U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

78-207 PS 2002

H.R. 3558, THE SPECIES PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

OF THE ENVIRONMENT ACT

JOINT LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS,

RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

March 14, 2002

Serial No. 107-95

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff

Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey,

Vice Chairman

Richard W. Pombo, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina,

Vice Chairman

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH

SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman

JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania,

Vice Chairman

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

(V)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on March 14, 2002 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Members:

Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the Virgin

Islands ............................................................................................................ 6

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland ................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Colorado, Prepared statement of ................................................................. 89

Otter, Hon. C.L. ‘‘Butch’’, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Idaho .......................................................................................................... 5

Rahall, Hon. Nick J. II, a Representative in Congress from the State

of West Virginia ............................................................................................ 3

Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from Guam ................ 4

Letters and statements submitted for the record ................................... 52

Statement of Witnesses:

Bartuska, Ann M., Ph.D., Executive Director, Invasive Species Initiative,

The Nature Conservancy .............................................................................. 36

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37

Chavarria, Gabriela, Ph.D., Director of International and Special

Programs, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation .................................... 31

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

Eldredge, Dr. Lucius G., Department of Natural Science, Bishop Museum,

Hawaii ............................................................................................................ 40

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 42

Kaiser, Janette, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System,

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture ........................................ 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10

O’Keeffe, John, Adel, Oregon, on behalf of the National Cattlemen’s Beef

Association and Public Lands Council ........................................................ 76

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 77

Riley, Dr. Terry Z., Director of Conservation, Wildlife Management

Institute ......................................................................................................... 80

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 81

Shannon, John T., State Forester of Arkansas, on behalf of the National

Association of State Foresters ...................................................................... 71

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 73

Tate, Dr. James, Jr., Science Advisor, U.S. Department of the Interior ..... 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13

Van Putten, Mark, President and CEO, National Wildlife Federation ....... 21

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23

(1)

JOINT LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3558,

THE SPECIES PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ACT

Thursday, March 14, 2002

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans,

joint with the

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

and the

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in

room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.

Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

MARYLAND

Mr. GILCHREST. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee will

come to order.

We are holding a joint legislative hearing this morning on

H.R. 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act. This legislation is sponsored by the Resources Committee

Ranking Democratic Member Congressman Nick Rahall. Congressman Robert Underwood, the ranking member of the Fisheries Subcommittee and I are original cosponsors. It is a long overdue attempt to deal with a serious and growing problem.

Mr. GILCHREST. Nuisance non-native species are a threat to

every corner of the United States and its territories, from microbes

to mammals. This issue crosses State and national jurisdictions to

affect us all. The magnitude of this problem is enormous. Nonnative species inflict tremendous economic and environmental

harm. Business, agriculture, fisheries, and most importantly our

native species suffer as they are outcompeted, displaced, preyed

upon and, in far too many cases, eradicated by those invaders.

My own congressional district, the First District of Maryland, is

adversely impacted by a multitude of invasive species. Of particular concern are nutria, large semi-aquatic rodents native to

South America, which is not in my testimony, jet skis.

[Laughter.]

2

Mr. GILCHREST. I just throw that out. They disrupt and fragment

the habitat like the nutria do, actually. Nutria were introduced

during the 1940’s to bolster the fur industry, but have established

wild populations which cause severe ecological damage. This is also

not in my testimony, but may be we should introduce some black

panthers to my district, which they have in South America, that reduce the population of nutria, but that is not in Nick’s bill. Due to

their prolific breeding and voracious appetite for wetland plants,

these animals destroy thousands of acres of migratory bird wetland

habitat every year. In the Black Water refuge, there has been

about 7,000 acres of habitat for migrating water fowl have been destroyed, not to mention the other species that live there, including

muskrat, by these nutria.

I suspect that each Congress district across the country has horror stories about the impact of invasive species, and it is for that

reason that I was pleased to co-sponsor this bipartisan bill.

H.R. 3558, the so-called SPACE Act, provides grants for the planning and implementation of eradication efforts on and adjacent to

Federal lands. This program also provides a fund for eradication

projects using innovative technologies in our National Wildlife Refuge System and for the establishment of a rapid response capability so that newly introduced species can be effectively eliminated

before they become established.

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel and our

witnesses on this most pressing issue. This legislation is appropriately named because we are entering a new frontier. Failure to

act is not an option because it may well doom various ecosystems

throughout the country for centuries to come.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Good morning, today the Subcommittees on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and

Oceans; National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands; and Forests and Forest

Health will be holding a joint legislative hearing on H.R. 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act. This legislation is sponsored by the

Resources Committee Ranking Democratic Member Congressman Nick Rahall. Congressman Robert Underwood the Ranking Member of the Fisheries Subcommittee

and I are original cosponsors. It is a long overdue attempt to deal with a serious

and growing problem.

Nuisance non-native species are a threat to every corner of the U.S. and its territories. From microbes to mammals—this issue crosses state and national jurisdictions to affect us all. The magnitude of this problem is enormous. Non-native species

inflict tremendous economic and environmental harm. Businesses, agriculture, fisheries, and, most importantly, our native species suffer as they are out competed, displaced, preyed upon, and in far too many cases eradicated by these invaders.

My own Congressional district, the first district of Maryland, is adversely impacted by a multitude of invasive species. Of particular concern are nutria, large

semi-aquatic rodents native to South America. Nutria were introduced during the

1940s to bolster the fur industry, but have established wild populations which cause

severe ecologic damage. Due to their prolific breeding and voracious appetite for

wetland plants, these animals destroy thousands of acres of migratory bird wetland

habitat every year.

I suspect that each Congressional district across the country has horror stories

about the impact of invasive species. It is for that reason that I was please to cosponsor this bipartisan bill. H.R. 3558, the so-called SPACE Act, provides grants for

the planning and implementation of eradication efforts on and adjacent to Federal

lands. This program also provides funds for eradication projects using innovative

technologies in our National Wildlife Refuge System and for the establishment of

3

a rapid response capability so that newly introduced species can be effectively eliminated before they become established.

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of witnesses on this most

pressing issue. This legislation is appropriately named because we are entering a

new frontier. Failure to act is not an option because it may well doom various ecosystems throughout the country.

I am pleased to recognize the distinguished ranking democratic member of the

Fisheries Subcommittee, Congressman Underwood.

Mr. GILCHREST. At this point, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Guam, Mr. Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Why don’t I go ahead and yield to the ranking

member of the Resources Committee.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Rahall?

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NICK J. RAHALL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, ranking distinguished member, Mr. Underwood,

harmful, nonnative species or invasive species, as they are more

commonly called, do represent one of our Nation’s most critical environmental challenges. According to the National Invasive Species

Council, approximately 4,200 nonnative species are responsible for

a $137-billion drain on the national economy. Additionally, costs to

the natural environment have not been estimated, but could be

even higher.

At present, the Federal Government, mostly through the Department of Agriculture, spends roughly $1 billion annually to implement a variety of invasive species programs. Unfortunately, these

existing problems are either marginally effective, too narrowly focused or of no direct benefit to fish and wildlife resources. If anything, despite these programs, the condition of our native fish and

wildlife resources continues to deteriorate as a result of habitat

loss, competition, and predation by these space invaders. The status quo is not working. A new approach is desperately needed or

we risk losing our fish and wildlife heritage which is enjoyed by

millions of sportsman and outdoor enthusiasts.

That is why I introduced H.R. 3558, the Species Protection and

Conservation of the Environment Act or, as the Chairman has said,

SPACE Act, along with our distinguished Chairman, Mr. Gilchrest,

and our distinguished ranking member, Delegate Robert Underwood.

This legislation reflects an entirely new approach which incorporates many of the objectives found in the National Invasive Species Management Plan. The plan was developed by the National

Invasive Species Council, as directed by a 1999 Executive Order.

At its core, the SPACE Act seeks to promote partnerships designed to bring together Federal and other public and private landowners to promote efforts to control the infestation and migration

of invasive species across the landscape. The bill would provide

vital grant funding and make progress on the ground where it

counts. This legislation also represents the scientific and professional input of the National Invasive Species Council of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and other State and nongovernmental

4

fish and wildlife conservation organizations which was provided

through many hours of discussion, and I thank each of them.

The numerous letters of support concerning the SPACE Act reaffirms that this legislation is a new idea with merit and a true prospect for success. After today’s hearing, I believe that members of

the Subcommittee and the Full Committee will come to a similar

conclusion.

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your valuable input and

cosponsorship, as well as our distinguished ranking member, Mr.

Underwood.

Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Rahall.

I was going to yield to Mr. Otter, but he is in the back of the

room right now.

I yield to Mr. Underwood.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,

all of you. Thank you for holding this very important hearing on

H.R. 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act.

I would like to thank the leadership of the Resources Committee

ranking Democrat, Mr. Rahall, as well as the work of Fisheries

Subcommittee Chair, Mr. Gilchrest. Their collaboration on the

SPACE Act demonstrates a truly bipartisan approach to these very

serious issues.

The legislation will help protect our Nation, our communities,

and our environment against the impacts caused by the introduction and spread of harmful nonnative species. This bill would also

provide us with the tools necessary to address the threats to native

species and disruptions to the native ecosystems brought about by

the invasions of harmful, nonnative species.

Many in the environmental and scientific communities and the

general public are familiar with the problems my home Island of

Guam has faced with the brown tree snake. Brought to the island

after World War II, the snake has been responsible for the extinction of 9 of the 11 species of native birds, half of the native lizard

species and two native bat species over the last 40 years. And

apart from the damage to Guam’s ecological system, there are also

economic and social implications associated with the snake, which

is responsible actually for many power outages on the island.

In order to address this problem, however, I am dissatisfied with

the manner in how Federal funding has been distributed and coordinated by the Department of Interior. Funding should not be

coming from the Office of Insular Affairs, which has one of the

smallest budgets in Interior, but rather from Fish and Wildlife

Service. There is double-digit unemployment rates in the territories, including 20 percent in Guam. Funding for the brown tree

snake and other nonnative species should be better coordinated

within the Federal Government to ensure that funding streams are

properly identified.

I know that the concern about nonnative species is shared by

many members of the Resources Committee and from others across

5

the country, including those testifying today. The coast of California has been plagued with the European green crab. Hawaii’s

forest habitat is battling miconia. West Virginia has had problems

with mile-a-minute vines, and in Maryland, nutria have become

problematic.

I recommend, Mr. Chairman, you find a more menacing name for

nutria. It sounds like a nutrition supplement.

[Laughter.]

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Island environments are particularly vulnerable to the devastating effects of nonnative species. In 1993, the

Federal Office of Technology Assessment declared Hawaii’s alien

pest species problem the worst in the Nation. Due to the evolutionary isolation of islands from continents, endemic species are especially vulnerable to extinction when nonnatives invade. This is the

same thing that happened to Native people when Westerners first

came. Those of us with knowledge of the peril that Pacific Islands

face have a responsibility to preserve these environments for future

generations and to prevent homogenization of the world’s biodiversity.

The SPACE Act allows for funding efforts at the local level,

where it is immediately needed. The bill encourages territories,

States, Indian tribes and others to form partnerships and to confront the problems nonnative species are causing and to come up

with legitimate assessments and priorities of how to deal with

these harmful and nonnative invaders.

Funding this act authorizes for the control, the eradication of,

and the rapid response to harmful nonnative species has been

shown both to be currently lacking and historically justified. The

dollars spent today on State assessments and pilot programs within the National Wildlife Refuge System have the potential to save

tenfold the amount spent simply by preventing problems before

they are out of control.

I encourage my colleagues to fully support this measure for both

the sake of the environment and the economy. The Federal Government must show support of local efforts to control harmful nonnative species, which is not just a problem of territorial or State

Governments, but is truly a national problem.

Thank you. Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.

Mr. Otter, any opening statement?

STATEMENT OF THE HON. C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I do have an opening

statement that I would like to submit for the record, but I would

like to just make a few comments, without objection.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection.

Mr. OTTER. Idaho is inundated with all kinds of invasive species,

and as a result of that, we are starting to lose some of our Native

species, including the Otter, I would say, in Idaho, but some of

them are now starting to come from the West Coast. The metal

form problem that we are getting in most of our natural lakes, and

deep lakes as well, the zebra mussel, which is starting to invade

our waterways, and in our running waterways, in our river and

6

stream systems, purple loosestrife from false indigo are starting to

choke down those streams, and of course they are not habitat for

anything known to man. Nothing will eat them, although we are

trying to I think develop some bugs that will eat them, and what

are the bugs going to do to the rest of the environment? We have

a problem with that.

But the most frustrating thing, and I think both of the members

that have talked prior to me have already mentioned the genesis,

the seed beds for most of that happens to be out of control of the

State, out of control of local Government, out of control of the private property owners because it is under the nature and the character of ownership and control that is generally Federal waterways

or Federal lands, and in a State like Idaho, where 65 percent of the

State is federally owned, either through the Forest Service or the

BLM, the Park Service or the Bureau of Reclamation, it is very

frustrating to know that we try to keep up with the invasive species that we have in plants in Idaho and then only to find out when

the next harvest season comes for wild seeds, the seeds blow from

the Federal lands onto the private grounds and onto the State

grounds.

So I would like to see us get into a very aggressive program,

where we could suppress that continued seeding, if you will, of private and State property from the Federal property. So I would encourage those folks that come forward before us today to present

some opportunities for us to join together in a good partnership

that can be effective in stopping the invasive species.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my

time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Otter.

Ms. Christensen?

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to

thank you for holding this hearing. In our Subcommittee on Parks

and Public Lands, we just reported out Congressman Hefley’s bill

on invasive weeds, but we did that realizing that this Committee

hearing was going to take place, and indeed it was a larger issue

than weeds, and so we appreciate having this hearing and look forward to the testimony.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Mr. Acevedo-Vila?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILLA. No.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Inslee?

Mr. INSLEE. No.

Mr. GILCHREST. We did report Mr. Hefley’s bill, which is, to a

great extent, through my discussion with Mr. Hefley, is a companion bill to Mr. Rahall’s bill, and we will pursue a strategy as

we move forward with both of these bills that will ensure the effectiveness and success of both of these bills. Whether they are joined

together or whether they remain separate, they both have their

place.

Our first panel is Dr. James Tate, Jr. Oh, before I do this, there

are some extra seats up here, for people in the back, if you want

7

to sit on the lower dais, you are welcome. Just don’t sit where Ms.

McCollum is and J.D. is, I guess, in case he comes in. I think there

may be enough for everyone. If the folks in the back want to come

up and sit down, you may.

There are still five seats left up there.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. I mean, you can come on up if you want to. I

think they want to leave early. That may be why they want to stay

back there.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. James Tate, science adviser to the Secretary

of the Department of Interior, and Ms. Janette Kaiser, acting associate deputy chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service.

Welcome, Ms. Kaiser, Dr. Tate.

Ms. Kaiser, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF JANETTE KAISER, ACTING ASSOCIATE

DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST

SERVICE

Ms. KAISER. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you

today. I am Janette Kaiser, acting associate deputy chief for

National Forest Systems, USDA Forest Service.

My comments today represent the views of USDA on H.R. 3558,

the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act.

First, I would like to commend the Subcommittees for recognizing harmful, nonnative, invasive species as a significant threat

to our Nation’s ecosystem health. Nonnative invasive species alter

ecosystem functions and reduce biological diversity by eliminating

native species which, in turn, can lower the water table, increase

soil erosion and runoff or increase fire frequency and intensity.

Nonnative invasive species also change the plant community used

by domestic livestock, wildlife and recreationists. These changes in

ecosystem often result in eliminating or restricting use of our

wildlands and urban areas and increase management costs.

Populations of nonnative invasive plants in the United States are

expanding annually by 7 to 14 percent. We face a daunting challenge in managing nonnative invasive species, but the Department

is committed to working with the administration and the Congress

to identify solutions. USDA is in a strong position to address this

issue because of the broad authorities supporting nonnative

invasive species management. Various field operations in the Department include prevention, detection, control, monitoring and

restoration, research and technology development, technical assistance to States, tribes and private landowners, financial assistance,

including cooperative agreements and grants and international collaboration.

Although USDA supports the objectives of H.R. 3558 to address

the problem of nonnative invasive species, we do, however, have

concerns. The Department has numerous programs and delivery

systems already in place under existing statutory authorities to address nonnative invasive species management. Within the Forest

Service in particular, there is a full range of existing authorities to

support an integrated program of research and development,

8

management of nonnative invasive species on public land, and

technical assistance to private landowners.

These programs focus on invasive insects, such as the Asian

longhorn beetle and gypsy moth, invasive pathogens such as Sudden Oak Death Disease and invasive plants that grow after a fire,

such as starthistle. The programs that are implemented on

National Forest System lands emphasize management of nonnative

invasive species, the same focus areas that are in H.R. 3558.

For reasons I will detail in my testimony, USDA strongly supports the concept of controlling nonnative invasive species at the

local level, with support provided by a multitude of partners. However, H.R. 3558 raises a number of questions to USDA. The Department would like to engage the Committee in more detail regarding, first, compatibility with existing authorities in USDA; second, implementation and accountability; and, last, the establishment of demonstration projects.

I will address compatibility with existing authorities in USDA

first.

Currently, within USDA there are six agencies that have a leadership role in dealing with the introduction and spread of nonnative invasive species, and are involved in research, regulation,

operations, partnerships, technical and financial assistance and

education.

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, commonly

known as APHIS, is the front line of prevention, dealing with interdiction at borders, interstate movement, detecting and mitigating

disseminations, and providing eradication of new introductions.

The USDA research agencies, the Agriculture Research Service,

Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service and

the Forest Service provide information on the basic ecology of nonnative invasive species, as well as detection, monitoring and control

methodologies and technologies. The Forest Service has a broad

range of authorities to address the nonnative invasive species issue

and to coordinate with other Federal agencies with corresponding

responsibility.

The Forest Service, the Natural Resource Conservation Service,

APHIS and the Farm Service Administration provide technical and

financial assistance, consultation, technology transfer, prevention,

and landscape restoration following an invasion or to prevent an

invasion following a disaster. The nonnative invasive species program in these agencies will run both independently and collaboratively.

The National Invasive Species Council that was created by Executive Order 13112 is an example of a collaborative effort among

Federal agencies. The Council is an interdepartmental council cochaired by the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and Interior.

Another program involving Federal agencies is the Pulling Together Initiative Steering Committee, sponsored by the Federal

Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic

Weeds that are known as FICMNEW. The Pulling Together Partnership Initiative has been ongoing since 1996 and is a multi-agency effort that provides Federal matching grants through the

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for local and regional weed

prevention and control projects.

9

Federal agencies involved in this effort includes the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, the Department of Defense, as well as APHIS. Funds allocated from agencies involved with the Council or FICMNEW could be affected by

funding allocated for H.R. 3558.

Let me address implementation and accountability. Section 5 of

H.R. 3558 provides that a qualified project must be conducted on

lands or waters under the control of the eligible applicant and on

adjacent lands or waters of a Federal agency. The bill should be

clarified to provide that the Federal agency must approve any

qualified project on land under its jurisdiction. The Department believes these decisions should remain within the jurisdiction of the

Federal land managers.

Section 5 of H.R. 3558 establishes two programs and a demonstration project for the Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of Interior, which can be enhanced by current programs

in USDA, thus avoiding any potential redundancy.

USDA also notes two aspects of administration in Sections 4, 5,

and 9 of H.R. 3558 for which it would be helpful to have more information. First, H.R. 3558 delegates the coordination of the

projects to the Invasive Species Council. However, the Council staff

is not involved in program administration.

Second, H.R. 3558 allocates 5 percent of the funding for administrative expenses. USDA is concerned whether this applies to the

preparation of an environmental document, as the percentage may

not be sufficient for what is needed to conduct an environmental

analysis.

Last, let me address the establishment of demonstration projects.

H.R. 3558 addresses the implementation of demonstration

projects on National Wildlife Refuge System lands. The Department believes National Forest System lands could also serve as a

site for a demonstration project to conduct field tests and demonstrate applied research activities which are vital components and

essential for success of management goals.

USDA has found that research and technology development is

critical to successful land management, including cooperative efforts with State and local partners. Similarly, restoration actions,

following nonnative invasive species treatment, are often key to

sustaining control and ecosystem health over the long term. Options are needed for supporting applied field tests, technology development and restoration actions when these are essential components of an effective, on-the-ground management strategy.

The Forest Service National Forest System, Research and Development and State and Private Forestry mission area could implement a demonstration project.

In conclusion, nonnative invasive species threaten forest and

rangeland sustainability and ecosystem viability. Although there

are points of concern related to this bill, the Department believes

this bill is a commendable effort to address nonnative invasive species management on public and private lands. The Department

would like to work with the Committee to review existing authorities and determine if there is a need to amend those authorities.

10

This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any

questions that you might have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kaiser follows:]

Statement of Janette Kaiser, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National

Forest System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

To the Chairmen and members of the subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Janette Kaiser, Acting Associate Deputy

Chief, National Forest System, USDA Forest Service. My comments today represent

the views of USDA on H.R. 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the

Environment Act.

First, I would like to commend the subcommittees for recognizing harmful nonnative invasive species as a significant threat to our nation’s ecosystem health. Nonnative invasive species alter ecosystem functions and reduce biological diversity by

eliminating native species, which in turn can lower the water table, increase soil

erosion and runoff, or increase fire frequency and intensity. Nonnative invasive species also change the plant community used by domestic livestock, wildlife, and

recreationists. These changes in the ecosystem often result in eliminating or restricting the use of our wildlands and urban areas and increase management costs.

Populations of nonnative invasive species in the U.S. are expanding annually by 7

to 14 percent. We face a daunting challenge in managing nonnative invasive species,

but the Department is committed to working with the Administration and the Congress to identify solutions. USDA is in a strong position to address this issue because of the broad authorities supporting nonnative invasive species management.

Various field operations in the Department include prevention, detection, control,

monitoring and restoration; research and technology development; technical assistance to States, Tribes and private landowners; financial assistance including cooperative agreements and grants; and international collaboration.

Although USDA supports the objectives of H.R. 3558 to address the problem of

nonnative invasive species, we do however have concerns. The Department has numerous programs and delivery systems already in place under existing statutory authorities to address nonnative invasive species management. Within the Forest

Service in particular, there is a full range of existing authorities to support an integrated program of research and development, management of nonnative invasive

species on public land, and technical assistance to private landowners. These programs focus on invasive insects such as the Asian longhorn beetle and Gypsy Moth,

invasive pathogens such as Sudden Oak Death Disease, and invasive plants that

grow after a fire such as starthistle. The programs that are implemented on

National Forest System lands emphasize management of nonnative invasive species,

the same focus areas that are in H.R. 3558.

For reasons I will detail in my testimony, USDA strongly supports the concept

of controlling nonnative invasive species at the local level with support provided by

a multitude of partners. However, H.R. 3558 raises a number of questions for

USDA. The Department would like to engage the Committee in more detail regarding (1) compatibility with existing authorities in USDA; (2) implementation and accountability; (3) and establishment of demonstration projects.

Compatibility with Existing Authorities in USDA

Currently, within USDA there are six agencies that have a leadership role in

dealing with the introduction and spread of nonnative invasive species and are involved in research, regulation, operations, partnerships, technical and financial assistance, and education. USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) is the front line of prevention, dealing with interdiction at borders, interstate movement, detecting and mitigating disseminations, and providing eradication

of new introductions. The USDA research agencies, the Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, and the Forest Service, provide information on the basic ecology of nonnative invasive species,

as well as detection, monitoring and control methodologies and technologies. The

Forest Service has a broad range of authorities to address the nonnative invasive

species issue and to coordinate with other Federal agencies with corresponding responsibilities.

Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, APHIS and Farm Services Administration provide technical and financial assistance, consultation, technology transfer prevention, and landscape restoration following an invasion or to

prevent an invasion following a disaster. The nonnative invasive species programs

in these agencies run both independently and collaboratively.

11

The National Invasive Species Council that was created by Executive Order 13112

is an example of a collaborative effort among federal agencies. The Council is an

inter–Departmental Council, co-chaired by the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior. Another program involving federal agencies is the ‘‘Pulling

Together Initiative Steering Committee’’ sponsored by the Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW). The Pulling Together Partnership Initiative has been ongoing since 1996, and is a multi-agency effort that provides federal matching grants through the National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation for local and regional weed prevention and control projects. Federal

agencies involved include the FS, BLM, FWS, Bureau of Reclamation, NPS, Department of Defense, and APHIS. Funds allocated from agencies involved with the

Council or FICMNEW could be affected by funding allocated for H.R. 3558.

Implementation and Accountability

Section 5 of H.R. 3558 provides that a qualified project must be conducted on

lands or waters under the control of the eligible applicant, and on adjacent lands

or waters of a Federal agency. The bill should be clarified to provide that the Federal agency must approve any qualified project on land under its jurisdiction. The

Department believes these decisions should remain within the jurisdiction of Federal land managers.

Section 5 of H.R. 3558 establishes two programs and a demonstration project for

the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior, which can be enhanced by current programs in USDA, thus avoiding any potential redundancy.

USDA also notes two aspects of administration in Section 4, 5, and 9 of H.R. 3558

for which it would be helpful to have more information. First, H.R. 3558 delegates

the coordination of projects to the Invasive Species Council; however, Council staff

is not involved in program administration. Second, H.R. 3558 allocates five percent

of the funding for administrative expenses. USDA is concerned whether this applies

to the preparation of an environmental document, as the percentage may not be sufficient for what is needed to conduct an environmental analysis.

Establishment of Demonstration Projects

H.R. 3558 addresses the implementation of demonstration projects on National

Wildlife Refuge System lands. The Department believes National Forest System

lands could also serve as a site for a demonstration project to conduct field tests

and demonstrate applied research activities, which are vital components and essential for success of management goals. USDA has found that research and technology

development is critical to successful land management, including cooperative efforts

with State and local partners. Similarly, restoration actions following nonnative

invasive species treatment are often key to sustaining control and ecosystem health

over the long-term. Options are needed for supporting applied field tests, technology

development and restoration actions, when these are essential components of an effective on-the-ground management strategy. The Forest Service National Forest

System, Research and Development, and State and Private Forestry mission areas

could implement a demonstration project.

In conclusion, nonnative invasive species threaten forest and rangeland sustainability and ecosystem viability. Although there are points of concern related to this

bill, the Department believes this bill is a commendable effort to address nonnative

invasive species management on public and private lands. The Department would

like to work with the Committee to review existing authorities and determine if

there is a need to amend those authorities.

This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions that you

may have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Ms. Kaiser. That was

very helpful.

Dr. Tate?

STATEMENT OF JAMES TATE, JR., SCIENCE ADVISOR TO THE

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Dr. TATE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Jim Tate. I am the

science advisor to the Secretary of Interior, and on behalf of the

Secretary, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before your

Committee to present our views on the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act of 2001.

12

The Department of Interior commends Congress for recognizing

this serious threat to the United States that is posed by invasive

species. We are particularly concerned about invasive species with

respect to the health of our natural resources, for which we have

great trust responsibilities in Interior, and of course for the

strength of our national economy because they affect both very

strongly.

The Department of Interior programs on invasive species need

your support in order to help build the partnerships at the State

and local levels for managing invasive species on our lands and waters, that is, those that we are responsible for and those of our

neighbors. These cooperative efforts will make otherwise limited

programs effective by allowing us to work with partners who have

adjacent lands and adjacent waters, and that is one of the

strengths that you present to us here.

We have to recognize that in the wake of September 11th that

we have to identify the possible costs of everything we do, everything that comes before us. We must ask how anything that we are

funding new that we might approach would affect the current

budget climate, the priorities reflected in the President’s budget,

and the priorities of our Nation as a whole.

A few comments that I think support your ideas. Mr. Rahall mentioned earlier that $137 billion had been identified as a cost to

our economy. That is the study done at Cornell by David Pimentel

and others. We know that invasive species degrade the habitats for

native fish and wildlife. They disrupt the equilibrium of plant and

animal communities across the country, an equilibrium that has

been established on a broad and long scale, longer than the scale

of time that invasive species have been such an issue, and in regard to our environmental law, the Endangered Species Act, we

have linked invasive species to the decline of more than a third of

all of the threatened and endangered listed species in our country.

That is David Wilcove’s study that made that correlation.

Managing invasive species is, in fact, a priority for our Department. The National Invasive Species Council just referred to is cochaired by the Secretary of Interior, along with the Secretaries of

Commerce and Agriculture. We coordinate the invasive species efforts of 10 different Federal departments and agencies to ensure

our actions are effective and efficient.

In addition to our economy and our natural resources, it is also

clear that our Nation’s abundant natural resources can be threatened at the drop of a shoe by invasive species, something of great

concern to us.

The Department of Interior’s program investment in invasive

species is second only within the Federal Government to that of

USDA. In fiscal year 2000, we spent $31 million, which was 5 percent of the total Federal invasive species expenditures, and spending has accelerated significantly from $17 million in 1999 to $41

million in 2002. We do propose to spend about $40.8 million in

2003.

At the Department of Interior, the Invasive Species Council is

our guest. We are the host to the Council itself. The Invasive Species Advisory Committee works directly with, and advises the

Council, and that advisory committee directly builds stakeholder

13

involvement in collaboration between Federal agencies and nonFederal partners, which is one of the strengths of your bill.

We also support the management principles embodied in your

legislation. We strongly support the need to promote strong partnerships. We recognize that Federal land management agencies in

Interior, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National

Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation play key roles in managing invasive species,

particularly at the local level where communities are struggling

with means to protect their environment, maintain sustainable agriculture and continue economic stability.

The concepts in your bill represent several mechanisms where

the Federal sector could better cooperate and consult with its potential partners. We also applaud the Committee’s interest in utilizing the Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System for demonstration projects to develop new techniques and procedures to restore and manage invasive species issues.

We have identified several concerns with the bill. They are minor

concerns. I don’t think I need to outline them here at this time.

They can be found in my written comments, but we do appreciate

the opportunity to appear before this Committee, and I wish to

thank you on behalf of Secretary Norton for your efforts to address

these important issues. Secretary Norton’s stated principle of communication, consultation and cooperation apply to the invasive species issue as well as any of the issues, and we applaud your efforts

for conservation in this regard. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Tate follows:]

Statement of Dr. James Tate, Jr., Science Advisor,

U.S. Department of the Interior

Mr. Chairmen, my name is Jim Tate, and I am the science advisor to the Secretary of the Interior. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your Committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 3558, the

Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act of 2001.

The Department commends Congress for recognizing the serious threat to the

United States posed by invasive species, particularly with respect to the health of

the environment and the strength of our national economy. Our programs on

invasive species need the support of the Congress to in order to help build capacity

at State and local levels for managing invasive species on our lands and waters and

those of our neighbors, especially in pursuit of cooperative conservation goals. We

are encouraged by this bill and others introduced in prior sessions of the Congress

that emphasize streamlined efforts to focus efforts on-the-ground projects. However,

we need to identify more clearly the possible costs of this proposal and how it would

be funded within the context of the current budget climate and the priorities reflected in the President’s budget.

Researchers at Cornell University estimate that invasive species are costing

Americans approximately $137 billion per year (Pimentel et. al. 2000). Invasive species degrade habitats for native fish and wildlife, disrupt the equilibrium of plant

and animal communities across the country, and have been linked to the decline of

more than a third of all threatened and endangered species. (Wilcove, D.S., et. al.

1998, ‘‘Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States’’ BioScience

48: 607–615.) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that $29,000,000 of the

Tier 1 projects identified in the Refuge Operations Needs is attributed to increasing

impacts from invasive species. Managing invasive species is a priority for the Department. The National Invasive Species Council, which is co-chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, together with the Secretaries of Commerce and Agriculture,

coordinates the invasive species efforts of ten different Federal departments and

agencies to ensure that our actions are efficient and effective. We look forward to

the opportunity to work with Congress to strengthen our nation’s ability to identify,

control, and eradicate these incipient invaders.

14

The Department of the Interior’s program investment in invasive species is second only to USDA. In fiscal year 2000, DOI spent $31 million, approximately 5 percent

of the total Federal invasive species expenditures (U.S. General Accounting Office

2000). Spending accelerated significantly from $17M in fiscal year 1999 to $41M in

fiscal year 2002. The Department proposes to spend $40.8 million in 2003:

(1) to fight invasive plants and animals on National Wildlife Refuges,

National Parks (including Exotic Plant Management Teams under the

Natural Resources Challenge), BLM lands (including removal of weeds

contributing to unnatural wildfire cycles and post-fire restoration), and

waters under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation;

(2) to stem the onslaught of aquatic nuisance species such as the sea lamprey, Caulerpa alga, Eurasian ruffe, Giant Salvinia water fern, and the

Asian swamp eel primarily through the Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS), BOR, and USGS;

(3) to build partnerships with private landowners to eliminate harmful

alien species and to restore native plant and animal communities (FWS

Partners for Fish and Wildlife and the Pulling Together Initiative of the

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation); and

(4) to provide research and information sharing tools for monitoring, prevention, and control and accountability in the U.S. Geological Survey.

The Department provides support for the National Invasive Species Council and

the Invasive Species Advisory Committee to build direct stakeholder involvement

and collaboration between federal agencies and non-federal partners fighting accelerating bioinvasions. Interior plays a major role in invasive species activities: leadership and coordination, prevention, early detection and rapid response, control and

management, restoration, international cooperation, research, information management, and education and public awareness.

We support the conservation principles and findings embodied in this legislation,

and strongly support the need to promote strong partnerships among Federal, State,

Tribal, local, and private landowners. We recognize that Federal land management

agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the

Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service play key roles in managing invasive species, particularly at the local level where communities are struggling to find support for protection of the environment, sustainable agriculture, and

economic stability. The concepts included in H.R. 3558 represent several mechanisms where the Federal sector could increase the amount of support it has to offer.

The bill also expands invasive species prevention and control on public lands by increasing the capacity of Federal landowners to manage native systems by reducing

the impacts of invasive species. We applaud the Committee’s interest in utilizing the

National Wildlife Refuge System for demonstration projects to develop new techniques and procedures to restore native fish and wildlife habitats through the control of invasive species. We support the bill’s objective of enhancing the cooperative

efforts between the public and private sectors in the battle against invasive species.

H.R. 3558 establishes Federal cost-share grant programs similar to other invasive

species management bills sponsored in both the House and the Senate over the past

year, including H.R. 1462 on which I testified during the last session. The Department has identified several concerns with the bill. I will outline these concerns and

several clarifying modifications briefly in this statement. It is our understanding

that other Federal agencies may have additional concerns.

H.R. 3558 expands invasive species prevention and control partnerships through

four grant programs. The first establishes a mechanism to develop State assessments, or plans, which identify State priorities for controlling invasive alien species.

The bill details a Federal cost-share program that will fund States to help build the

capacity of individual, local, State, and Federal landowners to restore, manage, or

enhance native fish or wildlife and their habitats through control of invasive species,

including aquatic species. Providing technical and financial assistance for the development of State assessments on aquatic invasive species is an important role of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. H.R. 3558 recognizes this role and provides such assistance. We point out that Section 4 of this bill provides a different mechanism for

the development of State/Interstate Management Plans than those being developed

under the authority of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control

Act of 1990 (NANPCA) reauthorized as the National Invasive Species Act (NISA).

Under NANPCA, plans developed by the States must follow specific guidelines

and are submitted to the Task Force for approval. Once approved, States can receive

funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement the State plans. Although H.R. 3558 allows the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to accept

plans developed prior to the enactment of this bill, the development of plans under

Section 4 should complement and not conflict with existing programs. In addition,

15

the process for developing and implementing these plans would need to be transparent and easy for States to follow, possibly through guidance that provides the

necessary detail to allow for the submission of comprehensive and consistent plans.

The second grant program authorized by H.R. 3558 promotes greater cooperation

among Federal, State, local, and private landowners to prevent and control invasive

species through a voluntary, incentive-based financial assistance program, known as

The Aldo Leopold Native Heritage Program. This program provides additional financial support for needed on-the-ground management activities. We note that similar

cost-share programs are currently supported by the Department of the Interior in

concert with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, such as ‘‘Seeking Common

Ground’’, ‘‘Bring Back the Natives’’, and, particularly, the ‘‘Pulling Together Initiative.’’ The ‘‘Pulling Together Initiative’’ is a grant program for private, State, and

Federal entities that leverages funds to conduct on-the-ground invasive plant management. The ‘‘Pulling Together Initiative’’ is also supported by the Departments of Agriculture and Defense. The program has grown to nearly $19 million per year,

including matching funds from states that participate in the program. We view the

requirements and grants established by this bill as complementary to existing programs such as ‘‘Pulling Together’’ and other native fish and wildlife habitat restoration cost-share programs.

While we applaud development of State assessments to set priorities and increase

accountability, we are concerned that many otherwise eligible participants in the

Aldo Leopold Native Heritage Program may not qualify for funding until the assessments are completed. This may limit the program’s effectiveness, particularly if the

State assessments take years to complete. In the case of State invasive species plans

developed under NANPCA, only nine State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Management Plans have been developed over the past 10 years. One of the key elements

of a successful invasive species management program includes the ability to respond

rapidly to new or small infestations. We are concerned that there may be a significant number of private landowners, local organizations, and other partners prepared

to conduct scientifically-sound invasive species control projects, but whose projects

will not qualify for grants because of the restrictions in Section 5 of H.R. 3558. Language that would lift this restrictive requirement, while continuing to require accountability and effective coordination of projects funded under Section 5, would address this concern.

Section 5 of the bill also requires projects to have objectives that have no negative

impact on the bioregion in which they are carried out. Although we agree with this

concept, it may prove difficult to ensure that no negative impacts will occur, depending upon the scale on which the impacts are measured. Minor, short-term negative

impacts may be a necessary phase of a science-based native fish and wildlife habitat

enhancement project that has a long-term goal of restoring a bioregion. It would be

helpful to clarify this point, and to amend the term ‘‘bioregion’’ to correspond to the

ecoregions of the United States as determined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Additionally, Section 5 of H.R. 3558 requires that projects must be conducted in

partnership with a ‘‘Federal Agency.’’ The term ‘‘Federal Lands’’, as defined in Section 3 of the bill, is limited to all lands and waters owned and administered by the

Department of the Interior or the National Forest Service or held in trust by the

Federal Government for an Indian tribe. We are concerned that limiting the definition of ‘‘Federal Lands’’ in Section 3 may conflict with the Federal Agency requirement in Section 5, particularly in the case of partnerships to restore native fish and

wildlife habitats on military lands and waters. Expanding the definition of ‘‘Federal

Lands’’ to include military and other Federal lands and waters, or developing a definition of ‘‘Federal Agency’’ which would include agencies within the Department of

Defense, Department of Transportation, Department of Commerce, and other agencies involved with the National Invasive Species Council would help strengthen this

section.

Section 5 of H.R. 3558 states that projects must be conducted on Federal lands

and adjacent non–Federal lands or waters. Since many invasive organisms spread

easily through the watercourses within a watershed, the term ‘‘adjacent non–Federal lands’should be defined broadly to allow for projects anywhere in the same watershed. This would allow for projects to be conducted in remote locations that can

reasonably be expected to act as a source for invasive species on Federal lands and

in waters adjoining Federal lands.

Section 5 of H.R. 3558 also details the contents of a 2-year report required to be

submitted by the grantee. We are concerned that several of the requirements entail

extensive biological sampling that could be very expensive, time consuming, and

may limit the number of partners that are interested in taking part in the program.

We are also concerned about the administrative burden of compiling and analyzing

16

the monitoring data. Clarification that the Council could delegate duties to the appropriate agency, if necessary, while maintaining an oversight role would address

this concern. We believe this Section should be modified to achieve accountability

goals that facilitate the collection of useful data, yet prevent the expenditure of excessive resources on reporting that may limit on-the-ground accomplishments, and

to develop inventorying and monitoring criteria that would meet the intent of the

bill while using the best available science.

The third initiative in H.R.3558 establishes a demonstration program, utilizing

the National Wildlife Refuge System, to develop new technologies and methods to

restore native fish and wildlife habitats by controlling aquatic and terrestrial

invasive alien species. This program will complement a new fish and wildlife research demonstration program underway in the National Wildlife Refuge System.

We note that other Federal bureaus and agencies may wish to implement similar

demonstration programs on Federal lands and waters, thus expanding the role of

all Federal land and water management agencies in the development of new strategies for invasive alien species prevention and control. Appropriate modifications to

this section of the bill would facilitate such implementation.

The fourth program authorized by H.R. 3558 would provide financial assistance

to States for conducting rapid response activities to eradicate and/or prevent the

spread of new infestations of harmful non-native invasive species. We are encouraged by the desire of the Committee to improve the capacity of the States to respond

rapidly to new invasive species infestations and conduct preventative response efforts to control the spread to new locations. The bill could be modified to require

the Secretary to coordinate with existing early detection and rapid response programs and other Federal agency programs that deal with invasive species. Additionally, the bill could also be strengthened by including language to allow the responsible agency to enact administrative polies for the cost-share program.

H.R. 3558 appears to us as though it may interfere with other authorities and

laws not related to acquisition of lands and waters or interests therein. Language

should be included that would prevent such interference.

Finally, the Administration has additional concerns, such as appropriate cost

share amounts and grant award criteria that would benefit by further clarification

to sharpen its focus on priorities and performance.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee to discuss the issue

of invasive species and I wish to thank you, Representative Rahall, as well as Chairman Gilchrest and Representative Underwood, for your efforts to address this issue.

We support the mutual goal of assisting States, Tribes, and private landowners to

prevent, control, and manage non-native invasive species while recognizing the need

to maintain a strong partnership with neighboring federal lands and waters.

This concludes my formal remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions

that you may have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Dr. Tate.

Ms. Kaiser and Dr. Tate. I have a few questions. I know the

questions that most of us ask here today, each response, based on

the complexity of the science could be quite lengthy. But because

we have a limited amount of time, sometimes a yes or no answer

would be fine.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. And we will read your testimony fully as we

progress through this process and take your recommendations into

serious consideration.

Ms. Kaiser, Dr. Tate, is this problem of invasive species beyond

our control nationwide, worldwide?

Dr. TATE. Let me say that in some instances we have gone so far

with the invasive species that being able to manage them will be

most difficult. We do want to restore equilibrium in our plant and

animal communities that allows for sustainable use of those communities, and invasive species in some cases are a major challenge.

Ms. KAISER. I would answer yes and no. We have demonstrated

the ability in many cases to be able to manage invasive species on

17

a case-by-case basis. But there is the larger question of what is the

long-term effect, so I will stand with yes or no.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there a system of priorities where you have

hot spots in certain areas of the country that need the most attention and then other areas where they are not too bad, but if you

pay attention to them right away, they can be fixed on an ongoing

basis? Do zebra mussels, for example, making their way from the

Great Lakes to Lochsa River or Moose Creek in Idaho—I think that

is probably a priority—but also I would say is there something we

can do with brown tree snakes in Guam?

But let me move on. I asked Mr. Underwood, if he gets elected

to Governor of Guam if he would hire me to be the principal eradicator of the brown tree snake, I would move down there.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Are existing programs working, and if they

aren’t, is it because of lack of funding, lack of coordination? Will

this legislation move us in the direction we need to go?

Dr. TATE. We have funding as identified in the budget to do

many of the things that you are asking for. What we need and

what your bill provides is authority to work especially with some

of our partners on private lands, and is one of the things we support strongly in your bill.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Ms. KAISER. I think the key to success for any of these programs

is being integrated and collaborative and working with both public

and private sectors together. I think that our delivery mechanisms

are working because of increased attention for this issue, and the

technology and the capabilities we are able to bring to the table.

Mr. GILCHREST. Ms. Kaiser, you recommended that not only

there be a demonstration project with the refuge system, but also

with National Forest, which I think that is only appropriate because that sends it over to another committee, the Agriculture

Committee, but I think maybe they would waive their jurisdiction

if we included that.

Would either one of you recommend somewhere in the country a

demonstration project such that Mr. Otter suggested earlier, where

the demonstration project would be specific to let’s say where a refuge or a national forest butts up against private property where

there is a spillover problem with invasive species?

Dr. TATE. We absolutely support the demonstration project portion of what you are suggesting here, but frankly, there is not a

refuge in the country that is not affected by adjacent or nearby

lands or waters, that we could almost pick any refuge you want

and get the results you need.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Ms. KAISER. Within the Forest Service I think there are so many

opportunities I would recommend that we would work with either

your Committee or other mechanisms that we have to collaborate,

so your Committee or any of the other arenas and identify some

of those opportunities.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. The last question—and I probably

shouldn’t have said keep your answers short, because it seems like

you are holding back, so you can make them as long as you want

for the rest of the members.

18

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Tate, I think you said $137 billion cost to the

economy with invasive species.

Dr. TATE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. There is 31 or 40 some million dollars from Interior spent on invasive species, and I would guess a little bit more

than that with the Forest Service, but I would also guess that it

is well under $100 million that we spend nationally on invasive

species. Now I am sure throughout the entire Federal Government

there is maybe a little bit more than that, but considering

$137 billion cost to the economy by invasive species, what in your

background, history, experience, engagement in this problem, have

you ever thought about would be an appropriate amount to make

a dent or begin to overcome this problem? Can you give us a figure? Not a practical figure politically or a pragmatic figure politically, but the figure you think you know between your heart and

brain would be a figure that would solve the problem?

Dr. TATE. The short answer is no, I can’t give you that figure,

but the longer answer, let me explain what I mean by that.

When David Pimentel and the others examined the situation and

found $137 billion, this is a matter of economists and scientists

looking at the impacts on our economy under a situation once up

a time a few years back. Things have changed drastically in all regards since then.

Here is what we are doing. We have initiated, late last year, a

budget crosscut examination, looking at what money is spent not

only in Interior but in Agriculture, Commerce and all the people

trying to deal with the invasive species cost issue. And the results

of that project, when they come out—and I predict not a long time,

in time for the next budget cycle is what we are hoping for—that

we will be able to answer you better where money is truly being

spent on invasive species and where we can find economies, and we

can find new opportunities for leveraging Federal dollars, and

working with partners so that we actually are spending our money

and their money most effectively.

The other part of the question, are there hot spots, are there

places where we should be spending our attention, directing our attention? A lot of it appears in the management plan. These are

very optimistic goals in here, many of which we have already

missed because of long transition and things of that nature, but the

kinds of things that are here are an organized examination of what

the concerns are and a prioritization to some degree. We are going

to improve on the prioritization, and hopefully we can give you the

numbers you ask for very soon.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.

Ms. KAISER. I would just add that I don’t have a figure for you

either. If I had to guess for the Department, it would be somewhere

in the $100 million range, but that is a very broad guess.

But I would like to comment. Any funding that you look at needs

to be long term and sustained because these issues won’t be resolved short-term. And we should also look at it in the context that

it is a pay-me-now pay-me-later issue. The quicker we engage the

costs will be much less. The longer we wait, the costs will be much

higher.

19

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. And your comments and

recommendations have been very helpful.

Mr. Underwood?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you very much for your testimonies this morning.

They, and understandably so, reflect a great deal of concern about

the way the legislation would actually impact the organization of

the agencies that you work with, yet at the same time that we

draw attention to them, I guess the real import of the legislation

for us here is to make the case, and I think some of the studies

help us make that case that the problem of invasive species is so

pervasive that we have to triangulate and develop new structures

to deal with it, that cut across various agencies, that try to organize and get us to better understand the amount of resources that

we are devoting to this and to comprehend whether those resources

are up to the challenge.

In line with that, I am just interested, Dr. Tate, in terms of the $137 billion figure on economic impact, is there any—I know you

have probably thought about this a lot. Is there any element of that

estimate that you take issue with?

Dr. TATE. I wouldn’t use the term ‘‘take issue with.’’ There is one

area of it in which I believe we have not focused as strongly, and

that is in the Department of Interior’s Natural Resource trust responsibilities. Our natural resources are subject to tremendous

challenges from invasive species on all fronts. While we have programs in place that deal with the various interfaces, for example,

agriculture and natural resources, they tend to emphasize areas

other than the natural resource side of our great riches here in the

United States.

An example might be appropriate so that you know what I am

talking about. There is a disease in deer and elk called chronic

wasting disease. It is related possibly to or caused by a similar circumstance as mad cow disease and a syndrome that occurs in humans. That disease is now endemic in a portion of the Colorado/

Wyoming border. It extends, we discovered recently, over to Nebraska, and it extends west to Rocky Mountain National Park.

That is both good news and bad news that it is in Rocky Mountain

National Park. The good news is now we have Department of Interior resources focusing on it more and more than we did before. Department of Agriculture has responded to chronic wasting disease

very effectively and moved forward. I should let them describe it,

but they have moved forward by trying to take care of certain captive elk herds that are infected with it.

But my point is that the natural resource side would be, could

be better supported because it would be terrible to have to say that

we would have to remove all of our wild deer and elk because of

the possibility of controlling this disease, and that is my example

of the kinds of things we would have to do with our current technologies.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I wish there were a way to infect the brown

tree snake with that disease, and then would solve a number of

other problems.

[Laughter.]

Dr. TATE. Emerging technologies is your answer there.

20

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In prefacing your remarks you drew some attention, and you gave the sense that concern over nonnative species, the way the bill outlines it and proposes a funding level, you

gave the sense that this would bump up against other priorities,

and that is pretty standard when we are talking to administration

representatives. I know you live in a different world in terms of

trying to identify resources for your own activities. But would you

say that this is too generous a bill?

Dr. TATE. The bill is too generous in what regard?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In terms of the kinds of funding that is proposed and outlined.

Dr. TATE. What we have discovered that we really like is your

help in creating partnerships, in leveraging what funding we have,

in leveraging what programs we have, by making it possible for us

to reach to other communities and other stakeholders, and in terms

of funding we have turned in our budgets and we will continue to

develop our budgets with this in mind. And I can’t tell you beyond

that where we would go with it, but I do know that you have given

us new opportunities to make taxpayers money go further.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Ms. Kaiser, in your testimony you indicated

that you wanted to see USDA included in the pilot project, and I

think it is something that—I think you also mentioned it, Dr. Tate,

in your testimony, that you wanted to consider including a whole

number of Federal agencies since this is an issue that cuts across

all of these agencies. Yes, Ms. Kaiser, in your testimony, you—I

mean I expect that you would be proud of the work of USDA in

what you are doing, but the question that the Chairman asked I

think was very appropriate to begin with, was are nonnative species out of control? And you answered both yes and no, but in your

testimony you gave us the sense that there is a lot of activity that

is devoted to this and a lot of resources in various parts of USDA.

It seems to me that they are out of control, and it would seem to

me that it would call for this kind of legislation and this kind of

approach which would cut across all of the agencies.

Ms. KAISER. We applaud the effort to address this issue on a

broad basis. When I said yes or no, it was, is there any hope; are

we so out of control that there is no hope or that kind of thing. We

have been very successful in—I would just suggest that there are

delivery mechanisms in place in a variety of organizations, and

some within, many within USDA, that can deliver on issues such

as research and development, technology transfer, land management activities, best management practices, a variety of those

things. And I would think that the type of funding you are talking

about would be a great complement to the existing opportunities

that we have, the existing delivery mechanisms within the Federal

Government today, and I would encourage you to look at those.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK. Well, thank you, and I also look forward

to seeing a precise accounting of what kind of resources are used

to combat nonnative species, if indeed, we are able to figure out the

economic costs associated with this we ought to be able to at least

figure out how much resources we are spending to combat it.

I did just want to make a brief statement, Mr. Chairman. I believe we only received these testimonies yesterday, and I remember

in my previous four terms we heard repeatedly about how tardy

21

administration officials were in submitting their testimony, so I

hope that we can speed that up a little bit.

Mr. GILCHREST. I think the administration officials realize how

busy Members of Congress are, and we probably wouldn’t look at

it until the night before anyway.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. I am not sure if that is the comment my staff

wanted me to make.

[Laughter.]

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, that is right. That is the comment that

my staff gave to me.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Tate and Ms. Kaiser, thank you for your testimony. We appreciate you coming down here today and we look

forward to working with you as the bill moves through the process.

Thank you very much.

Ms. KAISER. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Our next panel is Mr. Mark Van Putten, President, National Wildlife Federation; Dr. Chavarria, Director of

International Special Programs, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; Dr. Ann Bartuska, Executive Director, Invasive Species Initiative, The Nature Conservancy; Dr. Lucius Eldredge, Department

of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum.

Thank you very much for coming today, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Van Putten, you don’t have any Russian ancestry?

Mr. VAN PUTTEN. No, sir, I am a Hollander and it is Van Putten.

Mr. GILCHREST. Maybe Mr. Putin has Holland ancestry. And it

is Van Putten?

Mr. VAN PUTTEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming

this morning. We look forward to your try, and, Mr. Van Putten,

you may begin, sir.

STATEMENT OF MARK VAN PUTTEN, PRESIDENT,

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

Mr. VAN PUTTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

Committee. My name is Mark Van Putten. I am President of

National Wildlife Federation, and I appreciate the opportunity to

testify this morning on H.R. 3558.

National Wildlife Federation is America’s largest not-for-profit

conservation, education and advocacy organization with more than

4 million members and supporters. We also are a federation of

state and territorial organizations, and we were founded in 1936.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that my written testimony

be included in the hearing record.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. VAN PUTTEN. The conversation of our Nation’s natural ecosystems in a healthy and abundant state provides innumerable and

irreplaceable benefits to society. To conserve these ecosystems and

realize these benefits, there are many complex issues to be addressed, including human population growth, pollution, sprawling

development, unsustainable agricultural processes, and global climate change. All of these are important issues and we work on all

of them, but another pernicious threat that has been too often overVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:36 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 78207.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
22

looked is the subject of today’s hearing, the harm brought upon our

natural ecosystems by invasive and nonnative species.

That threat has been recognized by the delegates to the National

Wildlife Federation, who set our policies. And I have appended to

my testimony the two resolutions that have been passed by our delegates in recent years, addressing the issue of invasive nonnative

species. And I would associate myself with Dr. Tate’s response to

the question about the need for increased emphasis on the impacts

that invasive nonnative species have on natural ecosystems as well

as the impact that they have on agriculture and in other situations.

After habitat loss itself invasive nonnative plants are the second

greatest threat to native species. At least 5,000 nonnative species,

including more than 2,100 exotic plants and 2,000 insects have invaded North America since the arrival of European explorers. And

many of these species have been harmful to wildlife and ecosystems. They overwhelm native species and out compete them for

food, space, water and other needs, and in some cases, they prey

on native species and directly alter their habitat.

In my written testimony I have cited two very compelling examples, the examples of melaleuca in the Everglades, and the Great

Lakes experience, and I will not in my oral remarks go into any

further detail, but they are two very compelling examples of the

impacts on native ecosystems.

The answer to this includes the remedies in this legislation and

a broader public education, and the National Wildlife Federation

has been dedicated to educating the broader public about the

threat of invasive nonnative plants.

For example, our Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program, through

which we have helped homeowners and certified over 30,000 backyards as Backyard Wildlife Habitat, emphasizes the use of native

plants in landscaping, and our various activities on the World Wide

Web similarly provides people with information on how they can

use native species and the advantages of using those native species.

The National Wildlife Federation strongly supports H.R. 3558

and commends its authors and this Committee for that legislation,

and looks forward to working with you as we proceed.

I would, however, like to identify two concerns that we have in

addressing the issue of nonnative invasive species. First of all, the

ultimate test of Congress and our collective commitment to dealing

with this problem will be appropriating the funds necessary to deal

with it. Unless adequate funds are appropriated, the problem of

invasive nonnative species will continue to grow unchecked, and I

would also associate myself with the comments of the Representative of the Department of Agriculture, that is, either pay now or

pay later, and it will be cheaper to pay now.

Second, we have a concern that we need to be sure that the cure

is not worse than the disease, that some of the techniques that are

used to control or remove nonnative species need to be carefully assessed to ensure that those techniques are host specific and nonharmful to other species and to our natural ecosystems. We are

concerned about the need to minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals, and to be very careful as we evaluate

proposed solutions.

23

The list and examples of invasive nonnative species destroying

native communities is long and growing. H.R. 3558 will help address this problem by encouraging cooperation among affected parties including private and Government interest and authorizing

funding to initiate needed programs. We strongly support this bill

and look forward to working with the Committee as it moves

through the legislative process.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Putten follows:]

Statement of Mark Van Putten, President and CEO,

National Wildlife Federation

On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), I would like to thank the

Chairman, Ranking Minority Member and Committee members for this opportunity

to testify on the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act

(H.R. 3558). Thank you Representatives Rahall, Gilchrest and Underwood for authoring H.R. 3558.

I am Mark Van Putten, President and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation.

We are the nation=s largest not-for-profit conservation education and advocacy organization with more than four million members and supporters, and nine natural resources centers throughout the United States. National Wildlife Federation’s family

also includes forty-six state and territorial affiliate organizations, including the

Utah Wildlife Federation and West Virginia Wildlife Federation. Founded in 1936,

the National Wildlife Federation works for the protection of wildlife species and

their habitat, and for the conservation of our natural resources.

Mr. Chairman, I request that my full written testimony be included in the hearing record.

The conservation of our nation’s natural ecosystems in a healthy and abundant

state provides innumerable and irreplaceable benefits to society. To conserve these

ecosystems and realize their benefits for all of us, we must address many complex

issues, including human population growth, pollution, sprawling development patterns, unsustainable agricultural practices and global climate change. All of these

are important issues and the National Wildlife Federation is actively working on

each of them. However, another pernicious threat too often overlooked and the subject of today’s hearing is the harm brought upon our natural ecosystems by invasive

non-native species.

H.R. 3558 addresses this threat by authorizing cost-share grants to states for

projects consistent with state plans; creating the Aldo Leopold Native Heritage

Grant Program for implementing effective control programs; encouraging demonstration projects on national wildlife refuges where ecologically sound methods of

controlling invasive non-native species can be tested; and promoting the development of a rapid-response capability. This latter measure will help us address urgent

threats before they become ecological disasters beyond our control. Each of these

measures is a necessary and vital step in tackling the problem of invasive, non-native species. The National Wildlife Federation therefore strongly supports

H.R. 3558.

The National Wildlife Federation’s affiliated organizations across the United

States adopted a position statement on invasive non-native species in 2000, a copy

of which is appended to my testimony. Our concern is that invasive non-native species can so radically change an area’s physical and biological environment that the

habitat requirements for native plants and animals no longer exist. After habitat

loss, invasive non-native plants are the second greatest threat to native species. At

least 5,000 non-native species, including more than 2,100 exotic plants and 2,000

insects, have invaded North America since the arrival of European explorers. Many

of these species have been harmful to native wildlife and ecosystems. They overwhelm native species for food, space, water, and other needs. In some cases these

species prey on native species and alter their habitat.

Hawaii, perhaps more than any other state, has suffered severe impacts from introduced species. At least 23 native bird species have become extinct and another

32 bird species endangered in the last 200 years in Hawaii. The non-native Indian

mongoose, roof rat and feral cat are the primary reasons for this devastation of native fauna.

The impacts of invasive non-native species are not confined to our natural ecosystems. Agricultural and rangelands can be severely harmed by the spread of

invasive non-native species such as cheat grass and Russian thistle, which absorb

24

valuable nutrients and deplete soil moisture. Navigation on many of our nation’s waterways has been hampered by dense growths of aquatic invasive non-native

plants such as hydrilla and water hyacinth. Industry also has suffered due to the

spread of invasive non-native plants and animals into equipment and piping.

The harm to natural ecosystems caused by invasive non-native species is illustrated by two well-known species, melaleuca and the zebra mussel.

The Everglades and Melaleuca

Invasive non-native plants have become rampant in Florida in the last thirty

years. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), just one species— melaleuca, a non-native tree introduced from Australia—is invading the greater Everglades ecosystem at a rate of about 11 acres per day. Melaleuca has already infested hundreds of thousands of acres in South Florida creating monocultures that

destroy native plant diversity and provide little benefit to native wildlife species.

Furthermore, the dense stands of melaleuca transpire enormous quantities of water,

contributing to lowering of the water table in the Everglades, further expanding

their impact on the natural wetlands that define the Everglades. The insidious

spread of melaleuca and other invasive non-native plants like Brazilian pepper represent a serious threat to Florida’s natural ecosystems and the habitat of endangered species such as the Florida panther, all at a time when we are embarking

on an unprecedented effort to restore the greater Everglades ecosystem from decades of environmental mismanagement.

Once an invasive non-native species takes hold, it is often very expensive, if not

impossible to eradicate. It has taken more than a decade to find a natural predator

of melaleuca that will not threaten native flora and fauna. The USDA is now releasing melaleuca leaf weevils from Australia to control the spread of the tree, reducing

the need to use potentially hazardous chemical controls.

The National Wildlife Federation has been educating people in the greater Everglades watershed about the threat of invasive non-native plants. Our Backyard

Wildlife Habitat ‘‘, and Keep the Wild Alive—educational programs have sponsored

events focusing on habitat. NWF has shown people how to identify invasive nonnative plants, especially melaleuca, replace them with natives in their own communities and take part in restoration activities in rural and wilderness areas. One

event we co-hosted with the USDA last year took Boy Scouts out into panther habitat to collect weevils from one area of forest and release them into another forest

currently being invaded by melaleuca.

The Great Lakes and Zebra Mussels

For decades, the National Wildlife Federation has worked to protect the biological

integrity of the Great Lakes from numerous environmental threats. One of the most

alarming threats to the Great Lakes, however, comes from invasive non-native

plants such as Eurasian water milfoil, non-native fish such as the Eurasian ruffe

and round goby, and the zebra mussel. These and other species were introduced into

the Great Lakes from ballast water discharged by foreign ships using our coastal

and inland waterways. Native to the Balkans, Poland, and the former Soviet Union,

the zebra mussel is spreading across North America at an astounding rate. Dense

zebra mussel colonies grow in pipes and on other hard surfaces, severely impacting

water flow at power plants, water treatment systems and other facilities. Although

the full biological impact of zebra mussels is not entirely known, it is clear that

where zebra mussels invade, native mussel species quickly decline.

So great is the problem of invasive non-native species in the Great Lakes, that

just last Friday, March 8, 2002, the National Wildlife Federation’s affiliated organizations adopted the resolution ‘‘Protection of the Great Lakes from Exotic Species.’’ In this resolution, which I have appended to my testimony, we identify the need for

additional federal and state legislation requiring the treatment of ballast water in

ships entering the Great Lakes.

Legislation

The Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act (H.R. 3558), is

an important component of what should be a broad and diverse effort to minimize

the impact of invasive non-native species, control their spread and prevent their introduction in the first place. The problem of invasive non-native species is so widespread and pervasive that no single program or action can address it comprehensively. This is particularly true where the spread of invasive species may be exacerbated by other environmental problems.

For example, last month National Wildlife Federation published a book entitled,

Wildlife Responses to Climate Change, North American Case Studies. This book explores how global climate change has the potential to significantly increase the

rates, intensities, and extent of species invasions and could correspondingly worsen

25

the impacts of invasions on ecological systems throughout the United States. A summary of the study as it relates to invasive species is included with my written testimony.

Thousands of non-native plant and animal species, all with their own unique life

history characteristics, have the potential to severely impact our natural ecosystems, not to mention agriculture and industry. Invasive non-native species are

of concern on both public and private lands and water features, and will thus require private and public cooperation, including local, state, regional and federal

agencies, to effectively address the problem.

Already, encouraging efforts are under way. On February 3, 1999 President Clinton signed Executive Order 13112 ‘‘Invasive Species’’ which established the National

Invasive Species Council (Council). The Council helps coordinate the activities of 10

federal agencies with respect to invasive non-native species, including research,

management and monitoring. H.R. 3558 takes a positive step forward by assigning

the Council important consultation functions as grant programs authorized by the

bill are designed and implemented.

The National Wildlife Federation would also look favorably on federal legislation

permanently establishing the National Invasive Species Council and providing it

with adequate funding. Such legislation would help ensure the continuity of programs and sustain focus during changing administrations, and therefore would help

in effectively controlling invasive non-native species.

We are also encouraged by the introduction of other legislation to address the

invasive non-native species problem. Specifically, I am referring to the Great Lakes

Ecology Protection Act (S.1034). This legislation would finally close the loop hole

which exempts ships entering the Great Lakes declaring that they have no ballast

on board from regulation under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention

and Control Act of 1990. Experience has shown that these exempted ships can still

transport invasive non-native species to the Great Lakes and other areas.

Although we embrace legislation authorizing funding for the control of invasive

non-natives, two precautionary notes are in order. First, the ultimate test of

Congress’s commitment to controlling invasive non-native species is in the annual

appropriations process. Unless adequate funds are appropriated, the problem of

invasive non-native species will continue to grow unchecked.

Second, programs to control and manage invasive non-native species must be developed and implemented in such a manner that they are not harmful to our natural ecosystems. The introduction of non-native species to control other non-native

species must be vigorously screened to ensure the species is host specific and nonharmful to other species and our natural ecosystems. Furthermore, all control methods should seek to minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals.

In the few cases where use of chemicals may be appropriate, this use must be tightly regulated and carefully monitored to avoid harming non-target native species. All

projects and programs addressing invasive non-natives should be evaluated according to their success in implementing appropriate environmental controls.

Conclusion

The list of invasive non-native species destroying our native communities is already too long and is still growing. H.R. 3558 will help address the problem by encouraging cooperation among affected parties, including private and government interests, and authorizing funding to initiate needed programs. We strongly support

H.R. 3558 and look forward to working with this committee as H.R. 3558 moves

through the legislative process.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any

questions that Members may have.

National Wildlife Federation

Resolution Number 1

2000

INVASIVE SPECIES

WHEREAS, some non-indigenous invasive plants, animals and other organisms

have an adverse impact upon indigenous communities by reducing available light,

water, nutrients, and space and can cause other long term changes in the area’s hydrology, soil chemistry and erodibility, and the frequency of fires; and

WHEREAS, some introduced non-indigenous plants, animals and other organisms

are highly invasive, capable of rapid reproduction and/or growth resulting in the disVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:36 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78207.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
26

placement of indigenous species, and can radically change an area’s physical and/

or biological environment so that the habitat requirements for indigenous plants,

animals and other organisms no longer exist; and

WHEREAS, non-indigenous invasive plants, animals and other organisms by nature are easily spread from one area to another; and

WHEREAS, the impact of non-indigenous invasive species threatens regional biodiversity in a manner that is not easily quantified; for example, the loss of an indigenous plant community to non-indigenous invasive species may mean the loss of an

insect, animal or indigenous plant dependent upon that community; and

WHEREAS, according to the National Park Service, invasions of non-native

plants are the second greatest threat to native species after direct habitat destruction; and

WHEREAS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated, ‘‘an estimated 42% of the

nation’s endangered and threatened species have declined as a result of encroaching

exotic plants and animals’’; and

WHEREAS, the problem of non-indigenous invasive plants is widespread and, according to federal and other accounts, now extend into more than 1.5 million acres

of national park land and are spreading at a rate of 4,600 acres per day into federally owned land; and

WHEREAS, it is ‘‘estimated that in the 20th century, just 79 introduced plant and animal species have cost the U.S. economy $97 billion in losses to such industries

as forestry, ranching, fisheries, tourism, and utilities’’; and

WHEREAS, research is required to establish best management practices to control and prevent the spread of non-indigenous invasive species; and

WHEREAS, international trade agreements and rules, regulations, and protocols

related to international transportation and trade can significantly affect the possible

transportation of non-indigenous invasive species into the United States and other

countries;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation in

its Annual Meeting assembled March 16–18, 2000, in Seattle, Washington, supports

the President’s efforts in establishing the Invasive Species Council to integrate efforts of federal agencies to combat the problem and to prepare and issue the first

edition of a National Invasive Management Plan that shall ‘‘detail and recommend

performance-oriented goals and objectives and specific measures of success for federal agency efforts concerning invasive species’’; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation supports increased federal funding for non-indigenous invasive species management in National

Parks and on other federal lands and/or waters, and the continued funding of the

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) that, in part, provides cost sharing for

private initiatives to control non-native (invasive) plants from natural ecosystems;

and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation encourages

state and federal agencies, universities and other groups to work together to identify

and list the highly and potentially invasive non-indigenous species specific to that

state, and to promote that the list be used as an educational and managerial tool;

and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation calls upon

state and federal agencies to carefully formulate regulations to control, reduce, or,

if necessary, prohibit the introduction, transportation, propagation, sale, or distribution of non-indigenous plants known to be harmful or otherwise undesirable; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation encourages

state and federal agencies, universities, and other groups to work with the nursery

industry to establish policies to control and prevent the further introduction and

spread of non-indigenous invasive species, and to promote a list of alternative, preferably native plants, that can be the basis of educational programs that will benefit

growers, the public, and the environment; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation encourages

state and federal entities engaged in research and development involving management of vegetation to intensify their studies of ecology and control of invasive nonindigenous plants; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation urges monitoring of areas that have endangered or threatened species and/or are relatively free

of non-indigenous invasive species and encourages careful management practices to

be used in the removal of non-indigenous invasive species; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation urges the

Congress and federal agencies to ensure that the United States’ international trade

obligations, including the World Trade Organization and its Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Agreement, are formulated and implemented to provide sufficient

27

flexibility to allow for regulations to control and prohibit intentional or unintentional introduction of non-indigenous invasive species and other organisms into the

United States and other countries; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation urges the

Congress of the United States to recognize the high environmental and economic

costs associated with non-indigenous invasive plants, animals and other organisms

and to appropriately fund efforts to control this enormous national environmental

crisis through educational programs, research, and cost-share incentives to restore

native habitats.

National Wildlife Federation

Resolution Number SC–2

2002

PROTECTION OF THE GREAT LAKES AND OTHER WATERS

FROM EXOTIC SPECIES

WHEREAS, our Great Lakes, estuarine habitats, coastal and inland waters continue to be invaded by exotic (non-native) aquatic organisms and pathogens transported from foreign waters; and

WHEREAS, these organisms arrive in the ballast water discharged by ships using

our estuarine, coastal and inland waterways; and

WHEREAS, previously introduced exotic species, such as Eurasian ruffe and

round gobies, are being carried in ballast water from one Great Lakes port to another; and

WHEREAS, once introduced and established, these non-native aquatic organisms

are expensive to control and almost impossible to eliminate; and

WHEREAS, the impact on sport and commercial fisheries is immense and disrupts the aquatic diversity of the Great Lakes, estuarine habitats, coastal and inland waters; and

WHEREAS, moreover, shoreline communities in the Great Lakes region alone are

being forced to spend an estimated $500 million annually on control measures to

protect drinking water, power plants, and recreational facilities; and

WHEREAS, some of these aquatic organisms, such as zebra mussels and Eurasian water milfoil, are now making their way into inland lakes and streams across

the United States where they are displacing native animal and plant species; and

WHEREAS, the ballast water that harbors these invaders is used to maintain the

stability of cargo vessels when they are empty or only partially loaded and is

pumped in or out of large holding tanks, as needed, before the ships enter or leave

port; and

WHEREAS, although U.S. and Canadian laws currently require ships entering

the Great Lakes to exchange their ballast water at sea, ship design makes it impossible to eliminate all of the ballast water; and

WHEREAS, the majority of ships entering the Great Lakes do so with ‘‘No ballast

on Board’’ and ships in this condition are commonly referred to as NOBOBs; and

WHEREAS, ships in the NOBOB condition still carry sediment in their ballast

that can harbor exotic species; and

WHEREAS, the average ship retains 42,000 gallons of ballast water and sludge

when entering the Great Lakes or moving between ports; and

WHEREAS, exotic organisms are flushed into the lakes as ships take on and discharge residual ballast water in the course of their voyages; and

WHEREAS, ships in the NOBOB condition are currently exempt from requirement to exchange their ballast under federal law; and

WHEREAS, federal laws as they are currently administered have clearly failed

to prevent exotic species in this residual ballast water from reaching the Great

Lakes, estuarine habitats, coastal and inland waterways; and

WHEREAS, in the 106th Congress a bill was introduced that would have amended the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Control and Protection Act of 1990 and require ships traveling in and out of the Great Lakes, estuarine habitats, coastal and

inland waters to replace or purify their ballast water or certify that any discharge

or exchange within U.S. waters will not introduce any non-indigenous organisms;

and

WHEREAS, the National Wildlife Federation believes the ultimate control has to

come from the Federal government working in concert with Canada; and

WHEREAS, the National Wildlife Federation and many other organizations recognize the threat posed to the Great Lakes, estuarine habitats, coastal and other inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:36 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78207.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
28

land lakes and streams of the United States by the continued introduction of nonindigenous aquatic organisms carried in the ballast water of ocean going vessels.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation,

at its Annual Meeting assembled March 7–9, 2002 in Stone Mountain, Georgia, support the enactment of federal legislation to protect the Great Lakes, estuarine habitats, coastal and inland waters from undesirable exotic species and pathogens, by

requiring treatment of ballast water of all ships entering or moving between the

Great Lakes, estuarine habitats, coastal or inland ports, including ships with no ballast on board (NOBOBs) to eliminate viable exotic organisms without damage to the

environment; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National Wildlife Federation encourages

the development, funding, and use of environmentally sound technologies that prevent the introduction of exotic species into the aquatic environment by minimizing

or eliminating the uptake of organisms into ships’ ballast tanks; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National Wildlife Federation supports

equally effective state legislation to regulate ballast water, including ships in the

NOBOB condition in individual state waters to provide interim protection until such

time as federal legislation is enacted to adequately protect all our Great Lakes, estuarine habitats, coastal and inland lakes and rivers.

29

30

31

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Van Putten.

Dr. Chavarria.

STATEMENT OF GABRIELA CHAVARRIA, DIRECTOR OF

INTERNATIONAL AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS, NATIONAL FISH

AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

Ms. CHAVARRIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Gabriela

Chavarria, and I am Director of International Programs at the

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The Foundation is pleased

to testify before you today as you address the silent spread of

invasive and noxious plant species as one of the greatest threats

to the biological diversity, ecological stability and the economy of

an increasing number of areas in the United States and the world.

Impacts from exotic invasive species are second only to direct

habitat loss as a factor in the decline of fish, wildlife and plant diversity. Of the 5,000 introduced plant species established in the

United States, 476 are scientifically recognized as pests with aggressive and invasive characteristics. Experts estimate that

invasive and noxious plants have infested well over 100 million

acres and the area affected continues to increase by 8 to 20 percent

annually. These plants have encroached upon millions of acres,

supplanting native plants, disrupting ecosystem structure and

function, and infecting agricultural crops, causing billions of dollars

in lost revenue.

In 1996 the Foundation, along with the Bureau of Land Management and the USDA Forest Service, created a private/public partnership to aid in the prevention, management and/or eradication of

invasive and noxious plants, and to increase public awareness of

the adverse impacts. This partnership is called the Pulling Together Initiative or PTI. This initiative has served as an implementation program to the National Strategy on Invasive Noxious

Weeds produced in 1996—and you have a copy of this—and is now

part of the National Invasive Species Management Plan. You also

have a copy of that.

We represent demonstration projects that go on every day. Over

the past 6 years this program has become a joint effort between the

Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land

Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, the USDA Forest Service, the USDA Animal, Plant and Health

Inspection Services, and the Department of Defense.

To date, 220 grants have treated invasive species in 36 States

and 2 U.S. possessions. The program has provided over $7 million

in Federal funds that have been leveraged by over $30 million in

non-Federal funds for a total of over $21 million for on the ground

projects.

The program promotes greater cooperation among the various

stakeholders to implement ecologically based strategies to eradicate, mitigate and control harmful nonnative plant species through

a voluntary and incentive-based financial assistance grant program. This program helps in the development of long-term weed

management projects within the scope of an integrated weed management strategy. Projects range from pulling yellow star thistle in

Idaho to releasing biological control agents on leafy spurge in

32

Colorado, to selective spraying of giant salvinia in the lower

Colorado River.

Our program provides support on a competitive basis for its public/private partnership through the formation of local weed management area partnerships nationwide. This is critical in that it

serves to engender public awareness and increase interest in further eradication efforts to protect, enhance, restore, and manage

native habitats for native fish and wildlife.

We recognize limits on Federal resources and build into our program a 5-year plan of funding for individual projects. This 5-year

plan gives the grantee important startup monies to leverage with

a myriad of local resources. These local resources range from volunteer labor to chemical donation to neighborhood sharing of equipment.

These projects are not selected by the Foundation alone. They

are selected by a national steering committee, which is comprised

of 22 invasive weed species experts from the Federal, private and

corporate sectors.

The PTI success remains rooted in the principle of public/private

partnerships at the national and local levels. Bringing a national

presence to the invasive species issue, we empower local weed management entities to fight the battle at a landscape level. This approach also focuses resources on the important component of public

outreach and awareness. As the general public learns more of the

ecological and economical threat, they become engaged in preventing the establishment of these invasive species in their communities. Attention such as this at every level is a key precursor to

a successful fight against invasive weed species.

We commend this Committee for taking action and introducing

legislation that is a much-needed step in the right direction.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee for

the opportunity to testify before you today. This concludes my remarks, and I will be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chavarria follows:]

Statement of Gabriela Chavarria, Ph.D., Director of International and

Special Programs, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (the Foundation) is prohibited from

testifying on behalf of specific legislation but appreciates the opportunity to submit

this statement as it relates to the growing problem of invasive species on both public and private lands.

The Foundation is a private, non-profit, 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization, authorized by Congress in 1984 to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants, and the habitats on

which they depend. We have funded nearly 5,000 projects and leveraged over $175

million in federal dollars for more than half a billion dollars in funding for on-theground conservation, conservation education, and organizational capacity building.

The Foundation is non-partisan and does not support lobbying, political advocacy,

or litigation. The Foundation’s primary conservation ingredient is its grantees and

other partners—the hundreds of federal, state, tribal, corporate, and private organizations that have leveraged federal dollars, identified the worthy projects, and conducted the conservation projects. In particular, our core federal agency partners provide vital matching funds through its appropriations and budgets, and invaluable

program direction and technical assistance. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USDA–Forest Service, Bureau of

Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Agency for International Development,

Environmental Protection Agency, and USDA–Natural Resource Conservation Service are the eight core agencies providing this support.

The Foundation’s conservation investments have resulted in over 20 million acres

of restored wildlife habitat—an area nearly equal to the State of Indiana, and over

33

11,000 miles of restored streams and waterways. We have helped develop new models for private land stewardship, created new hope for countless species, and built

educational programs that nurture the next generation of stewards.

The Foundation commends Congress on its efforts to recognize the silent spread

of invasive and noxious plant species as one of the greatest threats to the biological

diversity, ecological stability, and the economy of an increasing number of areas in

the U.S. and the world. Impacts from exotic invasive species are second only to direct habitat loss as a factor in decline of fish, wildlife, and plant diversity. Of the

5,000 introduced plant species established in the U.S., 476 are scientifically recognized as pests with aggressive and invasive characteristics. Experts estimate that

invasive and noxious plants have infested well over 100 million acres and the area

affected continues to increase by 8 to 20 percent annually. These plants have encroached upon millions of acres, supplanting native plants, disrupting ecosystem

structure and function, and infesting agricultural crops, causing billions of dollars

in lost revenue.

In 1996, the Foundation, along with the Bureau of Land Management and the

USDA–Forest Service, created a private/public partnership to aid in the prevention,

management, and/or eradication of invasive and noxious plants and to increase public awareness of the adverse impacts. This partnership is called the Pulling Together

Initiative (PTI). PTI has served as an implementation program to the National

Strategy on Invasive Noxious Weeds produced in 1996 and is supported by over 100

private, federal and corporate organizations, and is now part of the National

Invasive Species Management Plan.

Over the past six years, PTI has become a joint effort between the Foundation,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau

of Reclamation, the National Park Service, the USDA–Forest Service, the USDA– Animal Plant and Health Inspection Services, and the Department of Defense. Since

weeds do not respect boundaries, our agency partners recognized the need to form

partnerships without borders.

To date, 220 grants have treated invasive species in 36 states and two U.S. Pos- sessions. The PTI program has provided $7,279,174 million in federal funds that

have been matched by $13,777,922 million in nonfederal funds, for a total of

$21,057,096 million for on-the-ground projects. A map showing the distribution of

the projects is enclosed for your review (Attachment A).

PTI promotes greater cooperation among the various stakeholders to implement

ecologically based strategies to eradicate, mitigate, and control harmful nonnative

plant species through a voluntary and incentive-based financial assistance grant

program. This program helps in the development of long-term weed management

projects within the scope of an integrated pest management strategy. An integrated

pest management strategy is significant in that it includes mechanical, chemical,

and biological control.

Projects range from pulling yellow star thistle in Idaho, to releasing biological control agents on leafy spurge in Colorado, to selective spraying of leafy spurge in remote areas in North Dakota.

PTI provides support on a competitive basis for its public/private partnership

through the formation of local weed management area (WMA) partnerships nationwide. The significance of the WMA is to ensure that implementation of the integrated pest management approach is understood from acre to acre, parcel to parcel,

state to state. These partnerships are critical in that they serve to engender public

awareness and increase interest in further eradication efforts to protect, enhance,

restore, and manage native habitats for native fish and wildlife.

PTI recognizes limits on federal resources and builds into its program a five-year

plan of funding for individual projects. This five-year plan gives the grantee important startup monies to leverage with myriad local resources. These local resources

range from volunteer labor, to chemical donations, to lending a tractor.

PTI has been effective in initiating working partnerships, demonstrating successful collaborative efforts, and building on those successes to develop permanent funding sources for the maintenance of WMAs from the involved parties.

PTI projects are not selected by the Foundation alone. They are selected by a

National Steering Committee, which is comprised of twenty-two invasive weed species experts from the federal, private, and corporate sectors. A list of these members

is attached as attachment B.

After six years, the success of PTI remains rooted in the principle of public/private

partnerships at the national and local levels. Bringing a national presence to the

invasive species issue, PTI empowers local weed management entities to be successful in their partnership efforts to fight the battle at a landscape level. With this

national local backing, PTI also focuses resources on the important component of

public outreach and awareness. As the general public learns more of the ecological

34

and economical threat, they become engaged in preventing the establishment of

these invasive species in their communities. Attention such as this at every level

is a key precursor to a successful fight against invasive weed species.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee to discuss the

issue of invasive species. We would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members

of this Committee, for your efforts to address this important issue. This concludes

my remarks and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.

35

36

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Dr. Chavarria.

Dr. Eldredge, welcome. I am sorry, I got my names mixed up. Dr.

Bartuska. Thank you. You may begin.

STATEMENT OF ANN M. BARTUSKA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

INVASIVE SPECIES INITIATIVE, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

Ms. BARTUSKA. Good morning. My name is Ann Bartuska. I am

the Executive Director of the Nature Conservancy’s Invasive Species Initiative. And I would like to thank the Chair and the

Committee for inviting the Conservancy to testify before you today

on H.R. 3558.

I would like to submit my full testimony to the record and just

briefly summarize my remarks.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection.

Ms. BARTUSKA. Thank you.

The Nature Conservancy is fully dedicated to preserving plants,

animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of

life on this earth. We are trying to do that with our presence in

50 States and 28 countries worldwide.

And our concern on invasive species has really become critical,

especially after we surveyed our member organizations nationwide

and internationally last year, and determined that 75 percent of

our units have identified invasive species as the No. 1 critical

threat to achieving our mission. Because of that, we feel we can’t

ignore the whole invasive species issue, and appreciate the opportunity today to talk about H.R. 3558 and the role that might play

in contributing to the fight against invasives.

What I would like to do today is just summarize a few of our

comments that we have about the bill, and also to identify some

areas that we think could be further improved or analyzed as the

discussions continue about this bill, and then to conclude with

some remarks on future opportunities, always taking advantage of

an opportunity like this to put some new things on the table.

We believe that any program that provides mechanisms to work

across land ownerships, Federal, State and private, to deal with

the invasive threat is a very positive step forward, and we commend the members of the Subcommittees for putting this together

as part of H.R. 3558. We think it does bring some valued attention

to the invasive species issue and does provide some opportunities

among all land ownerships to address the problem. We also support

the idea of looking at all taxa, looking at plants, animals, insects,

diseases, the full array of invasives that we have out there and not

limiting to any particular threat as part of the overall package in

the long run.

In terms of some of the areas that we support, providing resources to the areas of greatest need I think is one thing that is

identified in the bill that really helps get resources at the local

level to where we have the greatest threat. Being able to have local

entities make those decisions and to utilize the full information

available through the Federal and State programs will certainly

help us to address the problem where it exists. We also believe that

the fact that the bill allows us to address prevention, eradication,

rapid response and control and management, all encompass a very

powerful way of looking at invasive species.

37

Second, the emphasis in the bill on prevention and rapid response is a much-needed effort, and I think really highlights those

areas where you do get the biggest bang for the buck, getting out

early, taking care of a species infestation before it becomes a significant threat, before it becomes an established population is

something that is a very high priority for all of us. We have seen

that with fires, where if you address fires before they get established, your investment is much lower and your success rate is

much higher.

And then last, the idea of capacity building for the Fish and

Wildlife Service to help support the backlog of invasive species

management opportunities on the refuges is something that we

support just generally in addressing Federal lands and getting

ahead of the invasive species problems. So we continue to encourage that kind of an outcome in addressing the invasives problem.

There are a few areas that we feel need to be further addressed,

the areas of the State management plans. There is some opportunities for confusion in comparing what is in H.R. 3558 with what has

been identified through the Aquatic Nuisance Task Force, under

NISA for the Co-op Forestry Assistance Act with the Forest Service

on their Insect and Disease Management. So a more comprehensive

look at State plans I think could be very beneficial.

We also would like to encourage that the allocation to refuges or

to Federal lands not be limited by adjacencies, that again, you go

to where the greatest need is based on priority setting.

And we are also concerned about the cost of monitoring. A question came up earlier about adequacy of resources. We believe that

the dollars authorized for monitoring are probably not adequate to

address the full needs of monitoring out there.

The last point I would like to raise is with regard to the National

Invasive Species Council. We are glad to see that that body has

been given fuller authority to provide some oversight for the bill,

but we believe that there are greater opportunities to give the

National Invasive Species Council full statutory authority to be

able to provide more oversight and accountability among the Federal agencies in terms of both the allocation of resources and the

accountability measures.

And I know my time is up. I have one other comment I would

like to include, and that has to do with rapid response. I really

would like to just comment for the members of the Committee to

take a look at what authorities we have for rapid response to build

upon the GAO report that identified some areas of weaknesses

within the Federal sector on rapidly responding and to further bolster that particular part of the battle on invasives, both early detection and rapid response.

So I thank you very much for the opportunity to provide comments, and of course, I am available for questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bartuska follows:]

Statement of Ann M. Bartuska, Ph.D., Executive Director, Invasive Species

Initiative, The Nature Conservancy

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to

submit this testimony for the record on H. R. 3558, Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act. In particular, the Nature Conservancy is grateful

to the Committee for introducing H.R. 3558 which is helping to bring needed attenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:36 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78207.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
38

tion to the serious harm caused by invasive species to our biological heritage and

economic resources.

The Nature Conservancy is dedicated to preserving the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the

lands and waters they need to survive. The Conservancy has approximately 1

million individual members and over 1,900 corporate donors. We currently have programs in all 50 states and in 28 nations. To date our organization has protected

more than 90 million acres in the 50 states and abroad, and has helped local partner organizations preserve million acres in other nations. The Conservancy itself

owns more than 1,390 preserves—the largest private system of nature sanctuaries

in the world. Our conservation work is grounded on sound science, strong partnerships with other landowners, and tangible results at local places.

Why is The Nature Conservancy concerned about invasive species?

• An internal survey of the Conservancy found that approximately 75% of the operating units believe invasive species are a killer threat preventing the accomplishment of our conservation strategies.

• Up to 46% of the plant and animal species listed as endangered in the United

States have been negatively impacted by invasive species—In this regard,

invasive species are a threat second only to habitat loss.

• The economic costs to the people of the United States alone are estimated at

$137 billion annually. Damages by invasive plants has led to annual losses in

agricultural productivity of $20 billion. Globally the costs are much higher.

• Taking action on invasive species provides powerful common ground with our

partners—public and private, national and international.

Comments on H.R. 3558

There is no question that invasive species—both aquatic and terrestrial—pose a

huge problem to the natural resources of the United States. In addition, Federal and

state agencies and private landowners face a management challenge with inadequate resources—personnel, management options, and funding. Any program that

provides mechanisms to work across land ownership to solve the challenge of

invasive species management is a positive step forward. HR. 3558 contributes to the

further implementation of the National Invasive Species Management Plan, and enhances the capacity of private, State and Federal entities to manage invasive species. We commend the members of the Committee for raising the awareness regarding the significant impacts of invasive species of all taxa to our environment, and

ultimately to our economy.

1. Providing resources to areas of greatest need. The prevention, eradication, control and restoration of invasive species are, to a significant extent, a matter of local

management. We believe it is important to provide mechanisms that stimulate local

stakeholders to take action and the resources to see the action to a successful conclusion. H.R. 3558 makes an important effort to stimulate local action through its

provisions addressing assessment, planning, monitoring and subsequent action on

private, state and Federal lands. The legislation greatly expands the public/private

model of invasives action presented by the ‘‘Pulling Together Initiative’’. This model

for action has been used successfully by the Conservancy and many others throughout the country.

2. Prevention and rapid response. The emphasis in the bill on prevention and

rapid response highlights very constructively those management activities that most

effectively minimize the establishment of invasive species. Natural resource managers need sufficient resources to eradicate incipient populations of invasive species

wherever possible. The need for enhanced rapid response capability associated with

non-agricultural lands is clear. This capacity must be matched, however, by sufficient resources to implement an early detection system that is the triggering mechanism for the response.

3. Capacity building for Fish and Wildlife Service. As with many of the Federal

agencies, there is a growing gap between the need to manage invasive species and

the resources available for even the highest priority management activities. The

backlog in invasive species management on the National Wildlife Refuge System is

a serious threat to fish and wildlife habitat. The implementation of demonstration

projects in the refuge system could contribute to reducing this backlog and help test

new management tools.

Areas of concern:

1. State management plans. There is the potential for confusion between the goals

and target groups of the grant programs within this bill and the ‘‘Partners for Fish

and Wildlife’’ program managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Similarly, state

management plans are called for through the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force

39

under the authority of the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) which is scheduled

for re-authorization in 2002. Through the Forest Service implementation of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, States also are called upon to develop plans to

address forest insects and disease, including non-native invasive species like gypsy

moth. The National Invasive Species Council should be required to develop guidance

which leads to comprehensive and consistent state plans for invasive species management

2. Scope of lands covered by grants. Language relevant to the Aldo Leopold Native

Heritage Program suggests that projects on State and private lands are currently

limited to those adjacent to Federal lands. However, invasives know no boundaries

and federal funds should be directed to where the greatest resource needs are located. We recommend language that allows the use of federal funds on either federal, state, or private lands, or some combination of these lands, depending on

where the greatest resource need is in a particular area.

3. Costs of monitoring. It has become standard practice to include statements that

call for monitoring of projects and program implementation. However, insufficient

resources and accountability for monitoring are all too often provided for this purpose. We recommend increasing the funding level authorized to a level commensurate with the need for monitoring.

4. Federal versus local focus. Success in the fight against invasives requires to a

great extent cooperation among federal, state and private stakeholders. It is important to stimulate as much activity in organizing local stakeholders to fight invasives

as possible. We would like more of the focus of decision making regarding funding

of projects to involve local stakeholders, and less of the decision making to be made

at the headquarters level.

5. Implementation through the National Invasive Species Council. The Council is

a potentially powerful mechanism to harmonize, standardize and integrate the actions of all federal agencies who deal with invasive species. Authorizing the Council

to implement activities within H.R. 3558 will significantly contribute to coordination among agencies and Departments.

Future Opportunities

The Nature Conservancy would like to take this opportunity to identify several

areas not covered by H.R. 3558 which we believe must be addressed in the future

to more effectively use Federal and State processes and programs:

1. Authorize the National Invasive Species Council. The Council was established

through an Executive Order in 1999 and has been given the broad responsibility for

implementing the Executive Order and the components of the National Invasive

Species Management Plan. We believe the full potential of the Council—administratively and legislatively—will not be achieved until it is codified and provided more

permanent status.

2. Encourage the development and support for a cross-cut budget to implement

the National Invasive Species Management Plan. Until a cross-cut budget is deployed, federal and state efforts to address invasive species will continue to be fragmented and inconsistent and ultimately will not lead to the performance outcomes

we should expect from federal funding. Congress can boost the development of such

a budget through appropriations language and other communications with the Administration.

3. Bolster Rapid Response. Rapid response, by definition, means the rapid deployment of people and resources to eradicate a plant or animal population prior to establishment. On Federal lands, rapid response is hampered by procedural requirements associated with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While TNC

fully supports the use of NEPA as an important tool in achieving conservation goals,

we also believe that new and creative solutions in the application of NEPA requirements is essential. NEPA streamlining is one area of opportunity being explored

through the National Fire Plan and more recently by NISC staff, and we support

expanding these efforts to include rapid response to invasive species.

4. Establishment of a permanent fund. We also encourage the establishment of

a permanent fund to fight invasive species. The annual appropriations process, coupled with the inability of Federal agencies to maintain funds for invasive species

management across fiscal years, is a serious limitation to Federal and non–Federal

rapid response capabilities. While APHIS has the broadest authority currently to

address invasive species, this authority has generally been used only for agricultural

systems. The GAO identified other barriers to a comprehensive Federal rapid response effort in a June 2001 report entitled ‘‘Obstacles Hinder Federal Rapid Response to Growing Threat.’’ We believe their recommendations have merit.

In summary, The Nature Conservancy believes HR 3558 is consistent with the

needs identified in the National Invasive Species Management Plan and provides for

40

important support to States and to private landowners to increase their capability

in prioritizing and managing invasive species. We look forward to working with the

Committee to make further improvements to H.R. 3558 and other legislation on

invasive species.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Ms. Bartuska.

And the gentleman from Hawaii, who gets the most miles traveled award, a free trip to—well, you name it—Dr. Eldredge. Thank

you very much, sir, for coming, and give us your expertise.

STATEMENT OF LUCIUS G. ELDREDGE, DEPARTMENT OF

NATURAL SCIENCES, BISHOP MUSEUM

Mr. ELDREDGE. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank

you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3558.

Let me introduce myself. I am Dr. Lu Eldredge. I have lived in

the Pacific Islands of Hawaii and Guam for more than 40 years,

and have seen many, many changes brought about by nonnative

and invasive species. I have also worked very closely through the

University of Guam with the South Pacific Regional Environment

Program which looks at the 27 countries of the Pacific and helped

them develop their technical program and their plans and strategy.

I have been at the Bishop Museum at this time for 13 years. Many

of you don’t know, the Bishop Museum is 113-years-old. It has 24

million specimens and objects. It is the largest collection of material on Hawaii and the Pacific in any one place in the Pacific area

and probably outside the Smithsonian, the largest place.

The major staff members at the museum have been working with

biodiversity and conservation, and almost every staff member has

some aspect of working with introduced and nonnative species,

from snails to fish to plants and seaweeds.

The Hawaiian Islands, by virtue of their geographic isolation and

rich volcanic soils, and enormous topographic and climactic diversity, have produced a highly endemic flora and fauna, which includes many of the world’s outstanding examples of adaptive radiation. The biota includes more than 23,000 species. Hawaii accounts for only two-tenths of a percent of the land area of the

United States, but it has 31 percent of the Nation’s endangered

species and 42 percent of its endangered birds. Of the 1,072 species

of native flowering plants, 73 are down to 20 or fewer individuals

in the wild, and 9 are down to 1 individual. Nearly one-third of the

more than 8,000 insects in the Hawaiian Islands are nonnative. Almost 75 percent of the historically documented extinctions of plants

and animals in the United States have occurred in Hawaii. Not

only is Hawaii the extinction capital of the world, the Hawaiian Islands are also the introduced species capital of the world with

5,047 species. Approximately 22 percent of the biota of the Hawaiian Islands is nonnative.

These figures have been pulled together through our activities of

the Hawaii Biological Survey which was created by the State Legislature in 1992 to develop and maintain and disseminate information on the biota of the Hawaiian Islands. The Bishop Museum is

also the coordinating activity for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, which is the second largest

coral reef ecosystem in the world. We are assembling information

41

on literature and will be convening a symposium on past and

present research of the Northwest Islands.

Very few figures like this are available for other places in the Pacific other than 63 percent of the flowering plants of Guam are considered to be nonnative. The problems with nonnative plants and

animals, land plants and animals have been fairly well recognized.

We have all watched the brown tree snake expand and so forth.

There are other examples, but the freshwater ecosystems have not

shared this extensive study. The U.S. mainland fresh waters, zebra

mussel, purple loosestrife and so forth have attracted much attention, but the Pacific Islands, there have been very little known

about the nonnative freshwater species. Most fish introductions

have been the result of aquaculture through escape or intentional

release. A total of 86 freshwater fish species have been introduced

in the Pacific Islands. Not all of them have been successful. 72 species have been introduced to the Hawaiian Islands and 59 have become established. Papua New Guinea has received 30 species of

which 19 have been established. Guam and Fiji, each have received

24 species, of which 17 and 12 species have been established, respectively

The flora and fauna of the coastal ecosystems is the least known.

Nonnative marine species are difficult to distinguish. Through a series of established criteria, that is, sudden appearance, association

with other nonnative species in harbors and docks and pilings, and

disjunct distributions, like an animal has been found in Norway,

the Panama Canal and Pearl Harbor, is an indication that these

are perhaps introduced or cryptogenic, which means not demonstratively native or introduced. Really don’t know.

The majority of these marine species are dispersed by ships either in ballast water or attached to hulls, anchors, chains. Fouling

organisms are also attached to drilling platforms, drydocks, buoys

and so forth. Fisheries and marine aquaculture, including stock enhancement are major pathways by escape or intentional release.

Numbers of nonnative marines species in Hawaii include 343

species, which is more than San Francisco Bay has at this point.

Of these, 287 are invertebrates, 24 algae, 20 fish and 12 flowering

plants. 212 or or more than 70 percent of these animals and plants

are thought to have arrived through hull fouling. The majority of

the species are from the Western Pacific and the Philippines, but

an amazing 10 percent are from the Caribbean, more than 10 percent from the Caribbean.

In Hawaii, our biggest problems at the present time are marine

algae. The first to be recognized arrived on a cement barge, on a

hull of a cement barge from the Philippines in 1950. It is an now

displacing much of the native algae all along the coastal areas.

Three other species were introduced intentionally in the 1970’s for

potential commercial reasons. These have grown extensively and

are now covering over areas as Kaneohe Bay and almost an entire

single-phase species from a complex coral reef species to a singlephase algae species. There is a proposal in to work some sort of

eradication on that project at the present time.

Another species has invaded Waikiki and is covering up most of

the coral reefs and the whole area of the community is changing

tremendously.

42

Mr. GILCHREST. Excuse me, Dr. Eldredge, the species you are

talking about are species of algae, the last two?

Mr. ELDREDGE. Yes, yes. Algae that were all introduced, intentionally introduced, and have escaped from their culture ponds.

Approximately 20 species of marine fish are nonnative to the Hawaiian Islands. They were introduced in the 1950’s from French

Polynesia in a stock release, and at least three of those species are

now competing with local native fishes on an extensive basis.

And, of course, we also have the salt-tolerant tilapia that is coming out on the reefs and eating coral polyps.

In various harbors and embayments in Hawaii, the percentage of

nonnative species is quite high: for Pearl Harbor, we say 23 percent

nonnative; 17 percent for Honolulu Harbor; much lower, 1.5 percent and 1 percent for Midway and Johnson Atoll. We are currently

studying areas in Kaneohe Bay and Waikiki, and we find about 7

percent are nonnative. These percentage figures can be misleading.

The zebra mussel in the Great Lakes is less than 1 percent of the

fauna, so the percentages are kind of a tricky thing to talk about.

The only similar comparative figures we have is that from Guam

approximately 6.5 percent of the invertebrates surveyed were considered nonnative.

We very much support the directives of H.R. 3558. We feel that

the first line of defense is prevention followed by early detection

and rapid response. We are actually now in the process of developing with NOAA, the National Ocean Service, a marine species

early detection system, and by having protection and early detection, we can perhaps keep the coastal waters of Hawaii, of the

mainland to a lower minimum number of species.

We fully support the components of the bill, and the activities

fall under our Hawaii Biological Survey at Bishop Museum, and we

would be glad to do what we can do to help.

I thank you. This concludes my testimony, and if you have any

questions, I would be glad to answer them.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eldredge follows:]

Statement of Dr. Lucius Eldredge, Department of Natural Science, Bishop

Museum, Hawaii

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on H.R. 3558 ‘‘Species protection and conservation of the environment’’. Please let me introduce myself: I am Dr. Lu Eldredge. I have lived in the Pacific

islands of Oahu and Guam for more than 40 years and have observed many changes

in the environment during these times. First arriving in Hawaii in August 1959, I

attended the University of Hawaii where I received a Ph.D. in Zoology in 1965. Following that I was a professor at the University of Guam for 22 years. I assisted in

the development of the University Marine Laboratory and was very active with the

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, which allowed me to participate

in many activities throughout the Pacific islands. I was a member of the SPREP

Invasive species advisory group and participated in the development of SPREP’s invasive species technical review and regional strategy. I have been at the Bishop

Museum in Honolulu for the past 13 years. Bishop Museum has been the foremost

museum in the Pacific during its 113 years, and with its 24 million specimens and

objects contains one of the largest collections of Hawaiian and Pacific material in

the world. As a leader in biodiversity and conservation in the region, the Museum’s

staff includes a major core group, studying nonindigenous and invasive species

throughout the Pacific.

The Hawaiian Islands, by virtue of their geographic isolation, rich volcanic soils,

and enormous topographic and climatic diversity, have produced a highly endemic

flora and fauna, which includes many of the world’s outstanding examples of

43

adaptative radiation. The biota includes more than 23,000 species. Hawaii accounts

for only about 0.2% of the land area of the United States, but has 31% of the nation’s endangered species and 42% of its endangered birds. Of the 1072 species of

native flowering plants, 73 are down to about 20 or fewer individuals in the wild,

and nine are down to one. Nearly one-third of the more than 8000 insect species

are nonnative. Almost 75 % of the historically documented extinctions of plants and

animals in the United States have occurred in Hawaii. Not only the ‘‘extinction capital of the world’’, the Hawaiian Islands are also the ‘‘introduced species capital of

the world’’ with 5047 species of the total of 23,150 being introduced. Approximately

22% of the islands’ biota is nonnative.

These figures have been compiled through the activities of the Hawaii Biological

Survey at the Bishop Museum. The Hawaii Biological Survey was established by the

Hawaii State Legislature in 1992 to develop, maintain, and disseminate information

on all the biota of the Hawaiian Islands. The Bishop Museum is also coordinating

activities in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve

through assembling information on the literature and specimens from the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and will be establishing standardized monitoring techniques as well as convening a symposium on past and present research activities

to develop priorities for future study.

Similar figures are not known for the other U.S.-affiliated islands in the Pacific.

On Guam approximately 63% of the flowering plants are thought to be nonnative.

All these islands need much more study.

The problems of nonnative land plants and animals are fairly well documented.

For more than 20 years I watched the brown tree snake spread on Guam from the

harbor area northward. When we first arrived on Guam, the Guam rails would

carry out their courtship dances in our children’s sandbox, and the cardinal

honeyeater would sip the red hibiscus just outside the front door. Now these species

are extinct, at least in the wild, having been preyed upon by the brown tree snake.

Many other examples could be enumerated. The aquatic (freshwater and marine)

ecosystems have not shared in this extensive study. In U.S. mainland freshwaters

the zebra mussels, purple loosestrife, round blenny, and others have attracted much

attention and much research has been carried out on them. In the Pacific islands

very little is known about nonnative freshwater species. Most fish introductions

have been the result of aquaculture, either by escape or intentional release. A total

of 86 fish species have been introduced into fresh (and some brackish) waters in the

Pacific and Hawaiian Islands; not all have been successful. Seventy-two species

have been introduced to the Hawaiian Islands, 59 have been observed or established

since 1982. Twenty of these 59 species resulted from aquarium releases. New Guinea has received 30 species with19 being considered established. Guam and Fiji each

have 24 introduced species; 17 species established on Guam and 12 species established in Fiji.

The flora and fauna of the islands’ coastal ecosystems is the least known. Nonnative marine species are more difficult to distinguish. Through established

criteria’sudden appearance, association with nonnative species in artificial (harbors,

docks, pilings, etc.) sites, disjunct distributions (i.e., Norway, Panama Canal, Pearl

Harbor)’their status can be determined as either introduced or cryptogenic (not demonstratively native or introduced).

The majority of marine species are dispersed by ships either in ballast water or

attached to the hull, anchors, chains, or to floating cargo as fouling organisms. Fouling organisms are also attached to drilling platforms, dry docks, buoys, and so forth.

Fisheries and marine aquaculture, including stock enhancement, are major pathways either by escape or intentional release. The ornamental pet industry and public aquaria have been responsible for accidental or intentional releases.

Numbers of nonnative marine species in Hawaii include 343 species—287 invertebrates, 24 algae, 20 fish, and 12 flowering plants. Two hundred twelve or 90% are

thought to have arrived through hull fouling. The majority of species had their origin in the western Indo–Pacific and Philippines; the origins of many are unknown

or worldwide in distribution. More than 10% have originated in the Caribbean region.

In Hawaii, five species of marine algae have become very invasive. The first to

be recognized arrived on the hull of a cement barge from the Philippine Islands in

1950. This species, Acanthophora spicifera, has displaced native species. Hypnea

musciformis, intentionally introduced for commercial reasons has been recorded to

accumulate beach drift of 20,000 pounds per week at coastal Maui. Two additional

species were deliberately introduced for potential commercial development and currently cover much of the coral reef in Kaneohe Bay. Gracilaria salicornia has invaded several reef areas overgrowing most of the reefs at Waikiki. All of these species are undergoing a community phase shift overgrowing a complex reef community

44

and changing it to a single species algal community. Such rapid shifts (on the order

of months) further demonstrates that these ecosystems are highly susceptible to

changing physical and biological conditions.

Approximately 20 species of marine fish are nonnative to Hawaiian waters. Three

species, intentionally introduced from French Polynesia in the 1950s for stock enhancement, have become well established and may be competing with local native

fishes. Salt-tolerant tilapia is feeding on coral polyps.

In harbors and embayments in Hawaii the percentage of nonnative species increases greatly—23% for Pearl Harbor, 17% for Honolulu Harbor, but 1.5% and

1.0% for Midway Island and for Kahoolawe, respectively. Current studies in

Kaneohe Bay and Waikiki show about 7% nonnative species. Percentage figures can

be misleading, since an example like the zebra mussel, less than 1% of the fauna

of the Great Lakes, has caused the greatest amount of damage.

The only comparative figures are for Guam where about 6.7% of the total number

of invertebrates surveyed are considered to be nonnative.

In order to further the directives of H.R. 3558, more studies need to be conducted

in the coastal areas of the United States. There is a great need to further understand the pathways and dispersal mechanisms of nonnative species. The first line

of defense is prevention, followed by early detection and rapid response. Through

these the coastal waters of the United States be able to keep the introductions of

nonnative species to a minimum.

I fully support all the components of H.R. 3558. All these activities fall under the

purview of the Hawaii Biological Survey at Bishop Museum and its information

gathering and dissemination activities, and its activities with the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve.

Thank you, Chairman and Members of the Committee.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Eldredge.

Mr. Underwood said he has served with you in some capacity in

the past.

Mr. ELDREDGE. Well, we were both at the University of Guam on

the faculty at the same time, and Dr. Underwood was very helpful

in organizing, help us organize the Pacific Science Inter-Congress

last June on Guam.

Mr. GILCHREST. Robert may want to talk to you later about a

consortium for sea grant.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. He needs some support on that issue.

Dr. Eldredge, could you tell us, where do most invasive species

come from?

Mr. ELDREDGE. In marine and estuarine areas, they are mainly

from the Western Pacific, for Hawaii, Western Pacific and the Philippines. They have mainly come in on ship hulls as fouling organisms. But we still have 10 percent coming in from the Caribbean.

Mr. GILCHREST. Are most of the introductions of invasive species

up to this point accidental?

Mr. ELDREDGE. Yes. A few have been intentional releases for

stock enhancement and for fisheries, but primarily, more than 90

percent are accidental. Just in the last month or so, we have had

two new ones that we have found: a soft coral and Kaneohe Bay

that is covering over the corals that have never been seen before,

and a very small, stinging cubomedusa in Waikiki that hasn’t been

seen before. It is a nighttime swimmer.

Mr. GILCHREST. And that is an invasive—

Mr. ELDREDGE. Right. Western Pacific forms.

Mr. GILCHREST. I am going to mispronounce your name again,

Dr. Chavarria.

Ms. CHAVARRIA. No. You said it correctly.

45

Mr. GILCHREST. Oh, did I? So most invasive species that reach

either Hawaii or Guam or the Great Lakes or Florida or Colorado

come in through some type of trade, would you say, on a ship?

Ms. CHAVARRIA. The majority of them. I mean, a lot of them can

come terrestrially. People carry them. But in the case of Hawaii,

the majority come through trade.

Mr. GILCHREST. It is through trade or the movement of people.

Ms. CHAVARRIA. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Unaware of what they are bringing in.

Ms. CHAVARRIA. Exactly.

Mr. GILCHREST. If that is the case—and I am looking at the bill

that we are trying to move through our system—is there something

we can do in the legislation to help more clearly identify those

agencies or NGO groups or local governments, or whoever, to be a

greater, more efficient front-line defense?

Ms. CHAVARRIA. I believe there are a lot of groups already doing

a lot of work, a lot of really good work, and it is probably just a

matter of getting all of us together and increase our efforts. And

we don’t need to duplicate a lot of the efforts.

The National Wildlife Federation has wonderful programs. The

Nature Conservancy is a great implementer in a lot of these issues.

So we just need better collaboration. We need to also make a lot

of the agencies, the Federal agencies that are not aware of these

issues, how can they help, because they are probably indirectly already doing something.

Mr. GILCHREST. Federal agencies seem to be unaware of this

issue?

Ms. CHAVARRIA. Exactly.

Mr. GILCHREST. Could you name one of them, or two?

[Laughter.]

Ms. CHAVARRIA. Well, particularly in our program, for example,

we would love to see the Department of Transportation being part

of our program, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration.

Mr. GILCHREST. The Corps of Engineers I guess could be— Ms. CHAVARRIA. Yes, well, we work already with the Department

of Defense. We would love to see the Corps per se working in this

effort because they are already doing a lot on the ground.

Mr. GILCHREST. So the number of species that are released or become invasive, we can move to an understanding of a collaborative

effort to be a front-line defense for accidental introductions of

invasives, to the extent that that is possible.

Is there any effort in the international arena, for example, when

a number of different countries around the world begin finding out

that salmon or tilapia or striped bass, or whatever, might be good

for fish farming because they can make large sums of money, is

there any effort to help the international community understand

the potential for a nonnative species to escape into the wild and the

damage it could do?

Ms. CHAVARRIA. Well, the international community right now,

there is a consortium called the Global Invasive Species Program

that is a consortium of many organizations in the world, governments of the world, all working right now at the level of creating

awareness, because a lot of the countries are not aware that

46

invasive species are a problem. So if these countries don’t realize

that they do have a problem and they are importing this problem

somewhere else, we can’t do anything.

So right now I think the major emphasis should be in awareness.

We are doing a really good job within the United States, but also

how can we do that internationally? But Global Invasive Species is

doing that. I believe the State Department also has been actively

engaged in that effort.

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Bartuska?

Ms. BARTUSKA. If I could just add to that comment or to that response, there is another set of groups that are trying to look at

multilateral approaches, and that is the plant protection organizations, which historically have been more agriculture based but increasingly places like the North American Plant Protection Organization, the European Plant Protection Organization are going beyond just an agricultural focus to a natural resource focus. In this

country, APHIS has been playing a fairly significant role in that,

and that is a very positive sign in looking at it from a regulatory

standpoint and having those kinds of dialogs between countries.

Mr. VAN PUTTEN. May I add to the list also?

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.

Mr. VAN PUTTEN. You asked in terms of Federal agencies, and

I would add the U.S. Trade Representative. Your initial line of

questioning was very astute. If you look at the resolution passed

by our delegates in 2000, appended to my testimony, you will notice there is a section specifically talking about international trade

and how critical it is that the World Trade organization, and particularly the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement associated with

it, specifically allow as trade agreements are negotiated or as countries look at the importation of a particular kind of product, allow

the invasive species issues to be considered and recognize that as

a legitimate basis on which a country might want to restrict or prohibit the importation of not only a product but the packing materials, as we have seen, or I think it is the Asian longhorn beetle

which came in in packing materials.

In our trade environment program, this has become an increasing concern about the need to integrate concern with invasive species. And as my colleagues on this panel have noted, prevention is

the most cost-effective approach. And so the USTR should be added

to the list of Federal agencies that need to be part of addressing

this.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Excellent suggestion.

I have one more question, and I guess each of you could answer

in your different capacities.

Dr. Bartuska, in the Nature Conservancy, you deal with, I would

suspect, the private sector and local governments in numerous

ways. And it seems to me we have discussed the idea that

$137 billion economic damage done by invasive species, give or

take a few billion, whatever number you want to look at, a very

tiny amount of resources are directed between Federal and State

governments and the private sector, toward understanding and trying to fight the invasives problem. And much of that effort is very

fragmented across the country.

47

The Nature Conservancy, in particular, do you see—well, actually, everybody on the panel. It seems to me that with the limited

resources that are available, a collaborative effort is fundamental

and absolutely necessary if we are going to even begin to make a

dent into this global problem, a collaborative effort between the

international community, the trade czar of the United States, his

or her counterpart around the world, the myriad of Federal programs that are out there, and State programs. But to a great extent—I was looking at, Dr. Chavarria, the map that shows zebra

mussels in 1988 and zebra mussels in 1999 on page 46 of ‘‘Invasive

Species Challenge.’’ I am not sure. Was that your back, this book,

on page 46?

The point is, unless we involve the decisionmakers of land-use

practices right down to the local jurisdiction, it is going to be very

difficult to resolve this issue. We can do what we can at the borders. Fish and Wildlife, USDA can do what they can to keep zebra

mussels off boats traveling from Michigan to Washington, or whatever.

In your efforts, do you have a policy, do you see the need for a

policy to go to the planning and zoning commission of each town

or county to explain these issues to those people?

Ms. BARTUSKA. I think you have hit on one of the major challenges we have through invasives because there are so many different components to it. Trying to get those all together in a more

organized way to take some action across jurisdictions is fundamental. And I guess what I would suggest is let’s look at what has

been done with the fire programs. Nationwide and internationally

through several decades of always being able to not work together,

there are now statutes in place that force the integration at the

Federal, State, and local level, and to try to work across jurisdictions through some common standards and some common approaches. I think that is a model for us in the invasives community

to begin working toward not necessarily just a top-down approach,

but having at the local level understanding of what that issue is,

why there is a commitment, but also having the carrots and the

sticks to make sure that the working together occurs.

The concern I would have, if you limit it to any one jurisdiction,

is that invasives do know no boundaries. You could very rapidly

have a gypsy moth infestation in the middle of the woods in Washington State that came into a harbor in Los Angeles because containers have moved at that great distance very rapidly. How do you

get a handle on that unless you have multi-jurisdictional, crossboundary collaboration?

Mr. GILCHREST. I think you do need cross-boundary collaboration

regionwide, nationwide. But you talk to those cousins of the county

commissioners that are appointed because they are a cousin to the

planning and zoning commission at the local level about the region,

nation, international problem. There seems to be a vast army out

there of volunteers, different groups ready to go out and cut down

that purple loosestrife that happens to be local or the—I can’t remember the name of that vine that started in the southern part of

the United States.

Ms. BARTUSKA. Kudzu.

48

Mr. GILCHREST. Kudzu. It is now all over the place. People are

craving to look for projects to do in their local level.

I know this is broadening this, and it might be beyond the scope

of what anybody can do in this particular room. But it is an area

that seems to a large extent is untapped, but it is an area that is

almost necessary if we are going to deal with these kinds of problems.

Ms. BARTUSKA. I think that is at the heart of a really good early

detection and rapid response system, to mobilize all those people

who do have interests out there to be looking for organisms according to some protocols, and to then mobilize that incredible workforce to address the problem. That is something that the Conservancy has a very strong interest in, local action and trying to promote that at the local level. But I would also put that within the

context of a much more integrated, more standardized approach so

that we have the experts at the table who can help that early detection. That to me is the real critical link, once we get past the

prevention side, which is the best approach, but is probably not

foolproof.

Mr. VAN PUTTEN. May I speak to that point, sir?

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN PUTTEN. Your use of the zebra mussel example is a good

example of where some of the answers lie. In that instance, it is

anglers and boaters often who have helped transport it. So broad

public education is necessary to enlist people who care about and

enjoy our natural resources as allies in preventing the spread.

Second, we have seen through our affiliates and our regional offices tremendous interest in volunteers getting involved in controlling invasive species. In fact, we have a volunteer team at our

headquarters in Reston, Virginia, that maintains native species

and controls the invasive species.

Third, with respect to local governments, I think you have really

hit on something important in terms of outreach education and enlisting them, because what we have seen across the country in a

number of instances with our backyard wildlife habitat program is

homeowners who are landscaping with native species, violating

local weed ordinances. And you actually see local governments with

outdated ordinances that favor, you know, nonnative type, lawnlooking species, and those who are trying in their own backyards

to be part of the solution are actually in violation. We have actually

filed friends of the court briefs in cases around the country to try

and help educate local officials on the need to update those kinds

of ordinances and to encourage it.

We see in the West homeowner associations with new large developments that include the use of nonnative species that require

watering, a lot of water. So there are tremendous advantages to enlisting local governments to update those kinds of ordinances and

to encourage the use of native species.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. Don’t give up on that.

I will yield to Mr. Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very

much for all of your testimonies. They, of course, were all, I guess,

roughly on the same side of this issue. I don’t know anyone who

is going to speak on behalf of invasive species today.

49

But just trying to sort out some issues, I think the Chairman has

touched on this a little bit at length, and all of you have as well;

and, that is, trying to understand what the relationship is between

all the various agencies that are involved, whether they go down

to the city and county level or whether they are at Customs or they

are at agricultural inspection stations. I have a lot of personal experience with trying to deal with the issue of pests. I try to bring

betel nut into Hawaii, as I go through Customs in Hawaii, and

there are always a few challenges with that. I have killed a couple

of brown tree snakes this year already, so there is a lot of personal

experience in this.

I am trying to figure out what is the best system for dealing with

this. It seems that the complexity of all the governments that are

involved, if we want to—and I think in the legislation we pay particular attention to that, where we want to make sure that everything we do is incorporated or will be consistent with relevant

State plans. And we want to make sure that we honor that because

States have a great deal of authority over pest control. And perhaps they have a particular point of view on that.

I just want to get your assessment across the board briefly on the

panel. Are States up to the challenge in dealing with invasive species? Can you make some general characterizations about that

based on your experience?

Ms. CHAVARRIA. Not all the States are up to the challenge. Some

of them are more advanced than others. And we have seen through

our program, through the Pulling Together Initiative, that we work

so at the local level, but some States, some counties are really up

to speed, and they are moving into other counties, and they are expanding the program.

The idea of having these State plans is really, really good, but

at the same time, within the legislation it worries me that a lot of

these local efforts might feel a little bit left alone when a lot of

these plans start to be implemented. And maybe through a lot of

these local levels, the States, a lot of the States that don’t have a

State plan, can buildup on their State plan.

Mr. ELDREDGE. I would like to comment about Hawaii. Each of

the island groups has an invasive species committee, Oahu

Invasive Species Committee, Maui, Big Island. And each one of

those, they all are grass-roots operations started by people who got

together on their own as individuals to go work on invasive species

problems. There are major volunteer efforts to go collect miconia

and other things.

There is also at a city government level the Coordinated Group

on Alien Pest Species, referred to as CGAPS. CGAPS and the

invasive species committees now all have some minor support from

the State legislature to do programs, hire people, get field workers

going out, and doing things in the field. And it seems like a very

logical way of getting all the island groups within the islands and

then coordinated among all the islands. We have a list server and

so forth. So there is a lot of information that goes among all of the

groups.

Mr. VAN PUTTEN. If I might respond to that, I think that is a

critically important question, and it is a question that implicates

not only the adequacy of resources at the State level or their

50

awareness of the problem, but also how do the States across their

agencies coordinate the management.

You heard Dr. Tate refer to chronic wasting disease. At the

National Wildlife Federation we have been very concerned with

that, with brucellosis in bison, with sylvatic plague in prairie dogs

as we see exotic diseases in wildlife populations. We are very concerned, as Dr. Tate alluded to, that the natural resource side of

this needs to be considered as well as the agricultural side. We are

concerned sometimes when the immediate response, particularly to

the wildlife disease situation, is eradicate the wildlife because of

concerns about agricultural implications or deny public lands to native wildlife as a result of concerns for what it might mean for cattle that graze there.

So the coordination particularly at the State level between State

veterinarians, State agriculture agencies, and bringing to the table

the State natural resource, the State fish and wildlife agencies, to

be sure as we look at how we respond in this area that the concerns about native ecosystems and fish and wildlife populations are

also considered as response strategies are developed.

So it is a very finely textured question, and it really gets to the

integration of management at the State level as well as at the Federal level.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Go ahead, and I have a point I would like to

make after that point, Dr. Van Putten.

Ms. BARTUSKA. I would just like to add to my colleagues’ comments, which I think are right on point. As a resource, you may

want to look at the Environmental Law Institute’s upcoming report

where they looked at the State authorities and capabilities on

invasive species in quite detail. In particular, they are setting up

three standards, not ascribing them to any particular State, but

three standards of how might a State be structured to address

invasive species so that a State could then look at how those standards match up to what they currently have and decide if that, in

fact, is the way they want to operate for invasives.

So I think it gives us some basis for how would States be operating and how might they respond to the overall invasives problem.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, thank you for those answers, and also,

thank you, Dr. Eldredge, for pointing out about the importance of

community involvement. I am always amazed that if you get a few

community people involved, a few high school students, a couple of

organizations on Guam—Marine Mania, Kids for Coral—they really do make a difference in terms of public perception and public involvement.

Going back to the point about how States intersect with this and

the emphasis given to agriculture, a lot of that obviously is driven

by the economic impact. And that is why I think the figure of $137

billion still comes back, trying to figure out how real that figure is

and how important that impact is, because that is the only—I

think it is one of the strategies that is available for us involved in

this effort to try to gain the kind of public attention and institutional attention that this issue deserves. And, you know, there has

been a couple—and I don’t want to overburden the Committee with

examples from brown tree snakes, but, you know, there was a period of time when the Discovery Channel ran a series of programs

51

on the brown tree snake. The Discovery Channel departed from

their usual scientific basis for their programming and said that

brown tree snakes were hanging like spaghetti from trees and

made really a lot of assertions about it which were not founded,

were not true. You know, I would expect that—and I did get that

one time in a supermarket in Hawaii when I was going through the

line. I saw there was a National Enquirer article that said there

were 750,000 snakes per square mile in Guam. And so I was calculating, how do I even get to my car in the morning?

[Laughter.]

Mr. UNDERWOOD. So I expected that from the National Enquirer,

but I didn’t expect that from the Discovery Channel. But the point

being that in order to get the kind of attention you want, you need

to make a dramatic case. You obviously don’t want to stretch it,

and if you did a paper search, any kind of documentary search on

Guam today, you will see countless articles about the brown tree

snake, because that seems to attract a lot of attention. But I am

not sure it is attracting the right kind of attention. But the point

being that the $137 billion impact is a real basis upon which we

can make the case that you pay now instead of paying later. That

is an important part of this puzzle that we need to get out. I think

it is in combination with the kind of grass-roots efforts and educational efforts which we all know are necessary, so that all of our

assertions are scientifically based and based on real knowledge and

based on real facts and figures.

But when you think of the attention, immediate attention that

is given to the Mediterranean fruit fly because of the enormous impact on agriculture and on people who have money. But there is

nothing like that, you know, in terms of our own efforts.

So I think we really have to hone in on that as a policy issue.

I think we have to rely on the kinds of expertise this panel brings

to the table in terms of understanding that and in order to help

us make the case.

Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your testimony, and we appreciate your help in this issue. Have a safe trip home.

Mr. GILCHREST. Our third panel: Mr. John Shannon, State Forester, Arkansas Forestry Commission, on behalf of the National Association of State Foresters; Mr. John O’Keeffe, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; Dr. Terry Riley, Director of Conservation,

Wildlife Management Institute.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.

I would like permission to submit for the record these letters of

support for the proposed legislation, H.R. 3558, from the following

organizations: Audubon, American Fisheries Society, National

Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, Western Governors’ Association, Wildlife Society, American Plant Alliance, and Chair of the

Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii.

Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection, so ordered, Mr. Underwood.

[The letters and statements referred to follow:]

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

Mr. GILCHREST. Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming, I

guess this morning still. Mr. Shannon, you may begin, sir.

STATEMENT OF JOHN T. SHANNON, STATE FORESTER,

ARKANSAS FORESTRY COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF THE

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS

Mr. SHANNON. Yes, sir. I guess we have the Irish brigade ready

to mop up your testimony this morning.

Mr. GILCHREST. Shannon, O’Keeffe, Riley. That is right.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Are there any Scots out there?

Mr. SHANNON. You will get the truthful and helpful testimony

now, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. I knew we could.

Mr. SHANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. We could sing an Irish tune.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. I am sure you all know a couple, but we will do

that a little bit later over lunch.

Mr. SHANNON. Thank you for inviting the State foresters to come

and testify today. We appreciate it very much.

I listened to the Chairman’s introductory comments and those of

several other members, and it is right on the button. Plainly, we

all agree that invasives are harmful, there is a problem, and we

need to do something about it.

I think 3558 is a good step in the right direction. I want you to

know the State foresters support this bill. We like the bill. We have

submitted written comments. What I would like to do is just talk

to the Committee for a few minutes and very briefly give you a few

of our suggestions on how to improve the bill.

Mr. GILCHREST. We will submit the comments to the record.

Mr. SHANNON. Thank you, sir.

We have six suggestions for improving the bill:

No. 1, State foresters think we should expand the scope of the

bill. The bill ought to protect native plants in addition to game and

fish species. USDA ought to be involved. You have heard this before. The U.S. Forest Service has a really crackerjack team of forest

health protection specialists, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has experience in rapid response to invasives. We

need to get them involved. They ought to be helping us meet the

objectives of this bill.

The demonstration projects are currently limited to the National

Wildlife Refuges, and since the problems exist on all Federal lands,

we think all Federal lands ought to be eligible for the demonstration projects.

The last expansion of the scope includes going from strictly native habitats to including agricultural lands. The bill plainly is concerned about environmental harm and economic harm, and if you

really want a fuller assessment of the economic harm, I think we

need to take a look at what invasives are doing to agricultural

land.

The second suggested change to the bill, let’s really emphasize

the role of the States. Mr. Chairman, the State foresters are on the

ground. We have employees in every forested county in the United

72

States, so we know all these county commissioners you were talking about. We know all of these forest landowners. I really think

we could help make a difference on the ground. And I would suggest that the State foresters or State game and fish officials become

involved right from the start, and that includes drafting the grant

applications and reviewing the grant applications and help deciding

priorities for the grants.

The third suggestion, for 3558, no matter how much money you

pour into it, it is not going to protect a single acre or kill one of

these brown tree snakes I have heard about. You need people to

apply for grants, get the money, and do the work on the ground.

You need folks on the ground making the efforts, and what that

means is, please make the administration as simple as you possibly

can and still be accountable.

For instance, if the grant application comes to us and it is the

size of a small-town telephone book, you know, we have got a problem. You are scaring away people who want to help with the problem.

In the Aldo Leopold grants, there is a requirement for a Federal

partner. In some parts of the country, that requirement is pretty

artificial, particularly in the South where the private lands that

have real problems with invasives are miles and miles away from

the nearest Federal landowner. So we want partnerships, but I

think there should be some flexibility in the Leopold grants to have

partnerships with the Nature Conservancy or local forest landowners associations, for instance.

On this next suggestion, I may differ a bit with an earlier witness today. Definition number 7 in the bill speaks to environmental

soundness, and 7(B) I think pretty directly suggests that using

chemicals is environmentally unsound. And I think that is incorrect. And if it is environmentally unsound, you are virtually out of

luck trying to get a rapid response grant. So I am suggesting to the

Committee that if, after a real scientific review, there is a decision

to apply chemicals in strict accord with label instructions, that is

scientifically sound and we ought to allow the use of chemicals. We

need to keep our eyes on the prize, Mr. Chairman. We are going

after these invasive plants. When we go after gypsy moth in

Arkansas—and it has been a pretty successful eradication effort—

I am glad we are able to use chemicals.

Finally, State foresters, since we do live pretty close to nature,

we like to get stuff done. So I hope—we are not asking for more

money, but I hope with the amount of money available we can shift

it, to the extent science and accountability allows, away from assessments and more to work on the ground, things that are measurable: the Leopold grants, the rapid response grants, and the demonstration projects.

The staff of the National Association of State Foresters is delighted to work with the Committee staff on any language that may

need to be revised, and I thank you so much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shannon follows:]

73

Statement of John T. Shannon, State Forester of Arkansas, on Behalf of the

National Association of State Foresters

INTRODUCTION

On behalf of the National Association of State Foresters (NASF), I am pleased

that Chairman Gilchrest and Chairman McInnis have asked us to testify on this

bill. NASF is a non-profit organization that represents the directors of the State

Forestry agencies from all fifty states, eight U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. The State Foresters manage and protect state and private forests across the

U.S., which together encompass two-thirds of the nation’s forests.

I am representing NASF in my role as Chairman of the Forest Health Protection

Committee. The spread of harmful non-native species is an important issue to the

State Foresters, private landowners, and our partners. NASF applauds the efforts

undertaken in this bill to address the pervasive problem of invasive species on both

public and private lands. We support the bill, and believe that it can be strengthened even more.

In this testimony, I would like to address the topics you raised in your invitation

to testify: (1) the need for the measure; (2) whether it can become an effective mechanism to deal with the growing problem of invasive species on public and private

lands; (3) if the proposed funding levels are adequate to address this problem; and

(4) our recommendations on any proposed changes that could improve this proposal.

NEED

There is clearly a call for measures to control, mitigate, and eradicate invasive

species on forestland and elsewhere. Invasive species are a growing concern among

foresters and other land managers. Indeed, addressing the spread of exotics is one

of the objectives of the NASF Forest Health Protection Committee, and it is of high

priority for the Committee this year. We agree with the inclusion of U.S. Territories

and Tribal lands in the definition of ‘‘state’’ as these lands have specific needs for

control of nonnative invasive species.

EFFECTIVENESS

This bill provides an important mechanism to deal with the growing problem of

invasive species, and we believe it can be strengthened in several critical ways.

EMPHASIZE ROLE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

State forestry and other state and local agencies play key roles in invasive species

management. State forestry agencies, in particular, have longstanding relationships

with private landowners and federal partners, and we can assist in the development

of priorities and selection of grantees. Our technical experts on the ground, who

interact daily with private landowners, have first-hand understanding of local needs

and solid relationships with landowners and local government officials. This places

state forestry agencies in an ideal position to help ensure that on the ground management stemming from this bill will be effective in dealing with invasive species

when and where they threaten forested habitats.

EXPAND INVOLVEMENT OF FEDERAL AGENCIES

If we are to successfully tackle the problem of invasive species, we need to devote

resources to those federal lands and programs where the greatest progress on the

ground can be made. Most importantly, the bill must include the U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA), specifically the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), as key partners. The USFS, one of

our traditional partners, has an excellent Forest Health Protection Unit that deals

with invasive species issues on forested land. The USFS is also home to Cooperative

Forestry, a vital link between private landowners and cost share assistance that

funds management on private land. Invasive species remain core management

issues for the National Forest System and Research and Development within the

USFS, as well. Likewise, APHIS, which has a rapid response program in place, has

the capacity to quickly detect and respond to exotic pests that threaten agricultural

crops and natural habitats. In addition to the National Wildlife Refuge System,

there are other lands managed by the Department of Interior, and also Department

of Defense lands, which contain habitats threatened or affected by invasive nonnative species. It is essential to identify these federal agencies as partners in this

legislation.

Building upon existing federal programs that deal with invasive species issues,

and encouraging agencies that control large amounts of public land to participate,

will most effectively address harmful nonnative species across public and private

lands. We need the flexibility to detect and rapidly respond to invasive species when

74

and where they occur, and limiting the demonstration projects to wildlife refuges,

which is a small geographic subset of federal lands, may not ensure that our limited

federal dollars will be spent in the most effective and efficient manner.

KEEP GRANTS ACCESSIBLE / KEEP ADMINISTRATION SIMPLE

The process of applying for, reviewing, and administering grants must be as simple as possible. If grants are too demanding, key applicants will not apply for these

much needed funds. Our experience has shown us that some states, especially in

the South, lack adequate staffing and other resources necessary to participate in the

programs identified in this bill. In order to achieve the greatest good on the ground,

the requirements of the bill must provide accessibility to all partners.

In addition, we believe the Aldo Leopold Native Heritage Grant Program would

be more effective if the requirement for a federal partner were expanded to allow

projects with either state or federal partners. Quick and aggressive action on state

and private lands could actually prevent the spread of invasive species to federal

lands. The requirement that grants may only be issued for projects with adjacent

federal lands or waters may disqualify important projects.

BROADEN SCOPE OF STATE ASSESSMENTS

NASF recommends broadening the State Native Species Protection Assessment

Grant Program to allow and encourage the states to assess the impacts of invasive

species on the broad range of sectors that contribute to their own states’ economy

and the national economy, rather than just impacts to native habitats. Our experience at both the state and national level has shown that a broad range of sectors

(e.g., agriculture, tourism, and transportation) contribute to the propagation and

spread of invasive species. These sectors hold the promise for innovative and

incentive-driven solutions, and these constituents should be at the table in developing state, regional, and national assessments and solutions. The preparation of

statewide assessments will help identify strategic regional approaches to priority

invasive species. This will also bring more public support for the investments needed to tackle invasive species problems over the long run—all of which will help native habitats. State assessments will be helpful to states and regions that have not

already conducted assessments. However, to effectively address the protection of

natural habitats and processes, a broader assessment of the risk from invasive nonnative species is needed, which may include altered habitats such as reservoirs or

other lands and waters that are no longer in a natural condition.

EXPAND DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOUNDNESS

Defining ‘‘environmental soundness’’ as only projects that emphasize non-chemical

measures may restrict the control and eradication of some invasive species, especially plants. It is important to recognize that, in some cases, chemicals provide the

most effective and environmentally sound technique for control and eradication.

RECOGNIZE INVASIVE SPECIES ARE LONG TERM PROBLEMS

Long term programs with ongoing funding are needed if we are to successfully

control, mitigate, and eradicate harmful nonnative species on public and private

lands. The two to four year limit for grants, along with the 2008 sunset for the Act,

do not provide the levels of continuous public investment that are needed to fully

address these problems. This is due to both the extended survival or dormancy of

seeds and the continuous threat of new species introductions from overseas.

FUNDING

NASF believes this bill will improve efforts to take action on the ground in areas

where the problems of invasive species are most prevalent, if we can focus primarily

on rapid action. When management actions are hampered by assessment processes,

the problems associated with invasive species intensify. The successful management

and control of invasive species requires the ability to quickly and aggressively respond to emerging threats. We would like to see a greater proportion of funding directed towards the Rapid Response Program and the Aldo Leopold Grants Program,

where on the ground management happens.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In summary, NASF believes that this bill provides an effective mechanism for

dealing with the growing problem of invasive species on public and private lands

and waters, and it will be strengthened through the following recommendations:

• Emphasize the important role that state and local government can play in setting priorities and selecting grantees.

75

• Expand the involvement of federal agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture that have expertise and programs in invasive species management to include the USFS and APHIS.

• Expand the involvement of federal agencies and departments controlling large

acreages of public land, including the Bureau of Land Management and other

land management agencies in the U.S. Department of Interior, the USFS in the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of Defense.

• Keep the requirements for the programs as simple as possible, which will encourage the participation of states and other key partners.

• Broaden the scope of state assessments to include the impact of invasive nonnative species on states’ economies and altered lands that are no longer in a

natural condition.

• Expand the definition of ‘‘environmental soundness’’ to include the use of chemicals where needed to control and eradicate invasive species.

• Along with considering reauthorization of the bill in 2008, we encourage you to

extend grants beyond the two to four year limitation currently detailed in the

bill.

• Shift the balance of funding towards on the ground management, particularly

the Rapid Response program. There is value in being ready to handle outbreaks

of invasive species before they occur.

CONCLUSION

NASF looks forward to the opportunity to work with the Subcommittees and the

sponsors to develop and carry out an effective program to address the spread and

control of nonnative species. We commend representatives Rahall, Gilchrest, and

Underwood for your work on this important legislation. We are willing to work with

you to refine specific language as the bill progresses, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony and answer your questions today.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.

I had a problem with bagworms on some evergreen trees. Quite

a few of them.

Mr. SHANNON. There are still lots of them.

Mr. GILCHREST. This was about 10 years ago when my kids were

teenagers, and I gave them a penny for every—well, they were

younger than teenagers. I gave them a penny for every bagworm.

Mr. SHANNON. Perhaps they should apply for a grant.

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, they thought they had a grant.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. But I was running out of money, and we weren’t

affecting those bagworms at all. So we did have to use some chemical application, according to the label, and it worked.

We have a vote on, and what I would like to do, the Committee

will take about a 15-minute recess, and then we will come back

and continue. Thank you very much.

[Recess.]

Mr. GILCHREST. The Subcommittee will come to order. Thank you

very much for your immense tolerance and patience of the democratic system here in Washington, where we don’t stop for breaks

or lunch except in very erratic, sporadic ways. So we appreciate

your indulgence. We will work through this, and I would hope that

all of you will go have a very pleasant, relaxed lunch when this is

over.

Mr. O’Keeffe?

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Thank you— Mr. GILCHREST. Do all of you know where your heritage is in Ireland?

Mr. O’KEEFFE. County Cork.

Mr. SHANNON. County Cavan.

Dr. RILEY. Tralee.

76

Mr. GILCHREST. Tralee. The Rose of Tralee.

Mr. O’Keeffe?

STATEMENT OF JOHN O’KEEFFE, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S

BEEF ASSOCIATION AND PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of this Committee, on behalf of the National Cattlemen’s Beef

Association and the Public Lands Council, thank you for your interest in my comments concerning invasive species. My wife and I, our

two sons, and my mother operate our family ranch in eastern Oregon. We run our cow-calf operation on about 16,000 private deeded acres and lease about 120,000 acres from the BLM and Forest

Service. Therefore, I have a vested interest in my own land as well

as the management of Federal lands surrounding my private acreage.

NCBA and PLC appreciate the attention the Committee has directed to invasive species issues and also appreciate the opportunity to speak to the joint Subcommittees on H.R. 3558. We all

know the economic and environmental harm caused by invasive

species and have urged the Federal Government to recognize

invasive species as a priority issue and to develop a national effort

to address the problem. We support the Executive order on

invasive species and the efforts of the National Invasive Species

Council. We have also worked with the Congress through appropriations and other legislative processes to direct resources to and

focus attention on invasive species issue.

H.R. 3558 is important legislation, as it elevates the significance

of invasive species and underscores the need for Congress to focus

more attention on this issue. It strengthens the ability for Federal,

State, and private entities to develop partnerships and to coordinate activities and also emphasizes rapid response to outbreaks of

harmful nonnative species. We are encouraged by the efforts of this

Committee to provide mechanisms for States and private landowners to manage all invasive species.

However, we are concerned that H.R. 3558 duplicates current

programs and competes with ongoing efforts that direct resources

to problem areas not adequately addressed. There are at least six

programs within the Department of Interior that offer grants or

funding to Federal agencies, States, or private landowners to protect, conserve, or restore fish and wildlife habitats. Current funding

levels do not come close to addressing the noxious weed problem on

public and private lands.

For instance, for 2003, BLM plans to treat 245,000 acres for

weeds. This acreage is the same as last year and 7,000 acres less

than in 2001. I find it interesting that, for an agency managing 264

million acres of Federal land, nearly one-eighth of our country’s

land mass, only one acre out of every 1,100 acres will be treated.

Current estimated annual loss to the productivity of agricultural

lands are as high as $20 billion. New money should be directed to

a program that gives States maximum flexibility to direct funds

where they can be utilized by local decisionmakers most effectively.

Federal red tape and administrative requirements must be

minimized to ensure that the dollars are getting to the ground

where they are needed most.

77

For Federal lands, we also need a programmatic environmental

impact statement so the agencies can deal with all weeds at all

times rather than one at a time.

I have been fighting weeds on our ranch all my life, but my individual efforts are not enough. If more effort, particularly Federal

funding, is not devoted to combat invasive species, we are all fighting a losing battle, and rural communities such as my own will face

severe economic crisis.

The best method of fighting these invasions is to act locally. Currently, we have a limited amount of resources. We need to have additional funding diverted to the local level to assist those who know

best how to manage land and treat the problem. I feel H.R. 3558

fails to devote adequate resources to the local level and burdens

any effort with red tape and bureaucracy. Also, H.R. 3558’s call for

a State assessment front-loads work on an issue that has already

been defined by local weed management groups. These groups ask

that Congress provide Federal funding while streamlining the process. We simply just need more Federal dollars reaching the local

level.

In closing, we support the goals of H.R. 3558 and the effort of

this Committee to address invasive species issues. However, we are

concerned that H.R. 3558 will not adequately address the invasive

species problems, particularly noxious weeds. Nonetheless, we look

forward to working with the Committee to ensure that our efforts

to manage and control these harmful species are targeted in the

most efficient manner possible.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your Committee.

I will gladly answer any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Keeffe follows:]

Statement of John O’Keeffe, Adel, Oregon, on behalf of the National

Cattlemen’s Beef Association and Public Lands Council

Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman McInnis, Chairman Hefley and Distinguished

Members of the House Resources Committee:

On behalf of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the trade association of America’s cattle farmers and ranchers, and the marketing organization for

the largest segment of the nation’s food and fiber industry, and the Public Lands

Council (PLC), a non-profit organization representing over 27,000 federal grazing

permittees, thank you for your interest in my comments concerning invasive species.

I am a member of NCBA, the PLC and the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association (OCA).

I also chair the Public Lands Committee of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and

PLC’s Sage Grouse Committee. My wife and I, our two sons and my mother operate

our family ranch in south central Oregon. We run our cow-calf operation on about

16,000 private deeded acres and lease about 200,000 acres from the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS). Therefore, I have

a vested interest in what happens on my own land as well as how federal lands surrounding my private acreage are managed.

NCBA and PLC appreciate the attention the Committee has directed to invasive

species issues and also appreciate the opportunity to speak to these joint subcommittees on H.R. 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act. We have long been aware of the economic and environmental harm

caused by invasive species and have urged the Federal Government to recognize

invasive species as a priority issue and to develop a national effort to address the

problem. We support Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species. We support the

National Invasive Species Council (NISC) that was established by the Executive

Order and provided input into the preparation of ‘‘Meeting the Invasive Species

Challenge’’ (the national management plan developed by NISC), through

participation in the Invasive Species Advisory Council. We have also worked with

Congress through the appropriations and other legislative processes to direct resources to, and focus attention on, invasive species issues.

78

Our priorities for invasive species legislation are perhaps easier to articulate than

they are to implement, but we nonetheless believe that every effort needs to be

made to provide a strong foundation for efficient distribution of federal funds, strive

to avoid duplication, coordinate activities between Federal and State agencies and

private landowners, and provide the flexibility for decisions to be made locally where

the problems arise.

H.R. 3558 is important legislation, as it elevates the significance of invasive species and underscores the need for Congress to focus more attention on this issue.

It strengthens the ability for Federal, State, and private entities to develop partnerships and coordinate activities, and also emphasizes rapid response to outbreaks of

harmful nonnative species. We are encouraged by the efforts of this Committee to

provide mechanisms for States and private landowners to manage all invasive species.

We do have several concerns with the legislation that I will summarize below:

H.R. 3558 is designed to provide grants to States for activities to protect, conserve, and restore native fish, wildlife, and their natural habitats on Federal lands.

We are concerned that the legislation duplicates current programs and competes

with on-going efforts that direct resources to problem areas not adequately addressed. Federal dollars are appropriated every year to fund programs that protect,

conserve, and restore fish and wildlife and their habitats. For example, the Partners

for Fish and Wildlife program directs funds for wildlife habitat restoration and we

are concerned that H.R. 3558 may be duplicative of these efforts. Another example

is the Department of Interior’s Landowner Incentive Program (LIP). For fiscal year

2003, the Department budgeted an additional $10 million over last year’s budget for

a total budget request of $50 million. The LIP provides landowners with technical

and financial assistance to private landowners for habitat protection and restoration. Yet another example is the Cooperative Conservation Program, proposed funding for this program is $50 million. This program offers grants to states for habitat

protection, wetlands restoration and riparian area protection. Other examples where

H.R. 3558 essentially duplicates current efforts of Department of Interior programs

(and proposed funding amounts in the Department’s fiscal year 2003 budget request) include programs such as the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund

($43.56 million), Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund ($91 million),

and the National Wildlife Refuge Fund ($14.558 million). All these programs offer

grants or funding to states, private landowners or federal agencies to protect, conserve or restore fish and wildlife habitats.

However, existing sources of funds for addressing invasive weeds do not come

close to addressing the needs we are facing on public and private lands. There currently is no existing independent federal fund to address these needs. In BLM fiscal

year 2003 budget request, the agency plans to treat 245,000 acres. This acreage is

the same as last year and 7,000 acres less than 2001’s total acres. I find it interesting that for an agency responsible for managing 264 million acres of federal

land—or nearly one-eighth of the country’s landmass—only one acre out of every

1,078 acres will be treated. To me, this number is shocking. More federal dollars

need to allocated for treating more acreage. While the cattle industry recognizes the

threats posed by all invasive species and supports all efforts to manage them, our

primary concern is the threat posed by invasive weeds. Weeds are also the invasives

where I have the most personal experience, as reflected in this testimony.

The Federal Interagency Weed Committee has estimated that annual losses in the

productivity of agricultural lands are as much as $20 billion. These losses are personal to cattle producers—so each of us has a vested interest in the health of the

land that we own or manage and in minimizing financial impacts caused by invasive

weeds. New money should be directed to a program that gives states maximum

flexibility to direct funds where they can be utilized by local decision makers most

effectively. Federal red tape and administrative requirements must be minimized to

ensure that the dollars are getting to the ground where they are needed most. For

federal lands, we also need a programmatic environmental impact statement so the

agencies can deal with all weeds at all times, rather than one at a time.

I have been involved with fighting non-native species, particularly noxious weeds,

for about 20 years now. I helped organize our county’s weed board, the Lake County

Weed Board. In fact, I am still serving as vice chairman. The principle function of

the weed board is to advise our county commissioners on weed management and

what can be done to help fight the struggle. About five years ago, I also helped establish the Warner Weed Working Group. I still serve as the chair of this group.

This group seeks to target weed control and eradication through cost-share efforts,

education and awareness. My involvement also includes assisting landowners and

other cattle producers by commenting on federal land management proposals to enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:36 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78207.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
79

sure non-native invasive species, such as noxious weeds, are adequately addressed

in the proposed action.

As I stated earlier, I have been fighting weeds on my own land for over 20 years.

I spray, learn what I can about control and management and even break out the

shovel to eradicate weeds such as the Canadian thistle. But my individual efforts

are not enough. In my area, we are currently facing invasions of whitetop, perennial

pepperweed and Russian knapweed. If more effort, particularly federal funding, is

not devoted to combat invasive species, we are all fighting a losing battle and rural

communities such as my own will face severe economic crises.

If there is one thing I have noticed in all my years of fighting these non-native

species is that if something is not done fast we will lose a lot of land that will never

be recovered. For instance, fighting cheatgrass is a lost cause. One might as well

try to empty the ocean with a bucket. Cheatgrass is a prime example of what can

happen if proactive measures are not taken immediately.

The best method of fighting these invasions is to act locally. Currently, we have

a limited amount of resources. In order to maximize resources, I have found that

resources are best utilized by those who intuitively know the geography and flora

of an area—for instance, those who have been running up and down fields and

ditches like myself and other members of my weed board and weed working group.

Furthermore, we need to have additional funding diverted to the local level to assist

those who know best how to manage the land and treat the problem—whether the

land is federal or private.

I feel H.R. 3558 fails to devote adequate resources to the local level and when

H.R. 3558 provides resources to the local level, any effort is burdened with red tape

and bureaucracy—two things I find totally unnecessary in the fight against invasive

species. In particular, for a project to qualify under Section 5(e), objectives include

establishing a science-based restoration of fish and wildlife habitats. I am not a

wildlife biologist but I feel this section requires expertise beyond my capability. My

expertise comes from living on the land, working on the land, and nurturing the

land in order to reach its highest sustainability. In other words, application of common sense local know how.

H.R. 3558 expands bureaucracy and red tape with the state assessment requirements of Section 4 and places an additional burden on states. Many states currently

have weed management programs and directs state dollars to local weed management boards. My own state of Oregon customarily follows this practice. My basic

thoughts are we do not need more bureaucracy or red tape, or more government for

that matter. What we need is more federal funding to get more money on the

ground, using local folks, to attack the problem effectively.

Because invasive species know no boundaries, any Federal program must allow

for funds to be directed where they are most needed. H.R. 3558 appears to limit

use of funds to only those projects on State and private lands that are adjacent to

Federal lands and also requires there be a Federal partner to be eligible for a grant

under the Also Leopold Native Heritage Grant Program. NCBA and PLC believe

that our limited Federal dollars should be directed to projects that hold the most

promise for success, whether they are on Federal lands, State lands or private

lands, or any combination thereof.

One provision of H.R. 3558 I am particularly interested in is Section 7, the Rapid

Response Capability to Harmful Non-native species. When it comes to fighting

invasive species such as noxious weeds, I feel we need to attack the problem as if

it were a wildfire, move resources into the problem area, eradicate the problem and

don’t leave until the threat is eliminated.

In closing, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council support the goals of H.R. 3558 and support the efforts of this Committee to address invasive species issues. However, we are concerned that H.R. 3558 will not

adequately address the non-native invasive species problems, particularly noxious

weeds. Nonetheless, we look forward to working with the Committee to ensure that

our efforts to manage and control these harmful species are targeted in the most

efficient manner possible. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committee. I will gladly answer any questions you may have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. O’Keeffe.

Mr. Riley?

80

STATEMENT OF TERRY Z. RILEY, DIRECTOR OF

CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

Dr. RILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting the Wildlife

Management Institute to speak before this Committee on noxious

weeds and House bill 3558. I am not going to read my comments

today. We have been over a lot of the stuff already, and if you will,

I please ask that my written comments be submitted for the record.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection.

Dr. RILEY. We have talked a lot about how many millions of

acres and maybe hundreds of millions of acres are impacted by

noxious weeds and other invasive nonnative species throughout our

country. However, just looking at the invasion rate, how fast things

are deteriorating from the state we are right now, the estimate, as

best we can determine, is about 10,000 acres per day.

Now, 10,000 acres a day may seem big to some people, and perhaps to Mr. O’Keeffe 10,000 acres isn’t an awful lot to graze on out

in Oregon. But a lot of people might have trouble with understanding what 10,000 acres is. But if you think about a football

field, within the bounds of a football field, that is about an acre.

So 10,000 of those lined up is about the rate that weeds spread

each year. Now, 10,000 football fields lined up in a row equals approximately 567 miles in length. It would take an 11-man team

quite a long time to score a hit in that field, obviously, because that

is a tremendous amount of area. And that is the issue. Just holding

the invasion rate so that it is not increasing any throughout a year,

it takes that kind of an effort, which requires an awful lot of

money.

This is such a big problem that nobody can get their arms

around it very well, and it is perplexing to anybody out there who

is dealing with recreation, with ranching, with farming, with all

the other impacts that this has, including fish and wildlife habitats

that are, again, almost immeasurable. We don’t know what impacts

these are having on all the native species we have in the country.

But we do know species like ground nesting birds have experienced

the longest long-term decline of any species of birds in North America. Nearly 180 species of birds are declining fairly rapidly, and

eventually these birds, particularly those that nest on the ground,

are being impacted so severely that many will have to be listed as

threatened or endangered within our lifetimes, if we don’t somehow

have a system or process to treat noxious weeds and other invasive

species.

Now, obviously H.R. 3558 takes the most important first step,

and that is to organize from a national level a process that we can

go out and actually begin to treat this with a coordinated effort

throughout the entire country. The next phase, as you have done

with this bill, is to empower the States to coordinate effort among

their agencies and all the stakeholders within the State to begin

to identify where those areas are located, where the hot spots

occur, and what the real problems are. Then hopefully, those State

efforts will prioritize where the money needs to go.

If we just throw the money up in the air and hope it lands in

the right spot, we are going to do what we have been doing for

years and years and years. We have heard other people say, well,

we think we might be able to control it here or there. But I can

81

guarantee you, anybody who has actually treated noxious weeds on

the ground—and I was a certified pesticide applicator for 5 years

in South Dakota in one of my previous jobs with the Forest Service,

and I can tell you, all the years that we worked there putting

10,000 pounds of Tordon down every single year on that district,

we did not stop the spread of those weeds. Ten thousand pounds

of Tordon every single year on that district did not stop it.

So it is going to take a major effort to get this stopped. And the

only way we are going to know the cost of that is to go out and

pull together the State planning efforts, conduct an assessment of

what problems they have, and then let the States empower the

local watersheds, the local counties. We have 3,000 counties in this

country right now that need to be working toward addressing this

problem.

I have a few things that I would like to recommend, just specifics, and they do talk just specifically about a coordinated effort

from the very top to the very bottom and get as many stakeholders

at the table as possible—the State wildlife agencies, agricultural

departments, the Federal agencies, the local governments, and all

of the other people out there who are the local people, the ranchers

that Mr. O’Keeffe said are out there and have to deal with this on

an everyday basis. Their lives and their livelihood are affected terribly by this. There are no bright spots on the horizon for a lot of

these people, and we have to somehow make the American people

feel that we are actually going to address this.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Riley follows:]

Statement of Dr. Terry Z. Riley, Director of Conservation,

Wildlife Management Institute

Introduction

Messrs. Chairmen, I am Terry Z. Riley, Director of Conservation for the Wildlife

Management Institute (WMI). The Wildlife Management Institute was established

in 1911, and is staffed by professional wildlife scientists and managers. Our purpose

is to promote the restoration and improved management of wildlife and other natural resources in North America.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to offer our insights on H.R. 3558, the

Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act. The debate that will

occur on invasive weeds is not a do or don’t proposition. The economic viability of

farms and ranches is dependent on a national, coordinated effort to control the

spread of invasive weeds, and H.R. 3558 will serve as a catalyst to bring the affected parties together to ensure success. Production of wildlife, agricultural crops,

and livestock already have been compromised, and farmers and ranchers are losing

billions of dollars each year to weeds.

WMI commends all three Subcommittees for initiating this dialog. The seriousness of the invasive weeds issue cannot be overstated, and we urge the Subcommittees to complete work on H.R. 3558, or similar legislation, that will enable our

country to begin aggressive and long-term control of invasive weeds.

We are concerned about the accelerating spread of invasive exotic plants, or

‘‘weeds’’, on public and private land. Some estimates indicate that exotic invasive

plants are spreading at a rate of about 10,000 acres per day. The following examples

of increased weed populations on private, state, and federal lands illustrate the devastation underway: In Montana spotted knapweed increased from a few plants in

1920 to 5 million acres today; in Idaho rush skeleton weed went from a few plants

in 1954 to 4 million acres today; in Northern California yellow starthistle increased

from 1 million acres in 1981 to about 15 million acres today. Imagine how concerned

and vocal ranchers, sportsmen, and environmentalists would be if 5 million acres

of rangeland or backcountry had been bulldozed or paved, or locked up and lost for

any human use. In many of these cases we are talking about destruction of land

that will be very hard, if possible at all, to restore to its former condition. Our counVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:36 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78207.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
82

try has spent millions restoring the integrity of our waters under the Clean Water

Act, but invasive weeds represent a challenge as great to that integrity as what we

faced from water pollution. Thousands of watersheds on public and private land are

undergoing the greatest permanent short-term degradation in their recorded

history—with fish and wildlife habitat and livestock forage suffering the greatest

losses.

Local cooperative approaches offer the best opportunity to prevent and control

weeds within a specific watershed, particularly when they address problems identified in a State or regional assessment. In a few states, Weed Cooperatives or County

Weed Boards are bringing land owners and operators, utility companies, county and

state road departments, State fish and wildlife agencies, federal land management

agencies, businesses, conservation organizations and public land users together to

attack this insidious plague of weeds.

Federal and private funds through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s

‘‘Pulling Together Initiative’’ already are providing local cooperatives with the funds

they need to develop and implement long-term plans to control invasive weeds within local watersheds. Over 200 weed control cooperatives have been supported by the

‘‘Pulling Together Initiative’’ since 1998, however, more than 250 weed cooperatives

submitted project proposals to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation that went

unfunded. A wide array of partners have contributed millions of dollars to these cooperative weed-control ventures, leveraging nearly 2 non-federal for each federal

dollar committed to the program. The Wildlife Management Institute has been the

grantee on one of these ‘‘Pulling Together Initiative’’ projects since 1998 that has

brought together 14 federal, state, county and private partners to collectively control

the spread of purple loosestrife up the Missouri River and its tributaries in Nebraska and South Dakota. These diverse groups enthusiastically come together to

fight a common enemy. Unfortunately, in most areas and in most watersheds, these

cooperative efforts to control and eradicate weeds are not yet in place, or have not

been able to secure funding.

The technology is available to cooperatively bring the spread of invasive weeds

down over the long term to a level approximating ‘‘no net increase’’; along with making good progress at controlling and restoring some large infestations. However, the

cost to apply and coordinate the delivery of this technology will not be low. Without

substantial long-term federal funding that is leveraged with state and private resources, vast areas will become degraded permanently as these invasive weeds

spread across our country.

Only now are we beginning to see the danger that lies ahead. There is great economic efficiency in increasing investments now to keep relatively healthy watersheds from becoming severely infested by weeds. Enormous increases in investments

will be needed to restore land once it is seriously infested. With prompt action now,

these disasters can be avoided, or at least effectively managed.

Over the past 2 years, our nation experienced some of the most devastating

wildfires we have seen in some time; burning nearly 8 million acres and destroying

immense amounts of public and private property. While most of those fires were ignited naturally by lighting strikes, the fuels that carried those fires often were

invasive weeds, such as cheatgrass, that have invaded millions of acres of our western rangelands.

Congress immediately responded to these disastrous fires by allocating nearly 2

billion dollars in fiscal year 2001 to aggressively deal with the wildfire hazards

across the country on public and private land. While exotic invasive weeds do not

destroy homes as do catastrophic wildfires, and thus do not receive the interest of

the Press, they are doing just as much if not more permanent damage to the lives

and livelihood of farmers and ranchers over a much larger area of our country.

Recommendations

House Bill 3558 lays the foundation to aggressively address the invasive weeds

catastrophe, but we have a few concerns that you might consider as you continue

to develop this legislation. Specifically, as your deliberations on H.R. 3558 proceed,

we ask that you include provisions in the bill to provide:

• Sufficient and long-term funding on public and private land;

• A watershed-based approach to controlling weeds;

• Coordinated weed control projects on public and private land;

• Assurances that all nonnative invasive weeds are addressed;

• Requirements to leverage non-federal funds;

• Opportunities to fund multi-state weed control projects;

• Expanding the role of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; and

83

• A primary focus on wildlife and fish species that are experiencing long-term declines, but are not yet listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered

Species Act.

We strongly urge the Subcommittees to address the issue of annual and long-term

funding needed to control invasive nonnative weeds on our Nation’s public and private lands. Local cooperative efforts to control invasive nonnative weeds must have

some assurances that funding will be available to help plan and implement their

programs. Federal land management agencies also must have the funds to control

weeds on our public lands, and there must be methods developed to ensure coordination between weed control efforts on public and adjacent private lands. We strongly urge the Subcommittees to commit at least $100,000,000 per year for

nonnative invasive weed control projects on private land, and to commit at least 5

years of funding.

We also urge the Subcommittees to allocate sufficient funds to the federal land

management agencies to control noxious weeds on public lands. For example, the

Bureau of Land Management needs at least $15 million in fiscal year 2003 to implement their weed control program, and they will need at least $30 million per year

once the program is fully implemented. Congress provided $8 million in fiscal year

2001 to the USDA Forest Service to control invasive weeds on 150,000 acres, but

already there are over 8 million acres of the agencies’ 192 million acres that are

infested by nonnative invasive weeds. Much more funding is needed to stop the

spread of weeds on federal land.

We are concerned that H.R. 3558 may reduce funding for other natural resource

programs within the Department of the Interior (DOI) in an attempt to balance the

federal budget. However, without clearly identifying the source of funding (new

money or transfer from other programs), we believe there will be attempts to raid

existing wildlife programs within DOI. We recommend that H.R. 3558 clearly identify the source of funds necessary to protect and restore wildlife and fish habitats

that have been impacted by invasive weeds.

Most successful efforts to control weeds have been those that address the problem

within an entire watershed. We recommend that the H.R. 3558 be modified to require that all programs and projects using federal dollars to control weeds must be

based on a watershed planning and implementation approach.

There are many nonnative invasive weed control programs already in existence

on public and private land. However, many of these programs do not bring together

all private and public agencies, organizations and stakeholders to mount a coordinated effort to control weeds. Government funding for control of invasive weeds on

private land traditionally has come from the various federal and state departments

of agriculture. We are concerned that federal funding through the Secretary of the

Interior might disrupt these traditional cooperative ventures. We recommend that

the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture be equally involved in the planning

and implementation of any nonnative invasive weed control program on public and

private lands.

We are concerned that efforts to control invasive weeds might only focus on the

widespread infestations in the western states. Our Nation’s waterways often provide

the avenues by which invasive weeds spread throughout a watershed, and many of

our waterways (rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands) are completely choked and dysfunctional because of weed infestations. We urge the Subcommittees to address all

nonnative invasive weeds in H.R. 3558, including those weeds in waterways, wetlands, farmlands, pasture and haylands and our western rangelands.

Almost all local agencies, organizations, and stakeholders are concerned about

invasive weeds, and most are eager to commit their own time and resources to provide control. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) has demonstrated

that it can leverage millions of dollars from a wide array of private and public partners to control weeds through its Pulling Together Initiative. We recommend that

H.R. 3558 recognize the proven model for leveraging private resources for weed control that has been successfully employed by the NFWF, and to continue to use the

NFWF as an integral player in achieving the goal of promoting greater cooperation

to control harmful weeds.

Often nonnative weeds infestations cross boundaries created between administrative, political and state entities. We are concerned that H.R. 3558 will not accommodate nor encourage cooperative efforts across all of these boundaries, such as a

multi-state weed control project. We recommend that the H.R. 3558 provide funding

to a broad array of cooperative ventures to control invasive weeds, including multistate projects.

Finally, we are concerned that H.R. 3558 may not address adequately the effects

of invasive weeds on fish and wildlife species that are in serious decline. The habitats of a large number of native fish and wildlife species are being destroyed by

84

invasive weeds. Species like the sage grouse are in serious decline, but they are not

yet threatened or endangered. Sage grouse are almost completely dependent on vast

areas of sagebrush, but millions of acres of these habitats are being destroyed by

invasive weeds. Without a clear focus on declining species in H.R. 3558, we are concerned that these native species will be overlooked in favor of those that are listed

as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We recommend that the purpose of H.R. 3558 be modified to include the objective of placing priority on restoring habitats of native fish and wildlife species that are in serious decline, but are not yet listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

Concluding Remarks

We thank the Chairmen and members of the Subcommittees for inviting the Wildlife Management Institute to testify on H.R. 3558. Economic losses to invasive

weeds are staggering, and we are very concerned that wildlife and other natural resources will suffer irreparable harm if we do not act now. We fully support a broad

array of active and cooperative weed control ventures on public and private lands,

particularly for native fish and wildlife habitats in serious decline. We believe significant and long-term funding is needed to assist these partnerships in controlling

weeds within all of our Nation’s watersheds. Funding for invasive weed control on

our public lands is woefully inadequate to stop the spread of these insidious pests,

but we would not support funding for any new weed control program that would

be at the expense of other federal natural resource programs or existing cooperative

weed control partnerships. Messrs. Chairmen, we respectfully request that our written and oral comments presented here today be entered into the permanent written

record of this hearing.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Riley.

Mr. O’Keeffe, what kind of invasive problems are you experiencing right now? And how are you working to deal with it?

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Right now in our watershed, we have got three

main noxious weeds. They are perennial pepperweed, Russian

knapweed, and white top.

Mr. GILCHREST. What was the last one?

Mr. O’KEEFFE. White top. Hoary cress is another name for it perhaps in this region. Anyway, we have got a local working group

that prioritizes the effort, and we do a triage to decide how to

spend our limited resources at the top of the watershed where

there is most chances of spreading, keep them on the properties

that are already infested, deal with the satellite infestations.

Mr. GILCHREST. Where do they come from?

Mr. O’KEEFFE. You know, it almost just showed up, like the

haying equipment sometimes will spread it, wildlife spreads it. We

have got an island on our ranch. There is an island. It is one of

the 16 places in the United States for white pelican’s nest. There

has never been a cow on that island or a piece of machinery. But

one day I happened to be out there, and the pepperweed had gotten

there. It has to be a wildlife thing in that instance.

But it just comes in. Tourists—or it gets there and gets spread

by roads and machinery, wildlife, livestock to some extent. You

know, I think livestock sometimes gets too much blame because

people like myself, we know what the weeds are. We know where

our livestock goes. We watch for the weeds. It is the wildlife and

the tourists that come out of the blue that I think create some of

the situations that are so hard to get a handle on, or weeds you

are not familiar with show up in the middle of nowhere.

Mr. GILCHREST. You said you have a working group.

Mr. O’KEEFFE. We do.

Mr. GILCHREST. Who is in that working group, and where do the

funds come from that pay for that eradication?

85

Mr. O’KEEFFE. The working group, the landowners in the area

and the Federal agencies, the State, the Nature Conservancy, they

are a landowner but also as an environmental conservation organization, are involved. The BLM, the Bureau of Land Management,

is providing the administration for our group so that a rancher

doesn’t have to go in the evening doing the grant writing and stuff.

We apply for grants. We have gotten a grant from the State of Oregon. The type of funding—that is the beauty of these local groups.

A lot of these problems that the bill addresses, like addressing the

fact of how the weed got there, you know, these working groups,

they are not—you are getting the caliber of input where you are

not going to put the horse back in the barn and leave the door

open. That is the beauty of these working groups.

I know a lot has been said about a nationally coordinated effort,

and that is important. But if these working groups are funded and

have successes, they will sell themselves. And with the time lost

in providing a national coordination, maybe that will be offset by

the effectiveness of the early response.

But, anyway, a lot of these issues are taken care of by a good,

effective local working group.

Mr. GILCHREST. That is the area that you say the bill duplicates.

Mr. O’KEEFFE. The area that the bill duplicates is mainly in like

habitat restoration for wildlife. There are other areas that that is

funded from—or there are other possible areas of funding for that.

Mr. GILCHREST. You also said that the most important thing

now, which is what you just described, is to put money on the

ground, I guess into those local working groups that will use it

right away, instead of front-loading the State bureaucracies.

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Yes. You know, our group, we already know what

we need, and the groups in neighboring counties, I would hope that

they would also. And the process of the State assessment, while

that would be valuable, I think that some of these groups are ready

to go now. And these groups are busy people with volunteer efforts,

and adding the bureaucracy to this effort, I think we could be more

effective by—I mean, we have already done our homework. If you

fund us real efficiently—

Mr. GILCHREST. You will get going.

Mr. O’KEEFFE. We will have to compete with other groups for our

grant, and if they are better organized and better able to spend the

money, that will be recognized through the grant process.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Riley, having dealt with something similar

in the Dakotas, would you agree with Mr. O’Keeffe? I am not sure

how we would massage the legislation, just talk to the appropriators separately to get that funding on the ground immediately for

that type of rapid response.

Dr. RILEY. Well, right now we do already have money flowing, as

Dr. Chavarria talked earlier. Obviously the National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation and a variety of other agencies are making

many millions of dollars available in the last 5 or 6 years to do

this. And there are other entities out there doing the same thing,

and this bill should support those entities to continue on the processes and the wins they have already made. They have already

jumped through many of the administrative hoops that Mr.

O’Keeffe is speaking of, and I think we need to build on those and

86

not somehow cripple them by some new level of bureaucracy that

we are dealing with.

I think local efforts are—that is the way we are going to stop it.

There is no doubt about it. When I made my statements with respect to national and State efforts, I just don’t think you can do it

just one county at a time without dealing with all the counties

around it, too. I think that is the value of the local efforts that are

going on right now, and obviously Mr. O’Keeffe sounds like he is

in a very progressive one. I have been in one in South Dakota and

Nebraska controlling purple loosestrife from moving up the Missouri River, and we are holding the line where the Missouri River

flows from South Dakota into Nebraska, and that is funded

through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Pulling Together Initiative. That money comes from six different agencies,

Federal agencies.

But we also have many others that are partners in that program,

including Indian tribes, local governments, and many ranchers and

farmers along the Missouri River. They all know the problem. It is

coming up the stream—I mean up the river, and all of its tributaries, and we are doing everything we possibly can to hold it right

where it is. And that may be all we accomplish. Those efforts are

where the rubber meets the road.

If this process somehow circumvents them or slows them down,

I think it won’t be good, so we need to address that part of it, too.

Mr. GILCHREST. We want to make sure that the language fits the

need of all areas of the country, especially your particular situation, Mr. O’Keeffe, if you already have a working group put together, you have a rapid response team. We think that the bill has

the capacity to do that now. The last thing we want to do is create

another layer of bureaucracy and complicated paperwork. And I

think Mr. Shannon talked about making some of these applications

for grants user-friendly, which is what we want to ensure will happen.

Mr. Riley, you said you used—I am just curious, what was it

Tordon?

Dr. RILEY. Tordon, t-o-r-d-o-n.

Mr. GILCHREST. Tordon, to eradicate noxious weeds—in South

Dakota?

Dr. RILEY. The Black Hills of South Dakota.

Mr. GILCHREST. Black Hills of South Dakota. It is a nice place,

right down the street from Wal-Drug, I guess.

Dr. RILEY. Yes, that is right.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Just don’t let anybody on Route 90 come to the

Black Hills. You probably won’t have those tourist problems with

invasive weed.

We are talking about eradicating or holding the line. You made

some comment about using Tordon, and every year you had to continue to use Tordon. What would you do differently if you had adequate resources to eradicate those invasive weeds?

Dr. RILEY. Well, in the early 1980’s, when we were using Tordon,

the biological agents we have talked about, such as other insects

or things that might affect the plants, were not very well

87

developed. We were trying to use those at the time. But it is going

to take an integrated approach.

Our problem is without some kind of guidance or control about

how you put the stuff down—in other words, if you don’t have a

whole bunch of partners working on the same problem, you can

throw your dollars over here and throw your dollars over there—

and 10,000 pounds of Tordon might sound like a lot of Tordon, but

we probably could have used 100,000 pounds to try to just keep up

with the invasion that was going on in that district.

It is a very insidious problem. So the only thing I can say is from

what I have learned from the early 1980’s to now, we need a coordinated effort, just like Mr. O’Keeffe is talking about. And those

parties that are involved in that, all those stakeholders need the

money to get it done on the ground. They will get better with every

succeeding year they are on it, but it is not something that is going

to just be a 5-year program. This has to continue on for a long time

because it is a very significant plague throughout the whole country, and we have to stay with it. And these organizations, the

longer they work, the better they will get at it, the more technology

we will have, and we will get it eventually, but we just have to stay

with it.

Mr. GILCHREST. So you feel that as the groups become more sophisticated, the relationship strengthens, the science becomes more

readily available, that other than—there would be a whole myriad

of ways that we could eradicate a lot of these invasive species. Is

there the same kind of effort, Mr. O’Keeffe, on your ranch with the

three invasives that you described? Could you tell us the kind of

damage they do? And is there some mechanism to plant native species that could outpace the invasive species?

Mr. O’KEEFFE. Of course, the problem with these invasive species

is that the native species aren’t set up to compete with them. We

don’t have at this point a viable biological control for any of those

species right now. And another thing that concerned me about 3558

is that it is appeared to discourage the use of pesticides, or herbicides, and I think it is so important to realize that on the satellite

infestations, if they just start out, a timely application the first season with a herbicide eliminates that issue. And that stops further

satellite infestations, and it prevents a situation where the population spreads and then you have got different landowners using

herbicides in a much larger amount later.

So I think one thing to encourage is the real timely use of appropriate herbicides on the early populations rather than just a statement discouraging the use of pesticides. But we do try to use an

integrated approach. We wish we had a biological agent. But we try

and do all the right things, not transport hay out of fields where

the weeds are known. We feed it in those fields. Those types of

things are definitely a part of our plan.

Mr. GILCHREST. I apologize, Mr. O’Keeffe. I forgot about a meeting that I had with two other members at 1 o’clock, and I think

it is about 5 after 12 now, so that gives us about—is it 5 after

12:00? Oh, it is 5 after 1. We have another 50 minutes, I guess,

I am just kidding.

[Laughter.]

88

Mr. GILCHREST. Two other quick questions then. On invasives or

controlling invasives, whether or not you use chemicals, does landuse practice have anything to do with controlling the invasives or

contributing to the problem? In the East—I come from an agricultural area, and a lot of times the rotation of the crops can have a

very positive impact on the control of noxious weeds, invasive

weeds, or things like that. And I am not sure if you have the same

rotation out there being on a ranch instead of a grain farm.

Mr. O’KEEFFE. You are very right that the practices can have a

lot to do with the weeds. The pepperweed issue that we are faced

with, we have got native meadows that we manage for hay and

livestock grazing, and the pepperweed tends to try and create a

monoculture in those. And, of course, a crop rotation isn’t appropriate there. They are still the same vegetative community they

were at settlement times, basically. So you don’t have the opportunity to do a crop rotation, but you have other opportunities to try

and minimize the disturbance, like ditchwork and any disturbances

tend to create a foothold for weeds. So you have got to monitor

those things carefully.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Mr. Shannon, I guess the last question. You gave us six things

that you would recommend. The first one was to expand the scope

of the bill and include USDA, demonstration projects, public and

private land projects, and things like that. Could you just mention

in a little more detail that process and who we should include in

the legislation to cover, let’s say, somebody like Mr. O’Keeffe and

the problem Mr. Riley described, and even some of the situations,

if it is appropriate, that we heard about in Hawaii?

Mr. SHANNON. Of course, I deal with forest land and forest landowners, and I am not the right person to answer questions about

a cattleman’s concerns. I am sorry. But I can tell you that for forest

land, we have had as traditional partners for many decades the

U.S. Forest Service, and for a long time, APHIS, the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service.

When gypsy moth had one of these satellite infestations in

Arkansas, we went to APHIS. They were a tremendous technical

help for us, and a little financial help for us. And it was very successful, use of chemicals to go in there quickly, intelligently applied, and you will have a tough time finding a gypsy moth in

Arkansas today.

A good part of the reason is APHIS helped us right from the

start, and the forest health people at the Forest Service worked

with us thereafter on monitoring. So that is why I think—there is

a little language in the bill that says rapid response is undeveloped

in America now. I don’t think that is accurate. It may be underdeveloped. It needs to be better developed. But we do have some

rapid response.

I know APHIS has rapid response. It sounds like Mr. O’Keeffe’s

group is ready for rapid response. So let’s get USDA involved. Let’s

hold their feet to the fire. They need to help us meet the objectives

of the bill.

Mr. GILCHREST. All right. Well, gentlemen, thank you very much.

Your testimony has been very helpful to all of us, and I hope the

89

rest of your day is a good day in Washington. At this point we will

insert statements submitted for the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]

Statement of Scott McInnis, Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and

Forest Health

Expanding global trade and travel have increased the risk of introducing new, exotic organisms. Certain non-native insects, diseases, plants, and animals have had

significant impacts on national forests and other forest lands in recent years and

have proven difficult to control. Without natural enemies in the forests of the U.S.,

many exotic organisms have spread at alarming rates. Others have spread slowly,

becoming established residents before the need for control is evident.

A recent brochure by the Forest Service, America’s Forests: 1997 Health Update,

describes the effect of invasions of exotic pests on our forests:

‘‘Large numbers of nonnative (exotic) species are displacing naturally occurring

species in a wide array of ecosystems. They often have no natural control factors

and thus can cause extensive damage. Their effects have been devastating over the

past century—including the demise of the American chestnut due to chestnut blight,

decreases in white pine from blister rust, loss of hardwoods to gypsy moth, and the

killing of elms by Dutch elm disease. More recently, exotic plants such as mellaleuca

and miconia have invaded large acreages in Florida and Hawaii, respectively. These

exotic plants have displaced the native vegetation, thereby affecting wildlife habitat.’’

A number of cooperative relationships exist to address the identification, management and control of exotic pests. For example, many state and federal agencies undertake cooperative inventory, monitoring and control programs. Forest Service research stations and universities conduct research to reduce the impact and improve

control of introduced pests. However, there is more we can and should do to protect

and restore our lands. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and partners

here today to explore additional mechanisms to aggressively treat the invasive species problems before our Nation.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:11 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ