U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–185 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1219 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING 

ITEMS: S. 373, A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 18, UNITED 

STATES CODE, TO INCLUDE CONSTRICTOR SNAKES; S. 

1519, NUTRIA ERADICATION AND CONTROL ACT OF 

2009; S. 1421, ASIAN CARP PREVENTION AND CONTROL 

ACT; S. 1965, FERAL SWINE ERADICATION AND CONTROL PILOT PROGRAM ACT OF 2009; H.R. 2188, JOINT 

VENTURES IN BIRD HABITAT CONSERVATION ACT OF 

2009; S. 1214, NATIONAL FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION 

ACT; H.R. 3537, JUNIOR DUCK STAMP CONSERVATION 

AND DESIGN PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 

2009; H.R. 3433, TO AMEND THE NORTH AMERICAN 

WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT; AND H.R. 509, MARINE 

TURTLE CONSERVATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 

2009 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 3, 2009 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

DECEMBER 3, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 1 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 3 

Levin, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan ................................ 5 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 88 

Nelson, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida, prepared statement 89 

WITNESSES 

Ashe, Dan, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................... 7 

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

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 22 

Mouton, Edmond C., Jr., Biologist Program Manager, Coastal and Nongame 

Resources, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries ............................ 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter ................................ 38 

Schwaab, Eric C., Deputy Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, on behalf of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies ................ 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 57 

Bendick, Robert L., Director, U.S. Government Relations, The Nature Conservancy ..................................................................................................................... 65 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 75 

Robertson, Gordon, Vice President, American Sportfishing Association ............ 79 

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

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 84 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Congressional statements .......................................................................................

U.S. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman .................................................................. 106 

U.S. Representative Solomon P. Ortiz ............................................................ 107 

U.S. Representative Robert J. Wittman ......................................................... 108 

Articles ......................................................................................................................

Anchorage Daily News, August 1, 2008, Nine teens help restore habitat ... 111 

Cumberland Times-News, June 5, 2008, $1.2 million project could breathe 

life into Aaron Run ....................................................................................... 113 

ESPN.com, September 4, 2009, National Fish Habitat Conservation Act ... 115 

HamptonRoads.com, retrieved July 27, 2009, Marsh plants get room to 

grow on Roanoke Sound ............................................................................... 117 

The Orlando Sentinel, November 27, 2009, Slithering toward crises .......... 119 

The Palm Beach Post, December 2, 2009, Keep snakes off the planes ........ 121 

Pennsylvania Outdoor News.com .................................................................... 122 

Post-Gazette Now, October 19, 2008, Fishing: Bringing brookies back 

to one of America’s ‘10 Waters to Watch’ .................................................... 124 

The Post-Searchlight.com, May 29, 2009, Striped bass habitat in Flint 

to be restored ................................................................................................. 127 

SmallTownPapers News Service, May 6, 2008, Trout Run is ‘Water to 

Watch’ ............................................................................................................ 129 
Page

IV 

Articles—Continued 

tampabay.com, December 30, 2008, Fortifying the shore: MacDill calls 

in oyster reinforcements ............................................................................... 131 

The Nature Conservancy, April 2009, The National Fish Habitat Action 

Plan: A Partnership Approach to Protect and Restore Fish Populations 136 

TNV Outdoors, July 8, 2009, SADLER: Protecting habitats a priority ....... 139 

The Tribune-Democrat, May 19, 2009, River cleanup projects benefit all 

in region ......................................................................................................... 142 

The Tribune-Democrat, August 15, 2009, DEP project may restore trout 

to Little Conemaugh ..................................................................................... 144 

Valley Citizen, May 6, 2009, Teton Creek restoration set as a priority ...... 145 

Letters ......................................................................................................................

From the American Bird Conservancy to Senator Cardin, September 22, 

2009 ................................................................................................................ 146 

From the American Welfare Institute et al. to Senator Cardin and Senator Crapo, December 3, 2009 ...................................................................... 148 

From the Bird Conservation Alliance to Senator Cardin, October 2, 2009 . 150 

From Russell R. Burton, DVM, Ph.D., to Senator Cardin and Senator 

Crapo, December 1, 2009 .............................................................................. 154 

From the California Riparian Habitat Joint Venture to Senator Cardin, 

October 29, 2009 ........................................................................................... 157 

From the Conservation Fund to Senator Cardin, September 4, 2009 .......... 159 

From Elliott Jacobson, MS, DVM, Ph.D., Dipl. ACZM, et al. to Senators 

Boxer, Inhofe, Cardin, and Crapo, November 24, 2009 ............................. 160 

From the National Audubon Society to Senator Cardin, September 23, 

2009 ................................................................................................................ 163 

From San Francisco Bay Joint Venture to Senator Cardin, November 

5, 2009 ............................................................................................................ 164 

From the Wildlife Society to Senator Cardin, December 3, 2009 ................. 166 

List of organizations providing letters of support for H.R. 2188 .................. 168 

Testimony from the National Pet Association, December 3, 2009 ....................... 169 

Report from the U.S. Geological Survey—Giant Constrictors: Biological and 

Management Profiles and an Establishment Risk Assessment for Nine 

Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, and the Boa Constrictor ...................... 176 

Report to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, October 21, 1996, Generic 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms Risk Analysis Review Process ................. 186 
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO CONSIDER THE 

FOLLOWING ITEMS: S. 373, A BILL TO 

AMEND TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, TO 

INCLUDE CONSTRICTOR SNAKES; S. 1519, 

NUTRIA ERADICATION AND CONTROL ACT 

OF 2009; S. 1421, ASIAN CARP PREVENTION 

AND CONTROL ACT; S. 1965, FERAL SWINE 

ERADICATION AND CONTROL PILOT PROGRAM ACT OF 2009; H.R. 2188, JOINT VENTURES IN BIRD HABITAT CONSERVATION 

ACT OF 2009; S. 1214, NATIONAL FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION ACT; H.R. 3537, JUNIOR 

DUCK STAMP CONSERVATION AND DESIGN 

PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009; 

H.R. 3433, TO AMEND THE NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT; AND 

H.R. 509, MARINE TURTLE CONSERVATION 

REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin and Bond. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Well, good afternoon everyone. I am pleased to 

convene the Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife of the Environment 

and Public Works Committee. 

Let me just point out the challenge we are going to have here. 

There are scheduled votes at quarter of three, so we are going to 

try to get as much of the hearing done as possible by that time. 
2 

We will see how far we can get, and we will see whether we need 

to take a recess, or how we will complete the hearing. 

I have talked to Senator Crapo’s staff, and the two of us are 

going to defer our comments to later in the hearing. 

And with that, I would recognize Senator Bond. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

I want to welcome my colleagues and our witnesses to today’s important legislative hearing that will look at nine critical wildlife bills that have been referred to 

this committee. 

Habitat loss and invasive species are two of the largest threats to biodiversity in 

the United States. We lose an estimated 6,000 acres of open space each day in this 

country, a problem for wildlife habitat that is only compounded by other sources of 

stress like climate change and invasive species. 

We have a responsibility to preserve wildlife and their habitat as part of being 

good stewards of the earth. But we have an economic responsibility as well that 

gains more importance in these difficult times. 

According to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, 87.5 million U.S. residents fished, hunted, or watched wildlife in 

2006. They spent over $122 billion pursuing their recreational activities, contributing to millions of jobs in industries and businesses that support wildlife-related 

recreation. 

Today we will look at two very important habitat conservation bills, H.R. 2188, 

Joint Ventures in Bird Habitat Conservation Act of 2009 that was introduced in the 

House of Representatives by my friend from Maryland, Congressman Frank 

Kratovil, and S. 1214, the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act introduced by 

Senator Lieberman. 

We will look today at three pieces of legislation that are intended to address 

threats to our wetlands: 

• S. 1519, the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2009, 

• S. 1965, the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program Act of 2009, 

and 

• H.R. 3433, a bill that would amend the North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act to make its funding mechanism more flexible. 

We know that our wetlands are important natural resources that provide numerous values to society, including fish and wildlife habitat, flood protection, erosion 

control and water quality preservation. Maryland provides a good case in point for 

how our Nation’s wetlands are threatened by invasive species and habitat loss. 

For nearly six decades at the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Maryland, 

nutria have been killing wetland grasses that provide vital habitat for native 

shorebirds, muskrats and blue crabs not to mention the role these grasses play in 

maintaining water quality. 

Nutria are responsible for the loss of more than 5,000 acres of wetlands in 

Blackwater refuge alone. The loss of these wetlands, which are vital to the fishery, 

was estimated to cost Maryland’s economy nearly $4 million annually. 

In 2000, Congress established a Federal funding source to develop a successful 

public-private partnership program to address nutria in Maryland. Healthy wetlands are returning to places where nutria have been removed both in Maryland 

and in Louisiana. But the job is not yet done. 

That is why I have introduced the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2009 

that would continue and improve the successful nutria eradication program in 

Maryland and Louisiana and expand it to other impacted States including Oregon 

and Washington. 

Senator Landrieu has introduced S. 1965 to implement a pilot program to control 

feral swine which are reversing the progress made in Louisiana’s wetlands as a result of nutria eradication. 

We will also look today at two bills to control the import of deadly constrictor 

snakes and Asian carp into the United States. We heard dramatic testimony from 

Senator Nelson in front of this subcommittee this past July on the number of 

invasive constrictor snakes in Florida and the dangers these snakes pose to humans 

and to the environment. 

I am especially interested in acting on this issue. USGS projections show that, 

with climate change, the eastern shore of Maryland could become a suitable home 
3 

to these deadly snakes. Meanwhile, Asian carp are becoming an ever increasing 

threat to biodiversity in the Great Lakes. 

We will consider H.R. 509, the Marine Turtle Conservation Reauthorization Act 

of 2009 which reauthorizes this critical program. 

Last we will look at H.R. 3537, Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. This bill would reauthorize the oldest youth focused conservation program run by the Federal Government. 

I ask unanimous consent that statements from the sponsors of the bills that we 

will consider here today be entered into the record. 

I want to thank our Agency and expert witnesses for coming before this subcommittee. Our panelists have been on the front lines of preserving our wildlife 

habitat and conserving our native species. 

You are the ones doing the research and implementing programs on the ground 

to address these problems. You know what works and what does not work when it 

comes to stopping the loss of habitat and the spread of invasive species. I look forward to hearing your views on the bills we are examining here today. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Chairman Cardin. A real 

pleasure to be with you. There is no better committee. As an outdoorsman, I enjoy the hunting and fishing subcommittee. You 

throw in a little clean water so you can drink a little with the 

hunting and fishing, and it is as good as it gets. 

But I thank you and Senator Crapo for holding this hearing of 

the hunting and fishing subcommittee. Whether you like to fish, as 

I do, or you are just interested in preserving the beauty of our 

aquatic treasures, S. 1214, the National Fish Habitat Conservation 

Act is something that you ought to support, as we strongly support 

it. 

I am proud to cosponsor this bill with Senator Lieberman as well 

as Senators Crapo, Cardin, Murkowski, Casey, Whitehouse, 

Klobuchar and others. We ought to be able to get that out of committee. 

Senator CARDIN. Sounds as if you are off to a good start. 

Senator BOND. Yes, we are moving along. I think this is an example of how Senators can come together and legislate in a bipartisan fashion, and I am thankful for the full committee Chair and 

Ranking Member agreeing to put this bill on the agenda. 

The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act has its roots in a 

bill I have been proud to support for years, the Fishable Waters 

Act. The basic premise of the two bills is the same: provide support 

to local efforts to protect fish habitat based upon the recommendation of all stakeholders involved in the problem and the solution. 

This includes not only traditional government, environmental and 

conservation interests, but also fishermen and anglers, farmers, 

foresters, developers, even miners. They all play a role in the problems facing fish habitat, and therefore all need to have a role in 

providing solutions to protect fish habitat. 

Only when everyone is sitting at the table can we come up with 

local, fair, balanced and lasting solutions to achieve our environmental goals. This bill may be modest. Its authorization level is 

only $75 million per year, but I hope this bill and efforts it inspires 

can provide a model for coming together from the ground up to 

solve our problems. 

There are concerns about provisions in the bill giving authority 

to the Secretary of the Interior to acquire water rights as part of 
4 

a project to protect fish habitat. Of course, we should always be 

careful when we are giving power like that to the Federal Government. I hope the way this program is structured, including agricultural, development and commercial interests in the decisionmaking 

process, it will help to alleviate some of those concerns. I do support working on any adjustment that might help ease these concerns. 

Now, I am very thankful for including this legislation today. I am 

delighted to see representatives of the American Sport Fishing Association here today. I appreciate the contributions they make. I 

talk about it and think about it a lot, but I just wish I had more 

time to do sport fishing. 

I also know that many groups and individuals from the conservation community put a great deal of work into the legislation. I 

thank them, as well. Without your hard work, we would not be 

here today. 

And I thank all the Government officials from different agencies 

for cooperating on hammering out a process that will work. There 

can be only one chief in the tribe, but the contributions of many 

agencies will be vital to this effort. I thank all of the groups for 

working together. 

And I would say, Mr. Chairman, that we have embarked on a 

number of these projects in Missouri where we have worked with 

the EPA, the State Department of Natural Resources, the landowners, the University of Missouri. They have developed agricultural methods to lessen significantly the amount of pollution running off from farms. We still have pollution running off from development areas where there are roads and shopping centers. But all 

of these things can best be dealt with when you get all of the affected parties working together. 

I am very proud of and would be happy to take any of my colleagues or others who are interested to see what we have been able 

to do to improve the fishing. I am going to be leaving here in 2011, 

and I want to make sure that fishing is good in Missouri when I 

get finished. 

Thank you very much, and we look forward to seeing this bill 

pass. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bond follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Thank you, Senators Cardin and Crapo, for holding this hearing in what I affectionately like to refer to as the Hunting and Fishing Subcommittee. 

Whether you like to fish, as I love to do, or you are just interested in preserving 

the beauty of our aquatic treasures, S. 1214, the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act is for you. 

I am proud to cosponsor this bill with Senator Lieberman, as well as Senators 

Crapo, Cardin, Murkowski, Casey, Whitehouse, Klobuchar and others. 

This is an example of how Senators can come together and legislate in a bipartisan fashion. I am thankful that the Chairman and Ranking Member agreed to put 

this bill on the agenda. 

The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act has its roots in a bill I have been 

proud to support for years, the Fishable Waters Act. The basic premise of the two 

bills is the same: provide support to local efforts to protect fish habitat based upon 

the recommendation of all stakeholders involved in the problem and solution. 

This includes not only traditional government, environmental and conservation interests, but also fisherman and anglers, farmers, foresters, developers, even miners. 
5 

They all play a role in the problems facing fish habitat, and therefore all need 

to have a role in providing solutions to protect fish habitat. 

Only when everyone is sitting at the table can we come up with local, fair, balanced and lasting solutions to achieve our environmental goals. This bill may be modest, its authorization level is only $75 million per year, but 

I hope this bill and efforts it inspires can provide a model of coming together, from 

the ground up, to solve our problems. 

There are concerns about provisions in this bill giving authority to the Secretary 

of the Interior to acquire water rights as part of a project to protect fish habitat. 

Of course, we should always be careful whenever giving power to the Federal Government. 

I hope the way that this program is structured, including agricultural, development and commercial interests in the decisionmaking process helps alleviate some 

of the concern. 

Additionally, the bill specifically preserves all existing private property rights. 

Furthermore, the bill specifically prohibits the purchase of land or water rights 

without the express, written consent of property owners. 

That said, I do support working on any adjustment that might help ease concerns 

in this regard. 

But for now, thank you again for including this legislation today. 

I see Gordon Robertson of the American Sportfishing Association is here today. 

I want to thank him for his contribution today and on the bill. 

I also know that many groups and individuals from the conservation community 

have put a great deal of work into this legislation, and I want to thank them as 

well. Without your hard work we would not be here today. 

Similarly, I want to thank the government officials from the different agencies for 

cooperating on hammering out a process that will work. There can only be one chief 

in the tribe, but the contributions of many agencies will be vital to this effort. I 

thank you for your work now and in the future. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Senator Bond, I want to thank you for 

your leadership on this issue. S. 1214 is a critically important bill 

that will do much good in protecting our fish habitat. It is not only 

important for clean water and for environment. It is a critically important industry and brings in significant revenues to our communities. And it is part of the way of life here for many of us. I thank 

you for your strong leadership on this issue, and I am proud to be 

a co-sponsor of that bill. 

We do have nine bills on the hearing this morning dealing with 

invasive species and conservation. There is a bill that has been introduced by my colleague in the House, Congressman Kratovil, 

H.R. 2188, dealing with bird habitat conservation, and a bill that 

I have introduced, S. 1519, dealing with nutria eradication. 

One of the bills on our list is S. 1421, the Asian Carp Prevention 

and Control Act. 

Senator Levin, it is a pleasure to have you before our committee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Cardin, Senator Bond, thank you for holding this 

hearing. Thank you so much for all the great work you do. The 

area you described I know up close and personal being a Representative or Senator now from a Great Lakes State just how 

these invasive species can do massive damage to our environment 

and to our lakes. 

We, I think, are familiar with the Asian carp. There has been a 

huge effort made to try to control the Asian carp to make sure it 

does not get into the Great Lakes. Barriers have been built. Poisons have been installed. Descriptions of how much they can eat, 
6 

40 percent of their weight every day. There is a picture of one of 

the species here, the bighead, which as you can see is just about 

as big as the Fish and Wildlife officer that is holding it up. 

And there is an urgent problem here. The problem is that some 

people actually bring these carp in live into the United States. And 

if they are released into the lakes or into our streams, they then, 

of course, reproduce at warp speed. The older they get, the more 

they reproduce. 

Most of the varieties of the Asian carp have been banned in 

terms of the Lacey Act bringing them into the United States. This 

one particular variety, the bighead, has not been banned. And so 

we simply are asking the committee, subcommittee then committee 

in the Senate and Congress then to do is to make sure that the bighead variety of the Asian carp is prohibited, as the other varieties 

are. 

There is a report that has been issued now by the U.S. Geological 

Survey, a biological environmental risk assessment. The conclusion 

is that the risks associated with all components of the probability 

of establishment of the bighead carp are rated high. At the end of 

that quote, which I have in full in my printed or my prepared 

statement, it says that this classification of high risk, unacceptable 

risk justifies mitigation to control negative effects and means—and 

these are the key words—bighead carp are organisms of major concern for the United States. 

So I know we are trying to stop them from getting into the Great 

Lakes by building dispersal fences. We have poison programs, but 

the best way to stop them is prevent them from coming into the 

United States without a license. And the Lacey Act is there for this 

purpose. Our bill would amend the Lacey Act to include the bighead carp as a prohibited import in the United States without a 

special license. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Thank you, Chairman Cardin and the members of your subcommittee, for holding 

today’s hearing on a very important bill to reduce the threats to our wildlife from 

a species of Asian carp. It is a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by my co-chair, Senator 

George Voinovich, and five other colleagues. 

As a Senator from a Great Lakes State, I have seen up close the consequences 

of allowing aquatic invasive species to enter our waters. About 180 non-native organisms have been identified already in the Great Lakes. While there are some particularly destructive invasive species, like the zebra and quagga mussels, that have 

already been established in the Great Lakes, the Asian carp would dramatically 

change the fishery make-up of the Great Lakes. The Asian carp grow very big, reproduce quickly, and are now the most abundant fish in parts of the Mississippi 

River. It’s important to Michigan, the other Great Lakes States, and the Canadian 

provinces of Quebec and Ontario to prevent these fish from entering the Great 

Lakes and destroying the native fishery. 

Because invasive species can quickly spread throughout the country, the best 

chance that we have against invasive species is prevention. The Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act would include the bighead carp on the list of injurious species 

under the Lacey Act. Such a listing would prevent the importation and interstate 

commerce of live bighead carp without a permit. Limiting the movement of live bighead carp will lower the risk of an introduction of these fish into the Great Lakes 

which has a fishery valued at $5 billion–$7 billion annually. 

The Asian carp grow very big, reproduce quickly, and are now the most abundant 

fish in the Mississippi River. As USA Today described it, the bighead carp ‘‘doesn’t 

have a stomach, so it eats constantly. By vacuuming plankton, algae and everything 
7 

else in its way, the fish can grow to more than 4 feet and 85 pounds. The older and 

bigger it gets, the more it reproduces.’’ The article also states that Asian carp ‘‘can 

consume 40 percent of their body weight every day.’’ The U.S. Fish and Wildlife has 

already listed other species of Asian carp (silver, large-scale silver, and black) under 

the Lacey Act but has so far failed to complete consideration of the bighead carp 

for inclusion despite the strong evidence of the harm that these fish will do. We believe that the failure to include bighead carp in the listing is clearly an administrative oversight, but we cannot wait any longer. The risk is too great. In 2005, the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provided a biological synopsis and environmental 

risk assessment to the Fish and Wildlife Survey about Asian carp. The USGS concluded: 

‘‘The risk associated with all components of the probability of establishment (organism within pathway, entry potential, colonization potential, and spread potential) 

was rated high for bighead carp. Therefore, the probability of establishment earned 

a high rating. Two components of the consequences of establishment were rated medium to high (economic and environmental impacts), and one was rated medium 

(perceived or social impacts), requiring that the consequence of establishment be 

rated as medium to high. The organism risk potential of bighead carp in the United 

States, therefore, which combines the probability of establishment and the consequences of establishment, was determined to be a high, or an unacceptable risk. 

This classification justifies mitigation to control negative effects and means that bighead carp are organisms of major concern for the United States.’’ 

So the impact that the bighead carp would have if it made it into the Great Lakes would be severe. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has spent $9 million on an electric dispersal barrier to keep Asian carp and other invasive species out of the Great 

Lakes. It would undermine that effort and expenditure of Federal resources if the 

bighead carp were to be introduced into the Great Lakes because the Government 

did not do everything that it could to block the pathways of introduction into the 

lakes. So I encourage this committee to support this bill, and I want to thank the 

members of the subcommittee for today’s hearing. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Senator Levin, I thank you for bringing 

this bill to our attention. We are familiar with the damage being 

caused by this invasive species. The amount of food that it takes 

in every day is having a dramatic impact on the balance within the 

region. 

So it is an important issue. We thank you for bringing it to our 

attention, and we will try to give it quick review. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, we thank you very much, Mr. Chairman 

and Senator Bond. One request is that not just my statement, but 

that a letter from the Governor of the State of Michigan to the Attorney General of the State of Michigan be incorporated into the 

record, and also my thanks to the Fish and Wildlife Service for 

their support of this legislation. 

[The referenced letter was not received at time of print.] 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Levin. 

Dan Ashe serves as the Deputy Director for Policy for the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. He has dedicated many years of work to 

ensuring that future generations will continue to enjoy the benefits 

of abundant and diverse wildlife that we enjoy today. 

Prior to his appointment as Deputy Director, Mr. Ashe served as 

the Science Adviser to the Director of Fish and Wildlife Service, 

leading the organization’s renaissance for science and professionalism within the Service. 

Mr. Ashe, it is a pleasure to have you before the subcommittee. 

STATEMENT OF DAN ASHE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Senator. And thanks for the opportunity 

to be here today. Most of all, thanks for your leadership on these 

important bills. 
8 

I want to say we support all the bills that are the subject of today’s hearing. With respect to S. 1214, we strongly support the legislation but would like the opportunity to work with the subcommittee to address some concerns that were expressed during 

the interagency review of our testimony. I would characterize them 

as minor and technical changes, and we look forward to working 

with the subcommittee on them. 

With respect to S. 373, the constrictor legislation, we would urge 

amendment of the bill to include all nine of the constrictor species 

we recommend based on their identified risk to wildlife and ecological systems in South Florida and potential risk beyond South Florida. 

I think the bills before you today represent a cross-section of 21st 

century challenge and opportunity. We are working against great 

forces that are based principally in human ecology and economy. I 

think, Mr. Chairman, you know well the environmental and economic damage that is associated with invasive species like the nutria. 

As we work with partners to protect great natural resources like 

the Chesapeake Bay, we are dealing with the effects of human use 

on the land and water, habitat destruction and fragmentation, 

waste disposal, species invasion, and now the challenges associated 

with a changing climate system. The end result is that the ability 

of our natural landscapes to support diverse, abundant and healthy 

populations of fish and wildlife and plants is increasingly compromised. 

The bills you are considering today that address nutria, constrictor snakes, Asian carp and feral hogs are emblematic of the 

challenges that we face. Our efforts at nutria eradication illustrate 

that we can be successful with adequate science and resources and 

time. But our experience with constrictor snakes, Asian carp, feral 

hogs and myriad other invasive species tell us that better prevention is the only true salvation. 

The bills strengthening the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the Marine Turtle Conservation Act and giving legislative authority to the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures and the National Fish Habitat Action Plan support very important directions 

of change in conservation. We can’t deal with 21st century conservation challenges without significantly strengthened science, expanded resources and more enduring partnerships. These bills will 

help achieve this. 

The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a model. 

Under this framework, we have worked with partners across the 

North American continent. We have established common objectives. 

We have built the science to understand the relationships between 

populations and factors like habitat, harvest, invasion, predation, 

and disease. 

We worked with Congress to acquire the resources to protect and 

restore nearly 26 million acres of wetlands and associated uplands. 

As a result of this, today’s waterfowl populations are diverse, abundant, distributed, and healthy. Expanding this model is essential in 

helping us deal with 21st century conservation challenges. The Migratory Bird Joint Ventures and the National Fish Habitat part-
9 

nerships represent this kind of expansion, and therefore H.R. 2188 

and S. 1214 provide key support. 

As we consider the immense challenges that are posed by human 

driven changes in the climate system and other complex challenges 

like non-native species invasion, it is increasingly apparent that we 

have to envision and design conservation strategies across very 

large geographies. Successes in nutria control, multinational species conservation, bird joint ventures, and fish habitat partnerships 

are important, but they are not sufficient. 

Therefore, the Service is working with other Interior Department 

bureaus, with our State partners and other conservation partners 

on a new generation of science-driven landscape conservation cooperatives, or LCCs. These LCCs will house partner-based scientific and technical capacities to support landscape scale conservation through strengthened mechanisms like NAWCA, the joint ventures, and NFHAB partnerships. In fiscal year 2010, Congress provided us with $20 million to begin building this capacity and $5 million in support for the USGS 

partner efforts. In concert with these new authorities that you and 

the subcommittee are considering today, this presents us with the 

opportunity to build capacities that will allow us to design and 

achieve a 21st century conservation agenda addressing great challenges like changing climate. 

Chairman Cardin and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the chance to be here today, and again most importantly, thank 

you for your leadership on these key issues. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:] 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

Senator CARDIN. Well, no, I thank you for what you are doing. 

We appreciate very much the strength that you bring to this effort, 

and we look forward to working with you. 

Let me just underscore the points that you made. There are nine 

bills on the hearing schedule today. You are supporting without 

qualification seven of those nine, if I understand correctly. 

Mr. ASHE. That is correct. 

Senator CARDIN. And the National Fish Habitat Conservation 

Act, S. 1214, your concerns you are characterizing as basically technical and clarifying? 

Mr. ASHE. Right. We have a few minor concerns. Again, these 

came up during the clearance process of our testimony. We made 

the commitment to OMB that we would work with you on those 

concerns. There were some concerns about insurance balance representation and succession on the Fish Habitat Board, clarifying 

that the Land and Water Act acquisition authorities in the bill are 

going to use and build upon existing authorities, or that new authorities are more clearly spelled out. And then more precisely conditioning the Secretary’s authority to waive the match requirement. 

So I would characterize them as just minor and clarifying 

changes. 

Senator CARDIN. Would you please try to get those to us as 

quickly as possible? And particularly make sure that copies are 

made available to the bill sponsors so that we can try to resolve 

that as quickly as possible. 

Mr. ASHE. We will do that. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate that. 

Now, in regards to the S. 373, a bill to amend title 18, United 

States Code, to include constrictor snakes, if I understand what 

you are saying is that you are recommending that we amend this 

to basically cover nine species of snakes, that you have specifically 

nine that you want covered. 

Mr. ASHE. Correct. This is the same position as we presented in 

the House, before the Judiciary Committee in the House. There 

were nine species of snakes, of Burmese python, North African 

python, reticulated python, southern African python, boa constrictor, yellow anaconda, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda, that were all identified as having medium to high risk in the risk assessment that was performed for 

us and the Park Service by the U.S. Geological Survey. 

It is our recommendation that we include all nine of those snakes 

in the Lacey Act. 

Senator CARDIN. So this is consistent with the USGS report? 

Mr. ASHE. Completely consistent. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. And the impact on the bill, as I understand it, 

is to narrow its application in many respects, but to add a couple 

of additional species that were not included in the original bill. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. ASHE. Correct. 

Senator CARDIN. Have you reviewed that with Senator Nelson, 

the changes? If you haven’t, I would appreciate again if you would 

make sure that you have reviewed this with Senator Nelson. I 

think we have your specific comments so we are prepared to move 
28 

forward. I will also alert him to contact you if there is additional 

concerns in that regard. 

Mr. ASHE. We will contact Senator Nelson’s office directly, and 

I would say in the House, the House bill sponsor, Congressman 

Meek, was very happy with our testimony. I would expect Senator 

Nelson would be as well. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Senator Nelson—we had a hearing once 

before, and he brought us the skin of the snake, the python, the 

Burmese python, and that got our attention. 

Mr. ASHE. They are pretty intimidating. 

Senator CARDIN. Right. 

He also got my attention when he told me that the weather 

changes in the Chesapeake Region are conducive for pythons surviving, so that got my attention also. 

Mr. ASHE. Yes, you definitely don’t want them up here. 

Senator CARDIN. Understand. 

Many of the bills here are dealing with conservation efforts, and 

you are supporting all those bills. I just make this an open invitation. If there are other ways that Congress can be helpful on conservation in giving you additional opportunities, I would just make 

that an open invitation to let us know. This committee is very interested in following what Senator Bond was saying and being a 

constructive player and preserving our natural habitat for our fishermen and our hunters and the recreational users. And I know 

these bills here are all being improved, but there may be some 

other efforts. Please let us know. 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Senator. I would just reiterate that the 

group of bills that you are considering today, particularly the 

amendments to the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, 

the Migratory Bird Joint Venture bill, the NFHA Partnership Act; 

those are really providing us with foundational elements of change. 

And we are working with our State partners and our conservation community partners to really build capacity that is going to 

allow us to deal with really some of the biggest challenges that we 

have facing us. And so I think the things that you are considering 

today are going to be just essential to us as we move forward. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. We will now move to our panel. Mr. Edmond C. 

Mouton, who is the Biologist Program Manager for the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, where he has worked for 16 

years. He is the highest level technical expert on fur and marsh 

management issues in Louisiana and serves as the Scientific and 

Technical Adviser to the Department’s administrative staff. 

Eric C. Schwaab is the Deputy Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. He joins us today on behalf of the 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The Association is composed of public fish and wildlife agencies from across North America and is dedicated to promoting sound resource management and 

strengthening of the Federal, State and private cooperation in protecting and managing fish and wildlife in their habitats. 

And Robert Bendick is the Director of U.S. Government Relations 

and the Acting Director of the External Affairs of The Nature Con-
29 

servancy. The Conservancy is the leading advocacy organization for 

protection and conservation of natural wildlife and habitat and control of invasive species. It is well respected for its collaborative 

science-based approach. 

So on this panel we have two governmental and one of our most 

active private sector players. 

And then we are last joined by Gordon Robertson, who is Vice 

President for Government Affairs from the American Sportfishing 

Association. The Association represents the sportfishing industry 

and promotes the economic and conservation values of sportfishing 

in America. Mr. Robertson has spent over 23 years working on important fish and wildlife management issues at the national level 

and in West Virginia and is well known to our committee. 

We welcome all four of you. 

Mr. Mouton, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF EDMOND C. MOUTON, JR., BIOLOGIST PROGRAM MANAGER, COASTAL AND NONGAME RESOURCES, 

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Mr. MOUTON. Thank you, Chairman Cardin. 

One thing I would like to mention is part of my responsibilities 

is to implement and manage and monitor the coast-wide Nutria 

Control Program in the State of Louisiana. 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to present testimony in support of S. 1519, the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2009, 

and S. 1965, the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program Act of 2009. Enactment of this legislation will be central to 

the Department’s longstanding efforts to mitigate and restore damage to our precious wetlands by these invasive non-native species. 

We are very grateful to you and the sponsors of this legislation 

for keeping these issues and important programs on the forefront 

of the subcommittee’s wildlife legislative agenda. 

I am also pleased to be here with my colleague from Maryland 

and defer to him on his views concerning the other bills being considered by the subcommittee. 

Louisiana and Maryland have worked very closely over the years 

on the nutria problem and other wildlife challenges facing our 

States, and we are pleased to do so again today. As most of you 

are aware, the Gulf Coast marshes of Louisiana are deteriorating 

at an alarming rate. Current estimates are that over 15,000 acres 

of Louisiana marsh are lost annually to coastal erosion and subsidence. 

The marsh loss is detrimental to the coastal fisheries industry, 

agriculture and all other renewable resources which are products 

of the surrounding estuaries and wetlands. These wetlands provide 

protection from storms and hurricanes for the residents of South 

Louisiana and are very important to the oil and gas industry infrastructure. 

One of the variables contributing to the deterioration of these 

wetlands has been the extensive habitat destruction resulting from 

nutria herbivory. Fortunately, the Coastwide Nutria Control Program, which is funded by the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, also known as CWPPRA, has been very 

successful over the past 7 years in controlling this problem. 
30 

During this time, Louisiana trappers have harvested over 2 million nutria, thus reducing damage to coastal wetlands from over 

90,000 acres coast-wide to approximately 20,000 acres coast-wide 

presently. This equates to a very impressive 78 percent reduction 

in nutria-related marsh deterioration. 

Other projects included multiple capture trap studies, nutria lure 

research, nutria lure and trap trails, zinc phosphide studies on nutria and alligators. These projects were conducted to improve trapping efficiency and catch effort for the trappers. These efforts have 

addressed the goals of the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 

2003 in reducing nutria populations and restoring wetlands damaged by nutria. The continuance of this program by reauthorizing 

the Nutria Eradication and Control Act would provide funding for 

this very positive and successful program in coastal Louisiana and 

allow the Department to further pursue these problems. 

Unfortunately, much of this recovered acreage is now experiencing severe negative impacts due to the activities of another nonnative invasive species, feral swine. Populations of feral swine are 

increasing in density and are dispersing throughout coastal Louisiana. Data from coastal aerial surveys have documented an increase in feral swine populations, especially throughout the deltaic 

plain of Southeastern Louisiana. This is especially significant because it is an area of the Louisiana coast that is experiencing the 

highest rates of coastal erosion. 

The Department is concerned that these animals are following 

the same pattern as nutria in their population growth and in their 

consequent impacts to our coastal marsh recovery efforts. The 

Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program Act of 2009 

would provide funding for Louisiana to develop measures to eradicate or control feral swine and to assess and restore wetlands damaged by feral swine. 

Knowledge and expertise developed in existing nutria control 

programs would be utilized to carry out the activities of this beneficial program to Louisiana and allow the Department to address 

this problem. 

Our proposed solution is to determine feral swine population densities and distributions, identify habitats impacted, and develop 

techniques to control feral swine and coastal marsh habitats. We 

would use the same successful methodologies developed for the 

Coastwide Nutria Control Program. Methodologies would include 

coast-wide aerial surveys and development of techniques for on the 

ground and serial control of this invasive species. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to highlight 

challenges to Louisiana’s efforts to mitigate and restore wetland 

damage and to register our support for this important legislation. 

Also on behalf of the Department and the State of Louisiana, we 

appreciate and concur on the supportive and positive remarks received on feral swine and nutria from Dan Ashe and the Administration, and we look forward to work with those Federal agencies. 

We look forward to working with the subcommittee, and I would 

be pleased to answer any question you have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mouton follows:] 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Mouton, thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate your work. 

Mr. MOUTON. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Schwaab. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC C. SCHWAAB, DEPUTY SECRETARY, 

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

testify before you today on behalf of both the Maryland Department 

of Natural Resources and the Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies which represents all 50 States. 

I would like to focus my remarks—while I have provided testimony in written form on seven bills, I would like to focus my remarks on three of those bills here today: the National Fish Habitat 

Conservation Act, the Joint Ventures for Birds Conservation Act, 

and the Nutria Eradication and Control Act. All three share significant characteristics: a habitat-based approach to pressing conservation concerns, a framework to bring together partners to coordinate 

efforts, and a science-based approach to setting priorities and 

measuring results. 

We are particularly pleased to offer strong support for the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act. The Act establishes a coordination framework, a process for action, and authorizes funding to 

help implement the National Habitat Action Plan. 

Mr. Chairman, we have worked for decades in this country to reverse overfishing and deal with other challenging issues related to 

fishing removals. This work has required substantial effort and coordination across a number of Federal agencies, State and tribal 

partners, industry and other private sector partners. And it has 

yielded success. 

But controlling overfishing alone will not ensure a healthy and 

productive future for our fisheries. Without large scale coordinated 

and strategic efforts to protect fish habitat, the hard work and expended resources and sacrifice by fishermen and fishing communities to rebuild fish stocks could be undermined. 

In 2004, the Association partnered with Federal agencies, tribal 

interests and others to develop a national scale fish habitat conservation model. That resulted in the National Fish Habitat Action 

Plan, which has already instigated significant development of fish 

habitat partnerships across the country. 

This partnership model brings strategic perspectives and provides a framework for coordinated efforts. It creates opportunity for 

agencies and organizations to come together around landscape 

scale habitat concerns, prioritize actions, and develop work toward 

common goals and objectives. 

Past aquatic habitat conservation approaches and models, often 

regulatory in nature and fragmented, have simply not stemmed the 

tide. A new model is needed, one that is grounded in science, coordinated partnerships, and priority habitat improvement projects 

of the scale that is effective. That is this model provided for and 

supported by the Fish Habitat Conservation Act. 
42 

Regarding the Joint Venture for Bird Conservation Act, as a forerunner to the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan was the first landscape scale effort to address key habitat concerns of migratory birds. The plan 

became the foundation for a series of joint ventures that developed 

under broad authorities afforded the States and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Like many fish species, migratory bird patterns of birds dictate 

a landscape scale conservation effort. They dictate partnershipbased action and coming together around common challenges. 

Maryland is, by the way, a member of the Atlantic Coast Joint 

Venture and has benefited significantly from focused conservation 

of habitat work along the Atlantic flyway that has resulted through 

that effort. We strongly urge favorable action on this opportunity 

to lend greater structure and statutory support to these strategically important efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, we particularly appreciate your personal attention to the Nutria Eradication and Control Act. We strongly support S. 1519 and the continued authorization of this vital program 

that is instrumental in managing this destructive non-native species. 

Nutria are prolific breeders and voracious feeders that out-compete native species and cause permanent loss of wetlands by destroying the root systems of wetland plants. Marsh destruction 

from nutria was so significant in the Chesapeake Bay estuary that 

nutria control was made an integral part of the Chesapeake Bay 

Agreement, the interstate blueprint for Chesapeake Bay restoration. 

To date, through past efforts and support of Congress, the Maryland Nutria Partnership has removed 13,000 nutria from 150,000 

acres on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. This nutria-free 

zone was the epicenter of the Maryland population and had the 

highest nutria population density. The Partnership aims for a nutria-free DelMarVa Peninsula by 2014. Studies shown that 

marshes, once nutria removed, recover very quickly. 

It is critical that all nutria be eradicated from the region. Without total removal, the nutria population will recover and re-infest, 

and we will lose the progress that we have made. 

Mr. Chairman, we urge favorable action to ensure continuation 

of this important project and completion of the task. 

Thank you for the opportunity, and I would be happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwaab follows:] 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Mr. Schwaab, thank you for your testimony. I am particularly proud of the work that has been done in 

Maryland and I congratulate you on that. 

Mr. Bendick. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. BENDICK, DIRECTOR, U.S. 

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 

Mr. BENDICK. Mr. Chairman, I, too, appreciate the opportunity to 

testify here today on behalf of The Nature Conservancy. We thank 

you for your terrific leadership on conservation issues. 

The Nature Conservancy is an international nonprofit conservation organization with a mission to protect the diversity of fish and 

wildlife habitat on Earth. We have programs and site-based 

projects in all 50 States and in 35 other countries. And we own and 

maintain the largest system of private nature preserves in the 

world. 

This extensive experience in the field informs our legislative positions and is relevant to the bills being considered at this hearing. 

First, we strongly support S. 373, 1519, 1421, and 1965 to control 

and eradicate exotic invasive wildlife species. Studies have shown 

that invasive species are threatening the survival of almost half of 

the 1,800 federally listed threatened and endangered species. We 

have done a survey, and invasive species are a significant threat 

to 94 percent of our own nature preserves. I will highlight just two 

of the specific positions discussed in my written testimony. 

If passed, S. 373 would immediately place all species of the 

python genus on the Federal Injurious Species List under the 

Lacey Act. While we do not feel that there is the body of scientific 

evidence to support listing of the entire python genus, we do agree 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that this bill be amended 

to include all nine large constrictor species assessed by the recent 

USGS report on this subject. 

Two of these species, the Burmese and northern African pythons, 

are already present in very large numbers, some say 100,000 individuals, on conserved lands in Florida, and are predicted to spread 

much farther north. 

And as former Director of the Conservancy’s southern U.S. region, I have seen first-hand the damage feral hogs cause to natural 

areas. We have faced similar problems on the Channel Islands of 

California and in Hawaii. We are very pleased to see legislation 

that provides critical cost share funds to the State of Louisiana to 

study the extent of hog damage to wetlands and to develop methods to eradicate feral swine. 

Second, we urge the subcommittee to enact authorizing legislation for the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act and to codify 

procedures for the successful U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Joint 

Ventures for Bird Habitat Conservation. Within 40 percent of all 

North American freshwater fish species are vulnerable to extinction, and many other marine and freshwater species are also 

threatened. Habitat loss and degradation is one of the primary 

causes of this decline. 

A National Fish Habitat Conservation Act would provide a sound 

framework for implementation of the National Fish Habitat Action 
66 

Plan, a collaborative, multi-stakeholder effort to conserve and restore fish and aquatic organism habitat across the U.S. 

A good example of the potential of this legislation is the Southern Aquatic Resource Partnership in which I have participated. It 

brings together 14 States to accomplish projects like the restoration 

of stream side habitat on the biologically diverse Duck River in 

Central Tennessee. 

For birds, the Joint Ventures science-based partnership-driven 

approach is an excellent model for the collaborative efforts necessary to sustain healthy and productive landscapes across America. The Nature Conservancy is engaged in many of the 19 JV partnerships across the U.S., and we strongly support H.R. 2188 to formalize the coordination and financing of Federal, State, nongovernmental organizations, tribes and landowners to conserve bird habitat, but with two amendments that are spelled out in my written 

testimony. 

Finally, we also support an amendment of the North American 

Wetlands Conservation Act to authorize the use of Canadian funds 

as matching funds. Currently, the provision that all NAWCA match 

come from U.S. sources means that a large amount of Canadian 

match generated by conservation partners is effectively left on the 

table and does not count. 

Given that NAWCA projects often attract two to three times the 

amount of Federal dollars invested, this legislation can only help 

improve our ability to conserve wetlands in North America. 

NAWCA, the Bird Joint Ventures and the fish habitat legislation 

all bring together diverse interests, including landowners, and the 

different levels of government in just the kind of cooperative, voluntary, constructive and practical efforts needed to conserve America’s natural systems for all their benefits. 

Thanks again for allowing me to testify here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bendick follows:] 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Robertson. 

STATEMENT OF GORDON ROBERTSON, VICE PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 

to speak today on the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, Senate 1214. 

My name is Gordon Robertson, and I am Vice President of the 

American Sportfishing Association. The ASA is the sportfishing industry’s trade association, committed to representing the interests 

of the sportfishing and boating industries. 

Now, you may ask what our interests are in the National Fish 

Habitat Conservation Act. Well, they are two-fold. First, for a 

healthy business climate, our members depend on abundant fish 

populations accessible to the public for recreational fishing. 

And second, our manufacturing members since 1950 have paid a 

10 percent Federal manufacturers excise tax each quarter on the 

products they sell. 

Along with the import duties our members pay and that part of 

the Federal fuel tax attributable to motor boat use, that amounts 

to approximately $8 billion over the last 60 years for fish conservation and angler and boater access. These moneys are distributed to 

each State based on its licensed angle population and size. 

And along with fishing license fees are the backbone of fisheries 

conservation in this country, paying salaries, providing the necessary equipment, surveys, research and general infrastructure for 

a solid fish management program in each State. 

It also provides some moneys for fish habitat work but falls far 

short of identified needs. 

So we strongly support S. 1214 and view this Act as complementary to the existing moneys that our industry and anglers pay. 

ASA has been involved in discussions about this legislation since 

they began in 2000. We have worked hard to assure that it represents the needs of the fishery resources in this Nation and the 

desires of the industry and the recreational angler. We believe it 

contains the necessary components for an efficient national fish 

habitat effort. 

ASA believes it is necessary to have a robust National Fish Habitat Conservation Act that identifies habitat needs and addresses 

them in a structured fashion that functions from the bottom up, is 

State-centric, and maximizes the available dollars, labor and expertise of a wide variety of partners. All those points are embodied in 

S. 1214. 

Most don’t think of recreational fishing as an industry, but it 

most surely is. Recreational fishing supports over a million jobs in 

this country, provides an annual economic impact of $125 billion, 

$45 billion in annual direct expenditures and results in over $16 

billion in tax revenues to Federal, State and local governments. 

Our members continue to support the 150 million or so dollars 

each year in excise taxes and import duties they pay because they 

fundamentally believe it is a good business investment for them 

and for the Nation. Recreational fishing creates jobs and a healthy 

economy. For many waterside communities, it is the economy, and 
80 

improving fish habitat is an important part of the national economics and job equation. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I also want to 

express our support for S. 1421, a measure to ban the importation 

of Asian carp into the United States. We testified in support of a 

similar measure in the House of Representatives in November 2005 

and continue to support such measures. 

ASA believes strongly in habitat restoration and supports H.R. 

3433. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a success 

and the Act to which we and others in the recreational fishing community turned when seeking a successful model for the drafting of 

the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act. 

Thanks again, Mr. Chairman, and we urge this committee’s passage of the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support and leadership of the 

National Fish Habitat Conservation Act bill, and I would be glad 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robertson follows:] 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank all four of you for your testimony and for your support of the bills that are moving forward 

here. 

Let me first just try to get a little further clarification of the risk 

factors on these invasive species, whether we are dealing with the 

nutria, whether we are dealing with the feral swine. It is clear that 

they do spread diseases. They affect the native species that are 

there. They do property damage for the landowner, including crops. 

And they also affect wetlands. 

I think one thing that may not be known, I know this is very 

true in Louisiana and Maryland, and I would appreciate getting 

your further clarification on it, the loss of wetlands affects the entire ecology of that region. It is one of our major problems, at least 

in the State of Maryland, has been wetlands now. And Blackwater, 

in our State, where the nutrias are very prominent, we lost a lot 

of wetlands, thousands of acres of wetlands were lost. 

Can you just enumerate from Louisiana and Maryland’s point of 

view what these loss of wetlands mean in regards to our efforts to 

try to deal with water quality or the environment? 

Mr. MOUTON. Well, especially in Louisiana, the wetlands that are 

being lost have contributed to a downfall in the fisheries industry, 

causing problems with the oyster industry, and there are also 

water quality problems as well, as wetlands act as filters for water. 

And many other effects as in, I had mentioned before, a lot of the 

renewable resources that depend on wetlands and estuaries. And 

most of the wetlands that were lost, which don’t include that 

100,000 number initially, nor the 20,000 that we have now, is a 

large chunk of wetlands that actually did convert to open water 

and will not return as wetlands and will remain as open water. 

Senator CARDIN. And in Maryland, what has been the impact of 

the loss of our wetlands? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Yes, sir, thank you. 

They certainly provide the kind of nutrient cycling and filtering 

benefits that Mr. Mouton suggested. They also, by the way, and 

you are familiar with Blackwater, provide some of the finest habitat for a variety of species that we have throughout the Chesapeake Bay region. 

And also noteworthy, Mr. Chairman, is the resiliency that they 

provide against some storm events, something that in the lower 

Eastern Shore we are particularly vulnerable to. You know, wetlands offer the opportunity to mitigate storm surges and floodwater 

rises, and the kind of resiliency that is inherent in those wetland 

environments is important, particularly to us in Maryland as, you 

know, we face rising sea levels and land subsidence in that region. 

Senator CARDIN. Whether it is Federal efforts on conservancy or 

whether it is dealing with invasive species, it is an effort to work 

with the private sector. We can’t do this alone. I would value your 

observations, our two witnesses from the private sector as to how 

effective our efforts have been to work with private organizations 

in our mutual goal to enhance our environment. 

Mr. BENDICK. Well, I think that is what is so terrific about the 

fish habitat legislation, the NAWCA, and the Joint Ventures is 

they really reach out to all segments of the community to create 

partnerships, including non-profits and landowners and businesses 
87 

to develop a common plan for an ecological area and then to implement that plan. 

I think in our view the wave of the future is represented by these 

pieces of legislation. We think it is incredibly valuable to have the 

opportunity to participate with Government in setting plans and 

ideas and then carrying them out. And so it is very exciting to see 

that becoming a more prevalent way of the Federal Government 

doing its business. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Robertson, in regards to your group’s interest in protecting fish habitat and protecting recreational fishing, 

how effective has been the relationship between the Government 

policies and the private sector efforts? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. They have been very effective. When we drafted 

this bill, we thought, OK, how do we get the biggest bang for the 

dollar? How do we get the biggest impact on the ground? And we 

worked hard to make this bill reflect a direction where groups on 

the ground, where private organizations, local governments, individuals work together to effect effective habitat changes for fisheries. 

So we thought it was very important that it be in that fashion, 

not a top-down Federal Government program saying this is the 

way you are going to do it, but a bottom-up situation where local 

communities, local organizations like Bass Anglers Sportsman Society, Trout Unlimited, and a host of others took interest and took 

the matter into their own hands and were really leading the way 

on it. 

So we think it is very important. We have a foundation at the 

American Sportfishing Association called the Fish America Foundation. It grants money from Interior and NOAA and from our own 

members’ donations. And I think it is a rare situation when that 

doesn’t get matched at least three times over. So it is extremely effective. 

Senator CARDIN. Glad to hear that. 

Mr. Bendick, in your oral and written testimony, you talk about 

two suggestions on H.R. 2188. I just want to make sure I understand the two points that you are raising. 

The first appears like it could be handled through the regulatory 

process, not through legislation itself. I just want to get your observations on that. 

And the second is funding levels, which is something that I am 

always very sensitive about. You probably have my support, but 

that is not always an area that we have a lot of leeway here. 

Mr. BENDICK. Yes, again, we think the joint ventures are extremely useful cooperative instruments. We would like to see a bit 

more money there. I think they are being used more frequently, 

and so increasing the appropriations would be money well spent 

because it leverages so much other money and so much other effort. 

So we strongly agree with that. 

And on the first point, I think it conceivably could be done 

through the regulatory process, but we think it could be incorporated in the legislation. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate that. 

I will also make the observation this is a House bill which also 

complicates the funding level issues, but we will certainly take a 
88 

look at that, and I am sure that we would want to get the most 

robust participation possible with the Joint Ventures, so I think we 

share your interest in that. 

Mr. BENDICK. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, once again let me thank all of our witnesses for being here today, but more importantly, for what you do 

for your environment. You are making a huge difference. We can’t 

do this alone. The government partners, at the Federal, State and 

local levels, along with the private sector are what we need in 

order to be able to deal with the dangers of invasive species and 

the conservation efforts. 

And we would hope that the legislation we are considering today 

will make these tools more effective so that we can get the job done 

together. And I can pledge to you that this committee is very interested in figuring out ways that we can even be more effective in 

carrying out our responsibilities for future generations. 

Thank you all very much, and with that, the subcommittee will 

stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Good afternoon. I would like to thank the subcommittee Chairman for holding this 

hearing. I welcome the opportunity to examine the merits of the bills before us 

today. I am, however, concerned about the troublesome precedents some of these 

bills would create. 

The four bills that will we examine today—the Asian Carp, S. 1421; Python, S. 

373; Feral Swine, S. 1965; and Nutria Eradication, S. 1519—address the threat 

posed by particular invasive species to the environment. We must be cautious about 

new laws that interfere with the Fish and Wildlife Service’s management practices, 

as they could impose changes to environmental laws with little or no input from 

other Federal agencies. As we chart a course of action to address harmful species, 

we must be careful to avoid subverting or overturning established processes within 

the Department of the Interior for determining the threat a particular species may 

have on the environment. 

Common sense reforms are needed to prevent the proliferation, importation or 

breeding of species that would be harmful to ecosystems, but I am cautious of the 

precedent of addressing these species outside normal agency channels. Any policy 

that Congress considers for invasive species should include a reasonable ‘‘risk analysis’’ process with input from States and industry. Unfortunately, some of the bills 

we are examining today take a different and less effective approach. 

With respect to the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, S. 1214, I have serious concerns with the portions of the bill that give the Federal Government the ability to purchase water rights and property. I cannot support such an approach. This 

should be done through public-private partnerships. Such partnerships can leverage 

State and local resources as well as preserve private ownership, which together can 

help conserve more fish habitat. The bill in its current form allows for this but also 

gives the Federal Government the authority to work unilaterally—a provision I oppose. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address my concerns. 

Finally, we will be looking at the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design 

Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, H.R. 3537, and the Marine Turtle Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2009, H.R. 509. I strongly support the former program 

and was chair of this committee when we reauthorized it back in 2006. I also helped 

create the Marine Turtle Conservation Act in 2004 with Senator Jeffords. I look forward to discussing both of these bills today but would like to highlight the successful approach of the turtle bill and other multinational species conservation programs. These programs are successful because they leverage significant non-Federal 

money and work with NGOs to maximize their benefits. For example, the turtle program leverages over a dollar in matching funds for every Federal dollar spent. We 

should refrain from giving the Federal Government the ability to purchase water 
89 

rights and land as the Fish Habitat Conservation would allow. This should be done 

working with property owners—such as the Partnership for Fish and Wildlife Program. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Thank you, Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the subcommittee for holding today’s hearing on legislation addressing the topic of invasive 

species and the threat they pose to the environment. 

As a Senator from Florida, I have seen firsthand the impacts of invasive species 

like the Burmese python. These nonnative, giant constrictor snakes have overrun 

the Everglades and are reproducing at an alarming rate. Not only do these animals 

wreak havoc on the south Florida ecosystem, but they can be deadly. 

This summer, a 2-year-old girl was killed by a Burmese python while she slept 

in her crib. This tragic occurrence was unfortunately not an isolated event. In fact, 

I have included for the record a list of incidences involving giant constrictor snakes 

in the United States over the last several years. I filed a bill in February which 

amends the Lacey Act and declares pythons as injurious animals. This will halt the 

importation and interstate commerce of these deadly and invasive snakes. 

Since the subcommittee’s hearing on invasive threats in July, the United States 

Geological Survey (USGS) released a risk assessment on nine giant constrictor 

snakes, including the Burmese python. The risk assessment shows that all nine of 

these species pose either a medium or a high threat of establishing a wild breeding 

population in the United States. Of the nine, three of those snakes are already 

breeding in south Florida: the boa constrictor, northern African rock python, and the 

Burmese python. The study also showed that this is not just a Florida problem. 

Many of those snakes have the potential to establish breeding populations in other 

areas of the country as well. 

Based on the USGS risk assessment and testimony from State and Federal resource managers, it is not enough to deal with only the Burmese python. There are 

already thousands of Burmese pythons breeding in the Everglades alone, and we 

must act swiftly before the next invasive species has a chance to gain a foothold 

in the United States. As such, I support two courses of action. First, list the nine 

species which have been found to pose a medium or high risk of establishment as 

injurious under the Lacey Act, halting their further import and interstate transport 

in this country. This includes the Indian/Burmese python, northern African rock 

python, southern African rock python, reticulated python, boa constrictor, yellow anaconda, green anaconda, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, and Beni anaconda. Listing 

these nine now deals with the animals that the United States Department of the 

Interior knows are a current threat. 

We also have to deal with the threat of species that have not yet been studied. 

The Lacey Act in its current application has not provided an efficient mechanism 

of preventing importation of invasive species due to the long process involved in listing animals as injurious. The listing process needs to be simplified. With increased 

global access, exotic ‘‘pets’’ are available with the click of a button over the Internet 

without consideration of their impact on the environment or the threat they may 

pose to human safety. 

It is time to move forward and find a better way to screen animals for potential 

invasiveness. I intend to continue working with my fellow Members of Congress to 

find solutions that prevent invasions so that we do not have the next Burmese 

python destroying the ecosystems that we work so hard to protect. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 

Æ