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

78-661 PS 2002

H.R. 3470, H.R. 3908 and

H.R. 4044

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

April 11, 2002

Serial No. 107-103

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)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on April 11, 2002 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Members:

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

of Maryland, Prepared statement on H.R. 3470, H.R. 4044 and

H.R. 3908 ...................................................................................................... 1

McIntyre, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of

North Carolina .............................................................................................. 3

Prepared statement on H.R. 3470 ........................................................... 4

Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate to Congress from Guam,

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

Statement of Witnesses:

Berry, John, Executive Director, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation .. 36

Prepared statement on H.R. 3908 ........................................................... 38

Satrom, Joseph A., Director of Land Protection Programs, Great Plains

Regional Office, Ducks Unlimited ............................................................... 33

Prepared statement on H.R. 3908 ........................................................... 35

Short, Cathleen, Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat

Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the

Interior ........................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement on H.R. 3470, H.R. 4044, and H.R. 3908 ............ 7

Sullivan, Kevin, Maryland State Director, Wildlife Services, U.S.

Department of Agriculture ........................................................................... 19

Prepared statement on H.R. 4044 ........................................................... 21

Taylor, Gary J., Legislative Director, International Association of Fish

and Wildlife Agencies ................................................................................... 40

Prepared statement on H.R. 3908 ........................................................... 42

Thompson, Edith R., Exotic/Invasive Species Coordinator, Wildlife and

Heritage Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources ............... 15

Prepared statement on H.R. 4044 ........................................................... 17

Additional materials supplied:

Plumart, Perry, Director of Government Relations, Audubon Society,

Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 4044 .................................... 47

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3470, TO

CLARIFY THE BOUNDARIES OF COASTAL

BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM CAPE FEAR

UNIT NC07P; H.R. 4044, TO AUTHORIZE THE

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO PROVIDE

ASSISTANCE TO THE STATE OF MARYLAND

FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROGRAM TO

ERADICATE NUTRIA AND RESTORE MARSHLAND DAMAGED BY NUTRIA; AND H.R. 3908,

TO REAUTHORIZE THE NORTH AMERICAN

WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES.

Thursday, April 11, 2002

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

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.

Mr. GILCHREST. The Subcommittee will come to order. We have

three bills that we will be hearing from witnesses on this morning.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, on H.R. 3470, H.R. 3908

and H.R. 4044

Good morning. Today, the Subcommittee will conduct a hearing on three legislative proposals that address the diverse issues of nutria eradication, wetlands conservation and coastal barrier protection.

The first bill, H.R. 4044, a measure I introduced to eradicate nutria and restore

essential marshland habitat that has been consumed by this unwanted invasive species. I have worked diligently to obtain the funding needed to complete the necessary studies and to develop an effective strategy to deal with the growing population of nutria.

It is now time to shift gears from research to eradication and move forward to

stop the destruction of these fragile wetlands on the Delmarva Peninsula. The three

year study supported by the legislation we seek to reauthorize is complete. It is time

for action and it’s time to eradicate nutria whose insatiable appetite for our

wetlands ecosystem knows no bounds.

2

The second bill, H.R. 3908, was introduced by Chairman Jim Hansen to extend

the authorization of appropriations For the North American Wetlands Conservation

Act. Since its enactment in 1989, more than 33 million acres of wetlands and associated upland habitats have been protected, restored and enhanced in Canada, Mexico

and the United States. These 975 projects have been extremely beneficial to millions

of migratory waterfowl and other avian species.

In my own State of Maryland, money from this fund has supported the Chesapeake Bay initiative and its ongoing efforts to restore essential riparian and upland

buffer lands and wetland habitat.

Finally, we will hear testimony on H.R. 3470, a bill introduced by Congressman

Mike McIntyre of North Carolina to make a so-called technical correction to the

coastal barrier resource system.

During our hearing, it is my hope that our witnesses will give us their candid

views on the need for this legislation, whether the authorization levels are appropriate and any proposed changes or improvements that they feel are necessary.

Mr. GILCHREST. The first one is Coastal Barrier Resources. And

our first witness is Mr. McIntyre. And thank you for coming this

morning, Mike.

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. We appreciate it. And we would like to hear your

testimony and explanation so that we can incorporate that information into our understanding about how to continue to protect the

very valuable but vulnerable and sensitive resource of our coastal

barriers, that have been basically, depending on your point of view,

over-developed, the coastal areas of the United States.

And there has been some confusion about lines drawn over the

years as to where the property is supposed to be, and who is supposed to get flood insurance to rebuild after the inevitable storm

comes through and knocks their house down. But we want to do

what is right here this morning. And we appreciate your efforts in

this situation on behalf of your constituents.

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. I would just like to see—just a second—if Mr.

Underwood wants to make a comment.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. No, Mr. Chairman. In the interests of time, we

will let Mr. McIntyre testify.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Robert A. Underwood, a Delegate to Congress

from Guam

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that you have moved ahead energetically

this morning to take up a busy spring-time legislative agenda. There is still much

work to be done.

It often has been said that it is always best to make sure you have finished speaking before your audience has finished listening. So, with that bit of wisdom in mind,

and in recognition of the time constraints that my friend and colleague, Mr. McIntyre, is under this morning, my opening remarks will be brief.

First, I am pleased that Mr. McIntyre’s coastal barrier bill, H.R. 3470, has been

included on this morning’s agenda. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I believe that it

is absolutely critical for this subcommittee to consider with the utmost scrutiny all

legislation that would propose to alter the boundaries of any unit or otherwise protected area within the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

I make no exception in this case. However, I am impressed by the patient diligence through which Mr. McIntyre has worked cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and local stakeholders to fashion a responsible proposal to address

what appears to be legitimate errors in the original boundaries of the Cape Fear

unit. We shall see.

I am also pleased that you have decided to act quickly in scheduling a hearing

on H.R. 3908, Chairman Hansen’s legislation that would reauthorize the North

3

American Wetlands Conservation Act—more popularly referred to by its acronym, ‘‘NAWCA.’’ In its relatively short history, NAWCA has proven itself to be one of our Nation’s most popular and cost-effective wetland restoration and conservation programs. Indeed, NAWCA’s success in leveraging non–Federal funds to support conservation

partnerships is something we should try to emulate in other Fish and Wildlife Service grant programs.

While I know of no one who is suggesting that NAWCA should not be reauthorized, I do realize that minor adjustments might be advisable to fine tune the Act

and better address contemporary needs in the field. I am hopeful that our witnesses

will be able to provide some guidance in this respect.

And of course, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to learning more about your legislation, H.R. 4044, to address the nutria problem in Eastern Maryland, and I thank

you for your support as we move ahead with other important invasive species legislation this Congress. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. All right, Mr. McIntyre. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE MCINTYRE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you very much. Thank you for understanding our time constraints we have this morning.

Chairman Gilchrest, Ranking Member Underwood, and members

of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing on

H.R. 3470, which is a bill to clarify the boundaries of Cape Fear

Unit NC07P, an otherwise protected area, or OPA, designed by the

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990.

As the sponsor of this legislation and a strong supporter of the

policies the Chairman has just enumerated under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, I would like to speak to you in support of this

bill.

As you know, Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources

Act in an effort to address problems caused by coastal barrier development. As you know, since CBRA restricts Federal expenditures and financial assistance, including Federal flood insurance,

for developmental coastal barriers, we wanted to make sure we do

continue to honor the spirit and the letter of the law.

In addition, the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act added otherwise protected areas, or OPAs, to the system; these being the undeveloped coastal barriers within the boundaries of lands reserved for

conservation purposes, as you know, for areas such as wildlife refuges and parks. And while they were not made part of the Coastal

Barrier Resources System, Congress forbade the issuance of new

flood insurance or any Federal development related assistance in

OPAs.

Now, here is what has happened. The Fish and Wildlife Service

has now advised me that the maps of the area known as NC07P

are inaccurate. The errors in these maps therefore deny flood insurance to certain property owners on Bald Head Island, North

Carolina. These errors result from problems inherent in translating

the lines drawn on the large-scale maps for designations into precise, on-the-ground property lines.

This problem, however, is fixable, or correctable, due to improved

technology that is available to Fish and Wildlife Service. The mistakes that led to the Bald Head Island properties being placed

within the outer boundary of NC07P were clearly not intended by

Congress when the maps were created.

4

Now, while correcting the lines around Bald Head Island, with

the Fish and Wildlife Service, working with the Department of Defense, the State of North Carolina, and the local communities contained within NC07P, the great news is they have identified 2,471

acres that are eligible for addition to NC07P. Therefore, when the

corrected area of only 109 acres is removed from the 2,471 acres

that we would add, the net gain is 2,362 acres for protected area.

In addition, while redrawing the boundaries, we made every possible attempt to minimize boundary changes to the maximum extent practicable, to protect the integrity of the OPA.

As you know, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member and

Subcommittee members, only an act of Congress may revise CBRA

boundaries. Statute does not provide authority for an administrative correction of the errors that have been found. In the past, Congress has enacted legislation in several instances where the stated

purpose was to remove private property from the mapped outer

boundary of an otherwise protected area.

Furthermore, the technical changes called for in this legislation

which I have before you today have the added benefit not only of

making some technical corrections, but vastly increasing the overall acreage that would be protected under the new map, to the tune

of 2,362 additional acres.

As hurricane season approaches, there are landowners on Bald

Head Island who, by no fault of their own, will be left unprotected

if a storm hits the lower Cape Fear region. My first 4 years in office, we had six hurricanes strike Cape Fear and make landfall in

North Carolina in this very area. Therefore, this matter does require immediate attention. And I appreciate your prompt consideration of this important bill.

Thank you so very much for allowing me to testify on this legislation. I think it has very many benefits: not only technical corrections that will allow property owners the protection that they deserve, through no error of their own; but, as Fish and Wildlife has

stated and as we have found and have worked on with the state

and the local communities and the Department of Defense, we have

the wonderful benefit of adding over 2,362 acres to the lines. I urge

the Subcommittee to report this bill to the Full Committee as soon

as possible. And thank you for your time.**

[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntyre follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Mike McIntyre, a Representative in Congress

from the State of North Carolina, on H.R. 3470

Chairman Gilchrest, Ranking Member Underwood and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for holding a hearing on H.R. 3470 a bill to clarify the

boundaries of Cape Fear Unit NC07P an ‘‘otherwise protected area’’ (OPA) designated by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. As the sponsor of this legislation, I would like to speak to you in support of the bill.

Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) in an effort to address problems caused by coastal barrier development. As you know, CBRA restricts

Federal expenditures and financial assistance, including Federal flood insurance, for

development on coastal barriers in the CBRAs. In addition, the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 added ‘‘otherwise protected areas’’ to the System. OPAs are

undeveloped coastal barriers within the boundaries of lands reserved for conservation purposes such as wildlife refuges and parks. While they were not made part

of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, the Congress forbade the issuance of new

flood insurance or any Federal development-related assistance in OPAs.

5

The Fish and Wildlife Service has now advised me that the maps of the area

known as NC07P are inaccurate. The errors in the maps deny flood insurance to

certain property owners on Bald Head Island, North Carolina. The errors result

from the problems inherent in translating lines drawn on the large-scale maps used

for designations into precise, on-the-ground property lines. However, this problem

is now fixable due to improved technology available to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The mistakes that led to the Bald Head Island properties being placed within the

outer boundary of NC07P was clearly not intended by Congress when maps were

created.

While correcting the lines around Bald Head Island, the Fish and Wild Life Service working with the State of North Carolina and the local communities contained

within NC07P identified 2,471 acres that are eligible for addition to NC07P. Therefore, when the 109 acres are removed from the 2,471 that would be added, the net

gain to NC07P is 2,362 acres.

As you know, only any act of Congress may revise CBRA boundaries. The statute

does not provide authority for an administrative correction of such an error. In the

past, Congress has enacted legislation in several instances where the stated purpose

was to remove private property from the mapped outer boundary of an otherwise

protected area. Furthermore, the technical changes called for in my legislation have

the added benefit of vastly increasing the overall acreage in the map. As hurricane

season approaches, there are landowners on Bald Head Island who, by no fault of

there own, will be left unprotected if a storm hits the lower Cape Fear region.

Therefore, this matter requires immediate attention, and I appreciate your prompt

consideration of this important bill.

Once again, thank you for allowing me to testify on my legislation, and I urge

the subcommittee to report this bill to the full Committee as soon as possible. Thank

you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. McIntyre.

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. Just one question. Do you have any idea, of the

2,400 acres that are added, how much of that is aquatic habitat,

and how much of that is upland habitat?

Mr. MCINTYRE. Excuse me just one moment.

[Pause.]

Mr. MCINTYRE. I would defer to Fish and Wildlife, who are ready

to testify on that.

Mr. GILCHREST. All right.

Mr. MCINTYRE. I will leave that part to the experts.

Mr. GILCHREST. We will do that.

Mr. MCINTYRE. OK.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mike.

Mr. MCINTYRE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Underwood, any questions?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Just quickly, Mike, how many private residences were removed from the existing boundaries of the otherwise

private protected area? And of the land areas that are now incorporated into the OPAs, was all of this land publicly held, or was

there some private land that had been reserved for conservation

purposes?

Mr. MCINTYRE. Just one moment.

[Pause.]

Mr. MCINTYRE. Fish and Wildlife has informed us, 20 acres of

the currently undeveloped land could be opened to development.

We do not know the exact number of properties that would be removed. We will be happy to get back with you on that.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK. Thank you. And thank you for your testimony, and on an excellent real technical correction, I might add.

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you, sir.

6

Mr. GILCHREST. Thanks, Mike.

Mr. MCINTYRE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. Have a good day.

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you to the Committee. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. The next witness is Cathleen Short, Assistant

Director for Fisheries and Habitat Conservation, U.S. Cape Fish

and Wildlife Service. Welcome, Ms. Short. How is your career

going?

Ms. SHORT. It is very busy, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Very busy.

Ms. SHORT. We hope it is going well.

Mr. GILCHREST. We wish you well.

Ms. SHORT. Thank you very much.

Mr. GILCHREST. You may begin, ma’am.

STATEMENT OF CATHLEEN SHORT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

FOR FISHERIES AND HABITAT CONSERVATION, U.S. FISH

AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL SOUZA,

COASTAL BARRIERS COORDINATOR, U.S. FISH AND

WILDLIFE SERVICE

Ms. SHORT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Cathleen Short.

I am the Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat Conservation

for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I very much appreciate the

opportunity this morning to testify on the bills being considered.

I would like to begin with H.R. 3908. We support this bill without reservation, and greatly appreciate this Committee’s interest in

the conservation of wetlands and associated habitats. Since its initial passage, we have witnessed remarkable achievements in conservation through NAWCA. In Fiscal Years 1991 through 2002,

over 8 million acres of wetlands and associated uplands were protected or restored in the United States and Canada, and roughly

450,000 acres were restored in Mexico.

Each Federal dollar appropriated for NAWCA has leveraged nearly $3 from outside sources. Over the past 2 years alone, an annual average of $75 million has been available from all sources; an

amount that clearly meets many of our high-priority habitat needs,

but certainly not all. Each year, there are projects with significant

non-Federal support that we are unable to fund. We appreciate

Congress’ continued support, and look forward to future successes.

I would like to turn now to H.R. 3470, a bill to clarify the boundaries of the Cape Fear Unit within the Coastal Barrier Resources

System. Because of the imprecise tools that were available when

Otherwise Protected Areas were first mapped, we have found their

boundaries often do not mirror the property boundaries of the protected lands they were meant to follow.

When these OPAs come to our attention, we work closely with

the interested land owners, local and state officials, and land managers, to correctly map the boundaries, with the high-quality mapping tools that are now available to us.

H.R. 3470 addresses one of these cases. We have worked with

our partners, including the local land owners and local officials, to

produce draft maps that more accurately depict the protected lands

in the area. And for this reason, the Department of the Interior

supports H.R. 3470.

7

Last, I would like to address H.R. 4044. The Service commends

the Chairman and the Committee for recognizing the significant

threat posed by nutria to the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and to the

economy and the culture of the Bay area communities. We are encouraged by H.R. 4044 and other bills that have been introduced

in Congress to combat invasive species. However, we would need

to identify more clearly how H.R. 4044 would be funded, within

the context of the current budget climate and the priorities that are

reflected in the President’s budget.

The Service joined forces with the State of Maryland, other Federal agencies like Wildlife Services, and partners in the private sector, to identify appropriate methods for controlling nutria and restoring the degraded marsh habitat. The end result was a 3-year

pilot program approved by Congress. The partnership successfully

leveraged commitments of over $1-1/2 million in non-Federal funds

and services to support the initiative. The Service contributed $500,000 in Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001

for the initiation and implementation of that pilot study. An earmark for an additional $550,000 for the nutria project was included

last year. Because it is Administration policy to eliminate all

unrequested congressional adds to the budget, the increase was not

included in the President’s Fiscal Year 2003 budget request.

The Service plans to continue nutria project funding amounts

within the priorities identified in the President’s budget. And we

are also examining additional opportunities to fund the continuation of the nutria eradication program in Maryland, through partnerships and through cost-share programs.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement, but I will

be pleased to respond to any questions that you and the Committee

may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Short follows:]

Statement of Cathleen Short, Assistant Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,

U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 3908, H.R. 3470 and H.R. 4044

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Cathleen Short, Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat Conservation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I appreciate

the opportunity to testify on the three fish and wildlife bills being considered this

morning.

H.R. 3980, the ‘‘North American Wetlands Conservation Act’’

We greatly appreciate the Committee’s interest in conservation of wetlands and

associated habitats, and for recognizing the tremendous value and success of the

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), originally passed in 1989.

Over this past decade, we have witnessed remarkable achievements in conservation

through this landmark legislation, which promotes strong partnerships to protect

and restore habitat for migratory birds, endangered species, and a host of other

fauna and flora. These partnerships are established with world renowned conservation organizations, State fish and game agencies, and numerous small grass- roots

organizations focused in small geographic areas.

NAWCA provides matching grants to organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the United

States, Canada, and Mexico. NAWCA was passed, in part, to support activities

under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, an international partnership agreement that provides a comprehensive strategy for the long-term protection

of wetlands and associated uplands habitats needed by waterfowl and other migratory birds in North America, enjoyed by more than 65 million Americans annually.

NAWCA is also widely recognized for its support of other bird conservation plans,

including Partners in Flight, North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, all of which emphasize the importance of habitat

conservation.

8

One of the unique features of NAWCA that makes it so strong is its creation of

the North American Wetlands Conservation Council, a group that reviews and recommends projects for approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

The strength of the Council comes from its diverse membership, composed of the

Director of the Service, Director of the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, four

Directors of State Fish & Games agencies representing each of the four migratory

bird flyways, and three charitable, non-profit organizations actively involved in

habitat conservation. The Council has been widely viewed as a leader in international habitat conservation activities through their implementation of NAWCA.

Permit me to summarize briefly an important message about NAWCA and its

funding history. Congress has appropriated funds to conduct NAWCA activities

since 1991, beginning with a modest $15 million. In contrast, in Fiscal Year 2001,

Congress appropriated $40 million, and in Fiscal Year 2002, Congress appropriated

$43.50 million. For Fiscal Year 2003, the President has requested $43.56 million,

showing a continuing support for this essential conservation tool.

Additional funding for NAWCA comes from moneys received from fines, penalties,

and forfeitures under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, and from interest accrued on the fund established under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of

1937. Amendments to the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950 directed

a portion of the moneys collected from Federal fuel excise taxes on small gasoline

engines be allocated for use under NAWCA for coastal ecosystem projects. Over the

past 2 years alone, an annual average of $75 million has been available from all

sources, an amount that meets many, but not all, identified needs. During Fiscal

Years 2000 and 2001, 237 projects were funded with $114.8 million in NAWCA

funds with $404.7 million in partner support, an additional 135 proposals requesting $31.7 million in NAWCA funds were unable to be funded due to higher priorities. These unfunded proposals had over $91.4 million of committed partner support, and can be considered for future disbursements. These statistics are shared

to validate the value of NAWCA in terms of continued high demand while also emphasizing the challenge in meeting the habitat needs for our Nation’s migratory bird

and wildlife resources.

I would also like to highlight a few notable statistics. From Fiscal Years 1991

through 2002, more than 5,700 individual partners were involved in 881 NAWCA

Standard Grant program projects, which can be eligible for up to $1 million in grant

monies. More than $460 million has been invested through the Act; total partner

contributions have amounted to more than $1.3 billion. Approximately 8.3 million

acres of wetlands and associated uplands have been protected or restored in the

United States and Canada, and more than 444,000 acres in Mexico. Under the

Small Grants program, which offers up to $50,000 to partners in the United States,

more than 300 partners have been involved in 161 projects with approximately $6.6

million in contributions throughout the program’s history. Partners of the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (Service) have contributed $50 million in support of this program. Each Federal dollar provided by the NAWCA has leverage nearly three

dollars ($2.94) from outside sources. We believe that is a significant, and wise, Federal investment.

In 1998, Congress reauthorized appropriations for the Act through Fiscal Year

2003, reflecting Congress’ and the public’s support of NAWCA’s goals. In 2001, Congress raised the appropriation authorization to $50 million. H.R. 3908 will maintain

the authorized funding level at $50 million and will extend authorization for the Act

through 2007. We support this bill without reservation and look forward to maintaining oversight of legislation that carries an impressive history of accomplishment

for both the American people and the wildlife it treasures.

H.R. 3470, a bill to clarify the boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resources System Cape

Fear Unit NC–07P.

Mr. Chairman, in a moment I will discuss the Service’s support of H.R. 3470, a

bill directing the Secretary of the Interior to make technical corrections to NC–07P,

an area established by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. Before doing

so, I will briefly describe the Coastal Barrier Resources Act and the Service’s role

in its implementation.

Coastal barriers perform many functions that strengthen our economy and promote a healthy environment. They often help provide the back-bay water conditions

necessary to support productive and lucrative fisheries’the world class oyster beds

of Apalachicola, Florida, are one example. In addition, these migrating strips of sand

provide essential habitat for migratory birds and many at-risk animals such as piping plovers and sea turtles, which spend a portion of every year on them. Coastal

barriers are also popular vacation destinations and a boon to local economies; their

beautiful beaches, unique dune and wetland environments, and biological diversity

9

attract millions of visitors every year. Hilton Head, South Carolina, North Carolina’s Outer Banks, and Galveston, Texas, are a few examples of popular coastal

barrier vacation sites.

With all of their amenities, it is no surprise that the demand for property on

coastal barriers is high. Developing them, however, is a risky endeavor. Commonly

found along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, coastal barriers are the first land forms

that storms strike; they must bear the full force of storm surges and hurricane

winds. The constant pounding of waves keeps coastal barriers in a state of flux, losing sand in some places and gaining it in others. In addition, chronic erosion is a

real and increasing problem in many places, rendering development that appeared

safe years ago vulnerable to storms today.

Recognizing the risk of developing coastal barriers and the value of coastal barriers to local economies and natural resources, Congress adopted and President

Reagan signed into law the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982. The Act

is the essence of free-market natural resource conservation; it in no way regulates

how people can develop their land, but transfers the full cost from Federal taxpayers

to the individuals who choose to build. People can develop, but taxpayers won’t pay.

By limiting Federal subsidies, such as flood insurance, and letting the market work,

the Act seeks to conserve coastal habitat, keep people out of harm’s way, and reduce ‘‘wasteful’’ Federal spending to develop—and rebuild again and again—places where

storms often strike and chronic erosion is common.

To make this vision work, the Act identified undeveloped coastal barrier units

along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and included them in the John H. Chafee Coastal

Barrier Resources System—named after the late Senator who was instrumental in

shaping the law and a life-long champion of natural resource conservation. As authorized by Congress, the Secretary of the Interior is responsible for (1) maintaining

the official maps of the System, (2) conducting a review of the maps every five years

to reflect natural changes, (3) consulting with Federal agencies that propose spending funds within the System, and (4) ensuring Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps

accurately depict the official boundaries.

In 1990, Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act. In addition to expanding the System, the 1990 Act designated ‘‘otherwise protected areas,’’ or OPAs.

Units of the System primarily include private lands that are subject to a wide array

of restrictions on Federal spending, from flood insurance to subsidies for roads, potable water, and other types of infrastructure. OPAs, on the other hand, add one more

layer of protection to coastal barrier park lands, wildlife refuges, bird sanctuaries,

and other areas held for some conservation purpose. In particular, Federal flood insurance is prohibited in OPAs to discourage the development of privately owned

inholdings.

Because of the imprecise tools available when OPAs were first mapped, we have

found their boundaries often do not mirror the actual property boundaries of the

protected lands they were meant to follow. They sometimes include private lands

that are not inholdings, and the owners of these lands cannot obtain Federal flood

insurance for their homes. When these OPAs come to our attention, we work closely

with interested land owners, local and State officials, and land managers to correctly map the boundaries with the high quality tools now available. We then provide the updated information to Congress for consideration.

NC–07P, an OPA around Cape Fear, is one of these cases. We worked with our

partners, including local landowners and officials from the Village of Bald Head Island, Bald Head Island Land Conservancy, North Carolina Department of Natural

Resources, and Sunny Point Military Installation, to produce draft maps that accurately depict protected lands in the area. The maps would exclude about 110 acres

of land, but they also would add about 2,470 acres of nearby protected lands that

we identified during our research. In addition, we recently learned that a portion

of the 110 acres is managed by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources. We are working closely with them to modify the draft maps accordingly,

which could reduce the amount of land removed from the OPA by as much as 65

acres. We will keep you apprised of our progress.

H.R. 3470 would adopt new maps of NC–07P that pinpoint the boundary of conservation lands and significantly expand the OPA. The Department believes that

Congress did not intend to include private lands outside of the border of the conservation lands in the OPA. Because of this, and the fact that the new maps were

prepared through a collaborative process involving all of the local land owners, the

Department supports H.R. 3470.

Mr. Chairman, we will continue to work with Congress to achieve CBRA’s objectives and improve the accuracy of OPA boundaries. Our work on OPAs is one part

of our broader goal to modernize all CBRA maps and provide our partners with better information. We believe this will help achieve all of three of CBRA’s intentions:

10

saving taxpayers’ money, keeping people out of the deadly path of storm surge, and

protecting valuable habitat for fish and wildlife.

H.R. 4044, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance to

the State of Maryland for implementation of a program to eradicate nutria and

restore marshland damaged by nutria.

The Service commends the Chairman and the Committee for recognizing the significant threat posed by nutria to the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and to the economy and culture of the Bay area communities. The Service has a long history of

commitment to protecting and enhancing the fish and wildlife resources of the Bay

area through our cooperative efforts with the States, private landowners, and

through the habitat management work conducted on National Wildlife Refuges such

as Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. We recognize that Federal land management agencies like the Service play a key role 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.

Nutria are an exotic invasive rodent, native to South America, that have been introduced in 22 states nationwide, and affect over 1 million acres of the National

Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). Among areas with high nutria populations is the

lower Eastern Shore of Maryland, including Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.

Blackwater has lost over 7,000 acres of marsh since 1933, and the rate of marsh

loss has accelerated in recent years to approximately 200 acres per year. Although

there are many contributing factors (e.g., sea level rise, land subsidence), nutria are

a catalyst of marsh loss because they forage on the below-ground portions of marsh

plants. This activity compromises the integrity of the marsh root mat, facilitating

erosion and leading to permanent marsh loss.

Nutria are one of thousands of invasive species impacting the NWRS, as well as

other Federal, State, and private lands. The degradation of native fish and wildlife

habitats and the functional disruption of entire ecosystems due to invasive species

is overwhelming. Invasive species impacts to the NWRS have also reached enormous

proportions.

In an effort to make the best use of our abilities and resources, the Service cooperates with numerous partners, including the Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife

Services, to identify priorities for invasive species prevention and control work. As

new invasive species infestations are identified and others expand, many times we

are forced to react, rather than be proactive, which prevents us from getting ahead

of the problems. Although the Service fully realizes the threat posed by nutria to

the integrity and function of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, and to Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, we must prioritize nutria management within the context of

hundreds of other high priority invasive species problems nationwide.

In light of this broader nationwide invasive species problem and the significant

ecological degradation caused by nutria, the Service joined forces with partners in

Federal and State government and the private sector in 1997 to identify appropriate

methods for controlling nutria and restoring degraded marsh habitat. The partnership prepared a 3-year pilot program proposal, which was subsequently approved by

Congress, including authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to spend up to

$2.9 million over 3 years beginning in Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 105–322). The

partnership successfully leveraged commitments of over $1.5 million in non- Federal

funds and services for the initiative, raising the total amount of project support

available to approximately $2.05 million.

During Fiscal Year 2001, the State of Maryland submitted a grant proposal under

the Service’s Coastal Wetlands Grant program. That proposal would have further

supported wetlands restoration efforts related to the nutria partnership, however,

the proposal was not submitted within the establish deadline. We encourage the

State of Maryland to resubmit the proposal.

In Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, $500,000 of Service funds were earmarked for initiation and implementation of the pilot study in and around Blackwater National

Wildlife Refuge as authorized by P.L. 105–322. The Service identified approximately

$199,000 from the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and approximately

$299,000 from Refuge Operations funding to meet our study obligations. In Fiscal

Year 2002, the Service received an earmark for an additional $550,000 for the

nutria project through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, that increased

the available funds from that program for the nutria project to $749,000. This, plus

the Refuge Operation funding, provided a total of $1.048 million for 2002. The Service has again identified $498,000—$199,000 from the Partners for Fish and Wildlife

program and $299,000 from Refuge Operations funding—to meet our study obligations for Fiscal Year 2003.

11

We are encouraged by H.R. 4044, and other bills introduced in Congress, which

address invasive species problems. However, we need to identify more clearly how

a program like that proposed in H.R. 4044 would fit within the Service’s priorities

as reflected within the President’s budget. Additionally, there are other aspects of

the bill that cause concern, including the need for a new grant program to specifically address nutria, the high Federal cost-share, and high administrative expenses

provision provided in the bill. The Service appreciates the Committee’s efforts at

controlling and eradicating invasive species, and we stand ready to work with the

Committee toward that end.

The Service plans to continue nutria project funding amounts within the priorities

identified in the President’s budget. The Service is also examining additional opportunities to fund the continuation of the nutria eradication program in Maryland

through partnerships and cost-share programs currently requested in the President’s budget request. Programs such as the Cooperative Conservation Initiative

and the Coastal Program may provide mechanisms to increase the available funds

for nutria control and marshland restoration, however these programs involve competitive processes for project selection and a commitment at this time would be premature.

The Service recognizes the need to continue cooperative efforts to eradicate nutria

in the Chesapeake Bay region and will continue its commitment as a key Federal

member of the nutria eradication partnership.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be pleased to respond

to any questions you may have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Ms. Short. A question on

the coastal barriers. The land being removed from protection is

about 110 acres. The land being added to the program is 2,015, is

what I have here—total land added, 2,471 acres being added to the

program. Can you tell us how much of the 2,471 is upland, and

how much of it is water?

Ms. SHORT. Yes, sir. It is about evenly split between those two

categories. I would also mention that we have just very recently

identified acreage within that amount that we have shown on the

current draft map to be eliminated from the system, which could

become protected by the Maryland agency for cultural resources.

And if that is the case, that would further reduce the amount of

acreage that is being—

Mr. GILCHREST. The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources?

Ms. SHORT. I am sorry. Excuse me. It is North Carolina, yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. So of the 2,471 acres being added, about 1,200

of that is upland?

Ms. SHORT. The figures I have relative to the revision show

about 9,800 acres of wetlands and open water, and 9,300 acres of

upland.

Mr. GILCHREST. OK. I am just trying to get some idea of the balance. What is this, 9,300 acres? What is the 9,300 acres?

Ms. SHORT. If you will allow me, I would like to ask Paul Souza

to explain that acreage.

Mr. GILCHREST. Sure. Have him come up and sit down. I am just

trying to get some idea. We are adding. Total land being removed

from the program is 109 acres.

Could you give us your name and title?

Mr. SOUZA. Yes. My name is Paul Souza. I am the Coastal Barriers Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The 109 acres that you referenced is the amount of land that

would be removed, based on the maps that are before you today.

Mr. GILCHREST. Right.

12

Mr. SOUZA. Of that 109 acres, about 65 acres are, we recently

found, managed by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources. And in our research and investigation, we did not uncover

this, because we were working with the Department of Natural Resources.

Mr. GILCHREST. Sixty-five of the 109 being removed are managed

by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources?

Mr. SOUZA. That is right.

Mr. GILCHREST. And what does that mean?

Mr. SOUZA. Well, it means that we are happy about that, because

they are conservation lands. And we are working closely with the

State to pinpoint the boundaries. And we are very hopeful that we

can include that 65 acres back in the unit before it is formally

adopted by Congress.

Mr. GILCHREST. So of the 109 removed, it is likely that only 44

will actually be removed and potentially used for development?

Mr. SOUZA. Correct. And of that 45 acres, there is some development on the ground already. Probably roughly 10 of that 45 is currently developed. And I estimate that another 10 or 15 acres is too

wet for development to occur. So roughly, we guess that about 20

acres of that 45, in the southern part, could be developed in the future.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. So of the total acreage of land being removed, which in the beginning was 109, the likelihood of the acreage out of that 109 for development would be somewhere in the

neighborhood of 20 acres?

Mr. SOUZA. I think that is correct.

Mr. GILCHREST. Twenty acres. Look at that. Very good. OK. That

doesn’t sound too bad. And just of the 2,471 acres that are being

added to the program, roughly half of that is just an estuary?

Mr. SOUZA. I would say actually the number that Congressman

McIntyre referenced is, by and large, developable land, mostly

owned and managed by the Department of Defense. There is, however, as Cathy suggested, probably another equal amount of aquatic habitat that would be added to the OPA.

Mr. GILCHREST. So the 2,471 acres being added is not water?

Mr. SOUZA. Correct.

Mr. GILCHREST. It is just solid land?

Mr. SOUZA. Yes. By and large.

Mr. GILCHREST. And how much of that is managed by the Department of Defense?

Mr. SOUZA. Two thousand fifteen acres.

Mr. GILCHREST. OK. Interesting. Well, we will take a look at that

as we go along, and we will study the maps and see if we can, in

what we do, protect, restore habitat, and try to do the right thing

for Mr. McIntyre’s constituents.

Mr. Underwood?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Just briefly, do you know how many private

residences were removed from the existing boundaries of the OPA?

Mr. SOUZA. We do not know exactly the number of lots that have

been removed. About 2 years ago, we were approached by a land

owner in the area who brought to our attention the fact that there

are private lands that are not in holdings in the OPA. At that

point, we mobilized to try to figure out where the real property

13

boundaries are. Rather than look at a lot-by-lot basis, we took the

approach that we need to get the lines right, and that is what we

did. So we have the 20-acre estimate of developable land potential

in that area, but not a lot count.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Now, of the acreage that is coming into the

OPA, how much of that is privately held, if any?

Mr. SOUZA. None.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. None? OK. So just to characterize, I know the

intent is to make the maps accurate, and they are really technical

corrections. But would it be fair to characterize this legislation as

more designed to allay the fears of the private residents/owners?

Or more to add more conservation land?

Mr. SOUZA. Well, clearly, this issue was brought to our attention

because there was a problem. There were private land owners who

were included in our OPA who were not in holdings within a conservation boundary. So first and foremost, the interest would be allowing them to be excluded from the OPA, so that they could obtain Federal flood insurance.

Now, our policy is, when we find technical errors like this we do

our best to research, to find out if any protected lands were missed

when the maps were first put together. Perhaps protected areas

have been protected subsequent to that mapping process. So we try

to get the lines right in the first place, and we try to find if there

are other lands that could be included.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK. Thank you for your clarifications, Mr.

Souza.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thanks, Mr. Underwood.

Just one other question on coastal barriers. Do you know how

many homes were built in the area that was at least thought to

be in the program, land that was thought to be in the program?

How many homes do you know were built in that land thought to

be in the program, that are now going to be taken out of the program and eligible for Federal flood insurance?

Mr. SOUZA. I do not have a number of the homes. But if you

would like me to find out for you, I can.

Mr. GILCHREST. I would. What was your name again?

Mr. SOUZA. Paul Souza.

Mr. GILCHREST. Paul Souza. What is your phone number?

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.

Ms. Short, two things about nutria. One, does the Administration

support the bill?

Ms. SHORT. The Administration supports the goals and objectives

of the bill, and is very supportive of the efforts by this Committee

to help us combat invasive species problems. In terms of clarification of how the funding for the bill would be integrated within the

President’s budget, its priorities would still need to be clarified.

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, can you tell us what funding levels you

would support?

Ms. SHORT. I am not sure I can answer that, Mr. Chairman,

without further consideration relative to any modifications you

might be considering for the bill, or other kinds of activities that

are supporting nutria work.

14

Mr. GILCHREST. You couldn’t give us any range of the Federal

cost share that would likely be supported by the Administration?

Ms. SHORT. No, I am not aware of what would be supported by

the Administration, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Can we get that information, so as we move the

bill toward a vote we can have the assurances that the Administration would support that?

Ms. SHORT. I will do my best to do so.

Mr. GILCHREST. I guess I don’t need to ask for your phone number.

Ms. SHORT. I would be happy to give it to you. You probably already know it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Oh, I am sure the staff has it. So if we called

you next week, could we get some type of range?

Ms. SHORT. I will have an answer for you next week.

Mr. GILCHREST. Or you could give us the name of somebody in

OMB, and we will call that person.

Ms. SHORT. Actually, I like that idea, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you like that idea?

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Maybe we will do that. All right, Mr. Underwood, any further questions?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Just a general question on H.R. 4044. What

impact are nutria having on the other eight national wildlife refuges on the Delmarva Peninsula?

Ms. SHORT. I am aware of the impact on Blackwater National

Wildlife Refuge. I have visited that refuge several times in the past

few years, and I have seen for myself the impacts of nutria on the

marshlands and what is happening there. But I am not aware of

the full extent of damage or impacts that nutria may have on our

National Wildlife Refuges on the peninsula. I would be happy to

get that information for you.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK. I would appreciate that. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. One other question for Mr. Souza, when we call.

How many houses were there before 1990, and how many houses

have been built since 1990? Thank you.

Mr. SOUZA. Again, I don’t know the answer, but I will get it for

you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Sure. That is all right.

Ms. Short, have you ever been to Blackwater Refuge?

Ms. SHORT. I have, several times, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Have you tasted nutria?

[Laughter.]

Ms. SHORT. No, sir, I haven’t.

Mr. GILCHREST. You haven’t? Well, we will bring some in the

next time.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Ms. Short. We appreciate

your testimony.

Ms. SHORT. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Panel three is Ms. Edith Thompson, Invasive

Species Coordinator, Maryland Department of Natural Resources;

and Mr. Kevin Sullivan, USDA APHIS State Director, Wildlife

Services.

15

Ms. Thompson, Mr. Sullivan, thank you for coming this morning.

Ms. THOMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. We appreciate your cooperation in this. And Ms.

Thompson, I know you have been an active participant in nutria

eradication.

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. And I also know that you have eaten nutria. So

we certainly appreciate all that the State of Maryland has done in

this effort. And you may begin first.

STATEMENT OF EDITH THOMPSON, INVASIVE SPECIES

COORDINATOR, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL

RESOURCES

Ms. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I beg the

Committee’s forgiveness: I have a little bit of a cold. I will try to

be as clear as possible.

On behalf of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources,

and Secretary J. Charles Fox, I thank you for asking us to testify

before the Subcommittee on the Maryland Nutria Control Pilot

Project and H.R. 4044, which authorizes the Secretary of Interior

to establish a program to eradicate nutria and restore wetlands in

Maryland. We greatly appreciate the support that the pilot project

has received from Congress in the past few years.

As you know, DNR has been a principal partner in the pilot

project, along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Tudor

Farms, Incorporated; the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore;

the Maryland Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Research Unit; and we

welcome now USDA APHIS.

We estimate that nutria have damaged thousands of acres of

state land of brackish marsh on Fishing Bay Wildlife Management

Area, which is adjacent to Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in

Dorchester County, where the species is most concentrated on the

peninsula. We have found individuals actually from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge south to the Virginia line in Maryland. They actually are in Bombay Hook, as well.

Although nutria damage is not the only cause of marsh loss in

the area, early studies in the pilot project demonstrated that nutria

cause significant damage to marsh. When feeding, nutria remove

entire plants, causing the sediment that supports the plants to

erode away. Continuous conversion of marsh habitat to open water

in this manner is removing significant habitat for commercially important fin fish, shellfish, and waterfowl, and decreasing the ability

of protected state lands as well as Federal lands to support a diversity of native plants and animals.

The continued removal of the three-square bulrush marsh, which

preferred by nutria, from Dorchester County and from surrounding

areas could result in a change in the local environment, which

could in turn prevent the restoration of the marsh. To protect the

marsh, nutria eradication must be conducted aggressively and efficiently, in order to prevent resettlement in treated marshes. Damaged marsh must be restored immediately, in order to maintain an

environment that can support marsh plants while nutria are being

removed.

16

The DNR joined forces with the other partners of the pilot project

to generate information needed to develop effective methods and

strategies to reduce nutria population in the Chesapeake Bay

wetlands to the point where they are unable to maintain a sustainable population; and to develop effective marsh habitat restoration

methods and strategies; and finally, to promote public understanding of the importance of preserving Maryland’s wetlands and

the danger that nutria pose to those wetlands.

The pilot project has provided the partnership with data helpful

to the development of an eradication plan, which is being finalized

now, and we expect to start work this month. Through the live

trapping that we have been doing over the past few years—tagging

certain animals, fitting others with radio collars and transmitters,

and examining the physiological health and reproductive status of

others—we have gained a much greater understanding of nutria on

Maryland’s wetlands in the lower Eastern Shore.

The development of marsh habitat restoration methods is ongoing, and will continue as the eradication of nutria on the lower

Eastern Shore gets underway. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

is testing sediment in the laboratory for its ability to support

marsh plants that have been damaged by nutria, and is now testing sediment spraying in Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge to

determine the use of this technology for marsh restoration.

The pilot project has been very actively promoting public awareness of the importance of wetlands and the damage that nutria can

do to those wetlands. It has been featured on national television,

including the Discovery Channel, the National Geographic Channel, CNN; and local television, Maryland Public Television; all the

local Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Salisbury news programs, several times over the past few years; and many times in the newspapers, including the ‘‘Washington Post,’’ the ‘‘Baltimore Sun,’’

etcetera.

The Department has contributed a total of about $236,000 in

cash and in-kind services to the pilot project since its early planning stages in 1999. We are committed to continuing to request

state funds to support the project through our budgetary process,

and will work to raise funds for discrete needs of the eradication

effort, as well as continue to contribute staff resources and state

equipment.

Unfortunately, like many state governments around the country,

our budget opportunities have narrowed as a result of the recession

and September 11th. And the DNR, like all state departments, has

been asked to reduce its expenditures.

Going on to eradication, beyond the pilot program, the current

objective is to implement a test eradication effort in our study

area—which is Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge; Fishing Bay

Wildlife Management Area; and Tudor Farms, Incorporated, in

Dorchester County—followed by a large-scale nutria eradication effort on the entire lower Eastern Shore.

The goal of this will be to eradicate nutria, or to reduce the population to unsustainable levels. The test effort will be conducted for

2 years, and the full-scale eradication over the following 3 years.

We will test perimeter and saturation trapping in 40-acre plots in

17

the study area. There are approximately 192,870 acres of nutria

habitat throughout the lower Eastern Shore.

Each 40-acre plot would be trapped intensively throughout, then

more broadly in a second sweep, to ensure eradication. Trapping

would continue along the perimeter, to prevent nutria from moving

between treated and untreated plots. We anticipate the cost of the entire effort at $20 million over 5 years, at the average rate of about $18,000 per 180-acre plot. Most

of the cost consists of trapper salaries and benefits, as well as data

entry staff, project management, equipment, and supplies. Twothirds of that cost represents the initial trapping effort, and onethird, the second sweep.

We are especially grateful that the pilot project was funded at

approximately $1 million in Fiscal Year ’02. This has enabled us

to embark on the eradication phase of the project ahead of schedule, a phase which will continue for 2 years. Each year of this

phase will cost at least $1 million.

Having first-hand experience with this project for over one and

a half years, serving on the pilot project’s management team, and

through the Department’s over 3-year involvement, I can attest to

the continuing need that this effort has for financial support, as

well as the bare efficiency with which funding is used.

Finally, DNR is committed to the long-term goals of nutria eradication in Maryland and the restoration of marsh that has been

damaged by nutria. We will continue to dedicate management, administrative, and biological staff; request state funds; and solicit

private funds to ensure that these efforts can succeed.

Exotic/invasive species impact Federal, state, and private lands

and, by definition, can multiply and move among these lands. And

cost of control and habitat restoration is such that these efforts

cannot succeed without strong financial and implementation partnerships. We urge Congress to authorize appropriations necessary

to ensure that this partnership remains strong and that prior Federal and state investments can contribute to an active effort to

eradicate nutria in Maryland. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Thompson follows:]

Statement of Edith R. Thompson, Exotic/Invasive Species, Wildlife and

Heritage Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

On behalf of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Secretary

J. Charles Fox, I thank you for asking us to testify before the Subcommittee on the

Maryland Nutria Control Pilot Project (Pilot Project) and H.R. 4044, which authorizes the Secretary of Interior to establish a program to eradicate nutria and restore

marshlands in Maryland. We greatly appreciate the support that Pilot Project has

received from Congress in recent years.

As you know, the DNR has been a principle partner in the Pilot Project, along

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tudor Farms, Inc., the University of

Maryland Eastern Shore, and the Maryland Fish and Wildlife Research Cooperative. We estimate that nutria has damaged thousands of acres of brackish marsh

on Fishing Bay Wildlife Management Area in Dorchester County, Maryland, where

the species is most concentrated in the state. We have found individuals from the

Chesapeake Bay Bridge south to the Virginia line and on many of our state lands

therein. Although nutria damage is not the only cause of loss of marsh in the area,

early studies in the Pilot Project demonstrated that nutria cause significant marsh

damage.

When feeding, nutria remove entire plants, causing the sediment supporting the

plants to erode away. Continuous conversion of marsh habitat to open water in this

18

manner is removing significant habitat for commercially important waterfowl, shell

and finfish species and decreasing the ability of protected state lands to support a

diversity of native plants and animals. The continued removal of the three-square

bulrush marsh, preferred by Maryland’s nutria, from Dorchester County and from

surrounding areas could result in a change in the local environment, which could

in turn prevent the restoration of the marsh. To protect the marsh, nutria

eradication must be conducted aggressively and efficiently in order to prevent resettlement in treated marshes. Damaged marsh must be restored immediately in order

to maintain an environment that can support marsh plants while nutria are being

removed.

The DNR joined forces with the other partners in the Pilot Project to generate

the information needed to: 1) develop effective methods and strategies to reduce

nutria populations in the Chesapeake Bay wetlands to the point where they are unable to maintain a sustainable population; 2) develop effective marsh habitat restoration methods and strategies; and 3) promote public understanding of the importance of preserving Maryland’s wetlands and the threat that nutria poses to those

habitats.

The Pilot Project has provided the Partnership with data helpful to the development of an eradication plan, which is being finalized now and is expected to start

this month. Through the live trapping that we have done for the past few years,

tagging certain animals, fitting certain animals with radio collars and transmitters,

and examining the physiological health and reproductive status of others, we have

gained a much greater understanding of nutria on Maryland’s lower Eastern Shore.

The development of marsh habitat restoration methods is on-going and will continue

as the eradication of nutria on the lower Eastern Shore gets underway. The U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers is testing sediment in the laboratory for its ability to support the marsh plants that have been damaged by nutria and is now testing sediment spraying on Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge to determine the use of this

technology for marsh restoration.

The Pilot Project has been very actively promoting public awareness of the damage that nutria can do to our wetlands and has been featured on national television,

including the Discovery Channel, the National Geographic Channel, and CNN. The

Pilot Project has also been a feature on local Salisbury, Baltimore, and Washington,

D.C. television news programs, Maryland Public Television, and local newspapers

many times over the past three years.

The DNR has contributed a total of about $236,000 to this Pilot Project since its

early planning stages in 1999. We are committed to continuing to request state

funds to support the project through our budgetary process and will work to raise

funds for discreet needs of the eradication effort as well as continue to contribute

staff time and state equipment. Unfortunately, like many state governments, our

budget opportunities have narrowed since September 11th and the DNR, like all

state departments has been asked to reduce its expenditures.

ERADICATION

Beyond the Pilot Program, the current objective is to implement a test eradication

effort in our study area: Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Fishing Bay Wildlife

Management Area, and Tudor Farms, Inc. in Dorchester County, followed by largescale nutria eradication effort on the lower Eastern Shore. The goal of this will be

to eradicate nutria or to reduce the population to unsustainable levels. The test effort will be conducted for two years and the full scale eradication over the following

three years. We will test perimeter and saturation trapping in 40 acre plots in the

study area. There are approximately 192,870 acres of nutria habitat on the lower

Eastern Shore. Each 40-acre plot would be trapped intensively throughout and then

more broadly in a second sweep to ensure eradication. Trapping would continue

along the perimeter to prevent nutria from moving between treated and untreated

plots. We anticipate the cost of the entire effort at $20 million at the average rate

of over $18,000/180-acre plot. Most of the cost consists of trapper salaries and benefits, as well as data entry staff, project management, equipment and supplies. Twothirds of that cost represents the initial trapping effort and one-third the second

sweep.

We are especially grateful that the Pilot Project was funded at approximately $1

million in fiscal year 02. This has enabled us to embark on the eradication phase

of the Project ahead of schedule, a phase which will continue for 2 years. Each year

of this phase will cost at least $1 million. Having first hand experience with this

project for over 1 1/2 years, serving on the Pilot Project’s Management Team, and

through the DNR’s over 3-year involvement, I can attest to the continuing need that

this effort has for financial support as well as the bare efficiency with which funding

is used.

19

CONCLUSION

The DNR is committed to the long-term goal of nutria eradication in Maryland

and the restoration of marsh that has been damaged by nutria. We will continue

to dedicate management, administrative, and biological staff; request state funds;

and solicit private funds to ensure that these efforts can succeed. Exotic/invasive

species impact Federal, state and private lands and, by definition, can multiply and

move among these lands, and cost of control and habitat restoration is such that

these efforts cannot succeed without strong financial and implementation partnerships. We urge Congress to authorize appropriations necessary to ensure that this

partnership remains strong and that prior Federal and state investments can

contribute to an active effort to eradicate nutria in Maryland.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Ms. Thompson.

Mr. Sullivan?

STATEMENT OF KEVIN SULLIVAN, USDA APHIS STATE

DIRECTOR, WILDLIFE SERVICES PROGRAM

Mr. SULLIVAN. My name is Kevin Sullivan. I am the State Director for Maryland, Delaware, and D.C., with the Wildlife Services

Program of APHIS. And to answer the Chairman’s question, I have

eaten nutria on numerous occasions. I haven’t had the pleasure yet

to eat the Maryland nutria, but I have had it throughout the

country.

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you like nutria?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I do.

Mr. GILCHREST. Wow. I think you are the first person that said

that.

[Laughter.]

Mr. SULLIVAN. Don’t hold that against me.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you and the

Subcommittee today on H.R. 4044, a bill that, if passed, would authorize the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior to provide

assistance to the State of Maryland for the implementation program in eradication of nutria and restoring marshlands damaged

by the invasive species in the Chesapeake Bay area.

While encouraged by H.R. 4044 and other bills introduced in the

Congress that address invasive species problems in the United

States, the Administration has concerns with H.R. 4044 that were

previously discussed by the representative from the Fish and Wildlife Service, Ms. Cathleen Short.

As you may know, Wildlife Services is currently engaged with

the Department of Interior officials and several other state and

local cooperators in a pilot program to determine if nutria eradication is a feasible goal in the Chesapeake Bay. Wildlife Services,

a part of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, is

the Federal program charged with preventing and reducing conflicts between people and wildlife.

Wildlife Services works closely with other Federal agencies, such

as the Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, the lead

agency in the nutria pilot program; state and local officials; industry groups; university researchers; producers; and citizens to help

prevent damage or minimize damage caused by wildlife species.

Wildlife Services is called on regularly by cooperators to stop

wild animals from damaging public property and natural ecosystems, threatening human health and safety, or preying upon

threatened and endangered species. When wildlife damage manVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:15 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 78661.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
20

agement is necessary, Wildlife Services officials help to balance

wildlife populations, prevent harmful situations from occurring

again, and give residents the necessary advice to try to reduce that

damage or prevent it from occurring again.

In other important areas, our program helps to protect aircraft

from bird strikes and collisions with wildlife at airports across the

country. Wildlife Services is also an integral part in the efforts to

prevent the brown tree snake, another invasive species, a non-native predator of the Islands of Guam, from further damaging fauna

on the islands, and to prevent them from spreading to Hawaii via

cargo ships and other routes of commerce.

In all of its work, Wildlife Services is recognized for its reliance

on sound, environmentally sensitive methods of wildlife damage

management, and a commitment to effective and affordable public

service. Wildlife Services prides itself on the close cooperative relationships we have developed with our many partners in both the

public and private ranks.

The partnership that I would like to discuss with you today is

the one that we have entered into with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and with other state agencies, to address the damage associated with nutria on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

Invasive species are non-indigenous organisms that cause, or are

likely to cause, harm to the environment, plant health, or public

health if introduced into the country. Due to the significant increase in levels of global commerce and travel, the number of pathways and movements for foreign species and invasive species to be

introduced is increasing.

The situation puts our country at high risk, from public health,

to various agricultural industries, to our native ecosystems. Estimated economic harm to the United States from biological invaders

is in the tens of millions of dollars, and may exceed $120 billion

annually.

Historically, APHIS works to safeguard American agricultural

resources and prevent damage to our natural ecosystems from the

introductions and establishments of those invasive species that

threaten the health of domestic plants and animals. These efforts

ensure U.S. agricultural productivity, and facilitate safe agricultural trade, to help preserve the environment and in many cases

protect U.S. public citizens.

In support of APHIS’ safeguarding mission, Wildlife Services has

been called on increasingly to address the damage associated with

invasive species like nutria that have, or have the potential to,

overrun natural ecosystems and impact native species.

As we have just heard, nutria are a prolific animal that are

greatly impacting marshlands in the Chesapeake Bay area. Their

nesting and foraging habits erode marshland vegetation in the

Chesapeake Bay watershed, and also affect bird and fish populations and other valuable and environmentally sensitive species,

such as the blue crab.

In carrying out its mission of protecting ecosystems and preserving and enhancing wildlife populations, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service’s Chesapeake Bay field office, in conjunction with

state and local officials, university researchers, and environmental

21

and fisheries groups, is very much aware of the threat posed to the

Chesapeake Bay by the nutria populations.

Fish and Wildlife Service officials developed in 1997 and Congress ultimately approved funding for a 3-year pilot program to

identify appropriate methods for controlling nutria and restoring

degraded marsh habitat on the Eastern Shore. While personnel

constraints prevented Wildlife Services from becoming directly involved in the early stages of the pilot project, communication on

the nutria pilot program continued between the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and my office in Annapolis, Maryland. As the program progressed, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials contacted

my office regarding Wildlife Services’ participation in the nutria

project.

At the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, I prepared

a budget for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to hire on the necessary employees to conduct these capture, tagging, and reporting

activities, to assess if a pilot eradication project could be implemented.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials approved these positions,

and provided the Wildlife Services office with sufficient funds for

program activities in the coming year. An inter-agency agreement

between the Wildlife Services and the Fish and Wildlife Service has

facilitated this funding transfer and outlines Wildlife Services’ new

responsibilities.

Mr. Chairman, Wildlife Services officials have the education,

background, and professional expertise necessary to target nutria

populations and to evaluate the effectiveness of control and eradication efforts. We are continuing to cooperate closely with the Fish

and Wildlife Service and other involved landowners and officials in

the pilot program. This collaborative approach will assist all parties in the future, as we evaluate our efforts, devise nutria management and eradication plans, and determine adequate funding for

an appropriate strategy to combat nutria.

I am confident that by working together and involving local residents and officials and other pertinent groups, we can make strides

against nutria and help to restore some of the damage already

caused by this invasive species.

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify

before this Subcommittee today. And if you have any questions, I

will be glad to answer them.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]

Statement of Kevin Sullivan, Maryland State Director, Wildlife Services

Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Mr. Chairman, my name is Kevin Sullivan and I am the Director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Wildlife Services program for Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before

you and the Subcommittee today on H.R. 4044, a bill that, if passed, would authorize the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior to provide assistance to the

State of Maryland for the implementation of a program to eradicate nutria and restore marshlands damaged by this invasive species in the Chesapeake Bay area.

While encouraged by H.R. 4044 and other bills introduced in Congress that address

invasive species problems in the United States, the Administration has concerns

with H.R. 4044 that will be discussed in the Department of the Interior’s statement

today. As you may know, Wildlife Services is currently engaged with Department

of the Interior officials and several other local and State cooperators in a pilot proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:15 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78661.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
22

gram to determine if nutria eradication is a feasible goal in the Chesapeake Bay

area.

Wildlife Services, a part of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS), is the Federal program charged with preventing or reducing conflicts between people and wildlife. Wildlife Services works closely with other Federal agencies—such as the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, the lead

agency in the nutria pilot program—State and local officials, industry groups,

university researchers, producers, and citizens to help prevent, minimize, or manage

wildlife damage to a variety of different resources in the United States.

Wildlife Services is called on regularly by our cooperators to stop wild animals

from damaging public property and natural ecosystems, threatening human health

and safety, or preying upon threatened and endangered species. When wildlife damage management is necessary, Wildlife Services officials help to balance wildlife populations, prevent harmful situations from occurring again, and give residents advice

about how they can minimize conflicts with wildlife.

In other important areas, our program helps to protect aircraft from birdstrikes

and collisions with wildlife at airports across the country. Wildlife Services is also

an integral part of efforts to prevent the brown tree snake, a non-native predator

on the island of Guam, from further damaging fauna on the island and spreading

to Hawaii via cargo shipments and other routes of commerce. In all of its work,

Wildlife Services is recognized for its reliance on sound, environmentally sensitive

methods of wildlife damage management and commitment to effective and affordable public service.

Wildlife Services prides itself on the close, cooperative relationships we have developed with our many partners in both the public and private ranks. The partnership that I would like to discuss with you today is the one we have entered into

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to address the damage associated with

nutria populations on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

Invasive species are nonindigenous organisms that cause, or are likely to cause,

harm to the environment, plant and animal health, or public health if introduced

into the country. Due to significantly increased levels of global commerce and travel,

the number of pathways for the movement and introduction of foreign, invasive

pests and diseases into the United States is currently at an all time high. This situation puts our country at risk, from public health to various agricultural industries

to our native ecosystems. Estimated economic harm to the United States from biological invaders runs in the tens of billions of dollars and may exceed $120 billion

annually.

Historically, APHIS works to safeguard American agricultural resources and prevent damage to our natural ecosystems from the introduction and establishment of

those invasive species that threaten the health of domestic plants and animals.

These efforts ensure U.S. agricultural productivity and facilitate safe agricultural

trade, help to preserve the environment, and, in many cases, protect U.S. public

health.

In support of APHIS’ safeguarding mission, Wildlife Services has been called on

increasingly to address the damage associated with invasive species, like nutria,

that have, or have the potential to, overrun natural ecosystems and impact native

species. As we have just heard, nutria are prolific animals that are greatly impacting marshlands in the Chesapeake Bay area. Their nesting and foraging habits

erode marsh vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and also affect birds, fish

populations, and other valuable—and environmentally sensitive—species such as

the blue crab.

In carrying out its mission of protecting ecosystems and preserving and enhancing

wildlife populations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Chesapeake Bay field office, in conjunction with State and local officials, university researchers, and environmental and fisheries groups, has been very much aware of the threat posed to

the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem by nutria populations. In 1997, Fish and Wildlife

Services officials developed—and Congress ultimately approved funding for—a three

year pilot program to identify appropriate methods for controlling nutria and restoring degraded marsh habitat on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. At the time of the pilot

program’s approval, Wildlife Services officials assisted their colleagues at the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Chesapeake Bay field office in developing the environmental assessment documentation required for the pilot program to begin under the

National Environmental Policy Act.

While personnel constraints prevented Wildlife Services from becoming directly

involved in the early stages of the pilot program, communication on the nutria pilot

program continued between Fish and Wildlife Service and my office in Maryland.

As the program progressed, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials contacted me reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:15 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78661.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
23

garding Wildlife Services’ participation in nutria control and eradication efforts on

Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

At the request of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials, I prepared a budget

analysis of the staffing requirements necessary for Wildlife Services’ participation

in the pilot program. I determined that 13 positions—12 wildlife specialists and 1

wildlife biologist—would be necessary to carry out the capture, tagging, and reporting activities called for in the pilot program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials

have approved these positions and provided the Wildlife Services office in Maryland

with sufficient funds for program activities in the coming year. An inter-agency

agreement between Wildlife Services and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service facilitated this funding transfer and outlines Wildlife Services’ new responsibilities as a

cooperator in the nutria control pilot program.

Mr. Chairman, Wildlife Services officials have the education, background, and

professional expertise necessary to target nutria populations and evaluate the effectiveness of control and eradication efforts. We are continuing to cooperate closely

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other involved landowners and officials

in the pilot program. This collaborative approach will assist all of the parties in the

future as we evaluate our efforts, devise nutria management and eradication plans,

and determine adequate funding for an appropriate strategy to combat nutria. I am

confident that by working together and involving local residents, officials, and other

pertinent groups we can make good strides against nutria and help to restore some

of the damage already caused by this invasive species.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before you and the

Subcommittee today. I will now answer any questions you or your colleagues may

have regarding Wildlife Services’ involvement in the nutria pilot program in

Maryland.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. What other animals do

you deal with in Maryland and Delaware, other than nutria, as far

as nuisance animals are concerned?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, that list of species would range

from moles and voles, to vultures, deer, urban backyard wildlife,

skunks, raccoons, possums, to the fox— Mr. GILCHREST. So the full range. I mean, they may be indigenous, or they may be non-indigenous.

Mr. SULLIVAN. They may be.

Mr. GILCHREST. But you deal with those kinds of critters.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Just about all mammals and birds.

Mr. GILCHREST. But do you have a general budget, so a local jurisdiction calls up and you assist them? How does that work?

Mr. SULLIVAN. The Wildlife Services’ budget, there is a base Federal budget that my program receives. But by and large, it is funded by cooperative dollars, by cooperators requesting our assistance.

And then it is just a direct reimbursable for the work that we conduct.

Mr. GILCHREST. And you are in Annapolis?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Correct.

Mr. GILCHREST. How long have you been in Annapolis?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I have been there a year.

Mr. GILCHREST. And the APHIS office in Annapolis has been

there—?

Mr. SULLIVAN. In excess of 20 years. I know the gentleman that

retired before I came to Maryland was there 23 years.

Mr. GILCHREST. I am just curious how long APHIS in Maryland

has been working; or when did they first recognize that nutria

needed to be eradicated?

Mr. SULLIVAN. That I couldn’t answer for you. I could get that

answer for you. I know it was a very small staff that was there.

It was just a state director, an administrative assistant at the ofVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:15 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 78661.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
24

fice. And we provide technical assistance via a ‘‘1-800’’ number,

called ‘‘The Citizens in D.C., Maryland, and Delaware.’’

Mr. GILCHREST. Have you been to Blackwater Refuge?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Could you tell me, or Ms. Thompson tell us,

about how many nutria might still be at Blackwater, or basically

on the Delmarva Peninsula? Any estimate?

Ms. THOMPSON. Well, the only estimate we have is dated from

Blackwater Wildlife Refuge. And that is at 35,000 to 50,000. It is

an interesting question. I have been asking other experts: Dr. Gosling from England, where they did manage to eradicate nutria; and

also Gregg Linscombe, who is a nutria biologist in Louisiana. And

they basically concur with our findings, that nutria population

changes so dramatically from month to month. Their reproductive

output and the weather cause great changes in their population,

from big to small.

So we are not really comfortable estimating populations. We do

have that one estimate, that gives you an idea that there are tens

of thousands, at least, in Dorchester County; and that that is

where the focus of the population is.

Mr. GILCHREST. So I guess, if they are in Dorchester County,

anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000, they have been seen at Bombay

Hook?

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes, apparently.

Mr. GILCHREST. In Delaware?

Ms. THOMPSON. Apparently, they have been seen there.

Mr. GILCHREST. So they are likely in Caroline, Queen Anne—

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. —Wicomico?

Ms. THOMPSON. They are in every Eastern Shore county—

Mr. GILCHREST. Kent County?

Ms. THOMPSON. —but not in those kinds of numbers.

Mr. GILCHREST. So they are in every Eastern Shore county?

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes. And they are also in the Patuxent, Calvert

County.

Mr. GILCHREST. How did they get to Bombay Hook? Did they follow the ditches and the streams? I couldn’t imagine them, you

know, crossing the highway, except maybe at 4 in the morning

when there is no traffic.

Ms. THOMPSON. There is apparently some work being done on

that in Louisiana. There is a model being created, a research model

being created, to determine why populations appear further north

from Louisiana; because they seem to be moving up the coast—

whether it is because they use all their resources in their particular area and move on, or whether it is territorial. We don’t

know how territorial they are, in other words. So it may be a territorial situation, where young can’t find a place to stay so they move

elsewhere.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.

Ms. THOMPSON. We haven’t answered that question yet. But

clearly, they are moving in.

Mr. GILCHREST. So they are in Cecil County?

Ms. THOMPSON. As far as we know.

25

Mr. GILCHREST. How would they get across the bay? Can they

swim across the bay?

Ms. THOMPSON. We don’t think they are getting across the bay.

We think that the population in Dorchester County is one that was

planted there by—We are not really sure by who; but whoever was

interested in the fur resource back in the early part of the 20th

century.

Mr. GILCHREST. But they don’t swim across the bay? They get

over there some other way?

Ms. THOMPSON. We don’t think so. We think that that population

is discrete, and related to the one that was released there from captivity. Whereas the one over on the Western Shore is the continual

one from Louisiana.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Do you have any idea how much state and

local private funds have been allocated to this study phase of the

pilot project up to this point?

Ms. THOMPSON. I know that the Department has given over

200,000. I would have to get back to you on the exact figures that

we have gotten from the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore; in

particular, in Tudor Farms. I think our contribution is by far the

largest, but I would have to get back to you on that.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is that both actual dollars and in-kind?

Ms. THOMPSON. And in-kind. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. I have a couple more questions, but I will yield

to Mr. Underwood at this time. Thank you.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you for your testimony. Ms. Thompson, do you have

any idea what it costs to restore one acre of wetlands that is destroyed by nutria?

Ms. THOMPSON. I am afraid we don’t, because we don’t even

know yet if we can actually do it. Like I said, we are testing. The

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is testing sediment, and they just

started spraying sediment in Blackwater to see how well that will

work as a substrate for marsh restoration. They have given us a

price of $4.5 million to do a host of things, including the testing of

sediment, the spraying, and doing some hydrology studies and so

forth across Blackwater alone.

But I tried to get a per-acre figure from them before the hearing,

and they weren’t really willing to commit to that. Just the $4.5 million for a package of preliminary work.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. For the whole refuge?

Ms. THOMPSON. Well, right now, for about 20 acres of refuge.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. How many acres of wetland have been destroyed by nutria at the Blackwater Refuge?

Ms. THOMPSON. Over 7,000.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Over 7,000. And how many are in the process

of being consumed beyond that?

Ms. THOMPSON. We haven’t measured beyond that. We would

like to, as part of our eradication process. Like I said, it is difficult

to measure nutria populations. So we are starting to look at

Louisiana’s model, which is to measure nutria damage and the rate

of damage, or the rate of recovery of the marsh based on our eradication efforts.

26

For instance, in the beginning of this study we did ‘‘exclosures,’’ and those are big fenced areas where the nutria can’t get in; just

to show that nutria cause significant damage. Because there is sealevel rise, and salt water intrusion, and other things causing marsh

damage in that area. And within those exclosures, the marsh grew

very well. Outside those exclosures, it was virtually leveled.

So we are looking at the possibility of doing those exclosures in

our new study, eradication study plots, to see how well the marsh

recovers as we eradicate nutria. That is kind of the direction we

are going in.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. With the decline of the marshland or the

wetlands, does the nutria population diminish? I mean, is there a

point at which their food resources diminish and then they go

away? Or do they just move to another area?

Ms. THOMPSON. They continue to move.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. They just move?

Ms. THOMPSON. We believe they continue to move. They’ll eat

anything, from brackish marsh into fresh water marsh; although

they like brackish marsh the best. And brackish is the combination

of salt and fresh water. So they have a lot of resources to use, and

they will just move.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Other than trapping, is there any other kind— and this question is for either one of you—other kind of eradication

techniques that have been experimented with?

Mr. SULLIVAN. A complete set of the tools would include trapping

on a variety of different traps; shooting; and also, the use of EPAapproved toxicants.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Have the toxicants been used to any great extent? And are there other ramifications for their use?

Ms. THOMPSON. To my knowledge, we are not planning to use

them in Maryland. There are other, obviously, ramifications. We

worry about what we call ‘‘non-target species,’’ even with trapping.

But trapping seems to be able to be more selective in what we capture.

But when we go to this eradication phase, we will be using traps;

like hold traps and Conabear traps.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I see. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.

Mr. Sullivan, what is your role as part of APHIS in the nutria

eradication program?

Mr. SULLIVAN. What Wildlife Services has done is enter into an

inter-agency agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

and, at the approval of the funding for the project, we provided

them an estimate and a budget. And what we have done is hired

on nine specialists to date and one biologist. And we would like to

see that number—At fully staffed it would be 12 specialists, 12

trappers to trap the nutria, and one biologist.

Mr. GILCHREST. So you hired the— Mr. SULLIVAN. I did.

Mr. GILCHREST. You are hiring the trappers?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is all of this fairly coordinated, Ms. Thompson,

with your efforts?

27

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes. We have a management team that consists

of the Department, APHIS, Fish and Wildlife, UMES, and the coop unit, and the Army Corps of Engineers, actually, too. And we

are all moving as one unit toward this phase.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see.

Ms. THOMPSON. And we meet regularly.

Mr. GILCHREST. So you feel that the study phase is now at a

point where there is some understanding as to the types of techniques to use to eradicate the nutria so that there is no more need

to study? And you have estimated the price tag. I guess, Mr. Sullivan, you agree that the $20 million over a 5-year period is sufficient to eradicate the nutria; see where we are in 5 years?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, I do.

Mr. GILCHREST. What is the prognosis?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, I agree with that figure.

Mr. GILCHREST. You think we can eradicate the nutria in 5 years with $20 million?

Ms. THOMPSON. Well, what we are going to do, Mr. Chairman,

is test. We have a new set of hypotheses based on the set of data

that we got in the past couple of years in our pilot project. And we

are going to test those in 2 years in about 53,000 acres in those

three parcels of land, Blackwater, Fishing Bay, Tudor. And that is

when at that point we will determine. The question is: Is it possible

to eradicate nutria? And it is either ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No.’’ Mr. GILCHREST. So in those three areas, which I assume are

Blackwater and Tudor Farms— Ms. THOMPSON. Yes, and Fishing Bay.

Mr. GILCHREST. And where?

Ms. THOMPSON. And Fishing Bay.

Mr. GILCHREST. OK. The techniques that are being used are

what? Trapping? Shooting? You are not going to use the poison, I

guess, because other wildlife would be destroyed by it?

Ms. THOMPSON. Right. And we will shoot them if they are above

ground, but we don’t have that opportunity as much as we would

like. But I mean, it is easier to do it that way, anyway, I should

say. But we are going to be doing perimeter trapping and saturation trapping. And saturation trapping is setting intensive traps

throughout this 180-acre area. And we look at where the nutria is

moving. They make trails. It is not that difficult to see. I am sure

you have seen them. And we are actually going to be trying lures.

Mr. GILCHREST. You are going to be trying what?

Ms. THOMPSON. Lures.

Mr. GILCHREST. Lures?

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes. You know, scent.

Mr. GILCHREST. Right.

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes. We have found that traps where the animals have been trapped and have urinated and so on, that has apparently attracted more animals to come to that particular site

over several days. So we are going to try that as a way to bring

nutria to us, because we think we are going to have to treat the

last traps.

Mr. GILCHREST. Now, you are talking about male urine attracts

females, or female urine attracts males?

Ms. THOMPSON. We are going to use female estrus.

28

Mr. GILCHREST. OK. And that attracts the males?

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes. And then perimeter trapping would be trapping around the outside of the polygon. And we are going to be

using those seasonally, because we have found that nutria move a

lot more during spring and fall. So we would be concentrating on

the perimeter trapping during spring and fall. And they don’t move

very much in the very hot and very cold, so we would be concentrating on saturation trapping in that particular small area.

That is what we are going to be testing. Those are our

hypotheses, basically. And if it turns out we feel we can eradicate

nutria, then we would make recommendations about necessary appropriations to do that within this authorization for the following

3 years.

Mr. GILCHREST. OK.

Ms. THOMPSON. In the remaining 130,000 acres.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Sullivan, are there any other states anxious

for this pilot project to conclude so they can implement the procedures?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am not aware of any. I know of several states

that are having problems with nutria and the damage that they

cause, but at what level they are involved or anxious to get into

nutria eradication, I am not sure. But I could find out on those

other states that have nutria for you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Ms. Thompson, there have been seven-some-thousand acres that

have been lost. There is interest certainly in restoring those areas.

Is there any consideration to use clean dredged material to raise

the level of the marsh in Blackwater?

Ms. THOMPSON. The Corps right now is using dredge from historic river channels. So they would be using it from the rivers that

run through Blackwater.

Mr. GILCHREST. So do you see any problem using dredge material

for wetlands restoration?

Ms. THOMPSON. I am not aware of any, of that particular kind.

I mean, they are using the material that is in the area itself. So

they are not going out of the area to get dredge material; they are

using this.

Mr. GILCHREST. But I mean, if the dredge material comes from

that area, is there a problem with using dredge material from that

area for wetlands restoration?

Ms. THOMPSON. I am not aware of any.

Mr. GILCHREST. Will any of that wetland restoration begin before

the eradication is complete?

Ms. THOMPSON. What our plan is, is to start this 180-acre plot

process. And as we go through the second sweep of those areas and

make a determination that there are no more nutria in that area,

then we would start the marsh restoration efforts then.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see.

Ms. THOMPSON. So they should be working sort of in tandem, you

know, one behind the other. Because if we wait, we will lose the

opportunity to create marsh, because once it is open water it is

much more difficult.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there any value to use dogs to find nutria?

While you are carrying a .22?

29

Ms. THOMPSON. It is a good thought. I don’t know if we have

tried that.

Do you know?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t know if that has been tried. But we will

look into it, because I know of dogs being used on other species for

control. We can look into that.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Underwood suggested brown tree snakes.

Ms. THOMPSON. Catching nutria?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. They use the dogs.

Mr. GILCHREST. To use the dogs to find brown tree snakes.

Ms. THOMPSON. Oh.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. They do.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Oh, they do?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, they use trained Jack Russell Terriers to

locate the brown tree snake.

Mr. GILCHREST. On Guam?

Mr. SULLIVAN. On Guam.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is that proving successful?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Very successful.

Mr. GILCHREST. Wow. Ms. Thompson, just a couple more questions. I think it is my understanding that the Corps of Engineers

has estimated to restore about 150 acres would be somewhere

around $4.5 million.

Ms. THOMPSON. Right.

Mr. GILCHREST. Which is roughly about $30,000 an acre.

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes. I went back and I said, ‘‘Can you please

clarify that for me again? Is there a per-acre charge for the marsh

restoration?’’ And they said, ‘‘No.’’ And they gave me a list of things

that they would do for $4.5 million.

I was looking for it when Mr. Underwood asked me this question,

so I found it: A thin-layer spraying demonstration project for 20

acres; high-resolution elevation data, giving us accurate contour

lines for Blackwater Refuge and surrounding areas; high-spectrum

vegetation imagery, to tell what kind of communities there are

within the marsh and what needs to be restored; as much marsh

restored as possible, anywhere from 150 to 440 acres, depending on

how much material and/or money we can get; this will likely be

thin spraying on a larger scale; a feasibility report on marsh restoration at Blackwater; evaluating the proposed sites and further

sites for further restoration; at least 5 years of monitoring the success of both the demo project and the larger restoration.

Optional tasks include a sediment hydrological model; analysis of

the hydrological changes from the road crossings; and potential

sediment trapping techniques.

And then assuming we try to go forward even further after the

construction of the first phase, larger analysis of sediment dynamics and mechanisms to collect sediment for restoration; nutria control eradication language in the WRDA authorization bill, with potential for several thousand acres of restoration, making this one

of the largest restoration projects in the country.

Mr. GILCHREST. One of the largest wetlands restoration projects

in the country?

30

Ms. THOMPSON. That is what it says. This is what I got from the

Corps.

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, must be right if it is from the Corps of Engineers.

[Laughter.]

Ms. THOMPSON. No, I don’t want to make any sort of estimation

of what their intent is, so I wanted to read to you what they actually sent me.

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, I guess if they can restore the Everglades,

with sugar cane, we can restore Blackwater without sugar cane.

Ms. THOMPSON. That is probably true.

Mr. GILCHREST. Who established—is it APHIS?—the type of compensation to the trappers? And was there ever a consideration in

using an incentive-based payment?

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes. Yes, there was.

Mr. GILCHREST. So did Maryland establish the compensation in

conjunction with USDA, Fish and Wildlife Service?

Ms. THOMPSON. Originally, way back when we first started talking about this in 1998, we wanted to work with APHIS. We talked

about incentive-based trapping at that time. And after dealing with

Dr. Gosling from Great Britain and talking back and forth, we collectively decided at that time that we didn’t want nutria to be

worth anything in the State of Maryland; we didn’t want a worthper-animal. It is too easy to bring them in.

Mr. GILCHREST. Oh.

Ms. THOMPSON. And giving trappers salary ensures that they are

working continuously toward a goal. And each nutria we have to

capture, as the population declines it gets harder and harder and

harder to do it.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.

Ms. THOMPSON. So the incentive to do it has to be made enormous, you know, to make them catch the final ones.

Mr. GILCHREST. Sure.

Ms. THOMPSON. So we decided to do this on a salary basis.

Mr. GILCHREST. OK. How big are the traps? How many nutria

can fit in a trap?

Ms. THOMPSON. One.

Mr. GILCHREST. Just one?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. And there are also colony traps, where they

can swim in and you can catch multiple catches of nutria in a single trap. But by and large, the Conabear trap and the foothold trap

are single-animal-per-trap.

Mr. GILCHREST. I would like to come down there some time. Are

they nocturnal, for the most part, nutria?

Mr. SULLIVAN. They are, but they are as likely to be seen during

the day.

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I know that sounds a little confusing. But they

are a nocturnal aquatic rodent, but at the population levels that

they are, you can see them just as readily during the day.

Mr. GILCHREST. What is their life span? How long do they live?

Ms. THOMPSON. Oh, it varies, but they don’t live much longer

than 5 years.

Mr. GILCHREST. So 5 years on the outside?

31

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes. They don’t live long. Short lives.

Mr. GILCHREST. Really?

Ms. THOMPSON. Depending on the weather, you know. Like this

winter was so nice that they are all—

Mr. GILCHREST. There are a lot of them out there now.

Ms. THOMPSON. There are a lot out there. They are all pregnant.

Mr. GILCHREST. Wow.

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes. The females, that is, yes.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. That is interesting.

Mr. Underwood, any further comments or questions?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I know both of you have referenced the British

experience a little bit. Is there anything we can learn from them,

other than what you have stated already, in terms of this, dealing

with nutria?

Ms. THOMPSON. The biggest lesson that they learned in England

was not to count their nutria before they were sure that they were

all gone. Because they assumed at one point that they had eradicated nutria, not counting in the factor of weather. Nutria are very,

very sensitive to weather, and bad weather kills nutria.

So at the time that they thought they had captured all the nutria

in Great Britain, they had some very bad, severe winters. When

the weather cleared up, all of a sudden, they had nutria again. So

that was one of the things that they told us to beware of.

They also gave us a lot of advice about trying to measure variables in terms of seasons and reproductive physiology, reproductive

output. There was concern, and there still is some concern, that the

reproductive output of these animals would increase as the population declines; which we will be monitoring. We will continue to

monitor that, based on their findings. Those are some of the things

that they taught us.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. And they also counseled against an incentivebased program?

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes. Yes, because the cost of the final last

nutria, you can imagine, would be thousands and thousands of

dollars.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes.

Ms. THOMPSON. It would be very difficult to do it that way.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK.

Ms. THOMPSON. And you have to continue trapping several

months when there are no animals being trapped. So therefore,

there would be no incentive to do that.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Sounds like a socialist British model to me.

[Laughter.]

Ms. THOMPSON. Seemed to work, though.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Can a muskrat get in a nutria trap?

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, they can.

Mr. GILCHREST. Beaver?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. Several non-target animals. But the equipment that will be used will be as target-specific as possible; so that

if non-targets are captured, non-target animals can be released.

32

Mr. GILCHREST. The trap is set up so the nutria is going to be

trapped in the trap and he is not going to drown? So if a muskrat

or a beaver get in there, they are not going to drown?

Mr. SULLIVAN. That won’t be the case with every trap. There are

some traps—the Conabear trap, that is a lethal trap. And if it captures a muskrat or a nutria, that animal will be killed.

Mr. GILCHREST. Are all the nutria out of Great Britain now? As

you indicated, it sounds like there are some more left there.

Ms. THOMPSON. No.

Mr. GILCHREST. They are out?

Ms. THOMPSON. They are saying there are no more.

Mr. GILCHREST. They don’t have any more?

Ms. THOMPSON. They did several months of trapping when they

caught no animals; which is what they advised us to do, as I said.

So they have been trapping, and there are no animals. So that is

what they are basing their success on.

Mr. GILCHREST. Can nutria and beaver live compatibly near each

other?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. Yes. I have done a lot of work with beaver

and nutria in Mississippi, and to answer a previous question, they

do live compatibly together. And nutria will and have the ability

to disperse all throughout fresh water systems, as well. Because we

see a great deal of that throughout far inland areas in the State

of Mississippi.

Mr. GILCHREST. How about muskrat, nutria and muskrat? Can

they live compatibly with each other?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, they do.

Mr. GILCHREST. But don’t the nutria, because of their eating habits, so destroy the habitat that muskrats leave? Is that true?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Correct, yes. Their feeding strategies are such

that the muskrat isn’t hazardous to the marsh because of its feeding strategy. It grazes off the top. Whereas the nutria eats below,

eats the roots and the tubers of the marsh, fragments that, and allows it to float away. It destroys the marsh.

Mr. GILCHREST. So where you find nutria, you are not likely after

a while to find muskrat?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Not after this extensive nutria damage, no.

Mr. GILCHREST. How about beaver? Beaver would leave, too,

then?

Mr. SULLIVAN. The only experience I have had where nutria and

beaver live in unison is in fresh water systems, not in this brackish

marsh.

Mr. GILCHREST. And the beaver stay? Do the beaver stay?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, because the damage isn’t as extensive in a

fresh water system. The nutria damage is burrowing into the river

and stream banks, and they are not destroying the habitat of the

beaver. And the beaver and the nutria food are entirely different.

Mr. GILCHREST. What was that?

Mr. SULLIVAN. The beaver and the nutria food, they are eating

different resources.

Mr. GILCHREST. In some cases, beaver will eat, I don’t know, cattail or some type of grass other than wood, but they will eat seeds

and things like that?

Mr. SULLIVAN. They will, yes.

33

Mr. GILCHREST. But the grass that they eat is not the same?

Well, I guess if the nutria eat the tubers and the roots, would they

eat the same type of grass, or marsh grass or whatever you want

to call it, that the beaver would eat?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Do you know that?

Ms. THOMPSON. I don’t know. We could find out. I am not sure.

Mr. SULLIVAN. We could find out the feeding strategy of both

beaver and nutria in a marsh environment.

Mr. GILCHREST. Just curious.

Ms. THOMPSON. Sure.

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, is there anything else, Mr. Underwood?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. We are nutria-ed out.

Mr. GILCHREST. We are nutria-ed out, says the gentleman from

Guam.

Ms. Thompson and Mr. Sullivan, thank you very much for your

testimony. We appreciate your coming here this morning, and all

the work and effort you have put into this program.

Ms. THOMPSON. Thank you. Thank you for your support.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Our next panel is Mr. Joseph Satrom, Director

of Land Protection Programs, Great Plains Regional Office, Ducks

Unlimited; Mr. John Berry, Executive Director, National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation; and Mr. Gary Taylor, Legislative Director,

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH SATROM, DIRECTOR OF LAND

PROTECTION PROGRAMS, GREAT PLAINS REGIONAL

OFFICE, DUCKS UNLIMITED

Mr. SATROM. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Congressman

Underwood, and members of the Committee. My name is Joe

Satrom. I am the director of land protection, as you said, in the

Great Plains Office of Ducks Unlimited. I live in Bismarck, North

Dakota.

This is the third time that Ducks Unlimited has testified before

the House on the reauthorization of the North American Wetlands

Conservation Act. In the past, as part of our testimony we have

congratulated Congress on creating a program that is achieving

marvelous progress in helping to secure a habitat base to sustain

waterfowl populations despite the continuing pressures that we

have from both man and nature. You deserve commendation again

this time. The program is a tremendous success story, of which

Congress and the American people should be extremely proud.

Since its inception, support for the Act has been a bipartisan effort. That continues today. Right now in the Congress a letter of

support for funding NAWCA is being circulated. So far, it has attracted support from more than 210 House members, with strong

representation from both sides of the aisle. Since the last reauthorization, the Act has continued with its tradition of amazing

progress and tangible results. There are now over 1,000 NAWCA

projects, located in nearly every state, as well as in Canada and

Mexico.

Despite this progress, the need for NAWCA continues. Based on

below-average rain last year and the lack of snowfall this winter,

34

it is likely that it will not be a good summer for waterfowl production in many of the key areas. Pond counts will likely be down, and

nesting production will suffer.

The most important component that drives population increases

and decreases is Mother Nature. If rain comes at the right time

across the prairies and the northern Great Plains, the duck

factories of North America will contain nearly ideal conditions for

waterfowl to breed and migrate south in the fall. When Mother Nature provides moisture, the projects created, thanks to NAWCA, fill

with water, mitigating possible downstream flooding and providing

our fall skies with the flights of waterfowl that we all are familiar

with and appreciate. The Act continues to work. Over the life of the program, $432 million in NAWCA funds have generated $1.2 billion in partner

funds, to do impressive projects, badly needed projects. Despite the

appropriations increases we have seen in the last few years, there

are still 130 projects that were not able to be funded last year.

These projects would have used $24 million in additional NAWCA

funds, and would have contained another $71 million in pledged

partner monies.

In order to respond to that proven interest demonstrated by

these unfunded projects, we ask that you increase the authorization ceiling for fiscal year ’03 funding for NAWCA by $5 million, to $55 million total; and then increase it incrementally by $5 million each of the next four following years, up to a total of $75 million in authorized spending in Fiscal Year ’07. This is a prudent

approach to increasing funding that will move us beyond our current level of accomplishment of our goals, of 38 percent of our

goals, which is where we stand today.

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan has set a goal

of sustaining 100 million ducks in the fall flight. It laid out a strategy to achieve this migration goal by providing critical landscape

habitat for waterfowl to use. Because of the migratory nature of the

birds the Act was designed to benefit, it is important to invest in

habitat across the length of the continent. The Act requires that a

portion of the funds be invested in each of the three countries of

North America. In fact, it requires that 50 to 70 percent of the

funds authorized in this bill be spent in Canada and Mexico.

While that has worked well, the highest demand for projects and

the highest number of non-funded projects have been here in the

United States. Additionally, for projects within Canada, the Act

has required that the match for those funds come from within the

U.S. While the increase in appropriations has been beneficial—and

it still doesn’t meet demand—it has tested the ability of U.S. partners to meet this additional requirement of providing the match for

Canadian projects.

Therefore, we ask you to amend the ratio in the Act to require

that the portion of these funds spent outside the U.S. change to 25

to 50 percent. This will allow the Wetlands Council and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, that approve the projects, to

balance the ability of required partner dollars against the related

need.

The NAWCA program has a impressive track record of success.

We are proud of that success, because we are very experienced with

35

this Act, and have been actively and enthusiastically supportive

since the beginning. We have witnessed its accomplishments. The

changes we propose are not done lightly, however. We believe they

are important for the future success of NAWCA.

We thank the bill’s sponsor, Chairman Hansen, and the

Committee, for their past support, and encourage their continued

enthusiastic commitment. We thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the

members of the Subcommittee, for inviting us to testify today. And

we congratulate the Congress again on the tremendous success of

this program. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you

have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Satrom follows:]

Statement of Joseph A. Satrom, Director of Land Protection Programs,

Great Plains Regional Office, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., on H.R. 3908

This is the third time Ducks Unlimited has testified before the House on the reauthorization of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. In the past as part

of our testimony, we have congratulated Congress on creating a program that is

achieving marvelous progress in helping to secure a habitat base to sustain waterfowl populations despite the continuing pressures created by man and nature. This

habitat base is especially important in the periods when the primary waterfowl production areas of the continent are drier than normal and every piece of habitat becomes precious for sustaining birds that breed on the prairies. Unfortunately that

may be the case with the summer we’re heading into. You deserve commendation

again, the program is a success story of which Congress and the American people

should be proud.

Since its inception, support for the Act has been a bipartisan effort. That continues today. Right now a letter in support of funding for the NAWCA program is

being circulated in the House. So far it’s attracted support from over 185 House

members with strong representation from both sides of the aisle. Those co-signers

include more than half of the Resources Committee. This bipartisan effort over the

years is one of the great conservation success stories in American history.

Since the last reauthorization, the Act has continued with its tradition of amazing

progress and tangible results. There are now over 1000 NAWCA projects located in

nearly every state as well as Canada and Mexico. Despite this progress, the need

for NAWCA continues. Based on below average rain last year and lack of precipitation this winter, it likely will not be a good summer for waterfowl production in the

key areas. Pond counts will likely be down and nesting production will suffer. The

most important component that drives population increases and decreases is Mother

Nature. If rain comes at the right times across the prairies and the northern great

plains; the ‘‘duck factories’’ of North America will contain nearly ideal conditions for

waterfowl to breed and migrate south in the fall. The projects created thanks to

NAWCA fill with water mitigating possible downstream flooding and then fill the

fall skies with birds. But it’s during dry years like the one we think is coming that

the North American Wetlands Conservation Act perhaps plays its most critical role,

since every square foot of wet ground is precious then, and having habitat in key

places becomes essential to sustain the population.

The Act continues to work. Year after year it is demonstrated that the demand

is there. Over the life of the program, $432 million in NAWCA funds have generated

$1.2 billion in partner funds. Despite the impressive appropriations increases we’ve

seen in the last few years, in the last two years over 130 projects were unable to

be funded. They could have used $24 million in NAWCA funds and they contained

another $71 million pledged in partner support. In order to respond to that proven

interest we ask that you increase the authorization ceiling for Fiscal Year 1903 by

$5 million to $55 million and then increase it by $5 million per year, up to $75 million in Fiscal Year 1907.

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan set a goal of sustaining100 million ducks in the fall flight. It laid out a strategy to achieve the migration goal by

providing critical landscape habitat for the ducks to use. This Act is the primary

vehicle for reaching the North American Plan’s goal. As other interests in the conservation world have witnessed the success realized under this Plan, parallel plans

for other bird species have been devised and are being implemented. There have

been plans developed to conserve species that use wet habitats, like shorebirds, and

colonial nesting water birds and those species are well served by NAWCA.

36

On occasion there has been some confusion about how broad the intent NAWCA

is to be interpreted. We ask the Committee to make changes that would clarify the

Wetlands Conservation Act should focus on wetland and related habitats. This is

especially appropriate since some plans and laws have been developed to that serve

species whose habitats are often of a primarily upland nature, unrelated to

wetlands. Those initiatives and the related Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation

Act serves many birds but their principal habitats are not use wetland habitats.

Since that Act is now being funded to serve upland habitats, we believe references

to migratory birds and wildlife in the NAWCA law should clarify the intent to focus

on needs in wetland and associated habitats.

Because of the migratory nature of the birds the Act was designed to benefit, it

is important to invest in habitat across the length of the continent. Therefore the

Act requires that a portion of these funds be invested in each of the three countries

of North America. In fact it requires that 50–70% of the funds authorized in this

bill be spent in Canada and Mexico. While that has worked well, the highest demand for projects and highest number of non-funded projects has always been in

the U.S. Additionally, for projects within Canada the Act requires that the match

come from within the U.S. While the increase in appropriations has been beneficial

and still doesn’t meet demand, it has tested the ability of U.S. partners to meet the

required match for Canadian projects. Therefore we ask that you amend the ratio

in the Act to require that the portion of these funds spent outside the U.S. change

to 25–50%. This will allow the Wetlands Council and Migratory Bird Conservation

Commission that approves the projects to balance the ability of required partner

dollars against the need.

The NAWCA program has an impressive track record of success. We are proud

of that success because we are very experienced with this Act having been actively

supportive since the beginning and witnessing it’s accomplishments. The changes we

propose are not done lightly. We believe they are important for future success of

the NAWCA program. We thank the bill’s sponsor, Chairman Hansen and the Committee for their support of the program. We thank you Mr. Chairman and members

of the Subcommittee for inviting us to testify today and we again congratulate Congress on the success of this program. We stand ready to answer any questions.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Satrom. We have a

vote going on. And rather than stop and have everybody wait for

a long time, because there are three votes, I will ask Mr. Underwood to take the Chair.

And if I don’t make it back for the questions, the question that

I have had that maybe all three of you can answer is, if you all

agree with the $5 million increase in this year’s authorization—I

guess I would be surprised if you didn’t—do you all agree with

amending the ratio down to 20 to 50 percent, instead of where it

is right now? And are conservation mechanisms employed in

Mexico sufficient to ensure a long-term conservation?

Thank you very much, Mr. Satrom, Mr. Berry, and Mr. Taylor.

And the Chair is now Mr. Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. [Presiding.] Thank you.

Mr. Berry?

STATEMENT OF JOHN BERRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

MR. BERRY. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. And Mr. Chairman, just

before Chairman Gilchrest leaves, if I could also extend an invitation. Mr. Gilchrest, Paul Tudor Jones, who is on our board, who

owns the Tudor Farms project that you are talking about with the

nutria, I know would be honored to host you there, if your schedule

ever allows.

Mr. GILCHREST. I would be very happy.

Mr. BERRY. So we will keep in touch on that. That would be

wonderful.

37

Mr. GILCHREST. We had a little conflict about 10 years ago. But

all was forgiven.

Mr. BERRY. I think it is all working well now.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Underwood, it is an

honor to be here with you this morning. It is great to be here to

testify on behalf of this legislation, 3908. Though I am not allowed

specifically to testify, I don’t get involved in lobbying or advocacy,

I can speak to the substance of the legislation and the effectiveness

of this legislation. And second only to the legislation that created

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, I think this is one of

the greatest pieces of legislation that Congress has ever enacted.

It has been an incredible success story.

I am very honored and pleased to serve on the North American

Wetlands Conservation Council, which advises the Migratory Bird

Commission on the expenditure of these funds. And I serve on that

council with the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; representatives from the four state fish and game agencies that represent the four major migratory bird flyways; as well as three nonprofit representatives that change over the years, but currently

represented by Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, and the

Conservation Fund.

It is an incredible group. And the quality of the projects that

come in, I can testify to you, are second to none. They are outstanding. The match is incredible. The work done with them is

wonderful. And it has made a significant, positive contribution to

the protection of wetlands, waterfowl species, and waterfowl habitat throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

Since our time is short, you know, I have the written testimony

which I would give you for the record. And Senator Satrom has already explained to you the incredible match, the number of projects

that have been funded over the years. So rather than reiterate

that, I would just add two quick points.

One, I would strongly support the question that the Chairman

asked about, do you agree with the additional authorization? Absolutely. The need is there. There is no question that, despite all of

the efforts—both this effort, all of the state efforts, all of the NGO

efforts—we are still losing ground on the wetlands issue. And the

need is intense.

As our population increases, as the pressures increase, those

wetland areas are under enormous stress. And I believe that the

proposal that Senator Satrom and Ducks Unlimited put forward

this morning makes great sense, in terms of increasing the resources that would be available over the extension of this authorization. Because I believe they could be very wisely applied through

this process.

Second, and this is something in which I do not represent the

North American Wetlands Council on this position, but this is just

my own personal insight in terms of our experience with this program. And that is, the program as it is now written is limited to

Canada and Mexico. And I would really encourage the Committee

to examine and think about expanding the scope of the program to

be essentially Latin America, the Caribbean; to include that along

with Mexico.

38

A number of these waterfowl migratory populations don’t recognize political boundaries. And I really believe that in terms of seeking to move the ball forward on all of these areas, I don’t think we

should try to limit ourselves to political boundaries, either. And so

I think broadening the scope to be hemispheric in nature, that

would allow the Council and the Migratory Bird Commission to

really consider projects that would best benefit the species, I think

is really in the interests of the resource.

So with those two recommendations, Mr. Chairman, I will yield

back, and be available for questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berry follows:]

Statement of John Berry, Executive Director,

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am John Berry, Executive Director of the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation. Thank you for your invitation to

speak to the Committee today to offer our comments and views on the North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act. This bill, in its essence, proposes

to extend authorization of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act from

2003 to 2007, while maintaining the authorized funding level at $50 million. I applaud the Committee for considering this reauthorization, for it recognizes the critical importance of a piece of legislation that is widely considered one of the most

effective habitat conservation instruments available today for migratory birds and

other wildlife. I want to stress the importance of the current Act and its impressive

accomplishments while also offering the Committee an opportunity to consider a few

critically important concerns facing the conservation of birds.

In my current position, I have the distinct privilege of serving as a permanent

member of the North American Wetlands Conservation Council, an advisory group

serving the overall purposes of the Act and recommending habitat conservation

projects for approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. I must pay

due note to the other members of the Council—the Director of the Fish & Wildlife

Service, four Directors of State Fish & Game agencies representing each of the four

migratory bird flyways, and three senior representatives from non-profit charitable

organizations actively involved in habitat conservation—for it is in the strength of

this advisory body that the Act enjoys much of its success. My position also entrusts

me to carry out the purpose of the Foundation, which is centered on conservation

through effective and diverse partnerships and funding support through challenge

grants. Our partners include Federal agencies, corporations, and Non-government

organizations. For many years the Foundation has made migratory bird conservation a key priority, and continues to do so in diverse ways, including long term support of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, helping stimulate and expand Partners in Flight, and working hand-in-glove with the Migratory Bird Conservancy.

With that said Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you my impressions and experiences with the Act and the activities of the Council. I recall the history of the Act,

passed in 1989, as a bold and ambitious commitment made by the Congress largely

in response to helping to provide essential financial resources for the nascent North

American Waterfowl Management Plan, amongst other important purposes. The Act

put a face on the Waterfowl Plan and its international and regionally-based Joint

Venture partnerships. To this day the Act is viewed by the Joint Venture partners

as their principal conservation tool for implementing critical habitat projects identified by partners, and the Council relies much on the opinions of Joint Venture members in our deliberations on project selection. We have experienced with the Act and

the Plan, in just a little more than a decade, a new way of doing business, one firmly rooted in collaboration, science, and funding commitment. We have also witnessed

a piece of legislation that, due to the creative design of its authors, has been able

to meet many of the emerging needs of migratory birds in North America. Meeting

these needs is illustrated by the wide acceptance of the Act in helping to implement

not only the Waterfowl Plan but other bird conservation plans, including Partners

in Flight, North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, all of which emphasize the importance of habitat conservation. All

of these partnerships are established with internationally acclaimed conservation organizations, National conservation departments, State and Provincial fish and game

39

agencies, and numerous watershed and community-based groups focused in local

areas. Mr. Chairman, as one who has oversight of a major conservation grants program,

I can say without any hesitation that the habitat matching grants offered by the

Act, or ‘‘NAWCA as it is frequently known, are a huge success. Since 1989, the Act

has sponsored nearly 1,000 separate projects, large and small, that in total have involved well over 5,000 separate organizations or agencies. And those statistics provide a clear glimpse of the true value of this law, the protection and restoration of

well over eight million acres of wetlands and associated uplands in the United

States and Canada; and we are closing in on nearly a half million acres in Mexico.

As you may know, Mr. Chairman, NAWCA projects must support long-term

wetlands acquisition, restoration, and/or enhancement and partners must minimally

match the grant request at a 1-to–1 ratio. This match requirement is a critical

strength of the Act. For the Act’s Standard Grants, more than $460 million has been

invested through the Act since 1991, and I understand that total partner contributions have amounted to more than $1.3 billion. That is a staggering amount of partner support. Additionally, the Council has for many years also hosted a Small

Grants program which I have personally been very supportive of for its ability to

generate new partners from diverse backgrounds. My experience with this effort as

well as Small Grant programs the Foundation has, such as our program for the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed, is that grants can be designed in many ways to meet

specific needs. The Wetlands Act’s grants meet many needs internationally, from expansive landscapes to small farm habitats. NAWCA Small Grants are awarded for

up to $50,000, and several hundred individual partners have been involved in over

160 projects across the United States. Since 1996, when this initiative was begun,

over $6.6 million has been provided by the Act, which has leveraged an incredible

$50 million in partner support. In my relatively short tenure with the Wetlands

Council, I can only say that I am deeply impressed with the capability of this Act

to conserve habitat at a general rate of one to three in Federal/non–Federal dollars.

That is a clear financial investment for the Federal government. My being able to

participate as a Council member in this dynamic program, and weighing-in, so-tospeak, on deciding which projects are the best of the best, is an invigorating and

challenging experience, one I sincerely appreciate.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see recent increases in appropriated funding for

the Act. Appropriations had been modest throughout the 1990s, never peaking beyond $15 million. In Fiscal Year 2001, however, Congress appropriated a $40 million, and this fiscal year, Fiscal Year 2002, Congress appropriated $43.5 million,

both of which are notable successes. Fortunately, for Fiscal Year 2003, the President

has requested $43.560 million, showing a continued commitment in light of some

very urgent needs facing the country at this time. With the other sources of revenue

for the Act, there has been, over the past 2 years alone, an annual average of $75

million. That level of funding is impressive, and as a Council member have been

pleased to have that level of funding available for funding projects. It is prudent

to observe though, that in those two years, after NAWCA awards had been granted,

there remained over 130 unfunded projects needing $24 million in Act support. Most

important is the $71 million in committed partner support that was not used because there simply was not enough Act funding to meet partner commitments.

Mr. Chairman, as stated in my introduction, I would like now to offer brief description of two concerns that flow from my preceding remarks that need thoughtful

and deliberate consideration by this Committee, both of which center, once again,

on habitat for birds. The concerns are funding and geographic scope. Birds in the

United States are world travelers and they need quality habitat in non-fragmented

areas throughout their migratory range, which often spans thousands of miles and

many countries. More than half of the 800 bird species in North America depend

on wetlands for survival. Biologists are concerned about 200 of these species including 72 that are wetlands-dependent and are already on the endangered list. The Act

serves to guard against further decline, helping to meet critical habitat needs not

only in the United States but in their Canadian breeding grounds and Mexican wintering sites. There remains an immense need for habitat conservation, a need that

dwarfs available funds provided by the Act. Clearly, funding support over the past

years through the Act and other vehicles has been refreshing and essential. But the

challenge is daunting. Even with all the attention wetlands have received over the

past several decades through a vast assortment of regulatory and non-regulatory

mechanisms, they continue to decline. Grassland habitat surrounding wetlands are

essential to wetland species and upland species alike, and they have only recently

received due attention for protection and restoration. To even begin to meet the

needs of these hundreds of species of birds that rely in whole or in part on wetlands,

the funding level of the Act would need to rise by a magnitude or more.

40

My second concern, Mr. Chairman, is geographic scope. People orient around political boundaries, birds do not. Now more than ever, it is appropriate and necessary

for migratory bird conservation to reach a new level of influence, one that is biologically and geographically meaningful. The inability of the Act to serve species

that reside in the United States in all of their habitats internationally is, in my

opinion, a serious impediment. This topic has been discussed extensively by Council

members, and there are many words of caution and concern about stretching funding resources too thin. Nevertheless, I am convinced that extending the influence

of the Act to all of Latin America and the Carribean would be a significant and

laudable achievement, particularly if done with acute sensitivity to the concern for

funding already expressed. There is an urgent need to work closely and diligently

with our neighbors throughout the Western Hemisphere to advance conservation of

habitat in critical areas. Mr. Chairman, nearly 65 million Americans recreationally

enjoy migratory birds in the United States alone, nearly one in four citizens. We

believe the Act can be further strengthened to greatly benefit our migratory bird

resource throughout their range.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, NAWCA is unquestionably one of the most highly

recognized and appreciated conservation tools available in the U.S., Canada, and

Mexico, and my observations as a Council member crystalize on that salient finding.

It is a model conservation instrument that can continue to meet some extreme challenges, and could evolve into an even farther reaching instrument with select modifications I discussed. Thank you again Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to speak

about my experience with the Act. This concludes my prepared statement. I will be

pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Berry.

Mr. Taylor.

STATEMENT OF GARY J. TAYLOR, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

AGENCIES

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Gary Taylor, Legislative Director of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies. And we appreciate the opportunity to share with you the

perspectives of the association on H.R. 3908, a bill to reauthorize

the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.

As you know, all 50 state fish and wildlife agencies are members

of the association. And we do sincerely appreciate the chance to

share with you some of the many successes of this truly landmark

and landscape-level conservation law.

The association strongly and enthusiastically supports

H.R. 3908. Wetlands conservation is important to all of us. Many

scientific studies have shown that coastal and inland wetlands are

crucial to the health of our environment. Wetlands provide for both

fish and wildlife conservation needs, and for the quality of life for

our citizens, in providing such things as improving water quality,

enhancing water storage, mitigating flooding and erosion, and providing wildlife habitat.

In providing habitat for a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plant

species, wetlands support numerous recreational and commercial

activities. The value of wetlands for a wide variety of important

reasons cannot be understated, nor underestimated.

Since its enactment in 1989, the Act has been extraordinarily

successful. It has contributed to the protection, restoration, and enhancement of millions of acres of wetlands and adjacent buffer

areas for the benefit of wetland-dependent wildlife and the people

who enjoy them.

41

Based on a cooperative, voluntary, non-regulatory approach, the

Act engages the Federal Government in partnerships which include

local and state agencies, conservation groups, businesses, sporting

groups, land owners, private citizens, ranchers, farmers, and communities, in habitat conservation endeavors.

While I won’t repeat for you the successes that have already been

articulated here about the Act, let me point out to you that all of

these endeavors have provided significant economic benefits, often

in rural communities, since migratory bird hunters and bird watchers generate almost $21 billion per year in secondary economic impact.

As others mentioned, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, one of the important programs supported by the Act,

is an effort to rebuild the North American waterfowl populations

by establishing population objectives and protecting key wetland

habitat areas. As you are aware, the states were one of the original

supporters of the plan, and subsequently the act.

Approximately 8.7 million acres have been conserved in Canada,

the United States, and Mexico, under the plan and the Act,

through a system of joint ventures. Bringing together joint venture

area-wide conservation and management for the first time, the

plan has been used for a model for other migratory bird species

plans, such as those for shore birds, water birds, Partners in

Flight, and other related conservation programs which are being

formulated and delivered on a national and international level.

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative, which is cochaired by the association’s president and the director of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, seeks to promote and deliver all bird

conservation programs, primarily through the joint venture system.

The association urges you to ensure reauthorization of the Act at

its current $50 million level of funding authority for an additional

5 years. This would indicate a continuing commitment to wetlands

conservation, and allow for potential growth in appropriations

which have recently been increasing. Annual requests for Act

grants, as others have pointed out, continue to exceed available

funding.

Finally, we would also like to recognize and commend the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission and the North American Wetlands Conservation Council on a job very well done in implementing the Act. These bodies are charged with the responsibilities

of ensuring that projects approved are consistent with the Act, and

that an appropriate distribution and diversity of wetlands ecosystems are secured, restored, and enhanced.

Mr. Chairman, as others have observed, the Act has been singularly successful in its contribution to wetlands conservation.

There are few programs that can boast of their success like this

one. It is quite simply a unique program which is also wholeheartedly endorsed by the state fish and wildlife agencies.

Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspectives with

you. And I would be pleased to address any questions.**

[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]

42

Statement of Gary J. Taylor, Legislative Director,

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, on H.R. 3908

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to share with you the perspectives of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies on HR 3908, a bill to reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). I am Gary Taylor, Legislative Director of the Association.

We sincerely appreciate the chance to share with you some of the many successes

of this truly landmark and landscape-level conservation law.

The Association, founded in 1902, is a quasi-governmental organization of public

agencies charged with the protection and management of North America’s fish and

wildlife resources. The Association, whose government members include the fish and

wildlife agencies of all fifty states, has been instrumental for nearly a century in

promoting sound resource management and strengthening Federal, state and provincial cooperation in this area.

The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies strongly and enthusiastically supports HR 3908 for a number of reasons. Wetlands conservation is important to us all. As you know, while the rate of decline has slowed, the fact remains that we continue to lose wetlands in North America. Of the estimated original 221 million acres of wetlands, there are now about 5.1 million acres of saltwater

wetlands remaining and about 95.8 million acres of freshwater wetlands. Many scientific studies have shown that coastal and inland wetlands are crucial to the health

of our environment. The loss of wetlands impacts both human and conservation values: for example, water quality, water storage, flooding, erosion and wildlife habitat.

Wetlands provide habitat for a diversity of fish, wildlife and plant species, which

in turn support numerous recreational and commercial activities. The value of

wetlands for a wide variety of important reasons cannot be understated or underestimated.

Since its enactment in 1989, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act has

been extraordinary successful. It has contributed to the protection, restoration and

enhancement of millions of acres of wetlands and adjacent (buffer) areas for the benefit of wetland dependent wildlife and the people who enjoy them.

The Association enthusiastically supports HR 3908, and the funding authorization

level of $50 million for each of Fiscal Years 2003 through 2007. We appreciate the

support of Chairman Hansen for introducing HR 3908, and yourself for scheduling

this reauthorization hearing. We truly believe that this is an excellent example of

the application of an ecosystem or landscape perspective management approach to

conservation of our natural resources.

Based on a cooperative, voluntary, non-regulatory approach NAWCA engages the

Federal Government in partnerships which include local and state agencies, conservation groups, businesses, sporting groups, landowners, private citizens, ranchers, farmers and communities, to name a few. Within the United States, since 1991

over $462 million in Act funds have been matched by over $1.3 billion from partners. The return on the Federal investment under this program has been remarkable as demonstrated by the fact that projects funded under NAWCA have been

matched by over 3 to 1 by partner contributions. In the United States, 630 projects

have been funded, at least one in every state. This has provided significant economic

benefits, often in rural communities, since migratory bird hunters and bird watchers

generate almost $21 billion per year in economic impact. This exemplary program

offers outstanding returns on the Federal investment in wetlands ecosystem conservation. Since 1991 over 1,500 partners have been involved in Act supported

projects.

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), one of the important programs supported by the NAWCA, is an effort to rebuild North American waterfowl populations by establishing population objectives and protecting key wetland

habitat areas. As you are aware, the States were one of the original supporters of

the NAWMP and subsequently NAWCA. Since migratory waterfowl are a shared

international resource, Federal, state, provincial and private organizations are cooperating internationally to fund and implement wetland conservation projects. Approximately 8.7 million acres have been conserved in Canada, the United States and

Mexico. The NAWMP has united different economic sectors, for example, forestry,

agriculture and wildlife conservationists in an unprecedented degree of trust and cooperation.

Bringing together joint venture area wide conservation and management for the

first time, the NAWMP has been used as a model for other migratory bird and species plans such as those for shorebirds, waterbirds, Partners In Flight and other related conservation programs which are being formulated and delivered on a national

and international level. The North American Bird Conservation Initiative, coVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:15 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78661.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
43

chaired by the Association’s president and the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife

Service, seeks to promote and deliver all bird conservation programs primarily

through the joint venture system. As mandated by the Act, the NAWMP is currently

being updated by the Plan partners for 2003 and its continued success depends in

large part on the funding which NAWCA provides.

A number of wetland dependent species, including shorebirds, neotropical migrants, wading birds, fish and shellfish, reptiles, amphibians and threatened and

endangered species have also benefitted from the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and North American Waterfowl Management Plan.

Progress has been made in wetland conservation under NAWCA but we must increase our efforts to ensure that adequate habitat is available for waterfowl and

other important fish and wildlife species during the next drought cycle which may

be upon us once more. All indicators are pointing in that direction: little water

storage from the Fall, a warm Winter with little precipitation and a dry, warm

Spring. NAWCA/NAWMP projects may be the only refuge for those species and

could well ensure their survival during a period of drought.

In summary, wetland restoration, protection and conservation provides an important and diverse array of long-term environmental, social and economic benefits to

the citizens of the United States. Let us not lose the momentum we have now

gained with our willing conservation partners.

The Association urges you to ensure the reauthorization of NAWCA at its current

$50 million level of funding authority. This would indicate a continuing commitment

to wetlands conservation and allow for potential growth in appropriations which

have recently been increasing. Annual requests for NAWCA grants continue to exceed available funding. If funding is reduced for NAWCA it will impact negatively

on a number of sectors including the economy and state fish and wildlife programs.

The International also supports authorization for a period of five years. The original 1989 version of the Act and its reauthorization in 1994 retained a 5-year time

frame. An authorization period of 5 years would also be in keeping with updates

to the NAWMP.

I also want to recognize and commend the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission and the North American Wetlands Conservation Council on a job very well

done. These bodies are charged with the responsibilities of ensuring that projects

approved are consistent with the Act and that an appropriate distribution and diversity of wetland ecosystems are secured, restored and enhanced. By their very nature

wetland ecosystems are dynamic and extremely diverse across landscapes. So, too,

must be their management. The Act provides the necessary domestic and international flexibility to ensure that the most appropriate wetland ecosystem management options are available. To be overly prescriptive would minimize the Act’s effectiveness.

Mr. Chairman, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act has been singularly successful in its contribution to wetlands conservation. There are few programs that can boast of their success like this one. It is a unique program, which

is wholeheartedly endorsed by the state fish and wildlife agencies.

Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspectives with you, and I would

be happy to address any questions you might have.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, thank you for all of your testimonies.

And of course, they appear to be all in strong support of this important piece of legislation. And I appreciate the comments made

about the value of this approach; at the same time, understanding

that perhaps we are not preserving as much wetlands, even under

this legislation, as we conceivably could.

Just to make sure that we address some of the Chairman’s concerns, the Chairman raised a couple of concerns that I want perhaps all of you to respond to. One is the general state of conservation in Mexico, and just to enlighten the Committee about that;

and also, the issue of the ratio of expenditures in Canada, as opposed to other areas.

Mr. SATROM. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ducks Unlimited

has programs in both Canada and Mexico. And we are in communication with them. I am not prepared to talk about the infrastructure of Mexico specifically, as much as to say that it is certainly

44

an important program for our organization. And we believe that it

can be grown, and that this adjustment in the distribution guideline or ratio is an important recognition that with our problems in

this country, in our minds, there is a window of opportunity and

also a real threat, a continuing threat, to wetlands. So we favor

that distribution.

Similarly, we are providing the match for these monies. And we

believe that by incrementally growing the amount of money authorized, we will continue to be able to grow both Canada’s and

Mexico’s, and support what is that priority of meeting U.S. needs.

I think, last, I want to just say from that my background in public life, from years ago, really NAWCA has demonstrated its true

uniqueness. At the state level we looked for ways to find partnerships across state borders, and again across international borders— North Dakota shares a border with Canada. This program is

unique, I think, in that it allows us to do that, without the complications of multi-state agreements and international agreements.

And I would say that from that standpoint, we have the ability to,

I think, even be more creative than perhaps was envisioned when

it started. Thank you.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Very good.

Mr. Berry?

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On your first question

about Mexico, on the council, I have now been on the council for

a year and a half, and in just seeing and reviewing the proposals

that have started to come in from Mexico recently—and I believe

my council members would agree with me on this—they have gotten better and better.

Originally, there was not much infrastructure, there was not

much organization on the ground, and it was a slow start. I think

they have significantly improved in recent years. The North American Wetlands Council, in fact, in recognition of that, we are going

to be going down in December and having our December meeting

in Mexico, so that we can work with a number of the president’s

new councils. There is strong interest in Mexico. And I think that

that program has only positive things in front of it. In other words,

my hope is that it is going to get brighter and brighter.

On the second issue on the ratio, and it is not to disagree with

the position that Ducks Unlimited and the center has advanced,

but I think what I would recommend to you is a little bit broader,

and more flexibility.

Right now, I mean, the current statute provides 50 percent

United States, 45 for Canada, 5 percent for Mexico. I think, rather

than spelling out the formula, you know, I think I endorse the notion of going with the flexible approach. But rather than maybe 25-

50, what I think I would like to see is maximum flexibility for the

advisory council and for the Migratory Bird Commission to have.

And I think the way you do that is maybe, rather than 25-50, a

30-70 type of thing, that gives you a range.

If we had a great year and there was lots of money, then you

would end up with being able to do more than you otherwise might.

But that may not always be the case. There might be a down year

with appropriations. And I think providing for that notion, that

would give the council the flexibility to respond to both up years

45

and down years; and sort of having, you know, a 30 to 70 percent

sliding scale; maybe with requiring the advisory council and the

Migratory Bird Commission to report back regularly so that Congress could monitor how those funds were being expended. I think

that would be in the best interests of the resource.

Now, we have not discussed this on the advisory council yet, a

change in the ratio. I don’t believe Canada or Mexico have taken

a position on this yet officially. I know it is under discussion. So

the comments that I am making here are really just mine, as my

best advice to you from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,

and not as a formal recommendation from the North American

Wetlands Council.

But I think that flexibility is one that would serve both the Congress, the council, and the Migratory Bird Commission well.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Very good. Thank you for that suggestion.

Mr. Taylor?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. On the question of Mexico,

quite frankly, we have not seen enough projects from there to have

an informed assessment yet of the improvement in their quality. I

would hope the observations of my colleagues that suggest that

they are improving and that they will get better can be borne out.

You might find some better information coming from the Fish and

Wildlife Services’ Office of North American Wetlands Conservation

Management, that administers and oversees this. So that might be

an appropriate place to direct that question.

We can certainly support the proposed incremental increase in

the authorization over the 5 years of the life of the bill. On the

question of an adjustment to the range in the percentage of money

going to Canada and Mexico, quite frankly, while we believe this

warrants further consideration and discussion, we have not had

time to assess it on either its needs for the adjustment or its merits; and nor have we had time to discuss this with the leadership

in the state fish and wildlife agencies, to assess the particular

validity of this recommendation.

I think that can be done, and should be done, within both the

conservation community and with the governments of Canada and

Mexico, while the reauthorization process is occurring. But we don’t

have a position on it at this time.

Mr. GILCHREST. [Presiding.] Go ahead, Mr. Berry.

Mr. BERRY. If I could, Mr. Chairman, another reason I think that

30-70 is good is I think it also would allow you to pick the best

project from the best place in that year. And it may be in 1 year

that we have better proposals from Canada and Mexico than we

would in the U.S., and so it would make more sense to fund those

better projects that year. And in another year, you might have

more, conversely, in the United States, and you would want to fund

those. And so I think that range would allow you to do that.

I think also, by having a 30-70, as opposed to a 25-50, under the

25-50 formula, Canada and Mexico only see a down side in that.

I mean, they can’t get any better than what they have got now, and

they could get worse. And under a 30-70— Mr. GILCHREST. More incentive.

Mr. BERRY. —there may be an up year and there may be a down

year, but it would be based on the quality of the projects in front

46

of the council and the commission. So that is why I think that 30-

70 might make some more sense.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, Mr. Berry, you have expressed two ideas

which I know are going to invite comment: this flexible ratio, and

the expansion beyond into the Caribbean and the rest of Latin

America.

Mr. Satrom?

Mr. SATROM. Yes. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Canada has re- ceived $165 million since the inception of Federal NAWCA dollars,

not including the partnership dollars. That indicates a major funding stream.

And we certainly are committed. Our organization only raised

money for the purposes of sending it to Canada until 1984, so we

certainly want to be supportive programmatically of what is appropriate. At the same time, we see the need to really address this diminishing wetland base and the need for more programs in the

U.S.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. What about the idea of expanding it to the

Caribbean and the rest of Latin America? Do you have any reaction

to that, Mr. Satrom and Mr. Taylor?

Mr. SATROM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We want to compliment

the Congress on passing the Tropical Migratory Bird Act. We think

that is a beginning and deals with many of the issues of Central

America, and want to see the funding levels there address these

issues. We think the focus on Canada and the U.S. are appropriate

at this time.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Taylor?

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I think in the context of the remarks

I made about looking at the protocol created under the North

American, to begin to assess how we are going to deliver conservation initiatives for all birds, we need to continue to look at whether

the North American Act, along with the Neo-Tropical Migratory

Bird Conservation Act, or yet maybe even additional enabling legislation, would be the most appropriate in order to provide a delivery

mechanism for conservation objectives outside of either the geographic scope or the species or habitat constraints of those two

laws.

So I mean, we are not prepared to give a thumbs-up or a

thumbs-down on the expansion of the North American Act right

now to the Caribbean. But it is, again, a consideration I think that

the conservation community is engaged in deliberations over in

what are the appropriate mechanisms to provide for conservation

needs for habitats and species in those ecosystems.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Berry?

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I sure appreciate your being so generous with the time.

I would want to make very clear that when I ask for this expansion, I clearly would support and would continue to support on the

Wetlands Council the strong prioritization for Canada and Mexico.

But I guess my point is, there are some species that don’t stop at

those boundaries. Green-winged Teal are an example, that winter

in Central America.

And it just seems to me we ought to keep open the option of supporting waterfowl in their habitats wherever they are. In other

47

words, I am not talking about specific ratios for the Caribbean, or

specific for LAC; but it would be very nice to have that option when

those good projects come along, to have the flexibility to be able to

consider them.

Right now we are structured such that we have to stop at that

boundary. And I really think, clearly, both I and, I am sure, my

council members, will continue a strong priority and the central

focus on Canada and Mexico. Don’t get me wrong on that. But I

just think it would really be an added benefit for the council to be

able to consider outside of those boundaries, if it was a good

project.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. [Presiding.] Well, thank you for that clarification. I would hate to think of the controversy that we will generate

by taking some NAWCA dollars down into Cuba.

[Laughter.]

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Now, then we are talking about real political

boundaries.

Mr. BERRY. Yes.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, thank you for your testimony this morning. And certainly all of these ideas will be considered in the

record. Thank you very much.

Mr. SATROM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BERRY. Thank you.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. The meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[A statement submitted for the record by Perry Plumart, Director

of Government Relations, Audubon Society, on H.R. 4044 follows:]

Statement of Perry Plumart, Director of Government Relations,

Audubon Society, on H.R. 4044

On behalf of Audubon’s more than one million members and supporters, I urge

the Committee on Resources to support Congressman Wayne Gilchrest’s bill,

H.R. 4044, legislation to eradicate an invasive species called nutria that is damaging and destroying some of Maryland’s most precious and important wetland ecosystems. ‘‘Invasive species’’ is among the most polite terms one could use to describe

the nutria, a 30-pound South American rodent with long hairless tail and a pair of

grotesque orange teeth. A quick scan of news articles on the species reveals colorful

descriptions of the rodents ranging from ‘‘vile little beasts’’ to ‘‘big rats’’ to ‘‘fur cockroaches.’’ If they have found their way into marshlands, the best word to describe

them is this: evil.

Nutria devastate marsh by digging underneath and overturning marsh plants to

feed on their roots. Much of the marsh rests on a layer of fluid mud, which is

washed away easily by tidal currents. The cumulative effect of nutria damage and

rising sea level is a rapid conversion of emergent marsh to open water, which destroys the area’s value as habitat for birds and other wildlife.

Due primarily to the impact of invasive nutria, 7,000 of the 10,000 acres of marsh

within Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Maryland have been lost. The refuge

continues to lose between 500 and 1,000 acres of marsh each year to nutria damage.

Audubon is particularly concerned about the fate of the Black Rail, a small bird

that is a secretive inhabitant of salt and brackish marshes, wet meadows, and the

margins of freshwater wetlands. Dredging and filling of wetlands in Delaware,

Maryland and New Jersey has severely reduced the amount and quality of habitat

available for Black Rails. Due to these increasing threats to its habitat and a resulting downward population trend, the Black Rail is listed on Audubon’s WatchList of

birds that could be headed for extinction. As marshes are lost on Blackwater Refuge,

some of the few remaining quality habitat areas available for Black Rails are being

lost as well.

H.R. 4044 would authorize $20 million over the next five years that would be provided as grants by the Secretary of the Interior to the State of Maryland for proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:15 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78661.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
48

grams to control and eradicate invasive nutria. To address the serious threat that

invasive nutria pose to Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge and the birds and wildlife, such as the Black Rail, that it was established to protect, Audubon urges the

Committee on Resources to support H.R. 4044.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present our views on this important legislation.

Æ