rather than proactively preventing outbreaks from
animals well documented in the literature to harbor pathogens that can
directly or indirectly effect humans, regardless of geography. This
approach cannot fully prevent the introduction of zoonotic diseases,
and HHS/CDC would welcome the opportunity to participate in the
development of broader prevention strategies--in concert with other
federal agencies--including risk-based, proactive approaches to
preventing the importation of animals and vectors that pose a public
health risk.
In July 2007, HHS/CDC published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) to begin the process of revising our animal
importation regulation, soliciting public comment and feedback on the
issue of animal importation to determine the need for further
rulemaking. More than 800 comments to the ANPRM were received, and HHS/
CDC is currently reviewing these comments to assist in new rulemaking.
In conclusion, there are a number of serious yet preventable risks
to public health, and we welcome the opportunity to work
collaboratively to explore new strategies for their prevention.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy to take
any questions you may have.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Dr. Marano, for your
testimony and thoughtful statement, and, at this time, I would
like to welcome another of my colleagues, from the State of
Virginia, Mr. Wittman, who has joined us.
We are now going to recognize Members for any questions
that they may have, and I will begin with myself. I have a
couple of questions for Mr. Frazer.
Would a risk-assessment process similar to the one in this
bill be more effective and efficient, and what are the key
factors in making the system work efficiently?
Mr. Frazer. We have not thoroughly analyzed the bill, but,
on our initial reading, it appears to provide us the latitude
to construct a risk-assessment process that could be more
timely, more nimble, and provide us the opportunity to address
the need for evaluating the potential risks of species, more so
than we have under the current injurious wildlife listing
process under the Lacey Act.
So we see this as providing the basic framework for us to
develop a process that is, in fact, more responsive and for us
to be able to handle the volume of work in a more nimble
fashion.
Ms. Bordallo. Would it be better to structure H.R. 6311 to
replace the existing injurious wildlife provisions of the Lacey
Act?
Mr. Frazer. We would like to work with the Subcommittee on
that. It does not seem to us to be a wise path, to keep both
authorities in place, that this would, in fact, serve the
function of evaluating and preventing the introduction of
injurious wildlife, and that, if we could build a structure
here, we would want to have that replaced, the existing
injurious wildlife provisions so we did not have that standing
and would still have to carry out those responsibilities.
We would have to have a transition process, obviously, so
we did not have any gap in authority, and controls over
introductions, but that would be something we would like to
work with you on.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Frazer, is three years a reasonable
amount of time to develop an initial approved list and
regulations for a risk-assessment process?
Mr. Frazer. It is clearly going to be a rigorous schedule.
We would have to have additional staff and resources to be able
to manage that. It would have to be through a rulemaking
process, a lot of public participation and involvement with
stakeholders, and such, but, on initial read, it is something
that would be doable if we had the resources to do so. It would
be an aggressive schedule, certainly.
Ms. Bordallo. Good. Ms. Williams, when can NISC tell us
their position on the bill?
Ms. Williams. The bill has just been introduced, and the
National Invasive Species Council will work with all of our
agencies. It is 13 departments and agencies. So we will be
looking at this bill, working with Gary and all of the
agencies, and get you a position as quickly as possible.
Ms. Bordallo. As quickly as possible, good. As you
mentioned, the 2001 National Invasive Species Management Plan
emphasizes not only prevention but establishment of a risk-
based screening process. Would H.R. 6311 give the needed
statutory authority to implement this process?
Ms. Williams. I believe so.
Ms. Bordallo. And then I have one question here for Dr.
Marano. Does the CDC have the authority to regulate species of
wildlife that are likely, but not demonstrated, vectors for
zoonotic diseases?
Dr. Marano. We have the authority, under the CDC Director,
to be able to prevent the introduction of a person, thing,
animal, or vector that represents a proximate threat to human
health. In the past, we have done this in responsive mode when
it became apparent that rodents were a vector for monkeypox. We
have to look forward to looking at other species, perhaps of
rodents, that also represent threats that are coming from other
parts of the world than Africa. So my answer would be yes.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. One final question I have for you.
When the CDC issued its final monkeypox regulation to the
Federal Register in 2003, it stated: ``We, the CDC, believe
that the introduction of monkeypox into the United States shows
that we need to develop measures to prevent or minimize the
likelihood of other zoonotic disease introductions or
outbreaks.''
Would, then, H.R. 6311 help achieve this by including
consideration of human and animal health in its risk-screening
process?
Dr. Marano. I believe that it would, and I think my
concluding statement, my last paragraph, tried to emphasize
that this is a very important opportunity for us to be at the
table with Fish and Wildlife, to be the human health
consultant, the human health partner. Many of the invasive
species activities do focus on harmful environmental species.
So I think this is a remarkable opportunity for CDC to be a
full member at the table to help give human health input to the
decisions.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Now, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Mr. Brown from South Carolina, for any questions
that he may have.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Frazer, I guess my first question would be to you, and,
of course, I would encourage other members of the panel to join
in if they have some input.
How many species are currently listed on the Fish and
Wildlife Service's injurious species list under the Lacey Act
of 1981?
Mr. Frazer. We have 19 entities that are listed under
injurious wildlife. Some of the entities comprise many
different species. We list a whole family or its listed genus,
so I cannot give you a specific number of species, but 18
separate entities are listed.
An example of what I am talking about: fruit bats. We have
60 different species listed within a particular genus of fruit
bat that are on that injurious wildlife list.
Mr. Brown. Do we have any capture method for eradicating
the species once they are identified as injurious?
Mr. Frazer. Once an injurious species is established in the
wild, control is difficult, more difficult for aquatic species
than terrestrial ones. The ability to control species depends
upon the individual characteristics of the ecosystem.
For instance, there are some effective control techniques
that have been developed for brown tree snakes, but the
challenges of having 100-percent eradication are very great
when we are dealing with dense vegetation and tree-dwelling
species. So the effectiveness is a function of the ecology of
any individual species ad where they live.
Mr. Brown. I am sorry. Go ahead.
Ms. Williams. I just had one more point on that. One of the
things, as a backup to prevention, that the council has been
very interested in working with other agencies on is early
detection and rapid response.
If you can find these species early enough, or recognize
that they are a problem early enough, eradication is often
possible through a variety of methods. But once, as Gary has
said, they have spread, it becomes very costly, at a minimum,
if not impossible. But early detection and rapid response is an
important technique, if prevention has failed, but you have the
information.
Mr. Brown. Once we identified them as injurious, I guess,
do we restrict, then, the import of those species into the
United States?
Mr. Frazer. Importation into the U.S., as well as transport
across state lines, is then prohibited, and that would be one
aspect, Chairman Bordallo. If there were to be revisions to
6311 to have it replace the Lacey Act injurious wildlife
provisions, one of the aspects that we would want to have
replaced is also to expand the reach, then, to control the
transport across state lines because that is an important
element of containment of an invasive species that may be in
the U.S. already, but we are wanting to contain within the area
where it is as opposed to spreading elsewhere.
Mr. Brown. I am not sure where the brown snake came from,
but did it have a natural predator before it got to Guam?
Mr. Frazer. It was native to Australia, the southeast
specific, and I do not know whether it had predators, but when
it got to Guam, it found a very suitable place to live and
thrive and an environment in which there is a great variety of
prey species upon which it could readily grow and feed.
Mr. Brown. How about the Burmese python? Wherever it is
coming from, does it have a natural predator there that could
kind of control the population? How does that work?
Mr. Frazer. I do not know whether they have any predators
that control there the spread. I would be happy to get back
with you on that.
Mr. Brown. Apparently, they are thriving pretty well down
in Florida.
Mr. Frazer. They seem to be finding it a suitable habitat,
yes.
Mr. Brown. And to qualify that statement, I do not think it
was a full-grown alligator because I think that the writer did
not understand that those alligators can grow to 12 to 14 feet
long. There are some smaller, but I think you said, Ms.
Williams, you have a copy of a picture.
Ms. Williams. I will be e-mailing you a picture, but you
probably are very familiar with alligators.
Mr. Brown. I am very familiar with alligators.
Ms. Williams. OK.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the Ranking Member.
I just wanted to make a few comments on the brown tree
snakes for our audience out there. They are nocturnal, and, to
my knowledge, they are not a poisonous snake. I know that Mr.
Frazer must have the population on hand, but rather than speak
about how many we have, because that may ruin our tourism, we
will just keep that between us, and I want to thank Mr. Brown
for his questions about the brown tree snake.
I would like now to recognize my colleague from Virginia,
Mr. Wittman, for any questions he may have.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Frazer, I want to try to parse out, in my mind, how the
injurious definition may be implemented under this act. You
know, now, in the Chesapeake Bay, we have a number of nonnative
introductions, not purposeful, obviously, things like the zebra
mussel, the rapa whelk, the Chinese mitten crab, the snakehead
fish.
There has also been an effort to look at nonnative species
to replenish our decimated oysters in the bay. As we all know,
Crassostrea ariakensis is one of the oysters under
consideration--it has undergone a tremendous amount of study--
in looking at recovering the oyster populations there.
Can you tell us how this act would affect a situation where
we are looking at the introduction of a nonnative species, such
as ariakensis, through study versus those nonintended
introductions? Can you tell me how this act would distinguish
between those and, especially, how ``injurious'' would be
defined?
Mr. Frazer. The fundamental issue, I think, that you are
raising is the distinction between a nonnative species and an
injurious nonnative species. There are many nonnative species
that are in the U.S. that are used in agriculture, sport
fisheries, or other reasons that do not rise to the level of
being injurious or that do not have the potential to be
invasive. They are able to be managed.
As we read the bill, again, the focus of this framework
that it would establish would be on the potential for harm to
the environment, the economy, or health. So that injurious
nature, as well as being a nonnative, would be the primary
factor for determining whether this would be something that
would be prohibited or restricted in trade.
Mr. Wittman. Would you anticipate that this act would, in
any way, prevent the introduction of Crassostrea ariakensis
into the Chesapeake Bay?
Mr. Frazer. That would be premature. I do not know the
nature of that particular species. It would be a function of
what its risk to the overall ecosystem might be. Clearly, there
are benefits of having oysters in the Chesapeake Bay. I do not
know how that particular species would be considered in that
context. I have not heard of it referred to in the context of
an injurious species.
Mr. Wittman. OK. I know there has been a lot of study, and
I do know that this act does allow for folks to petition that
that species be considered injurious. I just wanted to
understand what level the evaluation would have to rise to
because I know there has been an awful a lot of work put into
ariakensis in the bay and an awful lot of consideration about
that particular introduction and especially how it may affect
the return of the oyster portion of our seafood industry.
So I want to be clear that there would be nothing in here
that, obviously, if the science steers us in that direction for
the introduction of that nonnative species, that there would be
nothing here that would prevent that. I think that is important
for our Chesapeake Bay in a variety of different ways, both
economically, environmentally, again, with the science bearing
it out, making sure that it does not have, obviously, as you
said, under the current definition of ``injurious,'' negative
impacts on the bay. So I just wanted to make sure that that was
clear.
I know a lot of people in Virginia are looking at that as a
way to reestablish that resource there, and I wanted to make
sure that this did not do anything to impede that.
Can you tell me, has U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
implemented any of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
recommendations, things like the Federal permit system for
first-time imports and expediting the Lacey Act processes?
Mr. Frazer. We certainly are active in implementing a
number of the management plans and priorities of the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force. I am not familiar with the two
specific issues that you raised, and I would be happy to
respond to you in writing about those.
Mr. Wittman. That would be great, if you could do that.
Ms. Williams, could you maybe comment on that?
Ms. Williams. You might be referring to the 1994 ANSTF
report that looked at intentional introductions and made a
series of recommendations, and those are similar to what we see
in the management plan. I think they were fairly general in
nature and looked at expediting the Lacey Act and coming up
with a screening process that was phased in step by step, and
that is very similar to what was in the 2001 management plan,
if I am understanding correctly.
Mr. Wittman. That is what I am referring to. Have all of
those been implemented, or are they in the process of being
implemented? Can you tell us, timeframe-wise, where they are?
Ms. Williams. I think it would be good to get back to the
record on that, but, as I said in my testimony, given the
resources that have been put into the program and some of the
complications and the lack of legal authority, it has been more
difficult to make progress on providing for setting up a
screening process because the way we have interpreted it, the
authority is really not there under the current law.
Mr. Wittman. Can you give us an idea? You say that there is
some lack of resources there. Can you give us an idea about
what the magnitude of that lack of resources might be, Mr.
Frazer?
Mr. Frazer. We clearly have the potential for evaluating a
large number of potentially injurious species under the current
Lacey Act authority. Right now, we have six groups that are
basically in our queue for evaluating. It could be more.
So we have not ever attempted to define the universe and
compare our existing resources to the need, nor have we been
able, with the limited amount of time we have had thus far,
been able to actually cost out what would be needed to
effectively staff and manage the risk-assessment process
envisioned under 6311.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you. Just to put into context those
questions, and the reason I asked them, is I am concerned about
the level of effort. We see, just in the Chesapeake Bay, the
frightening increase in the number of nonnative species that
are coming into the bay, and certainly there has been a lot of
discussion about what we can do, whether it is ballast water,
those sorts of things.
If we are really going to get our arms around this today,
in this world economy with all kinds of potential for these
nonnative introductions, we really want to understand the
resources that it will take for us to, at least, either slow
down or, hopefully, stop those right now.
I think we all watch our water bodies, and as we have those
nonnative introductions, they have the capacity to overwhelm
the existing ecosystem, and I think we are all concerned about
that when we are fighting right now to try to get the existing
ecosystems to proliferate.
So that is just the basis behind my questions, and if you
all could get that information to me, I would be very
interested in it.
Ms. Bordallo. I would like to thank the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Wittman, and to also thank the panelists for
being with us this morning, and, at this time, I would like to
recognize the second panel of witnesses. I would also like to
ask those standing in the back to please come forward and take
the seats in the lower dais here.
[Pause.]
Ms. Bordallo. The Chair would like to announce that there
will be three votes, starting between eleven-thirty and eleven-
forty-five, so if we stay within the five-minute limit, I think
we can hear all of our panelists present their testimony.
I would like to recognize those on the second panel.
Domingo Cravalho, Jr., the Inspection and Compliance Section
Chief, Plant Quarantine Branch, Hawaii Department of
Agriculture, aloha----
Mr. Cravalho. Aloha.
Ms. Bordallo.--Marc Gaden, Legislative Liaison, Great Lakes
Fishery Commission; Mr. George Horne, Deputy Executive
Director, Operations and Maintenance Resources, South Florida
Water Management District; Marshall Meyers, Executive Vice
President and General Counsel, Pet Industry Joint Advisory
Council; and Mr. Lawrence M. Riley, Division Coordinator,
Wildlife Management Division, Arizona Game and Fish Department.
Again, I would just remind you about the five-minute time
schedule that we have here, and your full testimony will be
entered into the official record.
I now recognize Mr. Cravalho to testify for five minutes. I
thank you for traveling all the way from the State of Hawaii.
Please begin.
STATEMENT OF DOMINGO CRAVALHO, JR., INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE
SECTION CHIEF, PLANT QUARANTINE BRANCH, HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Cravalho. Aloha kako, Chairperson Bordallo, Members of
the Committee. My name is Domingo Cravalho, and I represent the
Hawaii Department of Agriculture today. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on H.R. 6311, the Nonnative
Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act.
The Hawaii Department of Agriculture strongly supports this
bill. The impact of the high rate of nonnative introductions
has already been felt in the State of Hawaii. Of all of the
birds and plants known to have gone extinct in the United
States, over 72 percent are from Hawaii, yet there is much more
to be lost. The native plants and animals of Hawaii are among
the most endangered in the world.
Stopping the influx of new, detrimental, nonnative species
and containing their spread is essential to Hawaii's, and the
nation's, future well-being. The present problem is severe, and
the future is uncertain. Only legislation such as this measure
will begin to address the continued loss of our nations natural
resources.
Hawaii state laws and regulations governing the entry of
plant and animal species are intended to protect our
agriculture, our environment, including native biota, and
public health. As the ``first line of defense,'' approximately
five to six million dollars in state money is spent on
prevention efforts in Hawaii. For over 50 years, our department
has had in place a risk-based system, such as the one
envisioned in this bill, to allow safe introductions to
continue and to prevent detrimental introductions from entering
the state.
As authorized by Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 150A, the
Board of Agriculture maintains the following three lists of
animals.
First, there is a list of conditionally approved animals
that require a permit for import into the state, and these
species are normally used for resale efforts for the pet trade,
for seafood for consumption, and for animals that can be used
for propagation.
The second list is a list of restricted animals that
require a permit for both import into the state and possession.
The restricted list is further divided into a restricted list,
Part A, which allows for research by universities and
government agencies, for exhibition in municipal zoos and
government-affiliated aquariums, as well as for medical and
scientific research, as determined by the Board. Part B of the
restricted list is allowed for commercial and private use,
including research, zoological parks, and aquaculture
production.
The last list is a list of prohibited animals that are
prohibited entry into the state.
As you and I well know, these three lists would not be able
to contain every list of animals currently in the world. As
such, anything that is not on any of these lists are concerned
prohibited until such time as it is reviewed and considered for
future placement on one of these lists.
Throughout the listing process that we currently employ, it
is an open and transparent listing process. There is
established an Advisory Committee on Plants and Animals that is
comprised of representatives from the following: the Department
of Agriculture, the Department of Land and Natural Resources,
members from the Department of Health, and Office of
Environmental Control, as well as five other members with
expertise in plants, animals, or microorganisms who are versed
with modern ecological principles and the protection of natural
resources.
The State of Hawaii's importation process provides a
manageable, risk-based system for the import of nondomestic
animals into the state. It is science based, with the various
advisory committees' review and recommendations to the Board of
Agriculture, as well as the public hearing process that informs
the general public of the import process that protects Hawaii
from invasive species.
Much has been written about the tragic loss of Hawaiian
biota, which is unequaled in any other region of the United
States. While nothing can be done about the 70 percent of
endemic species that have already gone extinct, measures such
as H.R. 6311 can bolster hope that we can protect those
remaining.
As such, prevention of new, nonnative wildlife
introductions and management of existing invasions require
immediate attention. The establishment of a manageable, risk-
based system and the establishment of allowable and prohibited
lists of animals and for the import of nonnative wildlife and
improved integration of Federal and state policies and programs
would provide long-term protection of our natural resources
that would benefit both the Nation and our individual states.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important
measure.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cravalho follows:]
Statement of Domingo Cravalho, Jr., Inspection and Compliance
Section Chief, Hawaii Department of Agriculture
Chairperson Bordallo and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on H.R. 6311.
The purpose of this bill is to prevent the introduction and
establishment of non-native wildlife species that negatively impact the
economy, environment, or human or animal species' health. The Hawaii
Department of Agriculture strongly supports this bill.
The impact of the high rate of non-native introductions has already
been felt in the State of Hawaii. Of all the birds and plants known to
have gone extinct in the United States, over 72% are from Hawaii. Yet,
there is much more to be lost. The native plants and animals of Hawaii
are among the most endangered in the world. Hawaii has 282 listed
threatened and endangered species including 150 species with fewer than
50 living. And of these, 11 species have fewer than 5 left on earth.
Stopping the influx of new detrimental non-native species and
containing their spread is essential to Hawaii's and the Nation's
future well-being. The present problem is severe and the future is
uncertain. Only legislation, such as this measure, will begin to
address the continued loss of our Nation's natural resources.
State laws and regulations governing the entry of new plant and
animal species are intended to protect agriculture, environment,
including native biota, and public health. As the ``first line of
defense,'' approximately $5-6 million in state money is spent on
prevention efforts. For over fifty years, our Department has had in
place a risk-based system, such as the one envisioned in this bill, to
allow safe introductions to continue and to prevent detrimental
introductions from entering the State.
Chapter 150A, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), short titled as the
``Hawaii Plant Quarantine Law'' provides the authorities for the Hawaii
Department of Agriculture to regulate the importation of plants, non-
domestic animals and microorganisms that are allowed entry into the
State of Hawaii. For the purposes of the Non-Native Wildlife Invasion
Prevention Act (H.R. 6311), this discussion will cover only the
authorities that govern non-domestic animals. The term, ``animal'' as
used under section 150A-2, HRS, is defined as follows:
``Animal'' means any invertebrate and vertebrate species of the
animal kingdom including but not limited to mammal, bird, fish,
reptile, mollusk, crustacean, insect, mite, and nematode, other
than common domestic animal such as dog and cat.
As provided for under section 150A-6.2, HRS, the Board of
Agriculture (Board) pursuant to rules maintains one of the following
three lists of animals:
A list of conditionally approved animals that require a
permit for import into the State;
A list of restricted animals that require a permit for
both import into the State and possession; and
A list of prohibited animals that are prohibited entry
into the State.
Any animal that is not on any of these lists is considered
prohibited until the Board reviews and determines the future placement
of the unlisted animal on any of these lists maintained by the Board.
However, there are provisions that allow the importation and possession
of unlisted species for the following:
A special permit on a case-by-case basis for unlisted
animals may be allowed for importation and possession for the purposes
of remediating medical emergencies or agricultural or ecological
disasters, or conducting medical or scientific research in a manner
that the animal will not be detrimental to agriculture, the
environment, or humans; and
A short-term special permit on a case-by-case basis not
to exceed 90 days may be allowed for the importation and possession of
an unlisted animal for the purpose of filming, performance, or
exhibition.
The above-mentioned special permits are contingent upon the importer
being able to meet certain permit and/or bonding requirements as
determined by the Board.
Section 150A-6.5, HRS, provides for exceptions in regards to
prohibited animals in that no person shall possess, propagate, sell,
transfer, or harbor any animal included on the list of prohibited
animals that is maintained by the Board, except for as follows:
The animal was initially permitted entry and later
prohibited entry into the State; or
The animal was continually prohibited but unlawfully
introduced and is currently established in the State; and
The animal is not significantly harmful to agriculture,
horticulture, or animal or public health, and the environment.
However, the Board may permit possession of an individual animal under
the circumstances described with the registration of the animal with
the department while still prohibiting the species from importation,
propagation, transfer, and sale.
Section 150A-10, HRS, provides for the establishment of an advisory
committee on plants and animals that is comprised of representatives
from the following:
Department of Agriculture
Department of Land and Natural Resources
Office of Environmental Control
Department of Health
Five other members with expertise in plants, animals or
microorganisms who are versed with modern ecological principles and the
protection of natural resources
The committee's purpose is to assist and advise the Board in
developing or revising laws and regulations to carry out the purposes
of this chapter and to advise in problems relating to the introduction,
confinement, or release of animals. In addition, this particular
section authorizes the Chairperson of the Board to create ad hoc or
permanent advisory subcommittees, as needed.
Pursuant to the rulemaking requirements under State law, Chapter 4-
71, Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) aptly named ``Non-Domestic
Animals Import Rules'', provides for implementing the requirements of
Chapter 150A, HRS, by restricting or prohibiting the import of certain
non-domestic animals that are detrimental to the agricultural,
horticultural, and aquacultural industries, natural resources and
environment of the State of Hawaii. Animal species that are found on
the List of Prohibited Animals under section 4-71-6, HAR, are not
permitted entry into the State. As such, no person shall introduce into
Hawaii any animal from the prohibited animal list.
As provided for under section 4-71-6.5, HAR, the importation into
Hawaii of allowable species shall be by permit for those animals that
are found on the List of Conditionally Approved Animals or the List of
Restricted Animals. Animals found on the conditionally approved list
are allowed for individual possession, businesses, or institutions, and
may be re-sold, propagated, or transported in the State; however,
liberation is strictly prohibited.
Animals on the restricted lists are further divided into a Part A
and Part B section. The List of Restricted Animals (Part A) are for
species that are allowed for both import into the State and possession
for research by universities or government agencies, exhibition in
municipal zoos or government-affiliated aquariums, for other
institutions for medical or scientific purposes as determined by the
Board. Animals on the List of Restricted Animals (Part B) are for
species that are allowed for both import into the State and possession
for private and commercial use, including research, zoological parks,
or aquaculture production. There are also added provisions that animals
in the order Primates shall not be allowed for import or possession for
private or commercial use other than for purposes described in Part A
or for primate sanctuaries, as determined by the Board.
Since the various lists found under chapter 4-71, HAR, do not
include all species that are known to exist, unlisted species are
considered prohibited until the Board's review and future placement on
one of the allowable lists. To list an animal, a permit application
must be submitted to the Board and must include the following:
Name and address of shipper and importer
Approximate number and kind (common and scientific name)
of animal
Purpose or object of importation
Safeguard facilities location and description
Method of disposition
Abstract of the animal, including biology and ecology
requirements
The application will go through a three-tiered review process. An
advisory subcommittee of technical consultants will review the
information that is provided by the applicant and provide a
recommendation and comments on the request. The information will be
compiled by the department and then reviewed by the Advisory Committee
on Plants and Animals, who will meet at a noticed public meeting where
public comment and testimony are welcomed. The Advisory Committee will
then make a recommendation for approval or disapproval on the request
and the matter would be forwarded to the Board for review and
determination. The Board's action to preliminarily review the species
for future placement on a list has no legal effect and this procedure
is solely for administrative ease in preparation for amendments to the
various lists. At some future date, the proposed amendments will be
brought to the Board for preliminary approval to go to public hearings.
A species is listed in the rules only after following chapter 91, HRS,
rulemaking procedures, which entail the public hearing process, board
adoption, and governor's approval. Once a species is listed, the Board
will then establish conditions for entry into the State upon
application for an import permit.
The State of Hawaii's importation process provides a manageable
risk-based system for the import of non-domestic animals into the
State, which is science-based with the various advisory committees'
review and recommendations to the Board as well as the public hearing
process that informs the general public of the import process that
protects Hawaii from invasive species.
Much has been written about the tragic loss of Hawaiian biota,
which is unequaled in any other region of the United States. While
nothing can be done about the 70% of the endemic land birds and land
snail species that have already gone extinct, measures such as H.R.
6311 can bolster hope that we can protect those remaining. Hawaii is
home to one-third of the Nation's federally listed endangered species.
As such, prevention of new non-native wildlife introductions and
management of existing invasions require immediate attention.
The establishment of a manageable risk-based system for the import
of non-native wildlife and improved integration of Federal and State
policies and programs would provide long-term protection of our natural
resources that would benefit both the Nation and the States.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important measure.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Mahalo, Mr. Cravalho, for your insights on
this legislation from your Hawaii perspective.
Now, I would like to recognize Dr. Gaden. Welcome, and you
may proceed with your statement.
STATEMENT OF MARC GADEN, Ph.D., LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, GREAT
LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION
Mr. Gaden. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee.
I am Marc Gaden. I am the legislative liaison for the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, and I am also an adjunct assistant
professor at Michigan State University.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is an organization set
up by treaty between the United States and Canada. We have the
responsibility to take measures to improve and perpetuate the
Great Lakes fishery resources.
The fishery commission also knows quite well the havoc
invasive species wreak on ecosystems. The fishery commission is
responsible for controlling the noxious sea lamprey, which laid
waste to the fishery after it invaded the Upper Great Lakes in
the 1920s.
The Great Lakes are tremendously valuable and worth
protecting. Annually, the fishery alone is worth more than $7
billion and has enormous cultural value to the diverse peoples
who live and fish in the region.
Invasive species are one of the biggest threats to the
Great Lakes as more than 180 nonnative species are present.
Many are destructive, costing the region billions of dollars,
and, with globalization and vibrant trade, more species have
more opportunities than ever to invade the waters of the United
States.
For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports
that an average of more than 200 million fish and tens of
millions of reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals are
imported into the U.S. annually.
Unfortunately, we have not learned the lessons that
experience has taught. Ninety years after the sea lamprey
invasion, more than $300 million have been spent to control
this one species. Canals, many unused and useless, continue to
be pathways for invaders. Ship ballasts, which brought the
notorious zebra mussel 25 years ago and brought many other
invaders, remains the primary invasive species vector, yet
ballast legislation has been pending for years.
Despite high-profile invaders, like snakeheads, the Asian
swamp eel, Asian carp, which entered through the live trade, a
meaningful process still does not exist to assess the risks of
organisms prior to importation.
These problems illustrate a lack of a comprehensive policy
to deal with invasive species. Your bill, H.R. 6311, by
addressing the live trade, fills a major gap in that policy
void.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission supports your
legislation.
Species and trade need to be valued because we have no
evaluation process in place now, so, without review, we are
just taking chances. Also, it is appropriate to be circumspect
about handling live species because species have a history of
escaping and invading, and it is always a good idea to be
deliberate in our actions.
Moreover, it is appropriate to be cautious because species
often surprise us. They take hold in places where we sometimes
do not expect, and they cause unexpected damage.
Finally, if we do not take the time to evaluate
importations, we are putting our native species, species which
millions of people rely on for income, food, recreation, and a
healthy environment, at risk, flippantly and permanently.
This legislation has many strong points, which are outlined
in my written statement. Let me touch upon four.
First, the bill calls upon the Secretary of Interior to
establish a process to evaluate all nonnative wildlife proposed
for importation into the U.S. before the organisms are
imported. This keeps out the harmful invaders before they
spread, at which point it is often too late to do anything
about the problem.
Second, the bill establishes solid criteria for the
secretary to consider in evaluating the organisms, including
demonstrating that the organism not be harmful. The factors for
consideration, as presented in Section 3-B, are the factors
that should be considered, as they relate to scientific
realities. It is, indeed, correct to evaluate whether the
species is likely to cause harm, whether it is well-suited to
ecosystems in the United States, whether it is likely to
spread, and whether pathogens are likely to accompany the
importation.
This is an appropriate list of factors and, when applied,
should be protective.
Third, the bill establishes approved and unapproved lists
for species and says that only organisms on the approved list
can be imported. This is a much better approach than the
current system, which essentially says a species is OK unless
it is on the unapproved list.
Currently, the problem is, not every species is assessed,
and the process to list a species as injurious, which is
through the Lacey Act, is reactive and cumbersome.
Fourth, the bill establishes a Federal risk-assessment
process to evaluate importations, yet still acknowledges the
major role states can, and should, play in protecting the
waters of the United States.
This bill is solid and addresses the problem appropriately.
That said, the fishery commission has a few issues with the
bill, as written. Those issues are outlined in detail in my
written statement, and I ask the Subcommittee to consider them.
Let me conclude with a word about Canada, as meaningful
invasive species action must occur in both countries. Like the
current situation in the United States, Canada does not assess
the risk of all importations. However, legislation is pending
before the House of Commons that would grant such authority to
the Federal government. The pending legislation in Canada,
thus, is in the same spirit as your bill, and it is the
commission's expectation that the legislation in both countries
will inspire a coordinated approach. We also hope there will be
coordination with Mexico.
Madam Chair, thank you again for inviting me to testify
before this Subcommittee, and I wish you success in getting
this legislation passed. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaden follows:]
Statement of Dr. Marc Gaden, Legislative Liaison,
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
INTRODUCTION: THE INVASIVE SPECIES THREAT
Madam Chair, thank you for inviting me to appear before this
subcommittee to discuss H.R. 6311, the Non-Native Wildlife Invasion
Prevention Act. With the introduction of the Non-native Wildlife
Invasion Prevention Act, we have a real opportunity to take a major
step toward preventing the introduction and spread of harmful
organisms.
My name is Marc Gaden. I am the Legislative Liaison for the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission. I am also an Adjunct Assistant Professor at
Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife.
The Great Lakes are an extremely valuable and unique resource for
both the United States and Canada. The Great Lakes' commercial, sport,
and tribal fisheries alone are valued at more than $7 billion annually.
The lakes provide drinking water for millions of people and are a rich
tourist draw. A healthy, vibrant Great Lakes ecosystem is immeasurable
in economic terms alone.
Despite the importance of the Great Lakes to the region, the lakes
face tremendous threats ranging from pollution to habitat destruction
to loss of species diversity. One particularly troubling problem is the
influx of invasive species. The Great Lakes are constantly bombarded by
new species from all over the world. Ballast water is a major vector
and is the subject of legislation (the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act)
recently passed by the House. Canals and waterways are another vector
and much attention has been given in recent years to the construction
of an electrical dispersal barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, an artificial connection between the Great Lakes and the
Mississippi River system. Recreational activities, aquaculture, and the
trade of live organisms (for the live seafood industry, pet trade,
ornamental gardens, food, etc.) are other vectors.
Today, the lakes harbor more than 185 non-native species (Lodge
2007; Mills et al. 1993; Ricciardi 2001; Sturtevant et al. 2008), many
of which entered the lakes accidentally. The rate of introduction into
the Great Lakes has not slowed in recent years, even with the welcomed
institution of some invasive species control measures (e.g., ballast
water exchange requirements starting as early as 1989); some estimate
that a new invader enters the system every 9-12 months. Many in the
scientific community also believe that the Great Lakes contain many
more invasive species than have been discovered, as a coordinated,
basinwide program to monitor new nonindigenous species does not exist
(IAGLR 2008; Sturtevant et al. 2008). While much of the focus has been
on large or prominent organisms, microorganisms and pathogens are also
an increasing concern (particularly with the emergence of the VHS
virus). The Great Lakes, essentially, are a welcoming, open door for
invaders.
According to the International Association for Great Lakes
Research, fortunately, only a small portion of the exotic species that
enter the lakes become established, and only a small portion of those
(up to 15%) prove to be invasive and harmful (IAGLR 2008). However,
lest one find's those odds reassuring, the small percentage that is
harmful has cost the region dearly. Damage is difficult to quantify,
but sources put the cumulative economic costs since 1900 in the
hundreds of billions of dollars. The ecological costs, of course, are
immeasurable. According to the Great Lakes Commission, just six of the
70 known harmful invasive species have caused more than $1.6 billion in
damages (Glassner-Shwayder 2007).
With globalization, more species have more opportunities than ever
to invade the United States and the Great Lakes. Worldwide, shipping is
vibrant and trade across continents is growing. The Saint Lawrence
Seaway, for instance, is a direct pathway for foreign ships into the
U.S. heartland. Those ships have been responsible for more than 1/3 of
the Great Lakes invaders (Mills et al. 1993; Sturtevant et al. 2008).
Also, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that an average of
more than 200 million fish, and tens of millions of reptiles and
amphibians, birds, and mammals are imported into the United States
annually. Fish for the pet trade are often collected in exotic
locations throughout the world or reared in aquaculture facilities
(Livengood and Chapman 2007), facilities which are prone to flooding,
enabling escapement.
Invasive species are not a local or even a regional problem--they
are a national and a global problem. Invasive species have a tendency
to spread from region to region, so species introduced in one part of
the country have enormous potential to move to other parts of the
country. Eurasian Dreissenid mussels, for instance, entered the Great
Lakes through ballast water from oceanic ships in the 1980s and have
now spread throughout much of the United States. Asian carp, which are
discussed below, escaped from aquaculture in the Deep South and are
threatening the Great Lakes. Snakeheads were imported for the aquarium
trade and for food fish and are now present in the northeast, the east,
and the Mississippi River system. Specimens have also been found in
Alabama, California, Florida, Kentucky, Texas, Washington, and Lake
Michigan. Finally, it is estimated that more than 150 invaders
nationwide are attributed to the aquarium trade (Padilla and Williams
2004) and their introduction into United States' waters anywhere raises
the possibility of spread to other ecosystems. Solutions must be large
in scope and based on the assumption that invaders do what they do
best: invade.
LESSONS FROM THE SEA LAMPREY
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the organization for which I
work, was established in 1955 by the Canadian and U.S. Convention on
Great Lakes Fisheries, partially as a response to one of the most
noxious invaders to enter the Great Lakes system: the sea lamprey. Sea
lampreys are primitive fishes resembling large snakes and are native to
the Atlantic Ocean. They invaded the Great Lakes through shipping
canals in the early 1900s. Sea lampreys are fish parasites and not
having predators in the Great Lakes, were able to wreak unimaginable
damage on the ecosystem and cause significant economic harm to the
fishers of the region. The commission's control program has been
successful, reducing sea lamprey populations by 90% in most areas of
the Great Lakes. Nevertheless, eradication is impossible.
The sea lamprey has taught resource managers some tough lessons:
A single species can cause significant, permanent damage
to the economic and ecological health of a region. Sea lampreys changed
a way of life in the Great Lakes and even with effective control, they
remain a permanent, destructive element of the Great Lakes fishery.
Most--if not all--management decisions made by federal, state, tribal,
and provincial agencies must take sea lampreys into account.
Control, if it is even possible, is expensive and
ongoing. The commission has spent more than $300 million since 1956
controlling sea lampreys. This amount, while large, does not take into
account the billions of dollars of revenue lost to commercial, tribal,
and recreational fishers of the Great Lakes basin, nor does it take
into account the billions of dollars spent by the state and federal
governments over several decades to rehabilitate and propagate the
fishery after the sea lamprey invasion. Moreover, this figure does not
include the immeasurable damage to the ecology of the Great Lakes
basin.
Prevention is key; eradication is not possible. The Great
Lakes fishery will forever contend with sea lampreys and fishery
officials at the federal, state, tribal, and provincial levels will
always have to factor sea lampreys into their decisions.
Invasive species management programs are costly and borne
by the taxpayers.
If sea lampreys have taught us anything it is that prevention of
new invaders is absolutely critical. Once a species enters an ecosystem
and becomes established, few tools, if any, exist to manage invasive
species let alone eradicate them. In fact, sea lampreys are the only
aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes that can be controlled,
though control is ongoing and expensive.
It is not clear whether the lessons of the sea lamprey truly have
been absorbed. Even with all we know about the damage of invasive
species, and even though the pathways are generally known, precious
little has been done to prevent new introductions. Ballast legislation
has been pending for nearly a decade; the construction of the
electrical barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, while
progressing, has been slow and is still not fully completed after years
of wrangling; myriad canals and artificial connections exist between
naturally distinct watersheds, leaving the Great Lakes region
vulnerable to invasions from other parts of the United States and, in
turn, being a source of invaders; the sea lamprey control budget is
constantly under assault; and a meaningful process does not exist to
assess the risk of proposed importations of live organisms or to manage
the harmful species that have become established.
It is the last vector--the importation of live organisms--that is
the subject of this testimony. The Non-native Wildlife Invasion
Prevention Act presents us with a rare opportunity to take a major step
toward prevention.
THE FAILURE OF THE CURRENT REGIME
Overall, the regime governing the trade of live organisms falls far
short of what is necessary to protect the United States and the Great
Lakes from invasive species. A meaningful process does not exist in the
United States to assess the risk of organisms for injuriousness prior
to importation, to inspect importations, and to properly enforce the
law. This lack of a regime has left the United States and the Great
Lakes region extremely vulnerable to biological invasions.
Importation, interstate commerce, and trade are among the most
dangerous pathways for introduction of invasive species into the United
States and the Great Lakes region. The transportation and sale of live
organisms poses considerable risk to the biological integrity of the
ecosystems they enter.
Unfortunately, the trade of live organisms poses a significant and
increasing risk. While a large number of organisms are imported,
serious problems and many loopholes in the trade regime exist. Programs
for assessing the risk of importing live organisms are inconsistent
throughout the United States, to the extent they even exist at all.
Indeed, while states have considerable discretion in regulating live
aquatic species, neither an overarching strategy nor a consistent,
robust policy exist. Most states, in fact, have lists of fish species
that are prohibited or regulated, but those lists tend to be short
(Alexander 2004) and not usually based on a rigorous review of
potential injuriousness. Importers are generally free to bring in live
organisms so long as the organisms are not listed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as ``injurious,'' are not endangered, do not harm
human health or livestock, or are not governed by other federal
agencies or laws (Alexander 2004). Also, while some organisms are
prohibited because they pose a human health risk, carry disease, or
harm agriculture and forests, live organisms generally are not screened
for potential injuriousness to the economy or to ecosystems. Instead,
the number of prohibited species is quite small, giving importers
nearly free-reign to import a large number of species.
Overall,
existing federal, state, and local programs that address
the trade of live organisms have evolved without coordination and are
often reactionary;
currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service charges
only one person with the task of evaluating potentially injurious
wildlife species (implementing the Lacey Act) while hundreds of species
await review;
federal and state law enforcement officers are stretched
thin, making it virtually impossible for proactive enforcement to
occur;
in 2002, only 97 inspectors at the 32 United States ports
designated for fish and wildlife importations were available to inspect
the 223 million live fish that were imported;
in the United States, when a shipment of live species
arrives, complete inspection is nearly impossible due to the need for
expediency; and
most state requirements for licenses to sell live fish
lack substance; typically, the payment of a fee and a documentation of
sales are all that are required.
The story of three species of Asian carp--the silver, bighead, and
black carp--present a clear example of how the trade of species can
seriously threaten the ecosystem and why a risk assessment process for
importation of species is needed. Asian carp were imported into the
southern United States to keep aquaculture facilities clean and to
serve the food fish industry. Grass carp were imported into the United
States in 1962 from Taiwan and Malaysia. Black carp, native to China,
contaminated these shipments and were later intentionally introduced in
the 1980s. Bighead carp were imported from China in 1972. A year later,
in 1973, silver carp were brought into the United States from China and
eastern Siberia. These non-native fish escaped from aquaculture
facilities during flooding events throughout the late 1980s and early
1990s. The floods provided extensive spawning and rearing habitat which
facilitated high survival rates for offspring. In the early 1990s, the
presence of these fish in the Arkansas River was reported.
Since their escape over a decade ago, bighead and silver carp have
besieged the Mississippi River basin and Illinois River system. Between
1991 and 1993, the Upper Mississippi River Long Term Resource
Monitoring Program documented a 100-fold increase in Asian carp numbers
in an area known as Pool 26, which is on the Illinois River upstream of
St. Louis. Commercial harvest of bighead carp in the Mississippi River
Basin increased from 5.5 tons to 55 tons between 1994 and 1997. In the
fall of 1999, an investigation of a fish kill in the off-channel waters
of a National Wildlife Refuge near St. Louis documented that Asian carp
made up 97% of the biomass. During this time period, commercial
fisherman began reporting that they were abandoning their traditional
fishing sites because they were unable to lift nets that were
``loaded'' with Asian carp. Between 1999 and 2000, the Upper
Mississippi River Long Term Resource Monitoring Problem documented a
600-fold increase in Asian carp numbers in the LaGrange Pool, which is
downstream of Peoria, IL. Sampling during the summer of 2000 in the
off-channel areas and backwaters of the Mississippi River downstream
from St. Louis documented the presence of bighead carp at a ratio of
5:1 to native paddlefish. They continue to migrate northward at a
steady pace.
Asian carp are particularly troubling in that they grow to very
large sizes by eating vast quantities of food. An Asian carp is capable
of eating 40% of its body weight each day. Bighead and silver carp
voraciously consume plankton, stripping the food web of the key source
of food for small and big fish. Black carp are especially worrisome
because they have the potential to wipe out native mussel populations
in a relatively short period of time. According to the U.S. Geological
Survey, a four-year-old black carp consumes an average of 3-4 pounds of
mussels per day; older, larger black carp likely consume more mussels.
At this rate of consumption, a single black carp could eat more than 10
tons of native mollusks during its life. To make matters worse,
portions of the Great Lakes are perfectly suited for Asian carp, and
biologists are very concerned that if Asian carp find their way into
the Great Lakes, they will make the lakes home, spread, and deprive our
most prized species of food. Observing the path of destruction on areas
carp have already invaded, biologists are very worried indeed. Clearly,
these fish have the ability to establish rapidly, reproduce in large
numbers, and become the dominant species in an ecosystem. Once
established, there is little chance fishery managers will be able to
control Asian carp. Like the sea lamprey, they could well become a
permanent element of the Great Lakes if they enter the system.
Existing federal law is inadequate to address the increasing threat
posed by injurious species. The primary problem with the United States'
federal program is that the Lacey Act--the primary tool the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has to regulate harmful organisms--is not focused
specifically toward proactively assessing the risk of importations
before they occur. Implementation of the act has not been as aggressive
as is needed, such that only a small number of species are listed as
injurious under the Lacey Act. In fact, despite the proliferation of
injurious species, only three families of fishes, one species of
crustacean, one species of mollusk, and one reptile species are listed
under the act. Hundreds await review and the list does not include many
species that have been banned by state governments. Furthermore, the
process for adding to the list is cumbersome. Although the Fish and
Wildlife Service has the authority to issue emergency regulations, it
has generally operated through a standard notice and comment process.
The average time it takes for the service to list a species (from the
time it is first proposed) is nearly five years (Fowler et al. 2007).
Species continue to spread and cause harm during that lengthy review
process, perhaps making the final listing less meaningful. To make
matters worse, the Lacey Act creates an almost impossible situation. To
be listed under the act, a species must be proven to be injurious. To
merit listing, a species must be shown to cause significant economic
and environmental harm. The problem is, to prove such harm, the species
must be causing damage. By the time such a determination is made, the
species has likely spread to a point where management would be
unfruitful. On the other hand, research has shown that of the species
that were not in the country prior to a Lacey Act listing, none
subsequently became established (Fowler et al. 2007). Clearly,
proactive prevention, not an ex post facto review, is critical.
As the implementation of the Lacey Act and the lack of an effective
risk assessment process demonstrate, most approaches to reducing and
eliminating the release of aquatic invasive species from pathways
involving trade and commerce are reactive rather than preventative. The
existing trade regime has left the waters of the United States
extremely vulnerable. Overall, a lack of sufficient resources to
complete the cumbersome process to list species as injurious, and the
lack of an effective risk assessment process to evaluate proposed
importations, promote this vulnerability.
The current catastrophic floods in the Midwest offer another stark
reminder of how exposed the United States remains to escapement. In
addition to the human misery and enormous economic damage that are the
result of these floods, the environmental harm is staggering and
includes the spread of non-native species when aquaculture facilities
are inundated. No fewer than 19 fish species are raised in aquaculture
facilities in the State of Iowa alone, many in facilities near the
Mississippi River flood plain. Some of the species raised (e.g.,
tilapia, grass carp, hybrid striped bass, blue and flathead catfish)
are not present in the Great Lakes; some are not even indigenous to
North America.
THE GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COLLABORATION
Addressing the invasive species threat is a top priority for the
Great Lakes region, Congress, and the administration. In May, 2004,
President Bush called for the development of a comprehensive Great
Lakes restoration plan and identified invasive species as one of eight
focal points. The ``Great Lakes Regional Collaboration''--comprising
representatives of government agencies at all levels, industry, the
public, and non-government organizations--was formed to develop the
restoration plan, which was submitted to government in December, 2005.
Implementing the provisions contained in the restoration plan has been
a challenge, with few major recommendations fulfilled. The Non-native
Wildlife Prevention Act, if enacted, would address several key
recommendations.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission actively participated in this
large endeavor by co-chairing the Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS)
Strategy Team of the regional collaboration. The AIS team had the
responsibility of developing the invasive species portion of the
restoration plan. More than 1000 people participated in the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration and more than 150 people were a part of the AIS
Strategy Team. The recommendations were developed by consensus.
The threat posed by the lack of a risk assessment process for the
importation of live species was a major component of the AIS action
plan. The complete report of the ``organisms in trade'' subcommittee of
the AIS Strategy Team is included as an appendix to this testimony. The
recommendations are summarized as follows:
``Federal and state governments must take immediate steps to
prevent the introduction and spread of AIS through the trade and
potential release of live organisms. Specifically governments should:
implement...a federal screening process for organisms
proposed for trade;
[mandate] that the screening process...classify species
proposed for trade into three lists--prohibited, permitted, and
conditionally prohibited/permitted;
develop a list of species of concern for the Great Lakes
basin and an immediate moratorium by the States on the trade of species
on that list, until the species are screened and approved for trade;
develop and implement risk models for organisms in
aquaculture.
clearly state that the screening process established must
place the burden of proof of non-injuriousness on the importer;
allocate sufficient resources to heighten the number of
species under the Lacey Act as ``injurious,'' to prevent the interstate
transportation of harmful species; the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
should list black, bighead, and silver carps as injurious under the
Lacey Act; and
significantly increase resources for the enforcement of
laws governing the trade of live organisms.''
THE NON-NATIVE WILDLIFE INVASION PREVENTION ACT
A bill introduced by Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo--H.R. 6311, the
Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act--is welcomed legislation
and badly needed. I commend Representatives Abercrombie, Kildee, Klein,
Hastings, Kind, and McCollum for being original co-sponsors. As
globalization continues to drive world trade regimes and policies,
governments must redouble their efforts to eliminate the risk of
dispersing harmful organisms. This legislation takes a significant step
towards that goal. The legislation establishes a risk assessment
process for organisms proposed for importation, closing a major vector
for invasive species into the United States and the Great Lakes region.
The legislation also fulfills many of the recommendations of the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration's AIS Strategy Team. The Great Lakes
Fishery Commission has reviewed this legislation and supports it.
The bill has many positive points:
The bill calls upon the Secretary of Interior to
promulgate regulations that establish a process to assess the risk of
all non-native wildlife proposed for importation into the United States
before the organisms are imported. The bill clearly outlines several
factors that the secretary must consider to assess the risk of
organisms proposed for importation. The list of factors is solid and
protective, as it calls upon the secretary to consider such factors as
the potential of the species to become established, the potential
injuriousness to new ecosystems in the United States, and the
likelihood that pathogens could accompany the imported species.
The bill establishes both ``clean'' and ``dirty'' lists
of species and only those species on the clean list can be imported.
This is a major, positive element of the legislation, as experience has
shown that reliance only on ``dirty'' lists alone does not provide the
level of protection needed. For instance, a major shortcoming of the
Lacey Act is that it is basically a ``dirty'' list; species that do not
appear on the list are approved for importation (so long as they are
not on other prohibited lists such as those governing endangered
species). To make matters worse, not all imported or harmful species
are scrutinized, only those are that have proven to be injurious and
that have been petitioned to be added to the list (though the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service can initiate a review as well). In contrast, by
relying on a ``clean'' and a ``dirty'' list approach, this legislation
is proactive and complete in its review of proposed importations. Only
species that have been scrutinized and included on the ``clean'' list
will be allowed.
The ``grandfather clause,'' under the heading ``animals imported
prior to prohibition,'' is reasonable, as it allows individuals to
continue to posses (but not rear) organisms that have been imported
legally. In theory, organisms that were imported legally, but later
prove to be injurious, should be addressed by the Lacey Act. However,
problems with implementing the Lacey Act have precluded effective
management of injurious species. The process to list a species under
the Lacey Act as injurious is cumbersome, slow, and often ineffective
in preventing the spread of an organism. The process proposed in the
Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act is far superior to what
we've experienced under the Lacey Act.
The legislation clearly states that in assessing the proposed
species, the secretary must determine that the species is not harmful
to the economy, the environment, or human or animal health. By
demonstrating a lack of harm--as opposed to demonstrating harm--the
burden of proof is stronger and more appropriately placed. History has
demonstrated that simply expecting a species to not escape or invade an
ecosystem is foolhardy. One must assume the worst unless proven
otherwise.
The legislation creates an open, transparent process whereby the
organisms are assessed. By mandating the publication of proposals in
the Federal Register and by requiring input from interested parties,
this legislation gives those with pertinent information, or those
affected by the proposed listing, an opportunity to be heard. The
Secretary of Interior will have some discretion about how, exactly, the
risk assessment process will be established, and, once this legislation
is enacted, the commission urges the establishment of a robust process
that involves peer reviews, application of the best science available,
consultation with other government agencies and university experts, and
periodic improvement. The commission also urges that any process that
is established be capable of undertaking the assessments in a quick and
efficient manner.
The bill provides the secretary with emergency authority to act if
a species poses a serious and imminent threat. Such authority, also
granted under the Lacey Act, is essential and, in fact, was important
in the response a few years ago to the escapement of snakehead.
The legislation allows the states to be more protective of their
ecosystems than the federal government. For most states, a strong
federal policy is appropriate, as the federal government can oversee a
national process to protect all of the United States. In other cases,
however, states may wish to put in place special, unique protections
for their ecosystems. This legislation allows states the flexibility to
go beyond what the federal government requires, while still maintaining
a national foundation of protection.
I respectfully offer the following comments for improvement or
clarification:
The legislation should clarify what should happen if a
species is assessed but not enough information is available to state
conclusively whether the species should be on the ``clean'' or the
``dirty'' list. While the legislation is clear that only species on the
``clean'' list can be imported, the legislation does not provide
direction to the secretary about how to decide on which list to place a
species when that choice does not present itself unambiguously during
the risk assessment process. It appears the intent of the legislation
is that such a species not be allowed for importation, but that intent
should be explicit. An option would be to state that the secretary
shall place the species on the ``dirty'' list until more information is
presented. Another option would be to create an interim list (often
called a ``grey'' list), where such species would be prohibited, but
placed on the list until further scrutiny can be applied. The ``grey''
list approach has worked in many states and in other countries and
would dissuade the reviewer from simply placing a species on an
approved list for expediency or lack of information.
The penalties and enforcement provisions of this act rely
on the penalty and enforcement provisions of the Lacey Act. While the
Lacey Act is one of the strongest laws on the books with respect to
wildlife enforcement, the stronger penalties are rarely imposed and are
often too low to dissuade behavior. Moreover, Lacey Act penalties are
tied to the market value of the species that were imported, not the
potential harm to an ecosystem. For instance, a violator could be fined
based on the value of his shipment of fish (which might be small, but
still large enough to establish a population) rather than the impact
the fish would have on the environment. The committee is urged to
consider improving the law enforcement provisions to ensure that this
act serves as an effective deterrent and that penalties are truly
commensurate with the threat to the ecosystem.
The section establishing fees to recover the costs of the
risk assessment process is important, as it requires the recovery of
the costs of assessing the risk of species for the ``clean'' list.
However, the legislation does not specify that the fee should be
collected from those who propose an importation; the bill should be
specific as such. Moreover, the bill should be more explicit about not
requiring fees from citizens who petition for a species to be included
on the ``dirty'' list. Such citizens are petitioning for the public
good and, therefore, should not be dissuaded from asking for a species
to be evaluated.
The legislation does not include enforcement as a
recoverable cost under the fee collection system and, therefore, the
commission assumes that the service would have to find enforcement
funds from within its regular budget, or request funds from Congress.
We have learned from the implementation of the Lacey Act that even a
strong, well-intentioned law is not implemented optimally if
enforcement is not funded adequately. While it would be overly
optimistic to expect every shipment of live organisms to be inspected,
additional training and enforcement will be necessary to implement this
legislation. More law enforcement officials will be required to be
present at points of entry, law enforcement officials will require
training to identify different types of species, and fines will have to
be sufficient to deter lawbreakers. The committee should consider
adding a specific ``authorization of appropriations'' for
implementation or to specify that the fees should be sufficient to
cover enforcement, as well as the risk assessment process.
ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife certainly does not have to start from
square-one when it comes to considering processes for assessing the
risk of live organisms. Several models for risk assessment and
management are in various stages of development. Such screening tools,
though primarily developed for state use, would certainly support and
complement the provisions of this legislation.
That said, implementation will be a significant undertaking, and
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission remains concerned that the service
will not have adequate resources to do the job. The legislation calls
upon the service to assess the risk of all organisms proposed for
importation. It is expected that the initial list for review could be
in the hundreds, if not thousands, of species. The legislation
establishes a process to collect fees, which the commission supports,
and urges the service, when this legislation is passed, to not let the
potential cost of the undertaking deter the establishment of a robust,
transparent risk assessment process.
The commission believes it is worth considering a recommendation by
the Ecological Society of America that risk assessment processes could
be undertaken by ``independent organizations that are authorized to
certify that species for sale are not likely to be invasive'' (Lodge et
al. 2006, p. 2042). While the intent of this recommendation might have
been to encourage industry organizations (e.g., importers) to
proactively and voluntarily assess the risk of organisms, this
recommendation could also be used to add additional expertise and
capacity in implementing the large task of screening organisms.
COORDINATION WITH CANADA
Although this legislation is limited to importations into the
United States, other countries--primarily Canada and Mexico--will play
a critical role in protecting connected ecosystems. Indeed, just as a
national policy is needed because organisms spread from state to state,
an international approach is needed to keep harmful organisms from
migrating among contiguous countries.
Like the current situation in the United States, federal statutory
authority does not exist in Canada which targets invasive species
directly or explicitly. However, also like the United States, the
importation of certain species is prohibited into Canada for health or
disease reasons. Legislation, Bill C-32, is pending before the Canadian
House of Commons that would grant the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
additional authority to manage invasive species. The bill also
authorizes the Governor in Council ``to make regulations for the
conservation or protection of fish or fish habitat, including
regulations for controlling aquatic invasive species, which in turn
include regulations respecting the export of members of such species,
their import, and their transport.'' While this legislation does not
explicitly establish a risk assessment process, it does call for
imports to be managed. The pending legislation in Canada, thus, is in
the same spirit as the Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act and
it is the commission's expectation that the legislation in both
countries, together, will inspire a coordinated approach.
Moreover, the Mississippi Panel on Invasive Species has developed a
risk assessment/risk management process that includes a risk assessment
tool for use by U.S. states. This tool could be useful nationally and,
as was discussed during a recent meeting of the Trilateral Committee
for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management (comprising
officials from Canada, Mexico, and the United States), North America-
wide. The hope is to develop one day a standardized protocol for risk
assessment that could be used by all North American jurisdictions.
CONCLUSION
The Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act is sound
legislation and, when implemented, will do much to protect the
ecosystems of the United States. The legislation is well-conceived, is
designed to close a major gap in invasive species control policy, and
is generally consistent with the recommendations of the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration. The commission appreciates its introduction and
urges its enactment. Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to
offer my thoughts about your bill.q
REFERENCES
Alexander, Ann. 2004. Proposed solutions and legal tools to address
regulatory gaps relating to commerce in exotic live fish
affecting the Great Lakes ecosystem. In Report to the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission (phases I and II). Chicago:
Environmental Law and Policy Center.
Fowler, Andrea J., David M. Lodge, and Jennifer F. Hsia. 2007. Failure
of the Lacey Act to protect U.S. ecosystems against animal
invasions. Front Ecol Environ 5 (7):353-359.
Glassner-Shwayder, Katherine. 2007. Testimony presented by Katherine
Glassner-Shwayder, Great Lakes Commission, September 27, 2007.
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans, Committee on
Natural Resources.
IAGLR. 2008. Research and Management Priorities for Aquatic Invasive
Species in the Great Lakes, at http://iaglr.org/scipolicy/ais/
background.php: International Association for Great Lakes
Research. Accessed June 20, 2008.
Livengood, E.J., and F.A. Chapman. 2007. The ornamental fish trade: An
introduction with perspectives for responsible aquarium fish
ownership: University of Florida IFAS Extension.
Lodge, David M. 2007. Testimony by David M. Lodge, University of Notre
Dame, September 27, 2007. Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife,
and Oceans, Committee on Natural Resources.
Lodge, David M., Susan Williams, Hugh J. MacIsaac, Keith R. Hayes,
Brian Leung, Sarah Reichard, Richard N. Mack, Peter B. Moyle,
Maggie Smith, David A. Andow, James T. Carlton, and Anthony
McMichael. 2006. Biological invasions: Recommendations for U.S.
policy and management. Ecological Applications 16 (6):2035-
2054.
Mills, Edward L., Joseph H. Leach, James Carlton, and Carol Secor.
1993. Exotic species in the Great Lakes: A history of biotic
crises and anthropogenic introductions. Journal of Great Lakes
Research 19 (1):1-54.
Padilla, Dianna, and Susan Williams. 2004. Beyond ballast water:
Aquarium and ornamental trades as sources of invasive species
in aquatic ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
2 (3):131-138.
Ricciardi, Anthony. 2001. Facilitative interactions among aquatic
invaders: Is an 'invasional meltdown' occurring in the Great
Lakes? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science
58:2513-2525.
Sturtevant, Rochelle, David F. Reid, Anthony Ricciardi, Rebekah Kipp,
and Pam Fuller. 2008. Great Lakes aquatic nonindigenous species
list, online at http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/ncrais/
great_lakes_list.html: National Center for Research on Aquatic
Invasive Species, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration,
accessed June 23, 2008
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Dr. Gaden, for your
careful consideration of this legislation, especially as
related to the Great Lakes.
Next, I would like to invite Mr. Horne to present his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE HORNE, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE RESOURCES, SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Mr. Horne. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I am the
Deputy Executive Director of the South Florida Water Management
District, Operations and Maintenance Division. Thank you for
inviting me to speak.
The South Florida Water Management District manages one-
and-a-quarter-million acres of land for various ecosystem
benefits. We have 2,000 miles of canals and associated levees.
We manage for flood control, water supply, and environmental
enhancement.
In a time when we are concerned with national security and
have strengthened our nation's laws to deal with outside
threats to our country, we find ourselves in Florida being
quickly overrun with outside threats which have very little
regulation.
You may ask what that is. Well, it is the spread or escape
of released exotic animals. Research has proven that a five
percent reduction of a species changes the ecosystem. In
Florida, we are currently dealing with 30 percent of our
wildlife that is exotic.
Our canal systems and levees have become safe conduits, or
highways, if you will, for their range extensions. The
environmental threat that we are facing is they change the food
web. The predator-prey relationship is changed, and, indeed,
our predators have become the prey. They bring parasites and
diseases.
We have infrastructure concerns. We have sailfin catfish
digging on the inside of reservoirs, digging burrows, and
iguanas on the outside digging, which can cause the failure of
those levees.
We have had workforce impacts. We have had python inside
our pump stations, and, indeed, chased one of our employees
back to a vehicle when they were doing water sampling.
There is damage to agriculture, and I think this is
probably one of the worst things. They are consuming our
endangered and threatened species. We know, and can confirm,
they are eating wood rats, wood storks, burrowing owls, and
gopher tortoises, as well as many other species that are out
there.
In the fishing industry, there are areas where guides are
only taking people out to catch exotic fish because that is all
that exists in that particular area.
But our biggest threat of all is the python. In the past
four months, the South Florida Water Management District, in
the Everglades National Park, has removed 32 pythons in a five-
mile stretch in the heart of the Everglades, for a total of
about 826 pounds of body mass.
Professor Stephen Secor of the University of Alabama
determined in a lab that for every 2.2 pounds of body weight in
the python, it takes 6.6 pounds of prey to sustain that. This
suggests that the pythons removed in that five-mile area have
consumed 1.4 tons, one and a quarter tons, of native mammals,
birds, and reptiles.
The state and the Federal government are trying to protect
those and restore the Everglades, but it is going to be an
issue for us, particularly since one of our indicators for
restoration is bird counts, and if they get into a rookery,
they are going to stay there until they eat all of the birds.
What is sobering is those snakes were about three to seven
years old. They live to be 25 years old. So you can only
imagine how many. The climatological map shows that these
creatures can live across the entire southern tier of the U.S.
and almost as far north as Washington, D.C., and there are
probably already subpopulations that exist in other areas where
they have been released.
In closing, we, the South Florida Water Management
District, encourage the passage of this legislation. We
currently spend $25 million for the control of exotic plants,
and we have no budget for exotic animals. These animals are not
essential to our survival, yet they impact and overwhelm our
nature ecosystem and eliminate species that are totally unique
to South Florida. This is to say nothing of the countless
migratory birds that winter in our area and pass through during
the migration, as well as many socioeconomic impacts to sport
fishing, to tourism, to agriculture.
We view this as the first real control step to ensure our
precious natural resources are not destroyed, and thank you for
inviting me to be here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horne follows:]
Statement of George Horne, Deputy Executive Director,
Operations and Maintenance, South Florida Water Management District
Madam Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before
this Committee on a matter of great importance to the South Florida
Water Management District, specifically H.R. 6311, ``the Non-Native
Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act.'' I am George Horne, Deputy Executive
Director of Operations and Maintenance for the South Florida Water
Management District. Our regional agency maintains 2,000 miles of flood
protection and water management canals in South Florida's 16 counties
and is actively engaged in many initiatives to protect and restore the
South Florida ecosystem, which includes Lake Okeechobee, the second
largest lake in the southeastern U.S. and America's Everglades. We have
a long history of successful invasive plant management and experience,
but only recently have we had to commit more and more resources to the
emerging populations of non-native animals appearing across our
landscape. If effective preventative programs were in place to limit
introductions of non-native animals, such as the legislation now under
consideration, these much-needed taxpayer-funded resources could be re-
directed to other important resource management efforts. Today,
however, the negative impacts from the unlimited importation of new
pest animals require active responses on our part. Effective prevention
of additional introductions, as proposed in this bill, is the only path
to prevent these costs from continually increasing.
While Florida, California and Hawaii are currently among the states
most impacted by introduced invasive species, every state is affected.
Globally, exotic invasive species, including pest animals, weeds and
pathogenic diseases are a major cause of global biodiversity decline.
In particular, non-native animals compete for food and habitat, upset
existing predator/prey relationship, degrade environmental quality,
spread diseases and, in our case, may threaten the integrity of flood
protection levees and canal banks, and electrical power delivery.
Nationally, more than 50,000 species of introduced plants, animals and
microbes cause more than $120 billion in damages and control costs each
year (Pimentel 2005). Already, 192 non-native animal species are
established in Florida, calling for the development of methods to
forecast and respond to the potential economic loss, environmental
damage and social stress caused by invasives whether new introductions
or long-established organisms. Collaborative management, education,
training and broadening public awareness along with baseline population
analyses may provide a foundation for building effective control
strategies and tools. Several states, including California, Hawaii and
Idaho are currently devising non-native animal invasion prevention
programs and/or lists. The federal initiatives included in the bill
could serve to unify and standardize these efforts and provide a
critical framework to evaluate current and potential problems.
Specific Support for H.R. 6311 ``The Non-Native Wildlife Invasion
Prevention Act''
The South Florida Water Management District supports the underlying
premise of the draft language. Establishing compulsory risk assessments
and a ``clean list'' of approved species represents a needed and
important step for regulating the flow of potentially harmful non-
native wildlife into the United States. Our specific comments on the
draft bill include:
Inclusion of a ``gray list'' of provisionally-approved
species. Such a list could limit trade in species for which inadequate
information exists to call for their complete prohibition. The animals
to watch list could be used to assess their full importation risks.
Requirements could mandate that these animals be imported and kept only
under special containment. This action would allow fair commerce while
not allowing unlimited importation of a potentially harmful species.
The Non-Native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Fund, as
proposed, is critical to the success of this initiative.
The emergency rule provision, giving authority to
temporarily place a species on the unapproved list, is another vital
component of the draft legislation. This would prevent the
establishment of potentially harmful animals while scientific and
official processes proceed.
The draft language correctly protects existing pets from
being confiscated if that species is later prohibited from importation.
This ``grandfathering'' clause should ease concerns of pet owners who
legally purchased exotic animals.
Current Measures
In 2005, Florida's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
created an invasive animals management section. One of their key
recommendations led to a new Florida rule limiting commerce in
``reptiles of concern'' including the world's five largest non-venomous
snakes and the carnivorous Nile monitor. These animals were selected as
most threatening because of their large size and extreme predatory
natures. Now in force in Florida Administrative Code, the rule requires
$100 annual possession permits and they must be identified via
implanted microchip. Prior to this action, however, these species were
already present in Florida's pet commerce and, to varying degrees, have
been reported in Florida's wilds. In fact, Burmese pythons are now
thoroughly established in South Florida's natural areas and already
number from several thousands to more than 100,000. Uncertainty remains
regarding their actual population and a comprehensive assessment of
their numbers across the region would significantly help eradication.
Currently, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's
exotic animals section is engaged in serious management efforts against
species present only in isolated areas and in small populations.
Broader management efforts would benefit from federal engagement.
Introduction Pathways--Florida's Pets on the Loose
In Florida, the introduction of invasive pest animals has primarily
been through the pet trade. Other pathways of introduction include
overseas transport of ballast water which has introduced zebra and
quagga mussels to North America. These Asian mussels imperil our
aquatic ecosystems and clog commercial and public utility intakes and
processes. Accidentally imported within cargo pallet wood, the Asian
longhorn beetles now threatens North American hardwood trees. But, to
date, Florida's most threatening vertebrate pests have come to us via
the pet trade.
Whether accidentally or intentionally released, when an animal
succeeds in establishing a new population in South Florida the impacts
may be broad and devastating or they may barely be detected. Better
predictive methods would sufficiently gauge the risk posed by specific
animals before they are regularly imported and bred as pets. Screening
and risk assessment methods are imperfect, but must be developed.
Several nations, including Australia and New Zealand, already have
implemented pre-import screening and risk analysis systems that
proscribe import of potentially harmful animals. Further, new economics
research indicates that proactive screening measures can be
economically beneficial in the long run for nations that implement
them. These programs may provide valuable guidelines and lesson learned
in the control of exotic animals.
Building upon the successes of other nations, this legislation and
related funding would enable us to better regulate imports and
determine the appropriate levels of limitations. Practices can be
developed without tremendous adverse impacts on the pet industry and
yield savings to taxpayers and decreased threats to the environment.
Public Education
Public education programs can be creative, such as the nationally-
branded HabitattitudeTM effort led by the Aquatic Nuisance
Species Task Force. This program advises the public at pet shops never
to release exotic aquatic fish and plants into any U.S. waters. Yet,
releases continue regularly as evidenced by frequent appearances of new
species in U.S. waters.
Sailfin catfish from South America appeared only within the past
decade in Lake Okeechobee. Commonly sold as ``plecostomus'' as a fish
tank ``vacuum cleaner,'' these fish dig deep burrows in sediments and
potentially threaten the integrity of canal banks and flood protection
levees. They are also overtaking areas of rocky lake bottom, depriving
native fish of their preferred spawning sites. The ultimate impacts of
the establishment of this species in South Florida are still unknown,
but many thousands of the fish already inhabit our lakes and canals,
disrupting commercial fishing and displacing natives.
The actions specified in this bill would strongly influence the
public to recognize the risk inherent in releasing exotic pets into our
natural areas and better support the effectiveness of programs such as
HabitattitudeTM.
Public Health Concerns
Invasive vertebrate pests may also harbor other threatening
organisms such as parasites and disease. The three-pound African pouch
rat has become established on Grassy Key in the Florida Keys and serves
as a vector for African monkey pox virus. The first human infections
from this virus were reported in Africa in the 1970s, arising from
contact with monkeys and rodents. In the U.S., this virus was first
reported infecting humans in 2003 and was traced to contact with pet
African pouch rats. Fortunately, monkey pox is rarely a serious disease
for humans with symptoms similar to mild chicken pox or smallpox. But,
this disease spread to our shores directly as a result of importation
of the African pouch rat as pets. What other species will be imported
carrying currently unknown diseases or parasites?
Innovations Needed
There may be creative solutions that enable trade in some otherwise
invasive species. For instance, Asian grass carp are legal for use in
aquatic weed control in Florida only when the fish are certified as
triply-chromosomed, sterile varieties created by treatments of the
eggs. Research is needed to identify how other species could be
rendered unable to establish wild populations. Tropical species could
be legal for sale only outside their climate tolerance range, only
males of a species may be legal for sale, or sterile hybrids may be
developed. It is simply too irresponsible and too dangerous to keep
trading in pest organisms capable of unlimited spread when, with
appropriate research, credible ways may be found to allow trade in some
of these species.
Management Case History: Brown Tree Snake
The Australian brown tree snake made its way to the U.S. territory
of Guam in the late 1940s, most likely as stowaway in airplane cargo.
This relatively small, nocturnal snake quickly spread and has
devastated the island's native bird, lizard and flying fox populations,
resulting in numerous extirpations of species. Also, brown tree snakes
routinely climb across power lines leading to outages as the lines
short circuit. There is promise for management of brown tree snakes,
but only after decades of environmental and economic losses.
Development of management methods has taken decades as the biology and
susceptibilities of this snake were researched. One current management
method involves baiting the snakes with mice treated with toxic doses
of acetaminophen, although serious challenges remain such as how to
place such baits in vast areas of isolated forest.
Select Invasive Species in South Florida
South American Apple Snails
Several species of South American apple snail are established in
South Florida waters. The largest of these is the island apple snail
reaching tennis ball size and producing many times more eggs than the
smaller, native Florida apple snail. In Asia, these voracious mollusks
are known to strip rice fields and wetlands of vegetation. They are
displacing our native Florida apple snail with sheer overwhelming
numbers and reported predation upon the native snail. Apple snails are
the sole food of the Federally-endangered Everglade snail kite. Lake
Tohopekaliga, an 18,000-acre located in Central Florida, now harbors
thousands of island apple snails. During recent years of drought, this
lake has been a critical refuge for snail kites. Because the exotic
snails are larger, heavier and stronger than the native snail young
snail kites have difficulty lifting and opening them to extract their
meat. As a result, many young kites are not surviving to maturity
there. Also, Lake Munson in the Florida panhandle was historically
heavily vegetated, yet today has no vegetation due to the snail's
arrival and proliferation. Rice crops in South Florida and the vast
wetlands of the Everglades may become fodder to this rapidly spreading,
readily reproducing pest snail.
Monk Parakeets
The South American monk parakeet is firmly established in South
Florida, perhaps numbering as many as 150,000. To date, their numbers
have doubled roughly every five years. Stable North American
populations of the bird may also be found from Connecticut to Colorado.
They breed rapidly and extensively damage grain, fruit and citrus crops
in their native Argentina. As escaped pets in South Florida, they
readily establish breeding colonies and build large colonial nests,
often choosing power poles and niches in power substations and
transformers. The accumulated nest materials damage power transmission
hardware with accumulated humidity and serve as sources of ignition.
Significant crop damages seem inevitable, but have not yet been
documented in Florida. They are outlawed in many states, yet thousands
are still sold annually in others. Enacting this bill will provide a
standardized, nationwide mechanism for limiting further incursions of
this species.
Burmese Python
Upfront prevention of the introduction of new pests will not only
prevent damages to natural areas but would also preclude economic loss
stemming from an injurious species' gaining economic value in the pet
trade only to be regulated later. For instance, the Burmese python is a
top predator that is known to prey upon more than twenty native Florida
species. Notable among these are the federally-listed Key Largo wood
rat, white tailed deer, American alligator, bobcat and numerous wading
birds common to the Everglades. Our agency is deeply committed to
preserving and restoring South Florida's environmental health and,
unfortunately, the Everglades ecosystem is now home to these exotic
snakes. Attempts to manage Burmese pythons divert taxpayers' funds from
these other urgent primary restoration and protection tasks. Yet,
failure to do so will leave this aggressive animal as a serious
impediment to our Everglades restoration progress. This python also
threatens agricultural interests as small livestock are also likely
prey. In 2008, USGS published a climate tolerance model predicting that
this snake will likely survive throughout most Southeastern states and
westward across the southern reaches of the country to the Pacific.
Adverse experience already gained in Florida strongly indicates the
need to regulate the importation and sale of this snake. The
significant value of current sales of this snake would be affected if
commerce in the species is regulated. Such economic loss could have
been avoided if the Burmese python had earlier been identified as a
serious potential pest and trade had focused on less threatening
snakes.
Green Iguana
Central American green iguanas already number in the hundreds of
thousands in South Florida. They are herbivores and prefer riparian
sites where they dig extensive burrows on slopes such as highway
embankments, canal banks and flood protection levees. The resulting
erosion threatens canals and levees critical for flood control and
water management. Their burgeoning numbers in South Florida recently
spurred Palm Beach County commissioners to petition the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission to add them to the State list of
regulated ``Reptiles of Concern.'' They are sold for as little as $5 in
area pet stores.
Spiny-Tailed Iguana
South American spiny-tailed iguanas are also established in Florida
and are known to occupy the burrows of the federally-threatened gopher
tortoise. Further, the USDA Wildlife Services has confirmed that this
lizard preys on juvenile gopher tortoises. This is another aggressive
predator threatening South Florida's environmental preservation and
restoration goals.
Nile Monitor
The African Nile monitor is now established in a 20-square-mile
area around Cape Coral, Florida. This lizard grows to seven feet and is
highly aquatic, climbs well and runs very quickly. It consumes a large
variety of prey including the State-protected burrowing owl. Stomach
content analyses also indicate that the Nile monitor is a voracious egg
eater, raising serious alarm for many of Florida's threatened native
animals that are egg-bearing and/or occupy burrows. Wildlife biologists
consider the Nile monitor to be a serious threat to gopher tortoises,
burrowing owls, Florida gopher frogs and other ground nesting species.
According to the USFWS Law Enforcement Management Information System
(LEMIS), there were more than 60,000 Nile monitors imported through
Florida's ports between 2000 and 2004.
Conclusion
While the South Florida Water Management District and other
agencies try to contain the documented damage and growing threat of
existing invasive animals in Florida, the flow of potentially harmful
exotic animals into the state continues. For example, nearly 1,000
venomous puff adders were imported through Florida's ports between 2000
and 2005 (LEMIS data). This African viper is common in its native range
and is considered to be one of Africa's most dangerous snakes. The
Oriental water dragon is another popular imported species with a
potential for establishment in south Florida. Between 2000 and 2005,
more than 210,000 Oriental water dragons were imported through Florida
ports (LEMIS data). More effective tools are needed to accurately
predict if either of these reptile species will become established in
Florida. Our state appears to offer an agreeable climate for both
species and their broad feeding preferences suggest they are likely to
adapt readily to our subtropical setting. Rather than wait for the next
Burmese python or zebra mussel to become established in the United
States, a proactive approach such as the proposed legislation being
discussed today is urgently needed to protect our environment, economy
and quality of life--not just in Florida but throughout the nation.
Citations
Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the
environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive
species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52:273-288.
Rodda, G. H., et al. 2007. Climate matching as a tool for predicting
potential North American spread of brown treesnakes. In: Proc.
of managing vertebrate invasive species symposium. 7-9 august
2007, Ft. Collins, CO. USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, Ft.
Collins, CO.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Horne, especially
for the attachment, which we have shared up here with the
Members of the Committee, which shows the types of invasive
species you have to manage in South Florida.
Mr. Meyers, it is now your turn to testify, so please
begin.
STATEMENT OF MARSHALL MEYERS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND
GENERAL COUNSEL, PET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL
Mr. Meyers. Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate being invited to testify, though I feel like I am
the lone gladiator in a lion's den, being the only industry
member here today.
The pet industry, like other industries, is dependent on
the importation of nonnative species. The invasive species
issue is not new to our industry. Our involvement dates back to
the early seventies, when the Service desired to ban all
nonnatives until proven innocent. This bill could cause the
same result. It places an untenable burden on the trade, as
well as the Service, to scientifically prove the unprovable, a
negative: the absence of harm.
Absent a crystal ball, it is impossible to prove
conclusively that no harm has ever occurred, nor will ever
occur, anywhere in the United States.
Moreover, the Service has never been provided the
resources, human or financial, to adequately implement existing
programs. Until that is accomplished, this approach here will
only cripple an already faltering program.
To provide some semblance of scale, thousands of nonnative
species, involving hundreds and hundreds of millions of
specimens, have been in the pet trade for decades. The
overwhelming majority have never established feral populations.
Even fewer have been demonstrated to have caused harm.
If 6311 is enacted, the Service would face a managerial
nightmare. Assuming, arguendo, that the science was available
to enable the risk-assessment process outlined in the bill, the
Service would not be physically capable to complete a
sufficient number of species assessments within the mandated
time limits and permit industry to continue operating, or even
put the oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, in the Gulf, or in Puget
Sound.
Currently, it takes an average of four years to list a
species as injurious, yet the Service is to establish multiple
lists, possibly for thousands of species, in a scientifically
credible and justifiable manner, within a 24-to-37-month period
if trade is not to be crippled.
We urge the Committee to take into consideration the
recommendations in the Invasive Species Management Plan
incorporating the ANSTF concepts submitted to Congress in 1994.
A phased-in screening approach, we supported then and support
today, consisting of Phase 1, Federal agencies working with
stakeholders to screen species proposed for first-time imports;
and, Phase 2, the process would broaden to include systematic
screening of species in trade without disrupting the trade.
This approach was proposed in several bills amending the
National Aquatic Invasive Species Act. It called for
establishing a catalog of organisms in trade. Species not in
the catalog would be first-time introductions. Species in the
catalog could still be subject to an assessment while trade
continued. It was a clear and easy way to not disrupt trade
while a screening went on.
We also urge the Committee to clearly incorporate risk
analysis into the way forward. While that may have been what
was intended in 6311, it is clearly absent.
Risk assessment is only one part of the process. Equally
important is requiring the identification of measures that can
be implemented to reduce or manage these risks, risk
management, taking into account socioeconomic and cultural
considerations. That means also looking at benefits, as well as
harm, and should not be excluded from the analysis. We urge you
to make that part of any congressionally mandated process.
I will briefly touch on several sections in the bill that
cause some concerns.
Section 3 mandates specific listing factors but offers no
direction on how those factors must be evaluated. There is a
reasonable inference, however, that a positive finding of one
or more of those factors is sufficient to prohibit import. Far
greater statutory clarity is required. Would most nonnatives be
banned if shown there is a likelihood that ``environmental
conditions suitable for the establishment or spread exist
anywhere in the United States''?
Marine organisms would be banned in Kansas because they
might become established in Hawaiian waters. A parakeet would
be banned in Minnesota because it can survive in South Florida.
Section 4[c] provides for adding species to the list in a
reasonable time period. Absent inserting a prescribed timeframe
for action, ``reasonable'' means it simply will not happen.
Equally troublesome are the prescribed deadlines to
implement the process. We think they are simply unrealistic.
History has demonstrated time and again that agencies seldom
comply with such congressionally mandated timeframes.
The prohibition and penalties section needs to be revisited
carefully. Clarity is required since violators face felony
sanctions.
The fee-based risk assessment system is fraught with
problems which will result in rank discrimination, and small
business just cannot compete. It is an expensive undertaking.
A clear definition of ``wildlife'' is essential in Section
11. Some animals, icons of the American family, such as cats,
are technically nonnative species.
So, in conclusion, the debate here is not whether invasives
is a valid issue. We all agree that invasives are a very valid
concern. The issue on the table is whether this bill provides
an effective way forward. We need to avoid falling into a
reactionary crisis mentality that undermines the progress made
to date, as well as our ability to take strategic steps
forward. Other industries need to be at this table. This is not
simply a pet industry issue.
We look forward to working with your Subcommittee in
crafting legislation that will serve the public and affected
industries alike in concert with the National Invasive Species
Management Plan and Executive Orders calling for that plan.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meyers follows:]
Statement of Marshall Meyers, Executive Vice President and
General Counsel, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
Madam Chair and members of the Committee, I am Marshall Meyers,
Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Pet Industry Joint
Advisory Council (PIJAC). Thank you for inviting me to submit comments
on the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 6311).
PIJAC is a non-profit service-oriented organization comprised of
members who care about pets and the pet industry. As a national trade
association, PIJAC represents all segments of the pet industry:
companion animal importers/exporters/breeders, wholesale distributors,
product manufacturers, retail outlets, and affiliated hobby clubs,
aquarium societies, and other industry trade associations. Our members
serve the 63% of the U.S. households that care for and maintain pets of
all types, sizes and descriptions: the majority of these pets fall
within the purview of the regulatory system contemplated in H.R. 6311.
PIJAC's explicit mission is to:
``Promote responsible pet ownership and animal welfare, foster
environmental stewardship, and ensure the availability of
pets.''
The pet industry, like several other industries, is dependent on
the importation of non-native species, most of which are farm raised.
Pet owners across the U.S. possess a wide variety of non-native species
in significant numbers. This is not a new phenomenon. For generations,
people have maintained a wide variety of non-native mammals, birds,
reptiles, amphibians, and fish as companion animals. Unlike some
industries dealing in nonnative species, it is not the intent of the
pet industry or the majority of pet owners to place or release these
animals into the natural environment.
Background
PIJAC is well aware of the problems posed by invasive species. Our
involvement with this issue dates back to the early 1970s when the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a proposed list of ``Low
Risk'' wildlife. Like H.R. 6311, that proposal would have banned all
wildlife not otherwise appearing on the clean list as being
``injurious'' (invasive) under the Lacey Act. We challenged that
approach because (1) it failed to provide science-based support for how
it classified ``low'' versus ``high'' risk species, and (2) it was
premised upon broad-based conclusions that all nonnative species were
per se injurious until proven innocent. We successfully challenged the
proposed regulatory action by making government officials and
stakeholders aware of the fact that it placed an untenable burden on
the trade to ``scientifically prove'' a negative--i.e. the absence of
harm.
For many years, PIJAC has been providing leadership on invasive
species issues, serving as an advisor to and collaborator with numerous
government agencies. The PIJAC staff serves on various Aquatic Nuisance
Species Task Force (ANSTF) committees and regional panels, the Invasive
Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) and a number of State invasive
species advisory committees or working groups. Additionally, PIJAC
leads several initiatives and proactive campaigns designed to minimize
the introduction and impact of invasive species. These campaigns
reflect a strong collaborative effort between industry, the government,
and other stakeholders.
PIJAC believes that effective measures should be in place to reduce
the risk of the adverse impacts of invasive species. We further believe
that the appropriate directives for risk management are contained in
the Lacey Act, the National Invasive Species Management Plan (per
Executive Order 13112), and several ANSTF initiatives, among others. As
we have testified previously, the requisite human and financial
resources have yet to be made available to the relevant federal
agencies so that they can fully and effectively implement and enforce
existing policies and programs. Until the government is willing to
invest in implementation and enforcement of the regulatory measures it
has already enacted, additional regulations will serve only to cripple
an already faltering system.
With regard to H.R. 6311, first and foremost I note that it reckons
back to a failed, technically flawed approach of the early 1970s. As
previously mentioned, it imposes on persons interested in importing or
possessing a species for commercial or non-commercial purposes the task
of having to scientifically prove a negative--that the species will not
cause harm or be likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm
to human and animal species' health. Simply on the grounds of
``Statistics 101'' this is unworkable. Absent a crystal ball, it is
impossible to prove conclusively that no harm has ever nor will ever
occur at any time, anywhere in the United States.
Thousands of non-native species have been in the pet trade for
decades, yet the overwhelming majority of them have never established
feral populations and even fewer have been demonstrated to have caused
harm to the environment, economy, or human health. In rare instances
where former pets have become invasive, the impacts have generally been
to localized areas in urban and suburban contexts which are already
heavily impacted by habitat loss and degradation.
It is, thus, both unnecessary and unrealistic to conduct a risk
assessment for every non-native species in the pet trade (e.g., more
than 1600 freshwater fish), let alone those brought in by other
industries as well.
While we recognize that the Lacey Act process is inefficient in
many ways, it is clear to us that this is largely due to the lack of
capacity both in terms of staffing and funding. Because H.R. 6311
mandates a far more comprehensive process than currently exists under
the Lacey Act, it is set up for failure. If enacted as drafted, H.R.
6311 would force the Fish and Wildlife Service into a managerial
nightmare. It would have to:
1. conduct risk assessments on more than 10,000 species currently
in trade, many of which are not even scientifically identified to the
species level let alone extensively studied, and complete those
assessments in time to meet the statutory deadlines set forth in
Sections 3 and 4; or, upon failure to do so,
2. shut down a number of industries dependent upon nonnative
species--such as the pet industry, food aquaculture, and sports
fishing.
Even if there was ample scientific information available to enable
the risk assessment process, it is clear that the USFWS would not be
physically able to complete a sufficient number of species assessments
given its extremely limited staff and financial resources. It is also
readily apparent that industries cannot exist on a handful of imported
species for the short or long-term.
H.R. 6311 is an overly simplistic approach to a very complex
problem which involves much more than running a series of risk
assessments in order to publish a list of approved species. The socio-
economic, as well as biological, issues impact hundreds of millions of
Americans and a more reasoned approach is needed to address the
invasive species conundrum.
I, therefore, urge the Committee to take into careful consideration
the findings and recommendations of the National Invasive Species
Management Plan, as well as initiatives of the Aquatic Nuisance Species
Task Force and numerous state agencies that are dealing with this
issue. Initiatives under these programs already reflect stakeholder-
inclusive reviews on and recommendations to address the import of live
organisms in the invasive species context.
For well over a decade, government and industry have been working
collaboratively to enhance prevention, improve early detection and
rapid response, develop screening mechanisms applicable to different
animal types, identify pathways and pathway related problems, and
increase public awareness on the importance of not introducing
nonnative species into the environment. A major component of that
process is recognizing that screening or risk analysis must be
carefully constructed to ensure that the analysis is science-based,
credible, transparent, involves stakeholders, and evaluates and
promotes viable management policies. In our opinion, H.R. 6311 has the
potential to jeopardize and set back achievements of the past several
years.
For example, the 2001 National Invasive Species Management Plan
(Plan), was developed through a transparent, science-based,
stakeholder-inclusive process. It was intended to provide a
constructive way forward for Federal agencies and partners to minimize
the impact of invasive species in a manner that was timely, practical,
and cost-effective. Plan developers concluded that a phased-in
screening approach was the most effective way to reduce the risk of
import of potentially invasive species. In the first phase of the
process, relevant Federal agencies would work with stakeholders to
screen species proposed for first-time imports into the US. Three years
later, the second phase would broaden the approach for the systematic
screening of species already in trade. PIJAC encourages Members of
Congress to review the Plan, and meet with NISC Policy Liaisons and
original members of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) in
order to garner a better understanding of the process already agreed to
by Federal agencies and stakeholders, as well as the underlying basis
for the decisions made--such as the lack of scientific data, staff
capacity, and economic implications.
If Congress decides to ignore the Plan, then we urge that H.R. 6311
be redrafted to direct a risk analysis process rather than a risk
assessment. According to the definitions adopted under the Convention
on Biological Diversity (and supported by the US), ``risk analysis
refers to: (1) the assessment of the consequences of the introduction
and of the likelihood of establishment of an alien species using
science-based information (i.e., risk assessment), and (2) the
identification of measures that can be implemented to reduce or manage
these risks (i.e., risk management), taking into account socio-economic
and cultural considerations.''
As evidenced at several recent meetings dealing with screening
processes and other analytical approaches, it has become abundantly
clear that such a process is complex and that there is not agreement
within the scientific community or other interested parties on how to
deal with this complex problem. Screening is one part of the process;
risk management and evaluating socio-economic issues and other benefits
is equally important and challenging. We do not believe that this can
simply be resolved via legislation mandating criteria that needs to be
subject to scientific and legal scrutiny. That should be left to the
regulators.
Unless socio-economic and cultural considerations are adequately
accounted for in this process, numerous domesticated animals (e.g.,
domestic cats and livestock) are likely to qualify for the ``black
list'' as there is considerable scientific data to indicate that these
nonnative wildlife species (as currently defined by H.R. 6311) have
caused substantial economic harm when they become feral. Furthermore,
there are already management measures in place for some species that
would reduce the risk of invasiveness. For example, ferrets that are
spayed/neutered cannot establish viable populations. Finally, in the
current economic environment, Congress must carefully consider both the
financial costs and benefits of imported species. The loss of certain
high-income fish, for example, could result in the collapse of the
entire ornamental fish industry and have significant repercussions for
product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers throughout the
country.
Understanding the broad biological and socio-economic implications
of developing lists of approved and unapproved wildlife species,
countries such as Australia and New Zealand explicitly employ risk
analyses. Reference materials for their programs are readily available
on the Web.
The following comments address key sections of H.R. 6311.
Risk Assessment Process (Section 3)
PIJAC questions the advisability of the Congress mandating specific
criteria that the Secretary must factor into the Department's
assessment protocols. As evidenced by the work of the Invasive Species
Advisory Committee and the ANSTF. The Department's scientists need
flexibility to design analysis protocols depending on the taxa, the
purpose of introduction, and other relevant factors. A ``one-size-fits-
all'' set of factors will not enable an effective result.
For example, it is not technically feasible to identify some
species in trade--including some very high volume and income species--
to the ``species level'' (Section 3(b)(1)). Many armored catfish, a
staple of the aquaria trade, are only identified with ``L'' numbers;
they have not been scientifically described. Nor is it clear how the
prescribed process would deal with taxonomic name changes in cases in
which molecular studies indicate that the classifications should either
be ``split'' or ``grouped.'' If the scientific classification changes,
would the risk analysis have to be repeated for the affected species?
Furthermore, how would agency staff address the fact that some
countries (particularly developing, exporting countries) are using
different taxonomic names (often ``old'' versus ``new'') than others?
Section 3(b)(2) requires information on the ``geographic source of
the species and the conditions under which it was captured or bred.''
Is this section designed to identify the evolutionary origin of the
species, the geographic location of its initial export, or the last
country of export before entering the United States? What is the
relevance of analyzing the ``conditions under which it [the species]
was captured?'' Is this introducing an animal welfare element into the
risk analysis process?
Section 3(b)(3) incorporates terms such as ``established,''
``harm'' and ``spread'' without the benefit of definitions. Is the
USFWS free to adopt its own definitions? Does ``established'' mean a
self-sustaining reproducing population? Is an analysis as to benefit
versus harm part of the evaluation?
Sections 3(b)(4) through (10) incorporate the subjective, non-
scientific standard of ``likelihood'' for determining the probability
that a species will become established, spread, do harm, or be
accompanied by a ``pathogenic species, parasite species, or free living
species...'' Does ``likelihood'' connote some level of probability--a
specific statistical term--or is it merely a subjective conclusion that
something might establish, spread, cause harm or be accompanied with
parasites? The mere presence of parasites or other associated organisms
is not necessarily problematic. Furthermore, an extremist could argue
that any species has some probability of establishing somewhere in the
U.S. given the right ecological conditions and propagule pressure. If
that probability in scientific risk-based terms presents a negligible
risk, how is it assessed under the ``likelihood'' doctrine? What
methods would be used to determine or score ``likelihood?''
Section 3 sets forth specific factors that must be taken into
account in the USFWS's evaluation of risk but offers no direction as to
the manner in which such factors must be evaluated. A reasonable
inference, however, is that a positive finding of one or more of those
factors is sufficient to prohibit import. Far greater statutory clarity
is required. Is the USFWS compelled to list a species as prohibited in
any case in which some combination of these factors are determined in
the affirmative? Is the mere absence of biological data, because it
does not exist, sufficient to compel the USFWS to ban a species that
has been imported in the millions or farmed in this country for 30 to
50 years absent evidence of invasiveness?
Based on such a standard, common goldfish, many tropical fish, and
myriad common species of birds and reptiles would be banned from the
entire United States if it could be demonstrated that under Section
3(b)(4) there is a likelihood that ``environmental conditions suitable
for the establishment or spread...exist anywhere in the United
States.'' Marine organisms would be banned in Kansas because they might
become established in Hawaiian waters; a parakeet would be banned in
Minnesota because it could survive in south Florida. Absent inclusion
of some qualifying language, the factors become mandates and mandates
become prohibitions even though a likely adverse impact is never shown.
Transparency (Section 3(d))
Transparency is critical to the credibility of the process being
mandated by this bill. Stakeholder involvement at all stages of the
process is essential to attain the level of transparency recommended by
the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council. PIJAC
urges that language be inserted making it abundantly clear that there
is stakeholder involvement at all stages of the process. Furthermore,
language should direct that the persons making the management decisions
are not the same people conducting the risk assessment(s).
List of Approved Species (Section 4)
The concept of assessing first-time introductions surfaced during
the ANSTF ``Intentional Introductions Policy Review'' in the mid-1990s.
In a report to Congress in 1994, the ANSTF focused on two main
concerns:
1. ``the need to make ecologically credible decisions; and
2. the need to strike a balance between greater risk reduction and
accommodating current activities and economies that depend on the use
of nonindigenous species.''
The ANSTF went on to conclude that:
1. ``to the maximum extent possible, the decisions should be based
on ecosystem considerations; and
2. the recommendations should generally apply only to new
introductions.'' (emphasis added)
The ANSTF further recommended establishing a Federal permit system
for first-time imports coupled with a credible, science-based review
process, and called for improvements in implementing the Lacey Act to
include, inter alia, expediting the injurious species listing process,
fostering compliance through clearer listings, and initiating a review
system for species not listed. The ANSTF also made a series of
proactive recommendations, including adoption of good business
practices through codes of conduct promoting ``continued commercial
operations in a manner that is compatible with the conservation of
natural ecosystems'' such as education and public outreach programs
targeting invasive species issues.
The National Invasive Species Plan incorporated that concept
following lengthy deliberations among the Invasive Species Advisory
Committee (ISAC) and National Invasive Species Council (NISC). The
Plan, at page 32, specifically calls for
``...the development of a risk-based screening process for
intentionally introduced species in a series of steps or
phases. During the first phase a screening system for first-
time intentional introductions will be developed...The
screening system will then be modified...during the second
phase to deal with species already in the U.S.''
Several iterations of bills amending the National Aquatic Invasive
Species Act (NAISA) incorporated the establishment of a ``catalog'' of
organisms in trade. That was to be accomplished as a collaborative
effort involving the Fish and Wildlife Service and concerned
stakeholders. The language which subsequently appeared in at least five
bills in the House and the Senate was agreed to by a diverse group of
stakeholders including various nongovernmental environmental
organizations. Any species not appearing on that list would be subject
to a screening process as a first-time introduction. The screening
process would evaluate the ``probability of undesirable impacts.''
That legislation did not exempt species appearing in the catalog
from risk assessment and possible listing under the Lacey Act. Rather,
the catalog was to ensure that species that have been in trade with no
apparent ill effects would not suddenly be prohibited absent a science-
based risk analysis. This was recognized as the only reasonable and
feasible method of addressing thousands of species that have long been
imported into the United States and for which no adverse consequences
have been identified. Moreover, a number of species in trade have been
captive raised within the United States for decades with no
demonstrated detrimental impacts.
Section 4(c) provides a mechanism to add nonnative wildlife species
to the approved list and requires the Secretary to make a determination
``in a reasonable period of time'' in accordance with the Section 3(b)
factors. PIJAC urges the insertion of a specified time frame within
which the USFWS shall make such determinations, similar to time limits
imposed under other laws. If history is prologue, there is a high
likelihood that few new additions will be made to the list absent a
statutorily imposed deadline, and perhaps not even then.
When a list is published will there be any grace period for an
importer or person possessing listed species already in the United
States to revamp their operation(s) and ethically dispose of animals in
their possession or do they become violators of this Act, as well as
the Lacey Act, overnight? The perception, alone, that this would be the
case is likely to motivate frightened individuals to abandon animals.
In short, it could facilitate the introduction and establishment of
numerous non-native species.
Deadlines (Sections 3(e) and Section 4(a)(1)).
The prescribed timeframes to implement H.R. 6311 are unrealistic.
According to Section 3(e)(1), the proposed regulations and an initial
list of approved species must be published within two years of
enactment of HB 6311. The final regulations, the initial list of
approved species and a notice of the list of prohibited species must be
published, pursuant to Section 3(e)(2), no later than 30 days before
the date on which the Secretary begins assessing the species. The
assessment process must start within 37 months of H.R. 6311's enactment
(Section 3(e)(3). Yet Section 4(a)(1) mandates that the list of
approved species be finalized and published no later than 36 months
following enactment. How is this possible?
History has demonstrated that agencies are often unable to comply
with such mandated timeframes. Will the USFWS be provided adequate
appropriations to fund this initiative? How will the USFWS be able to
develop regulations, publish them in the Federal Register seeking
public comment, review and finalize the regulations, seek and obtain
OMB clearance and publish final rules and lists within such brief
timeframes? To date, the USFWS has required an average of four years to
accomplish such a process for a single species proposed for injurious
wildlife listing.
The NISC and ANSTF approaches referenced earlier alleviate the
USFWS' need to expend significant effort assessing species documented
as being in trade and allowed it to concentrate on first time
introductions as well as go back and selectively review and assess any
of the species in the catalog. The USFWS was not subjected to a series
of artificial time frames it could not meet. We recommend a return to
the previously agreed upon Catalog approach as a more workable
mechanism--a mechanism that is science-based, measurable, transparent
and implementable.
List of Unapproved Species (Section 5)
Section 5 calls for the Secretary to publish a list of nonnative
wildlife species prohibited or restricted from entering the United
States. The list would incorporate those species listed under the Lacey
Act as well as any other species added pursuant to this Act. Is this
intended to be an amendment to the Lacey Act?
Since violations of the proposed Act would also constitute a
violation of the criminal provisions of the Lacey Act, full and
complete lists of what is legal and illegal should be published by the
USFWS to ensure adequate notice of what constitutes a violation of law.
Due process calls for no less. To ensure proper notice and avoid
confusion, the approved and unapproved lists should contain every
species in the animal kingdom to ensure that the public is aware of
what is illegal as well as legal inasmuch as they are subject to a
strict liability criminal statute.
Prohibitions and Penalties (Section 3(f) and Section 6(3), (5) and
(6)).
Interestingly, a person already engaged in the captive propagation
or farming of a species in the United States that does make the
``approved list'' finds him or herself in the rather awkward position
of being subject to conflicting provisions of the law. According to
Section 3(f), the ``Act shall not interfere with the ability of such
people to possess an individual animals of a species that was imported
legally.'' Yet a close reading of the prohibitions in Section 6 raises
significant issues which will undoubtedly compel millions of frightened
people to kill or abandon their pets. Once a species appears on the
``unapproved list,'' the imaginary grandfather clause of Section 3
apparently evaporates because it would be illegal to breed, possess,
sell, barter any nonnative species appearing on the Section 4
prohibited list!
The prohibition section will significantly impact not only the pet
industry, but also food aquaculture, sport fisheries, the bait
industry, and the livestock industry. These sections need to be
revisited.
Fees (Section 8)
The establishment of a fee-based risk assessment system is fraught
with problems. Apart from trying to ascertain how the amount of the
fee(s) will be determined, this system will result in rank
discrimination whereby small business will no longer be able to
compete. It places the entire financial burden on larger companies
willing to assume the financial risk of going through a nondescript
assessment and listing process. This becomes a significant burden if
the importer imports hundreds or thousands of species for which there
is sketchy biological or scientific data, yet the species has been in
trade in extremely large numbers for many, many years absent adverse
impacts.
Unlike other areas of the economy where fees are assessed to seek
government approval of a patented or proprietary drug or chemical
product, importers of nonnative species would be funding an assessment
not only for themselves but for all of their competitors, and even
other industries that trade in the same species for other purposes. How
will the USFWS determine which importer is selected to bare the costs?
Risk assessments and risk analyses are expensive undertakings. Will the
fees be $10,000, $25,000, $50,000 or $100,000 or more per assessment
per organism? How will the figures be determined and consistently
applied?
Definitions (Section 11)
Failure to provide a clear definition of ``wildlife'' further adds
confusion to H.R. 6311. As crafted, ``nonnative wildlife species''
includes ``any species that is not a native species.'' The definition
goes on to specifically cover the entire animal kingdom including
insects, mollusks, crustaceans, arthropods, coelenterates, and all
other invertebrates.
By this definition, many species of animals that are longstanding
staples of the pet industry, food aquaculture, sports fishing, and
livestock would have to go through the process to ascertain if they
pose the ``likelihood'' of harming the environment or other factors set
forth in H.R. 6311. These would include cattle, cats, dogs and numerous
animals considered ``domesticated.'' A clear definition of ``wildlife''
is essential.
Conclusion
On behalf of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), thank
you for providing us an opportunity to share our thoughts and concerns
regarding H.R. 6311. Despite our reservations about H.R. 6311, we
remain committed to working with your Subcommittee to address this
important environmental issue.
We believe that we have raised a number of valid issues regarding
H.R. 6311 and its potential for shutting down several industries
dependent on nonnative species. Additionally, it could end up
encouraging rather than preventing the release of nonnative animals.
We respectfully suggest that the bill as currently crafted sets the
USFWS up for failure. Its whole approach is one that defies practical
implementation, and demands exorbitant resources. In short, it would
not visit upon the public the beneficial results to which it aspires.
The measure demands the nearly impossible task of conducting thousands
of scientifically valid risk assessments in a short time-frame, and
presumes that all species subject to these assessments shall be
prohibited pending a contrary finding, even though no evidence of
adverse impact exists. Unlike a risk analysis, it does not explicitly
account for socio-economic and cultural considerations. The bill
assigns such an impossible task to an agency woefully bereft of
resources for the job, and holds hostage several vital sectors of a
challenged economy.
We believe that there is a better way to achieve a superior result.
To that end, we recommend that a working group comprised of various
stakeholders be convened to offer recommendations on the most effective
method for moving the screening process forward, as called for in the
National Invasive Species Plan. A number of key industries need to be
at the table. This is not simply a pet industry issue. A number of
pathways have proven to be far more significant vectors of nonnative
species than pets.
We look forward to working with your Subcommittee in crafting more
realistic legislation that will serve the public and affected industry
alike in concert with the National Invasive Species Management Plan and
the Executive Orders calling for such a plan.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Meyers, for your
testimony, and, finally, our final witness, Mr. Riley. I invite
you to present your statement.
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE M. RILEY, DIVISION COORDINATOR, WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT DIVISION, ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
Mr. Riley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am here on behalf of
the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. It is a quasi-
governmental organization that brings together the state
wildlife agencies and wildlife authorities, as well as
territorial Canadian provinces, the government of Canada, and
the government of Mexico.
I would like to thank you and the Committee for your
leadership in bringing this legislation forward at this point.
The association is supportive of H.R. 6311, and we find the
bill to be well conceived and pretty well organized. We
especially applaud the inclusion of language in Section 3 that
requires consultation with the states and, in Section 10, which
recognizes the states' authority to exercise more stringent
regulations.
The bill, however, could be improved in a few specific
areas, and the association would very much like to work with
you and the Committee to address those areas. I will touch on
those very briefly.
We believe, in general, that the mechanism described in
Section 3 of the bill establishes a much-needed framework to
determine risk in advance of importation, including process
transparency and critical consultation with state authorities.
Section 3 of the act requires the Secretary of the Interior
to carefully consider the identity of organisms. This is a new
challenge. With the advance of science, we have not only new
tools but also new challenges in identifying organisms that are
arising and will arise in the future. These advances should be
considered. The act identifies things like viable eggs as items
that can be regulated. It does not, however, address other
gametes, such as milt or sperm, which is more readily preserved
for transportation, storage, and later use in the creation of
hybrids or like individuals.
Likewise, the act does not identify or address treatment of
hybrid wildlife, transgenetic animals, or genetically modified
organisms. All of these should be considered in some manner.
We believe that the considerations in Section 3, the
``consideration factors,'' will differ greatly from within the
contiguous United States to the island states and territories
and to Alaska, and, thus, such risk assessment may benefit from
regional consideration. The challenge is how to undertake that
with a national listing process.
We believe this highlights the importance of the
partnership and collaboration among the states and the
Executive Branch in preventing nonnative wildlife invasions.
The provisions of Section 10 of the act, ensuring that the
states can maintain and establish prohibitions stricter than
those established in Federal regulation are critical.
Additionally, we support the idea in Section 3 of
evaluating the likelihood of parasites, pathogens, diseases in
free-living organisms accompanying species proposed for
importation.
But the thresholds of these components of risk assessment
must certainly be scientifically based, but they must also
reasonably evaluate the potential transmissibility of parasites
and disease agents to humans, resident wildlife, livestock,
pets; must evaluate the potential for establishment of
unplanned hitchhikers; and must fairly consider the reasonable
mitigation of those risks in making determinations.
The bill does consider the complexity of issues involved in
regulating the possession of wildlife. While Section 3[f] of
the bill addresses animals imported prior to prohibition of
importation and allows persons to possess animals that would
later be identified as prohibited, the details of the
importation or acquisition are rarely held by the owners and
may not always be traceable. So some provision should be
provided to allow folks to disclose or declare their pet at the
time or at the time period before an animal being listed is
unapproved.
Section 8 of the act sets forth a system where proponents
would reasonably be assessed the cost of determination, but
there are challenges in this financing strategy. While we
generally favor user-pay programs, please consider these three
challenges.
First is the challenge of program establishment during the
first 37 months of operation, the second is the challenge of
long-term program sufficiently, and perhaps a third, less
immediately apparent, challenge, but a critically important
one, is inspection and enforcement. The Department of the
Interior and other Federal agencies are already stretched, and
this bill will place further demands upon the departments to
inspect and enforce.
We believe the best way to implement this framework
envisioned by the bill is to be unified across jurisdictions.
Assessing risk and regulating importation and possession of
wildlife is a role that the states hold in common with the
Federal government, and the two systems must work in concert.
H.R. 6311 ensures collaborative law enforcement by allowing
state peace officers to take into possession unapproved
animals, but consideration should be given to protecting those
officers enforcing both this act, as well as state
prohibitions, and to protect those employees, contractors,
agents, or designees that may hold and care for those animals
under a chain of evidence or custody until final disposition of
the animal can be determined.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with these
thoughts.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Riley follows:]
Statement of Lawrence M. Riley, on behalf of the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am Lawrence Riley, Wildlife Management
Division Coordinator of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and Vice
Chair of the Invasive Species Committee for the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (Association). I appreciate the opportunity to share
with you the Association's perspectives on H.R. 6311, the Nonnative
Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. 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 50 United States and U.S. Territories,
Canadian Provinces, and federal governments of the U.S., Canada, and
Mexico. All 50 states are members. The Association has been 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. The cross
jurisdictional nature and North American perspective of the Association
is of particular relevance in that nonnative wildlife, introduced
either intentionally or accidentally, respect no boundaries and are an
issue of local, State, regional, national, and international concern.
The State fish and wildlife agencies have broad statutory authority
and responsibility for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources
within their borders, both native and nonnative. Because of our
responsibility for and interest in the conservation of fish and
wildlife resources, state fish and wildlife agencies have vested
concerns in the prevention and control of unwanted and unplanned
introductions of nonnative species that can cause damage to our
wildlife resources, ecosystems, the economies of our states and the
nation, or pose risks to animal or human health. To that end, the
Association maintains a standing committee on Invasive Species and has
been active with the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF)
virtually since its inception as an ex officio member, and is also
represented on the Invasive Species Advisory Committee.
Madam Chair, on behalf of the Association, I would like to thank
you for your leadership in bringing forward this important legislation.
As a result of the Association's roles and involvement in planning for
Invasive Species, we are supportive of H.R. 6311. We find the bill to
be well-conceived and well-organized. It is consistent with our
Invasive Species Committee's principles for federal legislation and is
aligned with strategies of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and
the Invasive Species Advisory Committee. We especially applaud the
inclusion of language in Section 3 (c) that requires consultation with
the States as well as with the ANSTF and the National Invasive Species
Council, and in Section 10 (a-b) which recognizes States' authority to
exercise more stringent regulations. In addition, we are supportive of
the establishment of fees to create a Nonnative Wildlife Invasion
Prevention Fund to manage the costs of assessing risk. Still, the
Association believes that the bill could be strengthened in a few
specific areas; we would be glad to work with you and your staff to do
so. We present here suggestions for your consideration.
Risk Assessment Considerations
The application of a Risk Assessment process for importation of
nonnative wildlife into the United States, if conducted in a fair,
equitable, and transparent manner, is a key element of managing the
challenges that Invasive Species pose to wildlife, ecosystems,
economies, and human and animal health. The Association recognizes that
some nonnative species can be valued assets as a component of wildlife
resources, as economic assets for agriculture or forestry, as subjects
of educational displays and scientific research, and in some
circumstances as pets. In a number of cases, State wildlife agencies
manage introduced species as components of a State's wildlife
resources. We believe that the mechanism described in Section 3 of H.R.
6311 establishes the much-needed framework to determine risk in advance
of importation, including process transparency and critical
consultation with the State authority, and provides promise of making
reasoned determinations that consider and balance potential risks and
benefits from import.
Section 3 (b) (1) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
to carefully consider ``the identity of the organism to the species
level, including to the extent possible more specific information on
its subspecies and genetic identity.'' This is an important provision,
as the subspecific and genetic characteristics of species can greatly
contribute to the invasive (or non-invasive) nature of an organism.
That said, with the advance of science, new challenges in identifying
organisms are arising and will arise in the future. To the extent
possible, these advances should be considered in regulations that
emerge from this Act. The Act identifies viable eggs as items that can
be regulated. It does not identify gametes other than eggs, such as
milt or sperm--which is more readily preserved for transportation and
storage. Likewise, the Act does not identify or address treatment of
hybrid wildlife, transgenic animals, or genetically modified organisms.
While it may not be necessary to address them specifically in
legislation, the manner in which such organisms would be addressed
should be considered as part of the development of plans to implement
resulting regulations.
We also believe that the considerations in Section 3 (b) (4-9) will
differ greatly from within the contiguous United States to island
States and Territories and to Alaska; and thus such risk assessment may
benefit from regional considerations. The variety and breadth of
ecosystems within the United States presents a large spectrum of
vulnerabilities. This highlights the importance of the partnership
among the States and the Executive Branch in preventing nonnative
wildlife invasions. The provisions of Section 10 of the Act, ensuring
that States can maintain and establish prohibitions stricter than those
established in federal regulation, are critical. Specifically, ensuring
that a species otherwise ``Approved'' for importation into the United
States under federal regulation can still be prohibited from
importation into a particular State based upon that State's laws and
regulations, is a an essential companion to federal regulations
resulting from this bill.
In addition, we support the idea in Section 3 (b) (10) of
evaluating the likelihood of parasites, pathogens, diseases, and free-
living organisms accompanying species proposed for importation as part
of risk assessment. Realistically, most wild animals are likely to
carry some parasites or pathogens, and almost any shipping strategy may
pose a risks with regard to free-living hitchhikers. The threshholds of
these components of risk assessment must be scientifcally-based; must
reasonably evaluate the potential transmissibility of parasites or
disease agents to humans, resident wildlife, livestock, and pets; must
evaluate the potential for establishment of unplanned hitchhikers; and
must fairly consider the reasonable mitigation of those risks through
handling and shipping procedures.
H.R. 6311 appropriately considers the complexity of issues involved
in regulating the possession of wildlife, particularly in Section 6.
However, while Section 3 (f), Animals Imported Prior to Prohibition of
Importation, allows persons to possess animals that were ``imported
legally even if such species is later prohibited'' from importation,
however, the details of importation or acquisition may not always be
traceable in the case of nonnative wildlife kept legally (per
individual State and/or local statutes and regulations) as pets in the
United States. Thus it may be important to include considerations for
pet owners to declare their pet at or during a period before the time
of listing as ``Unapproved'' and thus maintain posession of nonnative
pets (if legal in their state of residence) even following prohibition,
with the understanding that the provisions regarding eggs or progeny
stated in Section 6 (a) (1) will apply to that animal. Because State
Law Enforcement personnel are often involved in the regulation of
wildlife kept as pets, such a provision could reduce the law
enforcement burden for the States.
Financing Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention
Section 8 of H.R. 6311 sets forth a system where proponents for an
importation would be reasonably assessed the costs of risk assessment
and public process for making determinations. State wildlife agencies
have long relied upon user-pay, user-benefit approaches to wildlife
conservation. It is a tried and true strategy. However, there are
challenges that the Subcommittee should consider in adopting this
strategy for this program.
The first challenge is program establishment during the first 37
months of its operation. The legislation does not address
appropriations to initiate program development and risk assessment.
Therefore, if federal agencies are intended to reallocate resources to
initiate this program, the Association would like to work with you and
your staff to ensure that such a reallocation would add to, rather than
replace, existing federal activities or missions critical to the
States.
The second challenge is program sufficiency. At this point of
development, it is unclear what federal cost would be for a user
requesting evaluation of a species for listing, either as an
``Approved'' or and ``Unapproved'' species. We assume that the cost
would not be trivial. While these factors will certainly be weighed
during the process of regulation development as a result of this bill,
having an understanding of potential costs and reasonable charges to
requestors would help us gauge the potential sufficiency of the program
envisioned by this Act. A less immediately apparent federal cost, but a
critically important one, is inspection and enforcement. We believe
that the Department of Interior's capacity is already stretched to
inspect incoming deliveries of live wildlife, and the process
improvements described by this bill will place further demands upon the
Department to inspect and enforce. Workforce needs for inspection and
enforcement should be considered as Congress develops a financing
strategy for this effort.
Prevention is, of course, always the most cost-effective method of
addressing potentially invasive species, and this bill is an excellent
step in the right direction. This bill should be viewed as one step in
development of a comprehensive approach that will included provisions
for, and funding toward, Early Detection and Rapid Response if
``Unapproved'' species are detected in the early stages of
establishment in the wild. Further, a comprehensive approach would
enlist the assistance of States through implementation of their
existing Aquatic/Terrestrial Invasive Species management plans and
parther with State Wildlife Law Enforcement to extend the effectiveness
of federal enforcement.
Building Unified Lines of Defense
H.R. 6311 provides a framework to address incursions of potentially
invasive species so that their importation can be rationally controlled
and losses to our natural resources and economies can be avoided. The
best way to implement this framework is to be unified across
jurisdictions. The proposed legislation to utilize scientifically
credible and defensible risk assessment to identify animals
``Approved'' for importation into the United States is a reasonable
approach to regulating the risks posed by animals that can, once
introduced, directly affect the ecosystems in the United States.
Assessing risk and regulating importation and possession of
wildlife is a role that the States hold in common with the Federal
Government. The Federal role is focused on our national boundaries and
importation into the United States, while the States regulate the
possession, sale or exchange of wildlife resources into and within
their borders. The two systems must work in concert. Because our roles
are allied and intertwined, close consultation and coordination among
the States and between the State and Federal approaches is essential.
Recognizing the role of the States in Section 3 of the bill is a key
provision to ensure coordination and collaboration, while Section 10
appropriately recognizes the role of States in establishing laws and
regulations and does not preempt the States' authority to be more
restrictive.
H.R. 6311 ensures collaborative law enforcement between federal and
state jurisdictions in Section 6(c) by allowing State peace officers to
take into possession any ``Unapproved'' animals. However, consideration
should be given to protecting those officers enforcing this act as well
as State prohibitions, and to protecting those employees, contractors,
agents, or designees that may hold and care for those animals under a
chain of evidence or custody until final disposition of the animals can
be determined.
Finally, it is important to remember that the United States shares
borders with neighbor nations, thus building our lines of defense in
collaboration with our neighbors is a prudent strategy. The
Association, whose membership includes the Canadian Provinces and
federal government of both Canada and Mexico, is committed to working
through our members to continue to align our approaches. This Act would
provide a strong foundation for a North American strategy to reduce the
occurrences of unwanted and unplanned invasions of nonnative wildlife.
Concluding Remarks
Madam Chair, the Association believes that H.R. 6311 as introduced
is an excellent start in providing a mechanism for risk assessment of
nonnative wildlife species proposed for importation, and in turn
reducing opportunities for such species to become problematic or
invasive. We applaud you for your efforts to raise this important
legislation. However, given the attention to this issue, and the
management burden of nonnative wildlife invasions in the States, the
bill as currently drafted could be strengthened to be more
comprehensive in its treatment of preventing nonnative wildlife
invasions. Again, the Association would very much like to work with
your staff, the Subcommittee, and the Executive Branch as this bill is
refined and moves toward implementation by federal wildlife authorities
in the Department of the Interior.
Again, thank you for providing us with the opportunity to testify
on this legislation.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Riley, for your
support of the legislation, and I want to thank all of the
witnesses.
We will begin. I have a few questions here, and, hopefully,
my colleagues will return from voting and will join me also
with a few questions.
The most important question I have is to Mr. Cravalho. Are
there any brown tree snakes in Hawaii?
Mr. Cravalho. Other than the eight finds that we have had
since 1984, we are unaware of any brown tree snakes in Hawaii.
Ms. Bordallo. When you say ``eight finds,'' is that a
single snake?
Mr. Cravalho. We have had, over a period from 1984 to 1998,
eight finds of brown tree snakes. It would entail not only live
specimens but dead specimens as well.
Ms. Bordallo. So when you say a ``find,'' is that a single
snake, or is it a colony?
Mr. Cravalho. A single find.
Ms. Bordallo. A single find. You are very fortunate. I do
know that a lot of the funding that goes to Hawaii for
eradication, it is the eradication of the snakes. Isn't that
correct?
Mr. Cravalho. Currently, the funding that I am aware of
that we obtain from the Office of Insular Affairs under U.S.
DOI is about $210,000. That money is utilized by our Detector
Dog program, monitoring at least 98 percent of commercial
flights that come in from Guam, as well as maritime ships, and
about 96 percent of our military flights that arrive into
Hawaii are also monitored by our dog program.
Ms. Bordallo. So how about DoD? Is there any funding from
there?
Mr. Cravalho. I am unaware of any DoD funding that is
forwarded to the State of Hawaii.
Ms. Bordallo. Another I have is, Section 10[a] of my bill
allows stricter approaches by states and territories to
nonnative wildlife imports. Why would you say this provision is
important to Hawaii?
Mr. Cravalho. It is very important to the State of Hawaii.
For example, being an island state, as Guam is as well, we have
natural barriers that prevent things from coming into the area,
and, as such, we need to ensure that what can come into our
part of the world is not going to be a problem to Hawaii.
It may not be a problem for the continental U.S. and the
State of Alaska, but Hawaii has a very unique situation, being
in the middle of the Pacific, and, as such, we would like the
opportunity to have the potential of being much more stricter.
For example, snakes in the pet trade could be done here in
the U.S. mainland. In Hawaii, all snakes are strictly
prohibited from entry into the state, except for two males,
nonvenomous snakes that are allowed for the zoo for exhibition,
as well as for the State of Hawaii bringing in four sterile,
male brown tree snakes, which our Detector Dog program can use
as a target to ensure that they are finding snakes.
So it is essential that states can reserve the right to be
a lot stricter than existing law under 6311.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Another question is, what is the
average length of time it takes to list a species in Hawaii
once a permit application is received?
Mr. Cravalho. Once a permit is received, it is reviewed for
completeness. Upon acceptance of the permit, it may take
anywhere from six months to one to two years to get an animal
listed. You have to imagine that the listing process is an
ongoing process throughout the year, and we try to incorporate
all of these changes throughout the year, with one rule
revision on an annual basis.
Ms. Bordallo. And then I have a final question. Can you
give an example of an animal on the list of restricted animals
that requires a permit for both import into the States and
possession, and explain why it is given that listing?
Mr. Cravalho. OK. The restricted listed animals are allowed
into the state for import, as well as possession. A good
example for that would be grass carp. Grass carp is allowed
into the State of Hawaii for algae control, as well as
aquaculture production for food. It is a requirement for a
permit to be issued that the facility that is holding this
animal is biosecure. In other words, the animal cannot escape
into natural environs and will not pose a problem or introduce
any parasites or pathogens with the introduction.
So prescreening processes from the source would be a
requirement prior to entry, and anyone touching that animal in
the State of Hawaii would then require a permit for possession
as well.
So, for example, I, as the aquaculture producer that brings
the animal into the state initially, would need an import
permit, and then if I was to sell that product as a live
product to another facility for usage, then that facility would
require the same inspection requirements for a biosecurity
facility, and then a permit would be issued by the Department.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
Dr. Gaden, are the factors to be considered in a risk-
assessment process listed in Section 3[b] appropriate to
evaluate nonnative wildlife species? Would you say that?
Mr. Gaden. I would say so, and it is a good list. As I
stressed in the spoken statement, the list does include factors
that you should consider. Is it going to be harmful to an
ecosystem potentially in the United States? Has it caused harm
in other places?
What I particularly like on the list, as well as the
pathogen question, ``Is it likely to bring in a pathogen?''
because the sort of new frontier of invasive species problems
in the Great Lakes Basin seems to be, among other things,
viruses and pathogens, and, as far as I know, this is the first
piece of legislation that explicitly includes that, though
there are entities looking at whether ballast water brings in
pathogens and transports them around.
So, yes, I think this list is appropriate. I also
understand that there has been considerable input on these
types of factors on the appropriateness of them from outside
entities who have reviewed them and discussed this at length
over the years.
We are not starting from square one here. There has been
quite a bit of discussion about these kinds of factors that you
would use to evaluate it.
I also think that, while we have considerable faith in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, as they would develop the regime to
assess the organisms, to actually establish a suitable process
that would take these factors into account and have it be
transparent, peer reviewed, and all of the things,
scientifically based, that need to occur for it to be a
meaningful process.
Ms. Bordallo. I have another question. Why do species in
trade need to be evaluated under a risk-assessment process?
Mr. Gaden. The problem on the most basic level right now is
that we do not do it. There are problems when species enter new
ecosystems. They do not have predators. They sometimes can find
the ecosystems to be very suitable. Not every species or
critter that gets into a new ecosystem will take hold, will
reproduce or spread and cause harm, but the small percentages
that do can cause enormous damage, and I use the sea lamprey as
an example.
This is a species that came in, not through trade but
through canals, but the single species alone has cost the
taxpayers of the United States and Canada more than $300
million over 50 years to control, and that is one species.
So we need to be deliberate about what we do when it comes
to the movement of species, the importation and the trade of
those species, and we have to be very clear, in our minds, is
this species going to be a problem? Is it likely to invade, and
is it likely to cause harm?
If you are not deliberate about that, and if you do not
think about that ahead of time, you are taking enormous
chances. You cannot predict often what that species will do,
and I would suggest to the Committee that it is far better to
think about these things ahead of time than to try and, as
somebody said earlier, close the barn door after the horse has
left, because you will not be able to control the species, in
all likelihood.
In the Great Lakes region, for example, the sea lamprey is
the only aquatic species that we can control out of hundreds
that are nonnative species in the basin. So prevention is what
needs to occur, above everything else.
Ms. Bordallo. I certainly agree with that. Given the
devastating floods in the Midwest, is the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission worried about the escapement of invasive species
from aquaculture facilities, and could this maybe have been
prevented?
Mr. Gaden. In answer to the first question, absolutely. One
of the species that is causing the region enormous headaches
right now is Asian carp, actually three species of Asian carp--
black, silver, and bighead carp--which escaped when there were
devastating floods back in the nineties from the southern
United States.
These carp, after they escaped, spread throughout the
Mississippi River system. They became, in some places, 97
percent of the biomass found; put commercial fishermen out of
business. Their nets are chocked full of these Asian carp. They
grow to enormous sizes, and if they get into the Great Lakes,
which is connected artificially to the Mississippi system
through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, we expect similar
results in the Great Lakes and certainly in some parts of the
lakes, which are well-suited to Asian carp.
So that gives us a very real example of why aquaculture is
a vector that we are very concerned about. We have to assume,
once brought into North America, that a species will escape and
will spread and could cause harm.
The Asian carp were reared in aquaculture facilities. They
were enclosed facilities, but when they were inundated with
flood waters, they were allowed to escape and have been
spreading since.
The current floods that are taking place in Iowa and other
parts of that region certainly do cause us concern because
there are, I believe, somewhere around 16 or 20 species that
are raised in aquaculture facilities in Iowa alone, many of
which are currently not in the Great Lakes and many of which
are not even native to North America. We know, from history,
that floods like this are a vector for the spread of these
species. So, yes, we are very concerned about it.
Could it have been prevented? I think, if there had been a
meaningful screening process 20 years ago or more, 30 years
ago, we would have had a chance to consider some of these
issues before the species that were raised in aquaculture would
have been allowed entry into North America.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Horne, Section 10[b] of my bill encourages the
voluntary surrender of invasive, nonnative wildlife species.
Can you speak to the effectiveness of Florida's amnesty days
and why this is an important provision in the bill?
Mr. Horne. Yes, I can. It has been effective. With time, I
guess we will tell truly how effective it has been, but the
first one that we did, the last one, we collected 220 animals.
There were actually some of the injurious species that were in
there that were actually microchipped and licensed and put back
out because we allowed them to be readopted.
So I think, with time, that is going to be a proven entity,
especially if it is extended to where reptiles, in particular,
and other invasive species can be surrendered to Animal
Control, but, as of right now, most will not take reptiles, in
particular, so that would be something that would certainly
help in the future, or even something that the industry could
to help assist in surrendering animals that people no longer
wanted.
Ms. Bordallo. Another one is your Governor, Governor
Christ, recently announced the agreement between the U.S. Sugar
Corporation and the State of Florida that would work toward
Everglades restoration. Will preventing the import of invasive,
nonnative, wildlife species also contribute to the ecosystem
health of the Everglades?
Mr. Horne. Well, it will not contribute to the restoration
because one of the things that we are finding with particularly
pythons, tegos, now monitors, is they are eating a lot of the
species that we are actually looking for restoration counts.
One of the things we have to do is bird counts, which is
critical to the restoration efforts. It is one of our key
indicators, and, of course, we know, from the ones that we have
captured and did necropsies on their stomachs, most of the
contents in there are birds and native wildlife.
So it will be hard for us to determine truly what is
restoration, particularly as these creatures move further and
further north, and there are certainly indicators that they are
not just in the Everglades. We have actually captured pythons
enough to say that they are there in the Melbourne area, which
is midway the state, and as food depletes, they will move to
find additional food.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
I have a question also for Mr. Meyers. Given the inadequate
authority, under the Lacey Act, to ban the species on a pre-
import basis, inadequate authority that PIJAC pointed out in
its October 2007 testimony, what new steps would PIJAC propose
to reduce the risk of harm from imported animals?
Mr. Meyers. There are two aspects to that. Number one, I
would go back to the 1994 recommendation of coming up with a
catalog of species in trade so it is clear, any species not on
that catalog must go through some form of a risk analysis
before it would be allowed to come into the country. That is
number one.
Number two, on some species that are in trade, we think
that more work could be done with CDC and others on what type
of screening should be done to make sure there is screening for
health issues and things of that nature.
Had health certificates been required, or some screening or
testing prior to the importation of the Gambian pouch rat, or
whatever the animals were that brought the monkeypox in, that
would have been prevented. We would like to work with getting
those things put into place.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. I have another question. Your
testimony states that the H.R. 6311 places an untenable burden
on the trade to scientifically prove a negative; example, the
absence of harm.
Now, isn't it true that Federal laws require similar
efforts by other industries? For example, those who want to
introduce new pharmaceuticals, new food additives, new food
contact materials, medical devices, and so on; they all have to
go through a similar process of demonstrating their products
are not harmful before introducing them into commerce.
So why can't the pet industry, then, meet this burden for
its products, as other industries already do?
Mr. Meyers. Well, because if you look at the harm that you
go through on approving a drug, it is a lot different than
trying to meet all of the criteria of harm that are listed
here. That is why the risk-management aspect, I think, is very
important to put in juxtaposition because risk assessment is
only part of that, proving the harm or not providing the harm.
We think it has to be part of a risk-analysis process to
where you can take into account and make some of those types of
judgmental factors because the science is not as clear on
proving harm to my body with a drug or a chemical as it may be
to the introduction of some animals where some of the science
may be a little nebulous, and also all of the different
factors.
I happen to have been on the black carp assessment protocol
that we did to try to test the system, and I will tell you, had
the catalog system been in effect, and that risk assessment had
been done prior to its coming in, I suspect that the black carp
would not have been allowed in the United States, and that is
why we support the first-time-introduction approach because I
think there are different criteria, both in terms of looking at
the risk assessment, looking at harm or potential, as well as
the management that can go with it.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. I have a question for Mr. Riley.
Section 3[c] requires consultation with the United States,
as well as other stakeholders, and 3[d] requires transparency.
Now, why are these provisions important to fish and wildlife
agencies?
Mr. Riley. Madam Chair, the states have broad authority
within their own boundaries to regulate the possession and
importation, the exchange, sale, barter of resident wildlife,
both native and nonnative. These are key provisions, and a bit
of that discussion came up when Dr. Frazer talked a little bit
about the long-arm provisions of the Lacey Act. Those state
authorities work in concert with Federal authorities.
One thing to consider, in terms of enforcement, was if we
are going to do this, we probably ought to enforce it as well.
There are probably, at least in my state, about 15 times the
number of wildlife enforcement officers at the state level as
there are with the Fish and Wildlife Service. In many
instances, it is the state wildlife officer that is the one
that makes contact with an individual with regard to either
permitting or an enforcement contact with regard to illegal
possession of an animal.
The complementary roles and the collaborative roles between
the state and the Federal authorities are crucial in terms of
making a system like this work.
Ms. Bordallo. Another question I have. In a hearing we had
earlier this week, Mr. Wittman asked a question to the Director
of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries about
the exasperated effect of invasive species in the face of
climate change. With increasing temperatures in Southwestern
lands and rivers, is this an additional reason to control the
import of invasive, nonnative wildlife species?
Mr. Riley. Madam Chair, it certainly is. As climate change
progresses, however it manifests itself, habitats will change.
Habitats that are already stressed are those that are most
likely to be susceptible to wildlife invasions. So maintaining
the health of habitats and restoring habitats, so that they can
be resilient is a key strategy in maintaining their protection
against invasions.
We may also find ourselves in the position of making
interesting and difficult decisions in the future where,
because of the species complement changes, we may need to
consider, is there a nonnative that will provide a service, an
ecological service, to replace something that is perhaps not
savable? Those will be very, very difficult decisions, and so
part of our emphasis within our states certainly has to be on
restoration and maintaining the resilience of ecosystems.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Mr. Meyers, I will go back to you again, just to clarify
for the Committee here, for first-time introductions, you want
a screening process similar to my bill, and for species in
trade, you recommended a phased-in approach, just to clarify.
Mr. Meyers. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think, for first-time
introductions, while the management plan calls for a screen,
there is a lot of discussion as to what is a screen versus a
risk assessment? A risk analysis should be done on a first-time
introduction to screen it, determine whether or not there is a
potential problem, and to deal with the risk-management aspect.
For species in trade, we are not opposed to their having a
screening process, an expedited screening process, or something
that is clearly not going to happen under the current injurious
wildlife structure. But any species in trade should still be
able to be subject to an analysis to determine whether or not
it ought to go on a prohibited list, but to have a de facto
prohibition because it cannot be done within the timeframe
prescribed under a statute just puts a lot of species out of
trade that may be of absolutely no harm whatsoever.
We are not opposed to having species in trade looked at,
reviewed, and having certain types of controls. Again, by
letting the states have stricter domestic measures, or stricter
measures, that also allows them to control more vigilantly what
may come into their state that they do not want that may be
allowed somewhere else in the country.
You must remember, a person knowingly bringing that in has
a Lacey Act violation, which has very serious consequences. So
the stricter state authority is very critical.
Ms. Bordallo. Just one final question to you, Mr. Meyers.
To the extent data are limited in understanding the scope of
the potential issue with the pet trade, would PIJAC or its
partners be willing to make available to the Committee and/or
independent scientists the available records on which species
have been imported, when, and how many individuals?
Mr. Meyers. We had already started that process in
anticipation that the catalog would have gone through in the
earlier legislation for the ornamental fish trade, and we are
pulling together because, unfortunately, the LIMAS database
quite often just puts down ``tropical fish,'' and they do not
have the species data.
So we had asked the major importers in the United States to
provide to us the lists of all of the species that they have
imported over, while the earlier drafts said ``as long as 15
years,'' we asked them for the last five years or 10 years. I
do not remember exactly. We have compiled that list. It has
been reviewed. It will probably be published in some type of a
journal.
We have no problem making that available, and we will work
through all segments of the industry to gather that data, work
with the agency and other stakeholders, environmental
organizations, to verify that these are legitimately species in
trade, and one way to do it is going back to the lists of
people that are licensed to commercially import.
Ms. Bordallo. What would be the timetable on this? Could
you give us some idea?
Mr. Meyers. It took us, to develop the freshwater fish list
by using biologist interns, probably about eight or nine
months, and I believe one of those papers may be actually
published by that student as part of her thesis work.
I would say that it could probably be done, and I may be
overly optimistic, within an 18-month time period.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. Thank you very much, Mr. Meyers.
The Subcommittee now welcomes our guest from Florida, The
Honorable Congressman Klein, and I ask unanimous consent that
Mr. Klein from Florida be allowed to join the Subcommittee on
the dais to participate in the hearing. Hearing no objection,
so ordered.
I would like to ask you, Mr. Klein, to ask the questions
that you wish to.
Mr. Klein. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate the
democracy in action here at this Committee. Thank you very much
for holding this hearing, a very important issue, and thank you
to the guests on the panels that have been with us today to
talk about this and find ways to work with the Chair and other
Members of the Congress to make a more efficient and
streamlined process to deal with what many of us around the
country are concerned with, in terms of nonnative wildlife and
the impact it is having on our states.
One of the main reasons that I have taken an interest in
combatting this, invasive nonnative species, relates to the
Florida Everglades. The Florida Everglades are a big part of
the State of Florida. As many of us know in the Congress, there
has been a tremendous effort, at the state and Federal level,
and one of the largest combined efforts in U.S. history to work
together as state and Federal governments to the Corps and
other agencies to protect what we know as the ``River of
Grass.''
Because there are so much of the resources that are being
invested in this, there is a great stake of making sure that
the plans are working, that the water is restored in many ways
to sheet flow, and that the impact to the ecology and the
environment of the area and the entire state is restored as
much as possible.
The issue of nonnative wildlife is a big issue, and, for
number of reasons, there are a lot of different types of
wildlife that have gotten into the Everglades in the wild and
have created a very, very significant problem, which are
changing, in many cases, the impact of the native species and
impacting the Everglades themselves.
The Burmese python is something that has been mentioned by
Mr. Horne and others, and this is something that we know, in
our area, is a big issue. If it is OK with the Chair, my good
friend, Alcee Hastings, Congressman Hastings, from Florida, was
unable--he has got a competing scheduling item today, but he
has a written statement, and if I could submit it, with your
consideration, to be admitted to the record, I would appreciate
that.
Ms. Bordallo. No objection, so ordered.
Mr. Klein. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alcee Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Alcee L. Hastings, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida
Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo, for introducing the Non-Native
Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act and for holding this extremely
important hearing on this legislation today.
First, I would like to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses
for attending the hearing. In particular, I appreciate the presence of
Mr. George Horne, Deputy Executive Director of the South Florida Water
Management District.
The introduction of non-native species can often be effectively
managed. But sometimes, as is evident now in Florida, invasive species
pose a major threat to the health of the native species and humans
alike and harms our environment and economy.
The Lacey Act's injurious wildlife provision is the main regulatory
safeguard from invasive animal species introductions in the United
States. It is my belief that the Act, last amended in 1988, does not
comprehensively address the challenges of today's world, as it does not
take into account the increasing flow of commerce and globalization and
the growing emergence of non-native species.
Specifically, the Lacey Act only lists a limited amount of species
as injurious and the average time between initiation and final actions
of listing reviews has increased to over four years in the last decade.
Further, the Act only evaluates species after they have caused
widespread damage to the environment and to human and animal species'
health.
In my judgement, we need a fresh approach to confronting the
threats posed by non-native species. The increasing emergence of non-
native species can strain our management resources and cause long-term
damage to our environment. We need more effective preventive measures
to limit intentional importation of invasive species. This bill seeks
to accomplish just this by evaluating the risk of such species before
it is imported and established.
My interest in this issue initially arose because of the impact of
Burmese pythons on Florida's Everglades. The Burmese python preys on
more than twenty species native to Florida. Their presence threatens
the endangered species and plants of the Everglades' unique ecosystem
and hinders Everglades restoration efforts. Further, it has the serious
potential to cause harm to the people visiting and living in the
Everglades and surrounding communities.
This problem is not merely relegated to Florida. A 2008 United
States Geological Survey model predicted that the Burmese python may
snake its way up the Southeast and even toward the Pacific states.
Last September, Congressman Ron Klein (D-FL) and I wrote to the
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (27 January
2009USFWS) expressing concern over the sharp rise of wild Burmese
pythons in and around Everglades National Park. We urged USFWS to fast
track the injurious wildlife review of this harmful invasive species.
We also called on USFWS to establish a task force to its internal
injurious listing process to ensure that the Lacey Act is implemented
commensurate with the contemporary challenges we face with invasive
species.
State agencies, including the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, have developed and implemented python control
programs in Florida to prevent the species from becoming more
widespread. However, our state lacks sufficient resources to continue
to effectively manage this species.
Florida isn't alone. States across the nation are increasingly
attempting to tackle the same threats. If we are to successfully
address this issue in the long-term then we need to comprehensively
address non-native species introduction and importation.
I strongly support the provisions in this bill that assist with the
regulation of potentially harmful non-native wildlife into the United
States. Our nation would benefit from federal policies that enhance the
screening process and increase management, control, and enforcement
measures of these species. This bill puts us on the path toward finally
doing just that.
______
Mr. Klein. Senator Nelson and Congressman Hastings have
been taking a lead on dealing with the Burmese python, and,
again, it is just one example of a number of various species,
but that one, in particular, I am highlighting because I know
the water management district has petitioned the Fish and
Wildlife Service to list the Burmese python as an injurious
species, and this has, unfortunately, been going on for quite
some time, and it does not seem like we are where we need to
be, and it just seems to be taking an inordinate amount of
time.
If I can direct a question to Mr. Horne, in what ways have
these types of delays hampered the efforts to prevent the
spread of the Burmese python in the Everglades, and if you
could explain to us what you believe the impact of that is?
Mr. Horne. Well, there is very little effort going on out
there except for the fact that there is some assistance from
Everglades National Park. They have licensed one of our
employees. He carries a weapon. In his daily runs, he takes
pythons. Last month, I believe he had taken seven in one day.
You can go down the same levee every single day and pick up a
python.
They are eating the wildlife at enormous rates. In some
areas where you used to see lots of rabbits and birds, you see
nothing, but you find pythons every time you go there.
As I stated earlier, one of our key indicators in
restoration is bird counts, and if we are successful, we have
reestablished those rookeries in the 'Glades, and the fact that
the pythons are there and that they are establishing themselves
in and around rookeries means that the bird counts are going to
go down, and some of the species which are not in threat now
will be because they are going to eat them, and every time you
find one, you know, they typically always have a bird in it.
So it is going to really hurt our ability, or our measures
for restoration are going to have to change, but I think birds
are one of the critical things that truly attract people to the
Everglades and have made it what it is today, and they may not
be there if we do not have, you know, a concerted effort to
extinguish these animals.
They need to disappear. The mere fact that there are
anywhere between five to 40,000 animals out there, according to
estimates from biologists, that means we are probably never
going to get them under control. In other species that are
going to spread--the Nile monitor, we already know they have a
20-square-mile area they have established, and tegos are in
Everglades National Park, and we have captured one of those
recently in cages that our staff helped manufacture.
So they are there. They are not going to go away. We need a
concerted effort to eliminate them, and this provision
certainly helps control new things coming in, and maybe go back
and look at some of the other animals that are there to limit
their spread.
Mr. Klein. May I follow up, Madam Chair?
Ms. Bordallo. You have as much time as you wish to consume.
Mr. Klein. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you for that explanation. The reason I brought up the
python is because that is a very significant identified issue,
but there are others. I think the concern that we have with the
Everglades, and, again, similar to other parts of the country,
is that many of these are in an earlier stage, and, if not
stopped now, we will continue to have a proliferation of the
types of nonnative animals that will impact the ecology and the
various other types of wildlife in the Everglades, which will
have a damaging effect on the Everglades itself.
As a follow up to this, obviously, the Everglades are a
very large area, but it is also surrounded by a very vibrant
agriculture business in Florida, and the other concern that we
have, of course, is that these pythons do not necessarily know
borders or what is public land and what is private land, and
there is a concern also in the agriculture industry that these
could migrate into other areas and consume livestock and do
other things which would impact the agriculture industry. Any
sense of the threat of that?
Mr. Horne. Well, indeed, some of that has happened already.
One of the snakes that was being tracked had actually eaten a
farmer's goose, which is adjacent to the Everglades.
Mr. Klein. Did the goose have a name?
Mr. Horne. I am sure it probably did, and it probably
squawked quite loudly for a moment, but they have spread out,
and, of course, there are lots of chicken farms and other
things that are in the 'Glades. If they get there, they will
get in, they will eat the livestock, and, of course, the
critical thing with the python: They can eat 80 percent of
their body mass, and they can weigh up to in excess of 200
pounds. So there are not many things that it cannot eat, so
they are an absolute threat.
Mr. Klein. Thank you for that information as well. Again, I
think this is a very significant issue, and, again, the python
is the example because of the size and the proliferation and
its ability to consume large animals, large quantities as well.
But, again, I am very concerned about the overall impact in the
agricultural community and the wild.
A lot of people are not necessarily familiar, even in
Florida, of the fact that when you have a large area like the
Everglades, there is a responsibility to maintain. It is not
just letting wild be wild. We have an invasive species of plant
life that is creating problems, which the water management
district is working on, as well as the animals.
A second question: I know there has been some activity in
Florida, and maybe some other states that you can comment on,
to try to creatively deal with invasive species, and I
understand the Chairwoman has been very interested in this as
well, and I appreciate that. But maybe you can talk to us
regarding some of their ideas about amnesty and other ways they
are trying to get the public to participate in the elimination.
We know that, unfortunately, many animals get into the
wildlife based on dumping of snakes and things like that into
that area, and then they grow very rapidly, but can you share
with us some ideas and programs that are out there that the
public can work with us on, and we can encourage as well?
Mr. Horne. We have actually started an amnesty day in
Florida where you can come in and surrender your pets, and, of
course, they put them back out for readoption. If they are an
injurious animal, they will have microchips placed in them and
licensed. The pythons, for instance, you have to pay a license
now. You have to register. You have to pay a $100 fee to own
the python, and, of course, report its loss or transfer, if you
are going to get rid of it.
Our agency has printed cards so we can have, like, a first
responder. If you see a python, we have a number for our
employee. You can call, and he will come and take it out or
contact the Park Service in Everglades National Park, and they
will come out and assist with that as well.
So we have some programs started, but it needs to be far
expanded to take care of all animals, and, particularly, not
just an amnesty day. It needs to be where you can surrender
these animals at any time because my biggest concern is what
happens the week after you have an amnesty day, and someone
decides they want to get rid of their large reptile? So we need
to expand that program, but I think it is going to work well.
There just needs to be more of it.
Mr. Klein. And, Madam Chair, as we work through this issue,
obviously, ideas from around the country would be helpful in
working with our agencies and the state and Federal government,
in terms of coming up with ideas.
Clearly, the piece of legislation that is being considered,
I think, goes a long way in moving in the right direction.
Obviously, there is an interest of pet owners to own pets and
have the enjoyment of that, but there is also a major public
policy concern that impacts cost of operations and maintenance
of large areas like the Everglades or other park systems or
water systems, as well as the impact that it has on the local
communities.
So the balance of interests is there, but, at the same
time, I think we would all agree that something that is against
the law should not be allowed in the country, and something
that should be considered a threat; there needs to be a process
to, using science and the best science available, to make
decisions expeditiously and appropriately, with everybody at
the table, and then when that happens, we have the resources
available, through our various levels of government, to enforce
and to work with local communities to make sure that we do not
have problems that get out of control.
So, Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to participate
today, and I look forward to working with you on this
legislation.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Klein, for his input. He may have problems in his state, but we
have problems in our territory, and that is the brown tree
snake, Mr. Klein. You have the pythons; we have the brown tree
snake.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for their
participation in the hearing today, and Members of the
Subcommittee may have some additional questions for the
witnesses. We were interrupted with the votes, and some of them
wanted to come back. So we will ask you to respond to these in
writing. The hearing record will be held open for 10 days for
these responses.
If there is no further business before the Subcommittee,
the Chairwoman again thanks the Members of the Subcommittee and
our witnesses, and the Subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]