    [Senate Hearing 111-1201]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                          S. Hrg. 111-1201

                       THREATS TO NATIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES

    =======================================================================

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

                                    AND THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JULY 8, 2009

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
                                     Works

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                            U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    95-159 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2016

    _______________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
                                 FIRST SESSION

                      BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

                        Bettina Poirier, Staff Director
                     Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                       Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife

                     BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico                LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex
    BARBARA BOXER, California (ex            officio)
        officio)
                                     ------

                           Subcommittee on Oversight

                   SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico                JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York         DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    BARBARA BOXER, California (ex        JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex
        officio)                             officio)
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                  JULY 8, 2009
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland     1
    Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
      Island.........................................................     3
    Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho...........     4
    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming......     5
    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
      Jersey.........................................................     6
    Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York     7
    Levin, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan........     9
    Nelson, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida........    11
    Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
      prepared statement.............................................   163
    Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
      prepared statement.............................................   164

                                   WITNESSES

    Frazer, Gary, Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat
      Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service...................    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    18
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Boxer............................................    33
            Senator Lautenberg.......................................    35
        Response to an additional question from Senator Sanders......    38
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter........    39
    Clay, Bill, Acting Associate Administrator, Animal and Plant
      Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture......    40
        Prepared statement...........................................    42
        Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........    48
    Ruiz, Gregory, Senior Scientist, Smithsonian Environmental
      Research Center, Marine Invasions Research Laboratory..........    74
        Prepared statement...........................................    76
    Humphries, Rebecca, Director, Michigan Department of Natural
      Resources......................................................   110
        Prepared statement...........................................   112
    Torgan, John, Narragansett Baykeeper, Save the Bay, Inc..........   139
        Prepared statement...........................................   141
    Hill, Jeffrey E., Assistant Professor, Department of Fisheries
      and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida....................   145
        Prepared statement...........................................   148
        Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter.......   157

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letter to Senators Cardin and Whitehouse from Louisiana Governor
      Bobby Jindal...................................................   165
    Photos of Burmese pythons........................................   167
    Photo of a bat with white-nose syndrome..........................   171
    Photo of a nutria................................................   172
    Monie Bay pre nutria eradication project--May 2007...............   173
    Monie Bay pre nutria eradication project--May 2009...............   174

                       THREATS TO NATIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2009

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                            Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife,
                                     Subcommittee on Oversight,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L.
    Cardin and Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse (chairmen of the
    subcommittees) presiding.
        Present: Senators Cardin, Whitehouse, Lautenberg, Barrasso,
    Crapo, and Gillibrand.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Senator Cardin. The subcommittees will come to order.
        Today we are having a joint subcommittee hearing of the
    Environment and Public Works Committee of the Water and
    Wildlife and Oversight Committees. I want to thank my colleague
    and friend, Senator Whitehouse, for arranging for this joint
    hearing with the Water and Wildlife Committee that I chair. He
    chairs the Oversight Committee. And we want to thank Senator
    Barrasso for his help in arranging this morning's hearing.
        We are talking about the threats to native wildlife
    species. And we are pleased that two of our colleagues have
    joined us: Senator Levin, in talking about the threats to the
    Great Lakes; and Senator Nelson, who will talk about the unique
    wildlife and ecosystems in Florida and the python which he
    brought, it looks like the skin, with him today to demonstrate
    the danger to the ecosystems in Florida.
        The threat to native wildlife comes from many sources.
    Today we will be talking about two of those, one dealing with
    invasive species, the other dealing with diseases.
        The release of invasive species into the local environment
    presents a real risk to our environment. The Burmese pythons in
    Southern Florida have caused a major problem, and our colleague
    Senator Nelson will be talking about that. In my own State of
    Maryland, we have had the snakehead fish which has been
    released that has caused major problems.
        These are wildlife animals and fish that are just released
    into the wild because they are mainly taken as pets, people get
    tired, and then think they are doing a favor to release them to
    the wild. They cause huge problems with the native wildlife.
        We have a disease called white-nose syndrome in the
    Northeast with the bat colonies. We will be talking about those
    issues.
        What we have done is try to manage these invasive species,
    and that continues to be a great challenge. It is expensive,
    and it is a challenge. In my own State of Maryland, we have
    dealt with the nutria. The nutria is a furry animal that was
    originally brought into Maryland and, I believe, also
    Louisiana, because of its commercial value. They thought it
    could be used, the skin could be used, for commercial reasons.
    It was a commercial activity.
        Well, it did not work very well, so they decided to release
    the nutria to the wild. And in Louisiana and Maryland, it is
    creating a huge problem. They literally eat the grasses and
    destroy the wetlands that are critically important for the
    ecosystems that are protecting the species as well as
    eliminating the filtering system for the water quality. In the
    Blackwater Wildlife Refuge, which is on the Eastern Shore of
    Maryland, we have lost 5,000-plus acres of wetlands as a result
    of the nutria. That has a direct loss to the local economy and
    to the fisheries of $4 million per year.
        Well, in 2000, Congress developed a public-private
    partnership to deal with the nutria population, and it has been
    somewhat successful. But there is more work that needs to be
    done, and we will have a chance to talk about during today's
    hearing.
        I know that Senator Lautenberg will be talking about the
    bats, a keystone species in the food web that help to control
    insect and pest populations. They are vitally important to our
    agricultural community in eating the bugs that would otherwise
    feed on our crops. Well, there is a disease, white-nose
    syndrome, which is causing us to lose a lot of our bat
    colonies, and we are struggling to understand this disease. But
    we do know that it is related to human activity, and we need to
    talk about that.
        We know that in certain animals and birds, they carry
    diseases from imported animals and birds that can affect human
    health, such as the West Nile and avian flues, just to mention
    two by example.
        Our first priority should be to prevent the introduction of
    invasive species or diseases into America. I hope that during
    the course of this hearing we will have a chance to talk about
    our strategies as far as border control is concerned. Do we
    have adequate laws that deal with animals and wildlife that
    come into America? Do we need additional resources? It would be
    far more productive to stop the problems at the border than
    trying to clean up the problems once they get to our shores,
    and I hope during today's hearing will have the chance to talk
    about that.
        I am pleased to call upon the Chairman of the Oversight
    Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
    Senator Whitehouse.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]

                     Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland

        I want to thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse for his
    assistance in co-chairing this important hearing to examine the
    threats disease and invasive species pose to the country's
    native wildlife.
        I also want thank our distinguished colleagues, Senator
    Nelson and Senator Levin, for joining us today. Senator Nelson
    is especially interested in addressing specific threats to the
    unique wildlife and ecosystems of his home State of Florida,
    and Senator Levin will be adding his perspective on the threats
    to the Great Lakes.
        We also want to thank our Agency and expert witnesses for
    coming before our subcommittees.
        The recent emergence of Burmese pythons in South Florida
    and snakehead fish in the Chesapeake watershed are a direct
    result of people who simply did not know better releasing these
    invasive species into the local environment. White-nose
    syndrome in Northeastern bat colonies, which we need to study
    and learn more about, has had a devastating impact on these
    native species.
        These are just some of the numerous threats to native
    species that motivated our subcommittees to examine a host of
    both new and persistent diseases and invasive species
    threatening the country's native wildlife populations. We hope
    to learn what we are doing well and what we can do better to
    curb these problems.
        Managing the threat of invasive species continues to be one
    of the greatest challenges facing U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service refuge managers.
        I know it has not been easy, but in some instances we are
    seeing real progress. For nearly six decades at the Blackwater
    National Wildlife Refuge in Maryland, nutria have been killing
    wetland grasses that provide vital habitat for native
    shorebirds, muskrats and blue crabs, not to mention the role
    these grasses play in maintaining water quality.
        Nutria are responsible for the loss of more than 5,000
    acres of wetlands in the Blackwater refuge alone. The loss of
    these wetlands, that are vital to the fishery, was estimated to
    cost Maryland's economy nearly $4 million annually.
        In 2000, Congress established a Federal funding source to
    develop a public-private partnership program to address nutria
    in Maryland. The partnership has implemented a successful
    effort to manage the species. Healthy wetlands are returning to
    places where nutria have been removed. But the job is not yet
    done.
        Bats are a keystone species in the food web that help
    control insect and pest populations. They are vital to
    agricultural food growers by eating bugs that feed on crops.
    Since 2006, hundreds of thousands of hibernating bats have died
    from white-nose syndrome. Without bats we face the real
    possibility that certain insect species could boom out of
    control, threatening crops as well as human health.
        State wildlife managers are struggling to understand the
    full nature of the disease. This struggle is further hampered
    by the lack of capacity and resources wildlife managers have to
    work with.
        The spread of the disease to such a wide range of locations
    may be linked to human activity. Exploring caves that have
    infected bats may inadvertently be spreading the fungus. The
    rapid spread and the rate of morbidity caused by white-nose
    syndrome requires rapid action be taken.
        West Nile and avian flu are examples of imported exotic
    animal diseases with strains that can infect humans.
        Our panelists have been on the front lines doing the
    research and implementing programs on the ground to address
    these problems. You know what works and what does not work when
    it comes to stopping the spread of established diseases and
    invasive species. I look forward to hearing your
    recommendations. We all know that an ounce of prevention is
    worth a pound of cure, so I hope our witnesses will focus on
    how to stop these threats rather than simply discuss ways to
    manage them.
        Consideration must be given to preventing the next nutria
    or snakehead invasion and keeping animals infected with the
    next avian flu from ever reaching the U.S. in the first place.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Ben. I am
    delighted to join you in this hearing. I appreciate your
    leadership in convening it.
        I welcome Senator Carl Levin of Michigan and Senator Bill
    Nelson of Florida here, who will be our opening presenters. I
    appreciate very much that you have taken the trouble to attend,
    and I am glad to be joined by so many colleagues here.
        This is a significant issue. Two factors drive it. One is
    global commerce, and the other is a changing climate. And
    whether, as Senator Cardin indicated, the invasive species are
    ones that are brought in lawfully and then escape into the wild
    and acclimate themselves to this new environment, or whether
    they are hitchhikers on the stream of global commerce and come
    with shipping and packaging inadvertently and make their homes,
    or whether they simply find that as climate changes they are
    able to expand into new areas where we have not experienced
    them before, it creates very significant issues. And I am very
    pleased to participate in this hearing.
        I want to mention that a very prominent Rhode Island
    environmentalist, John Torgan, is here and will be presenting
    in the second panel, and I look very much forward to his
    participation.
        I have to warn everybody that I am in my waning days on the
    Health Committee and we are marking up the healthcare bill as
    we speak. So, I will be in and out of the hearing. But I
    appreciate very much and take a keen interest in the topic that
    you have brought to our attention, Senator Cardin.
        Thank you.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Senator Crapo, the ranking Republican on the Water and
    Wildlife Subcommittee.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO,
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

        Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
    appreciate the fact that both of our Chairmen here have called
    this joint hearing and are bringing attention to this important
    issue.
        As you have already well indicated, Senator Cardin, this is
    a very, very critical issue in I think probably all 50 States
    where we face the question of what kind of management we need
    to undertake to effectively deal with invasive species. And
    Idaho is certainly one of those States that has its share of
    issues.
        In Idaho, a number of the problematic invasive species are
    things like the yellow star thistle, the quagga mussel, cheat
    grass, bark beetles and your Asian millfoil, to name just a
    few. One of these issues that we have in Idaho is that, because
    such a large percentage of our State is owned by the Federal
    Government, it is more than half, closer to two-thirds of our
    State is Federal land, the activities and enforcement of the
    Federal Government and the agencies that manage these lands are
    critical to our ability to control and manage these invasive
    species.
        So, among the many other different types of issues that we
    face, one of them is simply the interaction at the different
    levels of government, between State and Federal, as well as
    local governments, to deal with this and, frankly, the private
    citizens as they have responsibilities as well.
        Again, I thank you for your attention to this. I know there
    is legislation in several different forms being considered that
    can significantly change the way that we are approaching these
    efforts to control invasive species, and I have not yet reached
    a conclusion in my own mind as to whether the proposed changes
    are going to be an improvement or not. But it is important for
    us to evaluate these proposals as you are doing here today and,
    again, I appreciate your bringing attention to these issues.
        Senator Cardin. Well, thank you.
        Senator Barrasso, the Ranking Republican on the Oversight
    Committee.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
    for calling this important hearing. I am very pleased that we
    are going to be here today discussing invasive species and the
    impact on native wildlife. I welcome our guests as well.
        In Wyoming, just as in the other States we have heard
    about, we do have a number of invasive species issues.
    Saltcedar and Russian olive trees severely impact water
    availability for farmers along the North Platte River. Cheat
    grass, juniper and other invasives threaten the sage brush
    ecosystem that our sage grass depends upon. Our State is also
    on the watch for the potential threat of zebra mussels, which
    is a problem I already know is plaguing the Great Lake States.
    Noxious species are also a threat on native species in Wyoming.
        Wyoming faces an urgent problem, as they do in Idaho, for
    the bark beetle infestation. In the Medicine Bow National
    Forest, almost a half-million acres of these trees are infected
    already by bark beetles. We have over 9 million acres of
    national forest lands in Wyoming, and a Forest Service analysis
    shows this epidemic doubled in size between 2007 and 2008.
        These beetles destroy our forests and leave nothing but
    dead timber standing in the wake. This represents a clear and
    present threat to public land users, to communities, and to
    homeowners. We have mountains of kindling just waiting to burn.
    This is not a safe situation for the communities in and around
    these mountains. So, we must go into the forests, remove some
    of this dead timber, and reduce the risk of catastrophic fire.
        The threat to our forests and the species that inhabit
    those forests are very real for Western States, and more must
    be done to address this threat.
        Now, in terms of regulating invasive species from foreign
    countries, I do have a number of concerns. We have a very
    limited number of resources available. We need to put those
    resources where they will do the most good. We have laws on the
    books that regulate the importation of species. We need to make
    sure that the funding is there to ensure that these laws are
    properly enforced and that the agencies are properly staffed. I
    would not want to pass additional legislation that would in any
    way hurt our economy, including our pet economy, our sport
    fishing economy, or our farming industries.
        Let us not forget that, historically, the majority of
    livestock and crops in the United States are non-native species
    to North America. Many breeds of cats and dogs are non-native
    to the States, as are many of the breeds of fish that we use to
    stock our lakes, our reservoirs and our ponds for sport
    fishing. So, to this day, species are brought from overseas for
    these and other industries.
        Most of these species, if left unchecked and not properly
    managed, can cause significant damage to the surrounding
    ecosystem. These species have been vital to key industries in
    our economy and to pet owners and recreationists across the
    country.
        I am looking forward to the testimony today. I have a very
    open mind on this and thank the Chairman for holding the
    hearing.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much.
        Senator Crapo.
        Senator Crapo. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to indicate that
    I, too, have another hearing right now, a climate change
    hearing in the Finance Committee, so I will also be moving back
    and forth.
        Senator Cardin. I pointed that out, that I know members
    will be coming in and out because of the commitments for other
    committees, and every member's opening statement will be made
    part of the record.
        Senator Lautenberg.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        When you see our colleagues here from other States, from
    Western States as well as those of us from the Eastern side,
    joining together, we know that we have a problem of serious
    magnitude. I appreciate greatly your holding this hearing about
    threats to animals and ecosystems across the country from
    changing climate, vanishing habitats and invasive species.
        Now, as you know and mentioned, and I appreciate it, I am
    particularly concerned about a threat that could wipe out an
    entire bat population from New Hampshire to Virginia. One might
    react less concerned about bats. They are typically thought of
    as an ugly little thing that is often rabid. But nothing could
    be more invalid.
        The threat to their population is a fungus called white-
    nose syndrome. Since it first surfaced in 2006, it has spread
    from cave to cave, leaving 90 to 100 percent of bat populations
    in some caves dead or dying. And since bats are slow breeders,
    scientists fear that the white-nose syndrome could cause many
    bat species to go extinct. Over the last two winters, more than
    1 million hibernating bats have died.
        Now, at one bat cave in New Jersey, the Hibernian Mine,
    which I entered for my own familiarization with that
    population, there are normally 30,000 bats hibernating. As of
    April, this past April, only 750 bats were found alive there.
    The thing that struck the great alarm was the number of dead
    bats lying all over the place.
        We have got to stop the spread of this disease. We are
    dealing with a major threat to an entire ecosystem, potentially
    able to cause major environmental and economic problems, as my
    colleagues have discussed, with their non-invasive species.
    This is not a non-invasive species, but the disease is a
    threatening one to that particular species.
        Bats are on the front line of defense in protecting the
    public's health and our crops. They prey almost exclusively on
    insects, such as mosquitoes, which spread disease, and moths
    and beetles as well, which damage crops. A single bat can
    easily eat more than 3,000 insects in a night, and an entire
    colony will consume hundreds of millions of insects. It is said
    that a single bat will eat enough insects to be half its
    weight. So, it is a pretty voracious and very important
    species.
        Bats also reduce the needs for pesticides which costs
    farmers billions of dollars every year and can be harmful to
    ourselves. With fewer bats, there are more mosquitoes to breed
    disease, more insects to destroy the crops grown on New
    Jersey's farms, threatening the livelihood of our farmers, and
    damaging our economy.
        And the problem is not limited, as you know, Mr. Chairman,
    to New Jersey. This serious threat to our health, environment
    and economy is repeating itself all along the East Coast. We
    need to act fast, and we need help from the Administration.
        In May, along with Senate and House colleagues, I sent a
    letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar requesting emergency
    funding for research into the cause of white-nose syndrome, and
    to develop a solution to stop its spread. I look forward to the
    Secretary's response.
        Now, some of the witnesses on this panel have experienced
    fighting the spread of diseases like white-nose syndrome and
    helping species survive such threats. I look forward to hearing
    their ideas on how we can save the bat population in New Jersey
    and nationwide. Much is at risk. And the bats have become more
    beautiful as we learn more about them.
        Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Senator Gillibrand.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from New Jersey.
        The issues that we are addressing today are about invasive
    species. But the reason why it is so important is because it
    fundamentally affects our economy, it fundamentally affects our
    health and well being, and it fundamentally affects the costs
    of having to address these invasive species at a time when we
    have record high unemployment and enormous burdens on our
    municipalities and towns and local governments.
        When they have to address some of these invasive species,
    those are costs that will have to be spent on addressing the
    invasive species as opposed to other priorities that we have.
    So, these are significant issues for our economy.
        I will start with the white-nose bat syndrome. One of the
    reasons why it is so important, just as Senator Lautenberg
    said, is that because bats eat mosquitoes, in particular, and
    other insects, they are very important to keeping our
    communities safe.
        One of the biggest threats we had around New York State was
    the West Nile virus and I watched in many, many towns, where we
    sprayed towns to kill mosquitoes to prevent our children from
    getting the West Nile virus. It was a significant expense for
    local municipalities and local towns.
        Without the natural order of things, the natural life
    cycles and many of the roles that bats and insects and other
    species play, if we do not have the natural order of things,
    there is much in disarray and it creates enormous expense and
    risk. So that is one area.
        The second area is that bats also help pollination, and
    that brings to mind another problem, the colony collapse
    disorder. The bee populations are being seriously decreased,
    all across America and the world. In fact, 36 percent of bee
    colonies were reported to be wiped out in the United States
    because of the colony collapse disorder.
        If you do not have bees, and you do not have bats, you do
    not have pollination. If you do not have pollination, you do
    not have fruits and vegetables in America. If you do not have
    fruits and vegetables in America, we have a serious national
    security risk to our food chain or our food supply. These
    issues are critical to America's safety, from an agricultural
    safety perspective, a national security perspective, and an
    economic perspective.
        We also have other great costs in New York State because of
    some of our invasive species because we have so many natural
    resources in our lakes. We have the Great Lakes, we have the
    Adirondack Lakes, we have lakes all across New York. And a
    number of the species are particularly threatening to our
    economy of tourism in these lakes.
        Whether we are looking at millfoil, which was mentioned by
    my colleague Mr. Barrasso, or zebra mussel, what these kinds of
    invasive species do is go so far as to clog drainage pipes, to
    clog intake pipes, to clog damns, to really affect tourism.
    Those are all of significant importance to our communities for
    our clean water and for economic growth for our communities.
    So, many of these invasive species must be addressed.
        And the last group that I would like to just touch on is
    some of those that affect our timber industry. We have the
    Asian longhorn beetle and we have the cyrus wood wasp. Both of
    them are extremely expensive to eradicate. But they must be
    eradicated because, if they are left unchecked, they will
    destroy the timber industry, they will destroy a lot of our
    forestry, which will undermine many other economic issues like
    tourism.
        For example, the Asian longhorn beetle, it has cost more
    than $180 million to eradicate it in the suburbs around New
    York City so that it does not spread toward the Catskills and
    the Adirondacks where it could be devastating to our tourism
    and timber industries.
        So, I am very appreciative of this hearing because, you
    know, these are very serious economic, health and agricultural
    impacts that affect not only the livelihood of New Yorkers, but
    the health and well being of our children.
        I appreciate your focusing attention on these very
    important issues.
        Senator Cardin. Well, I think each of the members' opening
    statements points that we have a common challenge around the
    Nation on dealing with the protection of our native wildlife
    species, and we look forward to trying to work together to
    figure out what we can do in a constructive manner.
        Our first panel includes two of our colleagues that are
    very actively involved on this issue, Senator Carl Levin from
    Michigan who has been a leader in regards to the Great Lakes,
    and Senator Bill Nelson from Florida, who has been very
    actively involved in the Everglades and preserving those
    issues.
        Senator Levin.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Senator Levin. Thank you, Chairman Cardin and colleagues,
    for inviting us to testify very briefly and to make an
    introduction.
        As the Chairman mentioned, I represent Michigan, a Great
    Lakes State. Invasive species have done severe damage to our
    Great Lakes as well as to the land mass of Michigan. Everything
    from zebra mussel, which a number of you have mentioned, to the
    emerald ash borer which are destroying ash trees. We have 180
    invasive species identified in the Great Lakes alone.
        I was thinking about bringing in a zebra mussel, by the
    way, but then I had word that Senator Nelson might bring in an
    exhibit which would make our poor zebra mussel look so puny by
    comparison that you would think it would not be a problem.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Levin. Let me just mention, I am not going to tell
    this panel and these two subcommittees about the problems of
    invasive species. You all know them. You have them in your
    States. You have all made reference to them in your opening
    statements. I just would reinforce one point that you made,
    which is the universality of the problem, at least in terms of
    all of our States.
        The zebra mussels started in the Great Lakes. Thirty States
    are now infested with zebra mussels. Like global warming, these
    things do not stay in one place.
        Second, the solution, at least one of the key remedies,
    lies in your hands. That is to adopt a significant ballast
    water treatment technology requirement for our ships. Most of
    our invasive species in the Great Lakes States come in through
    the water. In the ballast is our invasive species that come in
    from other places. And when that ballast is exchanged in the
    Great Lakes, it drops these invasive species in the Great
    Lakes, including zebra mussels.
        You had under your consideration, as has the Commerce
    Committee had under consideration for many years, bills which
    would require ships to have new technologies to destroy the
    species instead of just being to remove or transfer ballast
    from saltwater to fresh water and so forth. We actually have a
    technology to destroy the species.
        There has been a conflict in two bills. One bill, which I
    think has been favored by many members on this committee and
    these two subcommittees, basically would allow the States to
    adopt a higher technology over the years than the national
    standard which we would start with.
        The Commerce Committee, and I do not want to generalize
    here because I am not sure it applies to every member, but in
    general, there is a Commerce Committee bill, I will identify
    it, which says we are going to have a national standard, and we
    are then going to let that standard apply for a reasonable
    period of time without the shipping companies facing the
    possibility that States will up the ante.
        This is a traditional conflict. It is the not the first
    time that we have faced this kind of a conflict. We have it all
    the time. But it needs to be resolved. And I believe the right
    resolution is for us to adopt a tough national standard, and
    then to give the shipping industry a period of repose. They
    will be guaranteed that there will not be any increase in that
    standard for a reasonable period of time.
        That is not the bill which many members of this committee
    have favored. But that is the conflict that needs to be
    resolved. I have taken a position on it which is, by the way,
    different from the position I think of my own legislature,
    which would like the State to be able to have a higher standard
    a year from now. You have shipping companies put in expensive
    technologies this year, and then a year from now any one of the
    States can say, whoops, there is a new technology and we want
    you to adopt a new one?
        We are never going to get this accomplished unless we adopt
    a national standard and let it stick for a reasonable period
    time, whether it is 5 years or 10 years. I would urge the
    members that are considering this to consider that option. But
    it is in your hands. This conflict needs to be resolved between
    these two bills. And again, the position I have taken is not my
    own State legislature's position.
        Having said that, I am really here to make an introduction,
    not to lobby my colleagues.
        I want to introduce a panelist who will be on the second
    panel, Rebecca Humphries. She is the Director of the Michigan
    Department of Natural Resources. She worked her way up through
    the ranks of the Michigan of Natural Resources. She has more
    than 30 years' experience in the field. She has considerable
    knowledge on the impacts of invasive species and disease on
    native wildlife. She has served, in recent years, as Chair of
    the Fish and Wildlife Health Committee of the Association of
    Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
        So, she has a lot of information. She has tackled issues in
    Michigan involving invasive species such as VHS, chronic
    wasting disease, emerald ash borer and so forth. She is going
    to have a lot of valuable information for these two
    subcommittees that meet today.
        We are grateful for your doing what you are doing. I know
    that you are going to excuse me, and I appreciate that.
        I have talked to Senator Nelson about his testimony and I
    agree with everything that he says, for what that is worth. And
    I am glad this damn python is a long way from where we live.
        [Laughter.]
        [The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]

                         Statement of Hon. Carl Levin,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan

        Thank you, Chairman Cardin and Chairman Whitehouse and the
    members of your subcommittees, for holding today's hearing on
    the very important topic of threats to our wildlife.
        As a Senator from Michigan, a Great Lakes State, I have
    seen the consequences of allowing aquatic invasive species to
    enter our waters. About 180 non-native organisms have been
    identified already in the Great Lakes. Some of my colleagues
    may remember that back in the late eighties and nineties, the
    zebra mussel was released into the Great Lakes through ballast
    water. At that time people considered the zebra mussel to be
    just a problem for the Great Lakes. Today, almost 30 States are
    fighting to control and prevent them. Zebra mussels can
    significantly change the nature of the lake bottom, affecting
    fish habitat and spawning. They trap nutrients and disrupt the
    normal flow of these nutrients into deeper waters. The mussels
    also excrete nutrients creating an environment that may be
    linked to water quality problems, such as algal fouling on
    rocky shorelines, off-tastes in drinking water and lethal
    outbreaks of botulism in wildlife, especially during warm water
    periods. Mussels eat by filtering algae from the water. This is
    the same food source for many native fish which means less food
    available to native species. Zebra mussels have caused drastic
    declines in the native Great Lakes mussels (commonly called
    clams) not only by competing for food, but also by nesting on
    top of exposed clamshell so that the native mussel cannot get
    enough food to survive.
        Because invasive species can quickly spread throughout the
    country, the best effort that we have against invasive species
    is prevention. Maritime commerce is the largest pathway for new
    species to be introduced into our waters, and I believe that we
    need to enact legislation that will require ballast water
    discharge management that will result in ballast water
    treatment technology onboard ships as soon as possible. I
    support establishing a strong national ballast water technology
    standard for all ships. Technology that meets this standard
    would be approved for a minimum period of time--5, 8, or 10
    years.
        I also believe it is important to address other pathways of
    introduction such as intentional introductions. Right now,
    anyone can order almost any organism on the Internet and have
    it shipped into the U.S., and no one considers whether that
    organism is invasive and harmful. We need to establish a
    process to screen incoming organisms. The Great Lakes
    Collaboration Implementation Act, which I and Senator Voinovich
    introduced, establishes a screening process for invasive
    organisms.
        Third, we need to be more aggressive about adding organisms
    that are invasive and injurious to the Lacey Act list. Listing
    a species as injurious under the Lacey Act would prevent the
    intentional introduction of these species by prohibiting the
    interstate transportation or importation without a permit. One
    species that I believe should not be imported is the bighead
    carp, and I will introduce legislation to list the bighead carp
    as injurious under the Lacey Act. Three other species of Asian
    carp have already been listed. The Asian carp grow very big,
    reproduce quickly, and are now the most abundant fish in the
    Mississippi River. It's important to Michigan to prevent these
    fish from entering the Great Lakes and destroying the native
    fishery.
        Mr. Chairmen and Ranking Members, the impact of invasive
    species on Michigan's native wildlife is large. I am only able
    to touch on a few of the invaders that have had such a negative
    impact to my State, and I know that each of your States is also
    suffering. So I encourage this committee to support legislation
    to implement a strong ballast water management program, to
    create a screening process for live organisms being imported
    into the country, and to simplify the process of listing a
    species as injurious under the Lacey Act.
        And now I want to say a few words of introduction about
    Director Rebecca Humphries, the Director of the Michigan
    Department of Natural Resources, who will testify later on the
    third panel. Director Humphries has worked her way up through
    the ranks of the Michigan DNR and has more than 30 years of
    experience in the natural resources field. She has considerable
    knowledge on the impacts of invasive species and disease on
    native wildlife. Over the last few years, she has served as the
    chair of the Fish and Wildlife Health Committee for the
    Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies helping to develop a
    package of information related to State and Federal authorities
    to manage diseases in fish and wildlife so that when a disease
    outbreak occurs, State agencies are prepared with plans, well
    trained staff, and legal authorities. Director Humphries has
    tackled issues in Michigan such as viral hemorrhagic septicemia
    (VHS), chronic wasting disease, emerald ash borer, and I
    believe that she will have some valuable recommendations on how
    the Federal Government can work with States to minimize the
    threats to native wildlife. Thank you, Director Humphries, for
    coming to Washington to share your insights into these issues.
        In closing, I want to thank the members of the two
    subcommittees for today's hearing as well as the other
    witnesses.

        Senator Cardin. Senator Levin, thank you very much for
    sharing your thoughts on the subject with us. We appreciate
    your testimony.
        Senator Nelson.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, while Senator Levin is still
    here, I just want to say that I am a sponsor of that bill in
    the Commerce Committee.
        This mussel, this zebra mussel, is really a problem. What
    happens is, instead of using rocks like they did in the old
    days for ballast on ships, they use water. They take this water
    from a foreign land. Well, this water is invaded with all of
    these species, and they come into the Great Lakes and they dump
    the water, and then the species get out. This zebra mussel goes
    and attaches itself to drain pipes and so forth, and it
    completely clogs up everything.
        So, it is just another example that the Congress of the
    United States needs to address this problem in law. It needs to
    address what I am going to show you in law as well. And there
    is something that you can do about that, and that is the bill
    that we filed which adds to the List of Injurious Species the
    Burmese python.
        Now, let me tell you how bad this has become in the Florida
    Everglades. These snakes that people import into this country
    and buy as pets, well, a Burmese python can grow as much as 7
    feet in 1 year. So they get them as these little bitty snakes,
    and then they get too big, and people release them. And they
    are so prolific.
        As a matter of fact, in an environment like the Florida
    Everglades that, by the way, the U.S. Government is spending a
    lot of money, along with the State of Florida, to reform the
    Florida Everglades from the diking and draining that had
    occurred for the last three-quarters of a century, and now we
    are allowing a species to take over that is at the top of the
    food chain, and all of the natural species that is in the
    Florida Everglades that we are restoring back to what Mother
    Nature intended, all of that native species is being thwarted.
        For example, they found that this snake has swam across the
    ocean to Key Largo. It is the top key in the chain of the
    Florida Keys. And there they found, in the belly of one of
    these snakes, the endangered Key Largo wood rat. They have
    found in these snakes a full grown Florida deer. They have
    found a full grown Florida bobcat. It is only a matter of time
    before a Florida Panther is found inside of one of these
    invasive pythons.
        As you can see, by the size of this critter, you can see
    that this one is probably 16 or 17 feet, what they do is they
    have fangs that have fish hooks on them. Their modus operandi,
    since you cannot see them, they will lie in wait perfectly
    still for their prey. They then strike, and grab their prey
    with their fangs which, because it has a barb on the end, the
    prey cannot pull away, then immediately wrap their constrictor
    body around the prey and suffocate their prey to death.
        Unfortunately, the worst happened last week in Florida. A
    pet Burmese python only 8 feet long, not this long, slithered
    out of its glass cage and, in the middle of the night, worked
    its way up into the baby crib, attached its fang to the head of
    a 2-year-old child, wrapped its body around the child and
    strangled the child to death.
        This happened in Sumter County, which is to the west of
    Orlando and north of Tampa. It is just a matter of time before
    one of these snakes gets to a visitor in the Florida
    Everglades.
        Mr. Chairman, I have had the Superintendent of the
    Everglades Park tell me that they now estimate that these
    snakes have proliferated to the tune of 150,000 in the Florida
    Everglades National Park. The reason they are so prolific is,
    they killed a 16-footer and inside of her were 56 eggs ready to
    hatch. So, you see how it has become such an invasive species.
    And it is taking over anything that is natural to the Florida
    Everglades.
        Now, fortunately, at the end of May, we took Secretary
    Salazar down the Everglades, took him out in an airboat and he
    got to see this natural phenomenon called the River of Grass.
    But before we took the tour in the airboat, we brought this, it
    is a 16-footer, you can see the body, and you can see Secretary
    Salazar here looking at this snake. This snake is about as
    large as this one. And you see the power. It took three men to
    hold that snake and that snake was not hungry. You can see the
    power.
        The middle of that snake, the middle of him, is this big
    around. And it is all muscle. You have heard the phrase a pig
    in a python, with the hump in the middle of the snake? Well,
    that is exactly what they do. Once they have suffocated their
    prey to death, then these jaws separate and they ingest the
    whole prey and the body expands and that is where the phrase
    the pig in the python came from.
        In the food chain, there is only predator that is higher
    than this, and that is the alligator. But that is only a very
    large alligator. We have had a 12-foot python attack an 8-foot
    alligator. And they thrashed around in the water for 30 hours
    right off of the headquarters of the National Park in the
    Florida Everglades.
        We have found a 6-foot alligator inside of a python. Here
    again, this is only a 6-footer, and you can see what they look
    like against St. Augustine grass, but when these critters get
    into the natural swampy conditions, you cannot find them. They
    had captured one, they put an electronic chip in one. So they
    trapped it and they had the electronic antenna saying that the
    snake is right there, and all of the biologists standing around
    could not see the snake. That is how difficult they are.
        What I am going to enter into the record, with your
    permission, is a 10-page document that will detail the number
    of python attacks on human beings in the last 10 years. And I
    can tell you, Mr. Chairman, it has been 17, and 7 people have
    died as a result of the attack.
        So not only do we have a species that is threatening to
    humans, and the superintendent of the park told me one day that
    he has never experienced anything like this, they saw a python
    starting to come across the road out in the park. He said his
    attention was diverted momentarily and he turned around and the
    python was right in front of him. They move that quickly.
        So, endangerment to humans, especially endangerment to the
    natural ecological phenomenon of what Mother Nature intended
    because of this snake going after all the other prey, and,
    ultimately, changing the very nature of something that we are
    trying to return to what Mother Nature intended, and that is
    the Florida Everglades.
        I would close with this. This snake coming out of Burma,
    all it knows is that it likes moist, humid climates. This is
    not restricted just to the south end of the peninsula of
    Florida. This snake, if it continues to proliferate, you are
    going to find it all over the southern United States and that
    is all the way, and the biologists will tell you as they
    testify, there are conditions in California and all across the
    sunbelt that are conditions for this snake to prosper in.
        As you look at these invasive species, and there are plenty
    of others you all have mentioned, and I would add that the
    Brazilian pepper plant and the Nile monitor lizards are other
    invasive species, we have got to have the ability to stop it.
        Because we have the problem in Florida, I have been asking
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, administratively, to do
    something about the import. And for 3 years they have not. They
    said that they are studying it. I am hopeful now that, under
    Secretary Tom Strickland, who was down there with us, I am
    hopeful that they are going to administratively get into it.
        But you can do something about it, Mr. Chairman, by a one
    word change in the law and restricting it to, not all of the
    constrictor snakes, but to this particular one. And that would
    be the help that we need to address this problem.
        Thank, you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]

                        Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson,
                     U.S. Senator from the State of Florida

        Chairman Cardin and Chairman Whitehouse, thank you for
    inviting me to testify at this hearing today.
        Last week tragedy struck in a small town northwest of
    Orlando, Florida. As the family awoke a scene of horror
    unfolded. An 8-foot albino Burmese python escaped from its
    container, slithered through the house and up into a crib where
    2-year-old Shaiunna Hare lay asleep. The snake bit the child
    and wrapped itself around her body. By the time the paramedics
    had arrived, the child was already dead from asphyxiation. This
    is truly the scene of a parent's worst nightmares.
        We have been warning about the dangers that these lethal
    snakes present. I have a 10-page document that I will submit
    for the record detailing python attacks over the last 10 years.
    During that period at least 17 people have been the victim of
    an attack, of which 7 died as a result.
        Besides posing a threat to safety, invasive species like
    the Burmese python are wreaking havoc in our most treasured
    environments. Some estimate there are upwards of more than
    100,000 of these deadly pythons in the Everglades National
    Park. The crown jewel of our national park system has been
    transformed into a hunting ground for these predators.
        When is the time for action? We already have one tragedy on
    our hands. How long will it be before one of these snakes gets
    a hold of the extremely endangered Florida Panther? How long
    will it be before a tourist in the Everglades National Park has
    a dangerous encounter with one of these massive pythons? It
    took this tragic event to bring back focus to this problem, but
    there is something we can do about it.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service has the capability, under
    law, to declare this an injurious species under the Lacey Act.
        After the South Florida Water Management District made a
    request in June 2006, Fish and Wildlife has spent the last 3
    years studying it. I think that Secretary of the Interior Ken
    Salazar will take them from studying this issue to acting on
    it. But there is something else we can do. Congress can change
    the law.
        I filed a bill in February which amends the Lacey Act and
    declares pythons as an injurious animal. This will halt the
    importation and interstate commerce of these deadly snakes.
    Classifying the Burmese python or python molurus bivittatus as
    an injurious animal would also stop the importation of these
    snakes between States. This is of particular importance--while
    Burmese pythons have already established a breeding population
    in South Florida, climate maps from the United States
    Geological Service indicated roughly a full third of the U.S.
    is suitable habitat.
        The State of Florida has been working from its end to get a
    handle on these snakes. They now require a yearly registration
    fee, owners must display knowledge of handling and care, and
    snakes are now micro-chipped--so if one got loose you would
    have a chance to chase them down. It's time for the Federal
    Government to step up and address this ecological crisis.
        With more than a hundred thousand of these snakes on the
    loose in the Everglades we must do something before the
    ecological balance is destroyed. We must change the law, and we
    must do it quickly.
        Finally, I would like to thank you again for taking a look
    at the impact non-native plants and animals are having on our
    Nation's natural resources and protected ecosystems. Florida is
    ground zero for exotic plants and animals. From the Brazilian
    pepper to Nile monitor lizards, we have seen it all.
        I would welcome the opportunity to work with you on
    reforming the way we allow species from all over the world into
    the United States. There might be a way to stop the next
    Burmese python from establishing a foothold here.

        Senator Cardin. Well, thank you for your very powerful
    testimony, Senator Nelson.
        Our first panel will consist of our Federal agencies. We
    have, representing the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
    the Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat Conservation,
    Gary Frazer, and then from the United States Department of
    Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Acting
    Associate Administrator Bill Clay.
        Mr. Frazer, we are glad to hear from you. Your full
    testimony will be made part of the record. You may proceed as
    you like.

    STATEMENT OF GARY FRAZER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR FISHERIES AND
          HABITAT CONSERVATION, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        Mr. Frazer. Thank you.
        Chairman Cardin, Chairman Whitehouse and members of the
    subcommittees, I am Gary Frazer. I am the Assistant Director
    for Fisheries and Habitat Conservation of the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service. I also serve as co-chair of the Aquatic
    Nuisance Species Task Force.
        I am joined today by Dr. Jonathan Sleeman, Director of the
    U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife Health Center. And
    thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
        Non-native invasive species have significantly affected the
    health of our native species and ecosystems, and the U.S.
    continues to see non-native potentially invasive species
    crossing our borders through various pathways. Given 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 are among the most significant natural
    resource management challenges facing the Fish and Wildlife
    Service.
        We know that about 4 in 10 species that the Service
    protects under the Endangered Species Act are at risk in large
    part due to the effects of invasive species. Aquatic invasive
    species have harmed America's sport and commercial fisheries.
    And invasive species are one of the most significant threats to
    the National Wildlife Refuge System.
        A September 2008 report of the Government Accountability
    Office listed invasive plants as the No. 1 threat to habitats
    on refuges and invasive animals as the third greatest threat.
        Preventing non-native species from being introduced or
    established is the most cost-effective strategy for dealing
    with invasive species. Control is costly, and the conservation
    community has limited tools for long-term management,
    particularly of aquatic invasive species once they become
    established.
        Preventing the introduction and spread of non-native
    invasive species requires a comprehensive approach including
    Government regulatory tools, such as import screening and
    injurious wildlife prohibitions, pathway management, and public
    education and outreach.
        Now I would like to turn to the threats of disease to
    native fish and wildlife.
        Human-induced changes to the landscape, including the
    introduction of non-native species, climate change and
    declining water and environmental quality, appear to be
    contributing to a surge in infectious disease and parasites
    afflicting native fish and wildlife. Some pathogens are endemic
    to the United States while others are introduced and the
    pathogens themselves could be classified as non-native invasive
    species.
        Non-native infectious diseases are of particular concern
    because native wildlife populations are less likely to have
    developed immunity to these pathogens. Non-native pathogens
    introduced into highly mobile wildlife species can spread
    rapidly, be difficult to control, and have severe ecological,
    economic and even human health impacts.
        An example is white-nose syndrome of bats, which was first
    documented in January 2007 in hibernating bats in New York. It
    has since been documented in hibernating bats in 9 States
    including Virginia and West Virginia. More than 90 percent of
    bats in affected caves have died, with a few caves showing
    close to 100 percent mortality.
        Thus far, six bat species have been affected, including the
    endangered Indiana bat. The sudden and widespread mortality
    associated with white-nose syndrome has never been observed
    before in any of the more than 1,100 species of bats known to
    science.
        The Service is leading the Department of the Interior's
    response to the emergence and spread of white-nose syndrome in
    bats, in cooperation with the USGS, the National Park Service,
    the U.S. Forest Service, State fish and wildlife agencies and
    many other partner agencies and organizations. And we expect to
    have management recommendations in place by September of this
    year.
        The Service and USGS work very closely with State fish and
    wildlife agencies on surveillance, diagnosis and management of
    fish and wildlife disease. The nature of State and Federal
    authority over fish and wildlife requires close and
    collaborative relationships and capability among all the
    partners. To this end, the Service and USGS are partners with
    the State fish and wildlife agencies in development of a
    National Fish and Wildlife Health Initiative, an initiative of
    the Association of the Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
        The overarching goals of this initiative are to establish
    and enhance fish and wildlife agency capability to address
    health issues of free ranging fish and wildlife and to minimize
    the negative impacts of health issues affecting free ranging
    fish and wildlife through management, surveillance and
    research. As with invasive species, preventing and controlling
    disease in fish and wildlife requires capability and
    coordinated effort among many parties.
        Invasive species and fish and wildlife disease are existing
    threats to fish and wildlife populations that will only grow in
    significance in the face of changes to the physical environment
    caused by climate change. Managing these existing stressors to
    fish and wildlife, and anticipating how they may be exacerbated
    by a changing environment, are essential elements of sustaining
    our Nation's fish and wildlife in the face of climate change.
        Mr. Chairman, the Service appreciates your interest in
    these issues and looks forward to working with you to address
    these threats to our Nation's fish and wildlife.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
    today, and I would be happy to respond to any questions you or
    the subcommittees may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Frazer follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Mr. Frazer.
        Mr. Clay.

    STATEMENT OF BILL CLAY, ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, ANIMAL
        AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                              AGRICULTURE

        Mr. Clay. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity
    to testify before your subcommittees.
        I am Bill Clay, the Acting Associate Administrator for the
    USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS. I am
    joined this morning by Dr. Jere Dick, Associate Deputy
    Administrator for APHIS' Veterinary Services Program, and I
    will be speaking to you about APHIS' role in relation to
    wildlife diseases and invasive species.
        APHIS' mission is to protect the health and value of
    American agriculture and natural resources, which we primarily
    accomplish under the Plant Protection Act, the Animal Health
    Protection Act, and the National Animal Damage Control Act.
        Wildlife are reservoirs for a number of serious diseases
    such as chronic wasting disease, brucellosis, plague, rabies
    and bovine tuberculosis, to name a few. Many pose a risk of
    disease spread to agricultural animals, particularly as the
    interaction between wildlife and livestock continues to
    increase. And in several cases, wildlife can pose an elusive
    reservoir for diseases that APHIS is trying to eradicate in
    livestock.
        APHIS, through its Veterinary Services and Wildlife
    Services Programs works to address the animal disease threats
    from both the wildlife and livestock interface. In addition to
    protecting livestock, our agency also seeks to safeguard
    wildlife resources from livestock diseases, as well as emerging
    diseases and invasive species.
        One example is our cooperative effort in Michigan to combat
    bovine tuberculosis in both wildlife and livestock. We are a
    lead agency, in cooperation with the Michigan Department of
    Natural Resources and our industry partners in the Federal-
    State Wildlife Risk Mitigation Program, which assists livestock
    producers in preventing disease spread from wildlife to
    livestock.
        APHIS conducts wildlife risk assessments of livestock
    facilities, develops and funds mitigation plans to increase the
    separation between wildlife and livestock, and conducts bovine
    tuberculosis surveillance and disease management in affected
    herds, among other things.
        Another example is viral hemorrhagic septicemia, which has
    caused die-offs in many freshwater species in the Great Lakes.
    The virus could also affect commercially raised fish in other
    parts of the country. So, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, we issued a Federal order preventing the
    movement of potentially infected fish out of the Great Lakes
    watershed region to unaffected parts of the country.
        Our work to address rabies has significant public health
    and wildlife health impacts. We work closely with our State
    partners and others to annually distribute more than 11 million
    oral rabies vaccination baits to reduce the threat to humans,
    domestic animals and wildlife.
        We also work closely with the U.S. Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention and with Canada and Mexico as part of an
    international strategy for rabies. This program is a model for
    the One Health Initiative, a worldwide strategy that promotes
    expanding interdisciplinary collaboration and communication and
    that recognizes the critical link between human health and
    animal health.
        We also work cooperatively with the States to eradicate
    invasive species which can devastate ecosystems. For example,
    nutria, a large semi-aquatic rodent native to South America has
    caused extensive damage to wetlands, agricultural crops and
    structural foundations and may serve as a reservoir for
    disease. We are working to eradicate nutria on the DelMarVa
    peninsula in Maryland and have removed more 13,000 to date.
        Also, in Florida's Grassy Key, we are working with the
    State to eradicate the Gambian giant pouched rat, a rodent
    native to Africa. We are in the final stages of surveillance
    and removal of any remaining rats which could cause significant
    agricultural damage and damage to natural resources if they
    reach the mainland. We also have ongoing invasive species
    programs for brown tree snakes in Guam, for coqui tree frogs in
    Hawaii and for feral swine in several of the States.
        Finally, research is a vitally important part of our
    wildlife disease management efforts. Our National Wildlife
    Research Center scientists design, develop and test new tools
    for minimizing human-wildlife conflicts that are biologically
    sound, environmentally safe and socially acceptable. National
    Wildlife Research Center scientists investigate the ecology and
    transmission of wildlife diseases, as well as develop and test
    wildlife vaccines and new disease surveillance methods.
        Wildlife diseases studied there include avian influenza,
    bovine tuberculosis, chronic wasting disease, pseudorabies,
    West Nile virus, rabies, and others.
        In summary, APHIS has a deep understanding of the link
    between the health of wildlife, the health of our Nation's
    agricultural animals, and the impacts of invasive species. We
    are committed to continuing the strong cooperative partnerships
    with other Federal agencies and our State partners as we work
    to protect the agricultural and natural resources of our
    Nation.
        We appreciate the interest of your subcommittees in these
    efforts, and we look forward to working with you on wildlife
    issues of mutual interest.
        This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer
    any questions that you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Clay follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much.
        Senator Nelson has asked the committee to include the fact
    sheets on the python incidents. Without objection, that will be
    made part of the record.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Let me point out to the members of the
    committee that I have been informed there will be two votes
    starting in a few minutes on the floor of the Senate. It is my
    intention to keep the hearing in session. Senator Whitehouse
    has indicated that he will be back after the first vote, in
    time for me to do that. If that, in fact, carries out, we will
    try to continue the hearing.
        Let me start with some questions, if I might, in regards to
    the eradication programs, Mr. Clay, which you are referring to.
    I have seen first hand the work that has been done on the
    nutria in Blackwater, and I am very impressed with the public-
    private partnership. I think you said it was 13,000 or 8,000--
    --
        Mr. Clay. Thirteen thousand.
        Senator Cardin. Thirteen thousand nutria have been removed.
    That is quite an impressive effort, and I know that we have
    seen the result, the effects of these results.
        My question is, how effective is this program? Can we
    expect that we can completely eradicate the nutria from the
    Eastern Shore of the DelMarVa peninsula? Or is this a
    management issue more so than effort to completely eradicate?
        Mr. Clay. Well, Senator, once that invasive species becomes
    firmly established, like nutria have in the DelMarVa peninsula
    or in Louisiana, or as brown tree snakes have become
    established in Guam, I think we have to be careful about using
    the word eradicate because I am not convinced that we can
    entirely eradicate every single animal.
        I do think with the nutria, brown tree snakes and other
    invasives that have become firmly established, we can control
    the problem to the point where it is no longer, where it does
    not cause any environmental effects. I am not sure that we can
    entirely eradicate them, but I do think that we can make it not
    the problem that it is today.
        Senator Cardin. So it is more of a management issue than an
    eradication issue?
        Mr. Clay. Yes.
        Senator Cardin. Mr. Frazer, I heard you say that our
    strategy should be to try to prevent the introduction of
    invasive species. We have the Lacey Act dealing with injurious
    species. Do we need to look at changing that law? Is there the
    right balance? As I understand it, there is more focus on
    livestock-type products than there are for general control at
    our borders. People can bring in pets and then release them, as
    we have seen with the snakehead, as we have seen with the
    python.
        Do we need to look at changing that law? Is this an
    enforcement issue? What do we need to do to be more effective
    in dealing with injurious types of introductions into the
    United States?
        Mr. Frazer. Well, Senator, there are multiple authorities
    to address controlling the importation of non-native species
    into the United States. When it is a public health issue, CDC
    has authorities. When it is an agricultural health issue, USDA
    has authorities. When it is an issue related to injurious
    nature to fish and wildlife, the Service has authority under
    the Lacey Act to undertake rulemaking to add a species to the
    list and prevent its importation and to interstate transport of
    those species.
        It is a rulemaking process. It is process laden and
    cumbersome. The Service has not been resourced to staff that
    program at a high level. And so it has taken, in many cases,
    several years for us to move through the process of adding a
    single species to the list.
        It is also been administrated in a fashion that is more
    reactive in the past. Species that already have been imported
    and demonstrated to be of concern in the U.S. or those that
    have tended to be the focus of adding them to the list.
        So, I do think that we need to be looking both
    administratively to improve the process and do what we can, in
    terms of adding more resources, doing everything we can to
    improve the administrative process of getting through the
    rulemaking, and we should also be looking at other approaches
    that will be more proactive in nature.
        Senator Cardin. We would look forward to your
    recommendations there. I mean, I think Senator Nelson makes a
    very strong point about the Burmese python, that even if it
    were added to the list, the damage has been done. The question
    is, can we stay ahead of the curve?
        Are there certain types of animals that should not be
    permitted in this country because of its tendency to be a pet
    for a short period of time and then released to the wild that
    could cause damage here in America? I think that is an issue
    that we should try to stay ahead of the game, rather than just
    trying to be reactive, as you said. I am not sure what the
    answer is, but we certainly welcome your thoughts as to giving
    you additional tools to deal with that.
        Mr. Frazer. We would be happy to work with you. I testified
    recently before the House Natural Resources Committee on a bill
    that has been introduced on the House side that took a
    different approach. So, we would be happy to explore options
    with you.
        Senator Cardin. And what was that approach?
        Mr. Frazer. It was one that established two different
    lists, an approved list and an unapproved list. It recognizes
    some species that might fall in the middle, and you have to do
    a case-by-case approach. It was one that sought to provide a
    more proactive approach, provide more certainty to importers.
    It placed the onus upon importers to provide information upon
    which to make the risk assessment. It was designed to be more
    timely, more proactive. There are a number of issues that are
    associated with making such a thing work, not the least being
    the resources that would be involved.
        Senator Cardin. I think Senator Barrasso raises a very
    valid point about industries in America depending upon
    diversity in species, which is certainly something that we do
    not want to stop. But there are certain types of wildlife that
    really does not serve that purpose, that the potential danger
    seems to me outweighs any of the benefits, including it being
    an exotic pet. And we would hope you have the authority to move
    more rapidly to prevent a Burmese python circumstance in the
    future.
        Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
    thank you for that reference. I do have letters from the
    Chamber of Commerce of the United States and the Retail Leaders
    Association. I would like to introduce those----
        Senator Cardin. Without objection, it will be included in
    the record.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The referenced letters follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Mr. Clay, my impression has been that the
    USDA has broad authority in controlling injurious wildlife
    species in terms of entering into agreements with States, with
    local jurisdictions, with individuals to control these invasive
    species. How can we use the existing authorities, which the
    USDA already has and the Fish and Wildlife Service has, to
    address some of these threats to our native species? Are there
    things we can do right now with the laws already in place?
        Mr. Clay. Well, I think, as far as the APHIS wildlife
    services program, we are not a regulatory program, unlike the
    other programs in APHIS. So, we would work strictly on a
    request basis from State or Federal agency or the private
    sector. As far as the regulatory authorities in APHIS regarding
    livestock health, I think there are appropriate authorities
    that cover veterinary services activities there.
        So, we will be glad to assist any State or Federal entity
    that requests our assistance if it falls under the regulatory
    authority.
        Senator Barrasso. Following up with Mr. Frazer, I look at
    the Game and Fish Department in Wyoming. It is very concerned
    about some of these aquatic invasive species that we talked
    about, that Senator Levin talked about beginning in the Great
    Lakes, and we have concerns.
        What can the U.S. Fish and Wildlife do to support a State
    effort to tackle this threat, short of adopting some sweeping
    new Federal law which I know my State is not really asking for?
    They are just asking for some help.
        Mr. Frazer. Well, as I said, I co-chair the Aquatic
    Nuisance Task Force, which is organized to coordinate Federal
    efforts to address aquatic nuisance species but also is closely
    connected with six different regional panels that reach out to
    State agencies.
        Through that effort, the Fish and Wildlife Service led what
    we called the Hundredth Meridian Initiative, which, through the
    1990s, served to try to prevent the movement of zebra and
    quagga mussels from the Great Lakes into the Western States.
    For a number of years, it was successful. But that barrier was
    breached and, as you know, zebra and quagga mussels are now
    established in the Colorado River.
        But we are still working closely with our States, including
    through the limited dollars that we have, to provide support,
    financial support, to State invasive species programs, to mount
    effective prevention and control programs, to contain the
    species where it is now, to do extensive public education and
    outreach, because much of the movement is through recreational
    boating and other pathways, and otherwise to provide leadership
    and support to the States and others that have to be part of a
    solution dealing with prevention and containment.
        Senator Barrasso. Can I ask, also, have you done an
    economic analysis? I mean, I introduced a letter from the
    Chamber of Commerce about some of the impact that a broad piece
    of legislation would have on things like sport fishing if you
    really go ahead and adopt a precautionary approach, as opposed
    to a risk-based approach.
        Mr. Frazer. We have not done them in a generic fashion. But
    part of the challenge of us moving through an individual
    injurious wildlife determination is that we do need to do an
    economic analysis and look at the effects of any prohibition on
    importation on small businesses, small organizations. Those are
    the sorts of additional analyses that require time and
    resources and make the process challenging.
        Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, I know they are calling for
    the vote. If I may just introduce a couple of other questions
    in written form so that Senator Lautenberg has an opportunity
    to ask questions.
        Senator Cardin. Certainly.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
        Senator Cardin. Senator Lautenberg.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thank each of
    you for your very depressing testimony.
        This has been a difficult hearing because we are facing up
    to a problem that exists all around us, and one that has not
    received the right kind of attention, in my view. When I think
    about recreational boaters and what they might carry, what does
    one do about that? I mean, are we out saying that you have to
    wash down your boat with a particular kind of material, and so
    forth, and I just cannot imagine getting people that alarmed
    about it. That question does not deserve an answer. It is just
    a rhetorical question.
        Mr. Frazer, I have asked Interior to devote more resources
    to curbing the white-nose syndrome. Now, is this situation
    considered among the more serious in terms of the bat
    population? Is this recognized as an imminent and massive
    danger?
        Mr. Frazer. We consider this a crisis in bat conservation,
    particularly in the Eastern United States, and we are
    redirecting existing dollars to tackle that now to the extent
    that we can.
        Senator Lautenberg. So, is there a provision in the
    structure that enables you to move funds to the more critical
    situations? Are there enough funds, as we listen to the
    testimony and our colleagues have presented, are there enough
    funds in reserve that are available to get out and start
    fighting these situations where there are invasive species or,
    in this case, a virus or whatever it is that is killing these
    bats?
        Mr. Frazer. We are directing funds under the Endangered
    Species Act Recovery Program, as well as within our
    Environmental Contaminants Program, to tackle this. USGS is
    directing their discretionary research dollars to this. And a
    number of other agencies are also directing, to the extent that
    they have discretion, resources to tackle this issue. I cannot
    speak to whether that is viewed as adequate. Now, we are all
    Federal bureaucrats, so we could always do more. But there is a
    significant effort mounted.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. Scientific studies suggest
    that humans may play a role in the spread of white-nose
    syndrome. The Fish and Wildlife Service has called for a
    voluntary moratorium on caving in affected areas.
        Now, since most of this depends on State supervision, what
    does the Federal Government do to monitor what State activities
    are taking place to do their part since this is not typically a
    Federal jurisdiction?
        Mr. Frazer. As I said in my testimony, management of fish
    and wildlife disease requires a very close and collaborative
    partnership with State fish and wildlife agencies. They have
    the authority and responsibility, as well as the field
    presence, to deal with wildlife disease that exceeds most
    Federal agencies. The Federal Government can provide
    leadership, it can provide financial support, it can provide
    research, but in many cases it is the State agencies that are
    going to be involved in the operational management activities--
    --
        Senator Lautenberg. But what happens, Mr. Frazer, if it is
    observed that a particular State is not doing quite what they
    should? Is there a corrective action that can be taken by the
    Federal Government that says, hey, it is going to get you
    involved with us in funding or something like that?
        Mr. Frazer. We have not experienced that situation. But if
    we did, at least the Fish and Wildlife Service does not have
    the kind of authority to step in and federalize management of a
    disease issue affecting a resident fish and wildlife
    population.
        Senator Lautenberg. Not to manage it, but rather to report
    on it in some manner or form so that we look at whether or not
    we have to make adjustments and, considering the threats that
    these conditions pose, we would like to stress as much action
    as we can possibly muster. Is it possible the white-nose
    syndrome will result in serious direct human health impacts if
    it continues to spread?
        Mr. Frazer. We do not know of human health impacts
    associated with this disease. Certainly, ecological impacts to
    bats, a potentially catastrophic affect to bats.
        I would say, with regard to our relationships with States,
    it is a very close and very positive relationship, and I would
    not anticipate a situation where we would be at loggerheads.
        Senator Lautenberg. OK. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you. As you pointed out, you have a
    great deal of authority under different sections. I am trying
    to understand when you consider it urgent to act quickly. I
    know you have emergency powers to protect the public health of
    the people of this Nation.
        What standards are used in order to take emergency
    precautions where there is an immediate threat? And is there
    anything that we can learn from that that could help us,
    perhaps, deal with some of these other problems in trying to
    streamline the process for making decisions on border issues?
        Mr. Frazer. The Fish and Wildlife Service does not have
    authority to an emergency listing under the Lacey Act. We are
    governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. So, the standard
    there would be, basically it is a due cause standard that we
    have to establish in order to take emergency action under the
    Administrative Procedures Act. We do not have authority like
    under the Endangered Species Act to just simply do an emergency
    listing.
        Senator Cardin. But you do have, USDA does have certain
    emergency powers. Maybe I can try to get Mr. Clay involved
    here.
        Mr. Clay. Yes, sir. Senator, the Animal Health Protection
    Act does give APHIS broad authority to deal with any type of
    animal that poses a risk to livestock or to agriculture,
    whether it is a pet or any kind of animal. If there is a risk
    specifically to agriculture and it can impact agriculture,
    APHIS has the authority to go in and deal with that.
        Senator Cardin. But it does not extend to the situation
    such as the python or the invasive nutria. If there are
    snakehead, you could not list prohibited imports because of the
    fear it would have on agricultural products in the country, or
    could you?
        Mr. Clay. We could if there was a threat from the animal.
    Like, for instance, hedgehogs are prohibited from entering the
    country because of the threat of tuberculosis or foot and mouth
    disease from them. So, they are an animal that would be
    regulated as far as watching closely. Other animals, if they do
    not pose a disease threat to livestock of agriculture, would
    not fall under the regulatory authority of APHIS.
        Senator Cardin. It seems that is a pretty narrow area where
    you can act. It is hard to anticipate that an exotic pet, which
    could pose a threat to livestock, or a plant to agriculture,
    would be prohibited from being introduced into America because
    of the fear that it would be released into the environment.
        Mr. Clay. There have been several species of tortoises that
    have been prohibited because of the ticks and other arthropods
    that they carry on them that are vectors of livestock diseases.
    So, it really depends on the type of animal and the country it
    is coming from, if there is foreign animal diseases, foot and
    mouth disease or high path avian influenza or whatever, coming
    from that country. That is when there would be specific
    restrictions or import regulations.
        Senator Cardin. And when you have taken this action, how
    effective is the border control and enforcement?
        Mr. Clay. Well, we work closely at all the ports of entry
    with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the other Federal
    partners on this. We all have different authorities that we
    operate under, some of them impact wildlife or affect wildlife
    and others do not. But we have been working with these Federal
    partners for years. We have had long standing cooperative
    relationships with them, so we understand their authorities,
    their expertise, and I believe we are working very closely with
    them at the ports of entry.
        Senator Cardin. But there are certain prohibited items and
    of course we all know what happens at the borders. Is this
    generally monitoring commercial activity at our borders more so
    than the individual who is returning to our country?
        Mr. Clay. Well, it is looking at, primarily, wildlife or
    agricultural animals coming in or their products that are
    coming in that could pose a threat to the livestock or
    agricultural health.
        Mr. Frazer. For the Fish and Wildlife Service, Senator,
    there are designated ports of entry for legal commerce and
    wildlife. We permit and license importers of wildlife. They are
    required to file declarations that describe what and where
    their products come from. So, legal commerce is something that
    comes through those designated ports, and it is in the form of
    commercial activity. There are certainly illegal and
    unauthorized imports of wildlife and wildlife products that
    come into the country.
        Senator Cardin. I will just make one final observation, and
    that is that some of this could be better education, to let the
    public understand the dangers of these types of releases. I
    think that publicizing what has happened in Florida, for
    example, the loss of life as the result of someone innocently,
    they thought, releasing a snake into the wild. I think we could
    do a better job. That is something that I think all of us need
    to take a look at to see what we can let people know----
        Mr. Frazer. Public education is, excuse me, the effective
    educating and really changing the perspective of the public on
    invasive species is extremely important. Senator Lautenberg
    talked about washing boats or modifying the behavior of
    recreational boaters. We have a specific campaign to do that,
    and it has been very effective.
        With regard to invasive species, particularly pet species,
    we have something called Habitattitude that seeks to educate
    pet owners about the dangers and risks of releasing their pets
    or aquatic plants into the wild. So those are effective parts
    of our strategy.
        Senator Cardin. Well, let me thank both of you, and we look
    forward to working with you as we try to improve our tools to
    deal with this problem through our Federal regulators.
        Before calling the next panel, we are going to take a very
    brief recess. I expect that Senator Whitehouse will be
    returning shortly which will reconvene the second panel. And as
    soon as I have a chance to cast my votes, I will be returning.
        [Recess.]
        Senator Whitehouse [presiding]. I call the hearing to order
    and start getting under way. The other members of the committee
    will come back from the vote as they have concluded their
    business. I gather they are back-to-back votes, so they will be
    able to vote twice and then come on back.
        In the meantime, Chairman Cardin has asked that we continue
    the hearing, and I am delighted to welcome the witnesses who
    are here today.
        I gather that Director Humphries has already been somewhat
    introduced by her Senator, Carl Levin. We are so pleased with
    Senator Levin's and Senator Stabenow's contributions to the
    Senate. I have to say you come very well represented here, and
    I am very pleased to have you here as Michigan's Director of
    the Department of Natural Resources.
        We are also joined by Dr. Gregory Ruiz, who is a Senior
    Scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
    Marine Invasions Research Laboratory. The Smithsonian
    Environmental Research Center is a global leader for research
    focused on the connections between terrestrial and aquatic
    ecosystems. Dr. Ruiz leads SERC's Marine Invasions Laboratory,
    a national-international center for research on biological
    invasions in coastal marine ecosystems.
        I want to tell Dr. Ruiz that I am married to a marine
    biologist who specializes in estuary science, and during the
    course of my pursuit of her, I was actually dragged into her
    sampling, some of which took place underwater in Narragansett
    Bay in February. I guess with that I impressed her enough that
    we have now ended up man and wife, or, in her case, probably
    woman and husband.
        I am very pleased to have you here with us to bring the
    marine and coastal side of this. I think it is extremely
    significant.
        Also to a degree emphasizing the marine and coastal side of
    this is my friend, John Torgan, from Rhode Island, who is the
    Baykeeper of Narragansett Bay and works for our really primary
    environmental organization of Rhode Island, Save the Bay. John
    has been connected to the Narragansett Bay watershed his entire
    life. His Baykeeper Program is part of the National Waterkeeper
    Alliance, specialists with a passion for defending the
    environment and a devotion to working among communities.
        As our Baykeeper, Mr. Torgan is responsible for monitoring
    invasive species in the bay and collaborating with Federal,
    State and local agencies to help prevent the introduction and
    spread of invasive species. Narragansett's native scallop,
    river herring, Atlantic salmon, rainbow smelt, sturgeon and
    American shad populations are all impacted by invasive species.
        Finally, we are joined by Dr. Jeffrey Hill, who is an
    Assistant Professor with the Department of Fisheries and
    Aquatic Sciences at the University of Florida.
        We welcome all of the witnesses, and why do we not go
    across the board beginning with Dr. Ruiz.

       STATEMENT OF GREGORY RUIZ, SENIOR SCIENTIST, SMITHSONIAN
       ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER, MARINE INVASIONS RESEARCH
                               LABORATORY

        Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning and thank
    you for the opportunity to be here today.
        My name is Greg Ruiz. I am a Senior Scientist at the
    Smithsonian Environmental Research Center or SERC, located on
    the Chesapeake Bay. SERC is a leading national center of
    research on non-native species invasions in coastal marine
    systems. A primary goal of SERC's invasion research is to
    advance fundamental science to understand patterns and
    mechanisms of coastal invasions.
        Today, I would like to highlight the current state of
    knowledge about invasions in marine ecosystems, considering
    Chesapeake Bay and Nation more broadly. I also wish to
    underscore the need for vector management to reduce the risk
    and impacts of invasions.
        Invasions are rapidly changing the earth's ecosystems,
    having dramatic effects on ecological processes, critical
    habitats, commercial fisheries and disease outbreaks. The cost
    of invasions to society is enormous, estimated in excess of
    $100 billion a year in the United States alone. Invasions
    result in the loss of crops and fisheries, damage to
    infrastructure and water supplies, and effects on human health.
        Coastal bays and estuaries are especially vulnerable to
    invasion by non-native species. This is exemplified by
    Chesapeake Bay, the Nation's largest estuary. SERC's research
    has documented over 177 non-native species with established
    populations in Chesapeake tidal waters. The rate of documented
    invasions here has increased dramatically over the last
    century. These organisms were delivered from around the globe
    by a diverse range of human activities.
        Some invasions have large effects on the Chesapeake Bay
    region. For example, the oyster parasite MSX, from Asia, causes
    mass mortality of the native Eastern oyster, contributing to
    the collapse of Chesapeake's iconic fishery and undermining
    efforts for recovery.
        As Senator Cardin indicated, the nutria, a South American
    mammal, is responsible for destruction of salt marsh habitat,
    converting marsh to bare mud and removing critical habitat for
    waterfowl, fish and other organisms.
        Also of great concern is the observed increase in new
    invasions for the Chesapeake. On a daily basis, non-native
    species are delivered to our shores by many different human
    activities, including the movement of ships, recreational
    vessels and live trade organisms such as seafood, bait,
    aquarium pets and aquatic plants. As a result, new invasions
    continue to occur, such as the mitten crab, which has been
    found now from Chesapeake up to New York.
        The Chesapeake serves as a model for what is occurring with
    invasions across the Nation. As Senator Nelson indicated today,
    invasions pose a significant challenge for resource management
    and undermine restoration efforts. This situation is
    exacerbated by the growing number of invasions and also the
    effects of climate change. Increasing temperatures expand the
    number of species that can colonize by creating suitable
    conditions for survival and reproduction that did not
    previously exist.
        There are two key steps that are needed to address invasion
    impacts. The first is to reduce the risks of future invasions
    by new species. The second is to eradicate or control selected
    high impact species that are already established. However,
    unless we address the increasing number of new invaders, our
    capacity to mitigate established evasions is rapidly
    overwhelmed.
        One obvious priority for the Nation is vector management.
    Rather than a species-by-species approach, vector management
    seeks to disrupt the shared transfer process of many species at
    once. I describe this in more detail in my written testimony.
        There is still considerable work to be done to achieve
    effective vector management. The Nation's current approach is a
    patchwork applied inconsistently across different transfer
    mechanisms or vectors.
        There are also critical scientific gaps that limit vector
    management. One of these is tracking and measuring the
    occurrence of invasions over time. This is key to identifying
    the source of new invasions for response. This is also needed
    to assess the long-term effectiveness of vector disruption.
        Remarkably, there exists no national program to provide the
    type of standardized measures needed to assess the status and
    trends of coastal invasions in America today. This presents
    significant problems for vector management. Many regions,
    habitats and taxonomic groups have not been surveyed in recent
    years or even decades, providing only a party picture of
    invasion dynamics.
        Piecing together data from existing programs is
    insufficient because they have conspicuous gaps. To reduce
    invasion risks and impacts, we need a consistent approach to
    vector management. This requires the use of standardized
    quantitative surveys to track invasions. Without such field
    measures, we are often left guessing about the status, trends
    and emerging threats of invasions, limiting effective
    responses.
        In my written testimony, I have outlined some possible
    approaches to meet this challenge.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ruiz follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Dr. Ruiz.
        Director Humphries.

     STATEMENT OF REBECCA HUMPHRIES, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT
                          OF NATURAL RESOURCES

        Ms. Humphries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am Becky Humphries, Director of the Michigan Department
    of Natural Resources, and I am also the Chair of the Fish and
    Wildlife Health Committee of the Association of Fish and
    Wildlife Agencies.
        I appreciate the opportunity to share with you today the
    perspectives of State fish and wildlife agencies on the vital
    issue of emerging fish and wildlife disease.
        All 50 States are members of the Association of Fish and
    Wildlife Agencies. The Association strives to enhance and
    facilitate cooperation and coordination among State, Federal
    and tribal agencies with respect to fish and wildlife
    conservation.
        Today, I will share with you the Association's approach to
    this challenge through the development and implementation of
    the National Fish and Wildlife Health Initiative. I will
    characterize the national approach to managing chronic wasting
    disease, CWD, through the development of a State, Federal and
    national plan which I think was a good model. I will also
    briefly reflect on my experiences in Michigan, our lessons
    learned with several of these diseases, including bovine
    tuberculosis, chronic wasting disease, and viral hemorrhagic
    septicemia.
        State fish and wildlife agencies have the statutory, and
    often constitutional, responsibility for the conservation of
    fish and wildlife within their borders for the benefits of
    their citizens. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
    developed the National Fish and Wildlife Initiative to create a
    system for coordination between State, Federal, tribal and
    private industry to ensure the early detection of pathogens and
    the appropriation response and management of these diseases.
        The two overarching goals of the initiative are first, as
    you have heard, to assist States and Federal agencies in
    enhancing their capacity and appropriately addressing fish and
    wildlife health issues. And second, to facilitate close
    cooperation between State and Federal fish and wildlife, animal
    health and human health agencies with respect to fish and
    wildlife pathogens and diseases in order to minimize their
    negative effects.
        The initiative is a policy framework by which all
    interested parties may seek both to minimize the negative
    impacts of disease agents in fish and wildlife and to
    proactively promote healthy fish and wildlife populations. A
    copy of the initiative is appended to my statement for your
    reference. It is interesting to note that we have three of the
    Steering Committee members here today testifying.
        The growing importance of fish and wildlife health issues
    in natural resource management is dramatic. It makes it
    imperative that more resources be directed toward them in the
    future. Building capacity at all levels of government for early
    detection and the execution of coordinated response plans
    provides the best known strategy for successfully dealing with
    disease incidents.
        State and Federal coordinated disease response planning is
    a model that has been successfully practiced in recent years.
    In 2002, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S.
    Department of Interior convened a taskforce to coordinate CWD
    management, which included both Federal interests and
    eventually State interests as well. The work of the taskforce
    culminated in the development of a national plan that guides
    surveillance and management actions.
        Congress followed up by appropriating over $10 million for
    CWD management, part of which has been made available to the
    States for use in surveillance and monitoring. In Michigan, we
    used the national plan and the funding made available through
    USDA APHIS to specifically plan for and prepare a response to
    the potential detection of CWD in Michigan.
        In the fall of 2008, in the late summer, we found CWD in
    Michigan. Over a period of 2 years, funds made available
    through USDA APHIS accounted for testing of nearly 12 percent
    of all cervids tested in Michigan for CWD so far. By
    coordinating Federal efforts and funding within State specific
    planning efforts, State fish and wildlife agencies have been
    better positioned to characterize the distribution and
    intensity of CWD and evaluate the risks.
        These Federal funds and the flexibility of cooperative
    agreements between States like Michigan and the Federal
    Government have made it possible to conduct large scale
    wildlife disease surveillance, in some States for the very
    first time, which certainly could not have occurred without
    this coordinated effort.
        Through our experiences with bovine TB and VHS, Michigan
    has learned another important lesson. Fish and wildlife disease
    management is not restricted to the identification of vectors,
    the isolation of infected individuals, and the removal from the
    population. Fish and wildlife bring significant economic and
    cultural interests to bear upon management strategies, and
    those interests bring political attention as well.
        These juxtaposed interests have required a new paradigm in
    disease mitigation. Because diseases like bovine TB and VHS can
    be vectored through the action of hunting and angling
    communities, it has become essential to plan and provide for
    inclusion and partnership with the public.
        The new cultural norm where traditions have been altered to
    conform to the new demands of disease on the landscape have
    been partially achieved, but not without concerted and
    consistent effort in the face of, at times, an unwilling
    public. Planning for cultural, social and political
    consequences of a disease incident should be viewed as
    essential.
        Through our experiences with CWD, bovine TB and other
    diseases, we believe adequate authorities already exist.
    However, we need to put more resources into our work so that we
    can adequately expand our capacity and capabilities to respond
    to what we expect to be an increasing number of diseases.
        We have also learned that disease planning efforts need to
    include the public and have their involvement and engagement.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share the Association's
    perspectives and I would be happy to address any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Humphries follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Director. I
    appreciate your bringing your views.
        Next is Baykeeper Torgan.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN TORGAN, NARRAGANSETT BAYKEEPER, SAVE THE BAY,
                                  INC.

        Mr. Torgan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is really an honor
    to be here.
        The problem of invasive species poses serious economic and
    environmental risks to rivers, bays and coastal systems
    nationally. According to recent estimates, the United States
    spends in excess of $138 billion annually on control measures.
        While this problem itself is not new, changing
    environmental factors and new species introductions have
    contributed to dramatic shifts in the types of plants and
    animals we see in our region and across the country and have
    opened the door for non-native species to take hold.
        In Narragansett Bay and Southern New England, we have
    observed fundamental changes in the fish and shellfish
    populations as water temperatures have warmed over the past 30
    years.
        The extent of low-oxygen dead zones on the bottom has
    spread as warmer water and pollution contribute to massive
    algae blooms. The populations of classic cold water New England
    fish and shellfish species, like lobster, cod, winter flounder,
    river herring and scallops, are all down as jellyfish, algae,
    and other warm water-tolerant fish like striped bass and
    menhaden have recently increased.
        You mentioned Dr. Whitehouse's dissertation work on winter
    flounder. That is very much on point here. That looked at a
    kind of shrimp that used to be excluded in cold winters in
    Narragansett Bay, but in warmer winters it can now get in,
    called the crangonshrimp or seven spine shrimp, and eat the
    baby winter flounder. So, this is an example of, not an
    invasive species, but a changing condition that opens the door
    to more problems from invasions.
        Invasive plants and animals thrive under these warmer
    conditions. They are causing some negative, but mostly unknown,
    impacts on the broader coastal ecosystem. Asian shore crabs,
    which we first observed in the mid-1990s, are now the most
    common species of crab, the most prolific in front of our main
    offices in Providence. You cannot turn over a rock there
    without finding one. We do not know if they have driven out the
    native crabs or what the extent of the damage is yet, but that
    is something that we need to study.
        Certain shellfish diseases like dermo, MSX and juvenile
    oyster disease, once much more common in Mid-Atlantic waters,
    have nearly wiped out our native oyster populations. Lobster
    diseases further weaken an already struggling industry in
    Southern New England. Commercial fisheries and the historic
    seafood industry of the region are facing unprecedented
    challenges from these and other changes.
        The same changes can be observed in avian, other fish
    populations, mosquitoes with West Nile, and EEE, these may also
    be related to temperature.
        Understanding biological invasions requires knowledge of
    past and present populations. We are only just beginning to get
    a clear picture of what is in our ecosystem today. Doing
    comprehensive baseline assessments in States helps us
    understand what is really new and what has been there and what
    is a threat.
        Rhode Island has just established a citizen-based
    environmental monitoring program for aquatic invasive species
    which is an interagency and university effort. We participate
    in that.
        The National Invasive Species Act has enabled all of this
    progress to date. Since its passage, Congress has appropriated
    $1.7 million per year for States to develop invasive species
    management plans. Individual States' shares of that money have
    been declining though as more States receive approval for their
    plans from the Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.
    Rhode Island's share, for example, dropped from $45,000 to
    $35,00 in the past year. So, it would help States a great deal
    if Congress were to appropriate the additional $3 million
    authorized in that Act.
        While my organization is focused primarily on coastal
    waters and estuaries, invasive species on land affect our
    environment significantly, especially where land and water
    interface. I will use the example of phragmites, the giant reed
    grass. I took the train from Providence, and you can see vast
    acres of it as you go through coastal Rhode Island,
    Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, all the way down here. We
    have an invasive species, phragmites, which takes over and
    transforms wetlands into a monoculture.
        But we have identified some feasible control measures for
    it. Habitat restoration, allowing tidal water and salt water
    from the tide, where that is feasible, can knock out
    phragmites. Where that is not possible with some of the other
    aquatic plants species, you can treat them using a combination
    of approved herbicides, cutting and treating over the course of
    several seasons. But that is expensive and is labor intensive.
        Forests, as some of the other witnesses have pointed out,
    are also at risk with things like the Asian longhorn beetle. By
    managing those, by clearing forests, that has an impact on
    water quality through increased runoff.
        We know that prevention, as Senator Cardin had said
    earlier, is the best and most cost-effective control measure.
    But investing in screening and other controls at ports,
    airports and other points of entry would help. Once they are
    established, it is very difficult to get them out.
        Another important role for non-profit organizations like
    mine is in education, in public communication and in outreach,
    to directly involve people in understanding the problem and the
    solution.
        Finally, we believe that regional management is the most
    effective approach to these issues and this approach needs to
    engage multiple States because the species do not respect
    borders. In New England, the Northeast Aquatic Nuisance Species
    Panel of the Federal Task Force helps to coordinate regional
    efforts and maintain frequent communications with the public.
    We view this as an effective model.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy
    to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Torgan follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, John, and once
    again, welcome. It is wonderful to see you here.
        Our last witness is Professor Jeffrey Hill from the
    University of Florida.

     STATEMENT OF JEFFREY E. HILL, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT
        OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

        Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify concerning the threats of invasive species to native
    wildlife.
        I am Dr. Jeffrey Hill, Assistant Professor of Fisheries and
    Aquatic Sciences at the University of Florida. My teaching,
    research and extension programs involve ecology and management
    of non-native aquatic species. I teach a course in invasion
    ecology, conduct field laboratory research, and apply
    ecological theory and practical experience to risk analysis. I
    have conducted and reviewed risk analysis efforts for sports
    fish, aquaculture species and ornamental species at State,
    Federal and international levels.
        I am the President-Elect of the Introduced Fish Section of
    the American Fisheries Society and a member of State and
    national non-native species scientific advisory committees,
    including the Research Committee and the Detection and
    Monitoring Committee of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task
    Force.
        Invasive species threaten native species and ecosystems,
    economic values and human health in every State and U.S.
    Territory. Invasive species arrive in the United States through
    a variety of pathways, including intentional importation and
    interstate trade, as well as via unintentional pathways such as
    ballast water.
        The negative effects of many invasive species, such as
    zebra mussels and brown tree snakes, as well as wildlife
    diseases such as VHS, are well known. I will not discuss them
    further, except to say that some invasive species are
    ecologically devastating or economically important and costly
    pests.
        Few would argue that invasive species are not a problem in
    the United States. It is imperative for Federal and State
    agencies to provide effective, reasonable regulation of
    pathways and problematic species to reduce the frequency and
    negative effects of species invasions.
        Invasive species or a small subset of non-native species,
    specifically non-natives that threaten ecological or economic
    harm, or human health. All invasive species must go through a
    series of steps to become invasive. They must be introduced
    into the environment, established, spread and then some will
    become invasive.
        Although these steps sound simple, you may be surprised to
    learn that the process is fraught with difficulty and that most
    introductions fail. Literally millions of individual animals
    and thousands of species are moved across State lines or
    imported annually. Some of these get introduced into the
    environment. Of these introductions, only a small percentage
    make it to the establishment or spread phase, and only a few
    established species have important negative effects.
        The primary Federal regulatory tool for non-native species
    is the Lacey Act. Unfortunately, this system, as currently
    implemented, is not as effective as it should be. An effective
    system needs to focus limited resources on problematic species,
    address gaps in authority, for example diseases that primarily
    impact wildlife, be timely reducing listing time to months
    rather than years, be open, transparent and stakeholder
    inclusive, use science-based credible risk analysis, allow for
    a regional approach to managing risk, be centralized and
    adequately supported with resources.
        These recommendations could be accommodated within the
    current system. Invasive species prevention and management
    hinges on risk. Risk is a function of the probability of an
    event occurring and the consequences if the event occurs. Risk
    analysis is a complex scientific and sociological exercise that
    seeks to identify risks, estimate their magnitude and reduce
    risks to acceptable levels.
        Risk assessment should be transparent, repeatable,
    scientifically credible and defensible. It must also be
    acknowledged that there is scientific uncertainty in all
    methods. Risk assessments are expensive and time consuming,
    usually requiring months to complete. Data needs for assessing
    risks are considerable. Data is lacking for many species, and
    most current data bases are inadequate for the task.
        Risk management can seldom reduce risks to zero. Non-zero
    levels of risk must be considered for any use of non-native
    species. Decisions on acceptable risk levels should be based on
    scientific information, on probable, not possible effects,
    cost-benefit analysis, conservation analysis and cultural
    factors.
        It would be a Herculean task to assist thousands of species
    with hundreds of interest groups with these species. It is my
    expert opinion, based on having done risk analysis, that it is
    impractical to conduct thorough, defensible risk analysis of
    thousands of species in a timely manner given any reasonable
    level of research allocation.
        The focus should be on highly problematic species. States
    have broad authority to manage fish and wildlife resources and
    have considerable experience and expertise related to the
    regional nature of pathways, ecosystems and risk.
        Important roles for the Federal Government would be to
    coordinate the efforts of State, especially States with common
    pathways and ecosystems, facilitate State-based programs,
    bridge important gaps where States lack sufficient authority,
    and help resolve differences between States.
        Working with States would provide a mechanism for reducing
    risk on a regional basis. The Federal Government could
    considerably leverage resources by sharing the burden of risk
    analysis, regulation and enforcement with States.
        In conclusion, my recommendations are to thoroughly revisit
    the Lacey Act with extensive input from scientific experts and
    interested stakeholders, provide substantially increased
    resources of staff and funding to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, use appropriate screening methods followed by risk
    analysis if needed for any non-native species newly proposed
    for importation, and begin a risk based process for those
    species currently in trade that are identified as problematic
    or likely to become problematic.
        Many of these recommendations are already contained in the
    National Invasive Species Management Plan developed by the
    National Invasive Species Counsel.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present my views. I look
    forward to working with you on these issues.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin [presiding]. Let me thank all of our
    witnesses for their testimony, their contribution to this
    hearing.
        Dr. Ruiz, first I want to welcome you to the panel. As a
    person who lives in Maryland, we are very honored that you are
    here with us and the work that you do. I thank all of the
    members of the panel, but I have to certainly acknowledge my
    Marylander who is on the panel.
        I want to talk about the Chesapeake Bay for a moment. As
    you point out, there is over a hundred invasive species in the
    Chesapeake Bay. I do not know if that is the Chinese mitten
    crab that you have there or not. Is that what you have in front
    of you?
        Mr. Ruiz. Yes, it is a Chinese mitten crab that has been
    showing up in the Chesapeake Bay and to the north.
        Senator Cardin. That has me greatly concerned. The crab
    industry is synonymous with Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay,
    and particularly in the month of July we all very much think
    about our delicacy that we have given to the world. What danger
    do we have that this crab could become a significant part of
    the population and effect the blue crab, the Maryland blue
    crab? Is this a risk factor that we do not know about yet?
        I ask that because one of the questions, one of the points,
    that all of you have been raising, is do a risk assessment
    early so you do not have to try to clean up the mess later,
    which becomes much more difficult.
        Mr. Ruiz. I think the mitten crab is a concern. It
    underscores exactly the point that you are making, I think, and
    also that Professor Hill made, that there is a lot of
    uncertainty about what will happen when a non-native species
    shows up in one of our ecosystems like the Chesapeake Bay and
    that it is a species that transported from one part of the
    world and moved to another one with a different community, a
    different suite of organisms. And so, we really have a very
    poor understanding of how it is going to interact and what will
    play out.
        The mitten crab is of concern because it is a species that
    goes through massive outbreaks, kind of like cicadas do
    seasonally here, but on a much longer time scale. There was an
    outbreak that occurred in San Francisco Bay that damaged some
    of the water supply system in the San Francisco delta.
        In the Chesapeake region, I do not think we really know
    what the impact is going to be of this crab if it is
    established, what effect it might have on infrastructure, water
    supply in particular, and how it might interact with the blue
    crab in terms of competition for resources or even as a
    predator on juvenile blue crab that it may interact with as it
    moves down into salt water.
        Senator Cardin. We already have a problem with the survival
    of juvenile crabs, the blue crabs. The protective grasses are
    being affected by pollution and global climate change. So we
    already are finding it a challenge to preserve the food stock
    basically for the mature crabs. In some cases, they eat their
    own. And now, if the Chinese mitten crab is going to be
    competing with that, if could complicate the survival of the
    blue crab in Maryland.
        Mr. Ruiz. I think that is exactly right. As we are
    struggling to recover the commercial fishery and the blue crab
    population in Chesapeake, the arrival of new non-native species
    is one more stressor, one more factor, which makes it even more
    challenging to recover a fishery like the blue crab.
        We do not, of course, know what the impact of Mitten crabs
    will likely be if it is established and becomes abundant. It is
    a point of concern, and it is something that I think we need to
    take very seriously.
        Senator Cardin. Do we know how this was introduced into the
    Bay?
        Mr. Ruiz. The mitten crab is also an interesting example in
    that it underscores some of the uncertainty there. There are
    two likely ways in which it could have come. One is through the
    ballast water of ships. What we know from specimens that we
    have collected so far is that the genetics tell us it is likely
    coming from Europe where the mitten crab is also established.
    It has been there for over 100 years now. So, it could have
    well come from ships delivering ballast into the Chesapeake or
    the Mid-Atlantic region.
        The other possibility is that it could have come as live
    trade in that it is a commercially important crab, particularly
    in Asia. It is also eaten in Europe. So it is possible that
    someone brought it in. It is illegal to do that now under the
    Lacey Act. Whether it could have been brought in when it was
    still legal, or whether it could have been brought in
    illegally, we do not know.
        So, there is some uncertainty. But those are the two
    pathways or mechanisms by which it could have arrived.
        Senator Cardin. And, of course, the related issue is that
    there is an intentional introduction of an invasive species,
    the Asian oyster, and it certainly has its controversy when we
    intentionally introduce a new species into the Bay. That is
    being done because of the real concern of the loss of oysters,
    which are not only a commercial crop but are a filtering agent
    for clean water. I know there is a lot of work being done to
    monitor the Asian oyster. Are there adequate resources to
    monitor the mitten crab?
        Mr. Ruiz. At the present time, I would say no. The approach
    that we have taken has been to develop an alert system and a
    reporting system across the Mid-Atlantic region by having
    watermen and fisherman, as well as citizens, report records as
    they come across them, taking advantage of the rather large
    commercial fishing effort and recreational fishing that occurs
    in the Chesapeake and Delaware and the Hudson River. By doing
    that, we have learned of over 80 crabs that have been caught
    and confirmed.
        At the present time I would say that is the extent of the
    effort that is being----
        Senator Cardin. Well, what worries me is that, if you are
    correct, that this all of a sudden you see a huge increase
    because of the seasonal aspects to it, we might be faced with a
    crisis in the Chesapeake Bay.
        Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Professor Hill, if I could. There is criticism out there of
    the existing fish and wildlife framework and that it utilizes a
    dirty list. Some say that this approach is too reactive because
    it only addresses species after they have been introduced as
    harmful. Dr. Ruiz talked about the Lacey Act. Is there any
    reason why we cannot work within the Lacey Act to initiate
    proactive screening?
        Mr. Hill. Senator, there is no reason that the Lacey Act
    could not be used to proactively screen species. The screening
    of species, I think, is an excellent way of identifying some of
    the more potentially problematic species that are out there,
    and I think that it could be accommodated in the current
    system.
        Senator Barrasso. Many of the proposals that address the
    threat of invasive species suggest that, aside from those few
    species that are exempted like pets and farm animals, there are
    thousands of perfectly safe non-native species and they are
    going to be blacklisted until a thorough scientific assessment
    can prove that they have no impact on the ecology of the United
    States. Is this the most prudent course of action?
        Mr. Hill. Well, one point is that it is very difficult to
    prove that a species will not have some impact onto a system.
    There is a lot of scientific uncertainty in this estimation. So
    that is one issue that plays into this.
        A blacklist approach, or a dirty list approach, seeks to
    really focus on those species that are problematic or likely to
    be problematic. They do not have to already be a problem to
    list a species. And we certainly have those. The State of
    Florida, for instance, uses an approach similar to this where
    species have been identified as potentially problematic. These
    are not species which are already introduced into Florida,
    these are species that may be in trade, or have been in trade
    in years past, but are not in the environment. And they been
    prohibited or placed on a conditional species list. So it is a
    workable type of solution.
        Senator Barrasso. Let me ask a question about an approved
    list and how that would play into this, because some of what
    might be some of the most damaging invasive species in the
    country are also popular pets. I am not talking about the boa
    constrictor that we saw, but popular house pets. How do you
    view that whole thing working out?
        Mr. Hill. Well, I tend to look at this from terms of risk
    and a risk analysis standpoint. When you go through a risk
    analysis, you assess risk and what are the bad things that
    these organisms may do. But then you also balance those risks
    during the management process to determine, do you still want
    to have those organisms and do you balance that risk against
    the benefits.
        There are a number of species that, from a purely
    scientific risk assessment standpoint, are clearly problematic.
    I am a dog person, but the domestic house cat is probably one
    of the No. 1 species in probably all the States, as being an
    invasive species when it is in the environment. Obviously,
    people love cats and they have societal and economic benefits.
    From a purely risk standpoint, cats are problematic. But when
    you put the management side to that, then cats would obviously
    be a banned species.
        Senator Barrasso. Director Humphries, if I could. We had
    Senator Levin here who gave great testimony, and he listed you
    as the expert from Michigan. He also said that his position in
    Michigan was the exact opposite of the position of, I think,
    the Michigan legislature. So, as the expert, can you tell all
    of us who is right and who is wrong?
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Humphries. They are both right.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Barrasso. Well, then we have a seat for you right
    up here.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Humphries. But I would like to respond that it is very,
    very difficult to screen risk, to screen organisms by risk, and
    rely on that solely. So, I caution all of us that, when we look
    at this, we also need to be nimble, to be able to address when
    one of these species or diseases crops up unexpectedly. Because
    it is going to go through a filter at some point in time, and
    we will have the unexpected. That is one to the things that the
    Fish and Wildlife Association has been trying to address, is
    making sure that we have both capacities and authorities across
    the United States to address these issues adequately.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No further
    questions.
        Senator Cardin. Well, thank you.
        Let me, if I could, Mr. Torgan, you talked about regional
    cooperation during your testimony. I think about our efforts on
    the Chesapeake Bay, which has been regional. We have been able
    to get all of the regional governments to work together on a
    strategy on the Bay and we could easily bring this subject into
    the debate and we have. It has been, I think, an effective way
    to deal with it.
        As I have listened to the testimony, I see an effort made
    by the Federal Government, working with the States on specific
    issue problems. I just really want to get your view, and
    perhaps others on the panel, as to whether we need to do more
    to empower regional approaches to dealing with these issues.
    Not just on a crisis basis, or not just where there is a
    popular effort that has been supported over a long period of
    time, such as the Chesapeake Bay, which has its challenges, but
    whether we need to try to institutionalize this in a more
    effective way.
        Mr. Torgan. Thank you, Senator. I think so. The
    Chesapeake's situation and the recent move by EPA to create a
    multi-State restoration and protection framework are unique to
    the Chesapeake. There is a similar effort now for the Great
    Lakes. And we have thought a lot about whether such an approach
    would work, for example, for New England or for the Mid-
    Atlantic States.
        There are a lot of lessons that we could learn in Rhode
    Island from what you have accomplished in Maryland and in the
    Chesapeake Bay and many of these issues have parallel there.
    So, it does make sense to cooperate, collaborate and have
    synergy on that. Rhode Island is a small State, obviously, so
    our ability to manage and communicate on the State-wide level
    is good.
        The regional cooperation, the challenges of that have
    always had to do with the teeth of whatever regulations compel
    interstate partnerships. But we really believe, because these
    species do not respect State boundaries, and the issues are, if
    not national, then at least regional, that a regional approach
    that brings together States, Federal agencies and people
    involved on the ground in the universities and in the non-
    profit, non-government community who are engaged in this, to
    work together for a solution. I think that is the only way to
    crack it.
        Senator Cardin. We, in this region, look at the Chesapeake
    Bay partnership with the Federal Government as an area of major
    national priority, but also a model that could be used in other
    parts of the country where you have multi-jurisdictional
    issues.
        Now the Great Lakes is the other area that is frequently
    mentioned as where you need to have multiple jurisdictional
    impact if you are going to be able to have effective results.
    And ,of course, you are also dealing with another country. How
    do the Great Lakes manage the governmental challenges of
    multiple levels?
        Ms. Humphries. Well, the Great Lakes certainly is a
    difficult situation because, as you say, you have a number of
    political boundaries in there and countries. But, nonetheless,
    we get scientists together, as well as policymakers, through
    the Great Lakes Commission, the Great Lakes Fisheries
    Commission, to set priorities and help address these issues,
    including the science on those issues with research priorities.
    It has worked very well for us.
        There are a number of other models when you look around the
    country with this regional approach. The Southeast Disease
    Cooperative was established back in the 1950s, where
    Southeastern States in the United States banded together in
    order to develop a scientific approach to address deer
    population problems that were occurring in that area. That
    model is still in place.
        So, I think there are a number of different models and I
    have appended some of those within the Initiative that I
    attached to my testimony. They will give you some ideas of some
    these regional approaches. They are, I think, the most
    effective in the fact that you have partners coming together
    and talking about the specific risks in those areas. And also
    some of the cultural things that you need to change with your
    citizens to address the risk out there.
        Senator Cardin. I know that Senator Levin is working on a
    reauthorization under the Clean Water Act of the Great Lakes.
    We are working on the Chesapeake Bay reauthorization, looking
    for more effective ways to enforce the goals that are
    established by the local governments. Because we want to make
    sure there is not only a partnership with the Federal
    Government, but that there is reasonable expectation that we
    can achieve the goals that we set. We will be working with all
    of you in that regard.
        Senator Barrasso, anything further?
        Senator Barrasso. No.
        Senator Cardin. Well, let me thank our witnesses again for
    their testimony and for their participation at this hearing.
    This has been a very interesting hearing for, I think, the
    members as well as an educational one for the Chairman.
        Thank you all very much.
        [Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittees were
    adjourned.]
        [Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

                      Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma

        Good morning. I would like to first welcome Senators Levin
    and Nelson, who I know care greatly about the topic of this
    hearing this morning. I think that the protection of our native
    wildlife from harmful invasive species should receive increased
    Federal attention. I would like to thank the subcommittee
    Chairmen for holding this important hearing on potential
    threats non-native species pose to native wildlife in this
    country. However, as we chart a course of action we must be
    prudent and avoid prematurely banning species that pose no
    threat to the environment.
        I understand that the House of Representatives had a
    similar hearing on this topic in April, in which a specific
    legislative proposal--H.R. 669--was examined to address the
    threats of invasive species. It is also my understanding that
    this legislation received widespread criticism for casting too
    wide a net on pets, sports fishing and other species that
    generate billions of dollars in our economy with no
    demonstrated threat to the environment. I realize that this
    hearing will not be examining a specific piece of legislation,
    which I must say makes me skeptical, considering this
    committee's habit of marking up bills without a legislative
    hearing on the specific proposal--especially one that could put
    in place a new, cumbersome bureaucratic process for examining
    the threats without consideration of effective laws already on
    the books.
        Common sense reforms are needed to prevent the importation
    or breeding of species that would be harmful to our ecosystem;
    however, these reforms must avoid placing burdensome
    requirements on the retail and agriculture industries and
    sportsmen. I appreciate the efforts of environmental groups,
    mainly the Defenders of Wildlife, in attempting to address the
    threat posed by non-native species, but I am concerned that
    their proposal could harm important sectors of our economy.
        Any policy that Congress considers should include a
    reasonable risk analysis process that would take into
    consideration risk management options for controlling non-
    native species. It should not adopt a policy that automatically
    bans species until proven safe. Acknowledging similar risk
    management processes that are used elsewhere in Federal
    agencies would effectively address the issue at hand. We don't
    need legislation that bans species that we know are safe.
    Invasives legislation should use existing scientific evidence
    without requiring industries to unnecessarily spend resources
    and time completing scientific testing that tells us what we
    already know: the vast majority of non-native species in the
    United States are safe and present little or no harm to their
    surroundings.
        Thank you. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

                      Statement of Hon. Bernard Sanders,
                     U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont

        I am pleased that the Environment and Public Works
    Subcommittees on Oversight and Water and Wildlife are holding
    today's hearing to discuss threats to native species. In
    Vermont we face several such threats, and two in particular I
    want to highlight.
        Our bats, and bats across the Northeast, are increasingly
    susceptible to death from white-nose syndrome. White-nose
    syndrome appears to be a fungus that turns their noses and
    bodies white and kills with a mortality rate of between 90 and
    100 percent in some caves. More than 1 million hibernating bats
    have died over the past 2 years. Bats prey on harmful insects
    such as mosquitoes which spread disease, and moths and beetles
    which damage crops. Bats reduce the need for pesticide use and
    are beneficial for the environment.
        On May 5th of this year I signed a letter along with 24 of
    my colleagues in the Senate and the House asking the Department
    of the Interior to provide emergency fiscal year 2009 funding
    to respond to this crisis. Summer research is critical to stop
    the spread of this disease and develop a cure.
        In addition I want to highlight another invasive species
    threat that deserves the attention of scientists and the
    Administration. That is the threat from the Asian longhorned
    beetle. This beetle uses maple trees as a host. Vermont leads
    all States in maple syrup production, producing 920,000 gallons
    in 2009 and creating millions of dollars in value for Vermont's
    economy. I ask that the Administration work with State and
    local officials in Vermont and put the appropriate resources
    into finding solutions to the spread of Asian longhorned
    beetles.

        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            [all]