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

95–159 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1201 

THREATS TO NATIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 8, 2009 

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

( 

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) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

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

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 8, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 3 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ..................................... 4 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 5 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 6 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York .................. 7 

Levin, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan ................................ 9 

Nelson, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida ................................... 11 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 163 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 164 

WITNESSES 

Frazer, Gary, Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat Conservation, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 33 

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 35 

Response to an additional question from Senator Sanders .......................... 38 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter ................................ 39 

Clay, Bill, Acting Associate Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture .................................................... 40 

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

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 48 

Ruiz, Gregory, Senior Scientist, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, 

Marine Invasions Research Laboratory ............................................................. 74 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Humphries, Rebecca, Director, Michigan Department of Natural Resources .... 110 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 112 

Torgan, John, Narragansett Baykeeper, Save the Bay, Inc. ................................ 139 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 141 

Hill, Jeffrey E., Assistant Professor, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, University of Florida ........................................................................... 145 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 148 

Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter .............................. 157 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letter to Senators Cardin and Whitehouse from Louisiana Governor Bobby 

Jindal .................................................................................................................... 165 

Photos of Burmese pythons ..................................................................................... 167 

Photo of a bat with white-nose syndrome .............................................................. 171 

Photo of a nutria ...................................................................................................... 172 

Monie Bay pre nutria eradication project—May 2007 .......................................... 173 

Monie Bay pre nutria eradication project—May 2009 .......................................... 174 

(1) 

THREATS TO NATIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

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

Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse (chairmen of the subcommittees) presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin, Whitehouse, Lautenberg, Barrasso, 

Crapo, and Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. The subcommittees will come to order. 

Today we are having a joint subcommittee hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee of the Water and Wildlife 

and Oversight Committees. I want to thank my colleague and 

friend, Senator Whitehouse, for arranging for this joint hearing 

with the Water and Wildlife Committee that I chair. He chairs the 

Oversight Committee. And we want to thank Senator Barrasso for 

his help in arranging this morning’s hearing. 

We are talking about the threats to native wildlife species. And 

we are pleased that two of our colleagues have joined us: Senator 

Levin, in talking about the threats to the Great Lakes; and Senator 

Nelson, who will talk about the unique wildlife and ecosystems in 

Florida and the python which he brought, it looks like the skin, 

with him today to demonstrate the danger to the ecosystems in 

Florida. 

The threat to native wildlife comes from many sources. Today we 

will be talking about two of those, one dealing with invasive species, the other dealing with diseases. 

The release of invasive species into the local environment presents a real risk to our environment. The Burmese pythons in 

Southern Florida have caused a major problem, and our colleague 

Senator Nelson will be talking about that. In my own State of 

Maryland, we have had the snakehead fish which has been released that has caused major problems. 

These are wildlife animals and fish that are just released into 

the wild because they are mainly taken as pets, people get tired, 

and then think they are doing a favor to release them to the wild. 

They cause huge problems with the native wildlife. 
2 

We have a disease called white-nose syndrome in the Northeast 

with the bat colonies. We will be talking about those issues. 

What we have done is try to manage these invasive species, and 

that continues to be a great challenge. It is expensive, and it is a 

challenge. In my own State of Maryland, we have dealt with the 

nutria. The nutria is a furry animal that was originally brought 

into Maryland and, I believe, also Louisiana, because of its commercial value. They thought it could be used, the skin could be 

used, for commercial reasons. It was a commercial activity. 

Well, it did not work very well, so they decided to release the nutria to the wild. And in Louisiana and Maryland, it is creating a 

huge problem. They literally eat the grasses and destroy the wetlands that are critically important for the ecosystems that are protecting the species as well as eliminating the filtering system for 

the water quality. In the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge, which is on 

the Eastern Shore of Maryland, we have lost 5,000-plus acres of 

wetlands as a result of the nutria. That has a direct loss to the 

local economy and to the fisheries of $4 million per year. 

Well, in 2000, Congress developed a public-private partnership to 

deal with the nutria population, and it has been somewhat successful. But there is more work that needs to be done, and we will have 

a chance to talk about during today’s hearing. 

I know that Senator Lautenberg will be talking about the bats, 

a keystone species in the food web that help to control insect and 

pest populations. They are vitally important to our agricultural 

community in eating the bugs that would otherwise feed on our 

crops. Well, there is a disease, white-nose syndrome, which is causing us to lose a lot of our bat colonies, and we are struggling to 

understand this disease. But we do know that it is related to 

human activity, and we need to talk about that. 

We know that in certain animals and birds, they carry diseases 

from imported animals and birds that can affect human health, 

such as the West Nile and avian flues, just to mention two by example. 

Our first priority should be to prevent the introduction of 

invasive species or diseases into America. I hope that during the 

course of this hearing we will have a chance to talk about our 

strategies as far as border control is concerned. Do we have adequate laws that deal with animals and wildlife that come into 

America? Do we need additional resources? It would be far more 

productive to stop the problems at the border than trying to clean 

up the problems once they get to our shores, and I hope during today’s hearing will have the chance to talk about that. 

I am pleased to call upon the Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Whitehouse. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

I want to thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse for his assistance in co-chairing 

this important hearing to examine the threats disease and invasive species pose to 

the country’s native wildlife. 

I also want thank our distinguished colleagues, Senator Nelson and Senator 

Levin, for joining us today. Senator Nelson is especially interested in addressing 
3 

specific threats to the unique wildlife and ecosystems of his home State of Florida, 

and Senator Levin will be adding his perspective on the threats to the Great Lakes. 

We also want to thank our Agency and expert witnesses for coming before our 

subcommittees. 

The recent emergence of Burmese pythons in South Florida and snakehead fish 

in the Chesapeake watershed are a direct result of people who simply did not know 

better releasing these invasive species into the local environment. White-nose syndrome in Northeastern bat colonies, which we need to study and learn more about, 

has had a devastating impact on these native species. 

These are just some of the numerous threats to native species that motivated our 

subcommittees to examine a host of both new and persistent diseases and invasive 

species threatening the country’s native wildlife populations. We hope to learn what 

we are doing well and what we can do better to curb these problems. 

Managing the threat of invasive species continues to be one of the greatest challenges facing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuge managers. 

I know it has not been easy, but in some instances we are seeing real progress. 

For nearly six decades at the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Maryland, nutria have been killing wetland grasses that provide vital habitat for native 

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

maintaining water quality. 

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

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

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

In 2000, Congress established a Federal funding source to develop a public-private 

partnership program to address nutria in Maryland. The partnership has implemented a successful effort to manage the species. Healthy wetlands are returning 

to places where nutria have been removed. But the job is not yet done. 

Bats are a keystone species in the food web that help control insect and pest populations. They are vital to agricultural food growers by eating bugs that feed on 

crops. Since 2006, hundreds of thousands of hibernating bats have died from whitenose syndrome. Without bats we face the real possibility that certain insect species 

could boom out of control, threatening crops as well as human health. 

State wildlife managers are struggling to understand the full nature of the disease. This struggle is further hampered by the lack of capacity and resources wildlife managers have to work with. 

The spread of the disease to such a wide range of locations may be linked to 

human activity. Exploring caves that have infected bats may inadvertently be 

spreading the fungus. The rapid spread and the rate of morbidity caused by whitenose syndrome requires rapid action be taken. 

West Nile and avian flu are examples of imported exotic animal diseases with 

strains that can infect humans. 

Our panelists have been on the front lines doing the research and implementing 

programs on the ground to address these problems. You know what works and what 

does not work when it comes to stopping the spread of established diseases and 

invasive species. I look forward to hearing your recommendations. We all know that 

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, so I hope our witnesses will focus 

on how to stop these threats rather than simply discuss ways to manage them. 

Consideration must be given to preventing the next nutria or snakehead invasion 

and keeping animals infected with the next avian flu from ever reaching the U.S. 

in the first place. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Ben. I am delighted 

to join you in this hearing. I appreciate your leadership in convening it. 

I welcome Senator Carl Levin of Michigan and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida here, who will be our opening presenters. I appreciate very much that you have taken the trouble to attend, and I 

am glad to be joined by so many colleagues here. 

This is a significant issue. Two factors drive it. One is global 

commerce, and the other is a changing climate. And whether, as 

Senator Cardin indicated, the invasive species are ones that are 

brought in lawfully and then escape into the wild and acclimate 
4 

themselves to this new environment, or whether they are hitchhikers on the stream of global commerce and come with shipping 

and packaging inadvertently and make their homes, or whether 

they simply find that as climate changes they are able to expand 

into new areas where we have not experienced them before, it creates very significant issues. And I am very pleased to participate 

in this hearing. 

I want to mention that a very prominent Rhode Island environmentalist, John Torgan, is here and will be presenting in the second panel, and I look very much forward to his participation. 

I have to warn everybody that I am in my waning days on the 

Health Committee and we are marking up the healthcare bill as 

we speak. So, I will be in and out of the hearing. But I appreciate 

very much and take a keen interest in the topic that you have 

brought to our attention, Senator Cardin. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator Crapo, the ranking Republican on the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the fact that both of our Chairmen here have called this 

joint hearing and are bringing attention to this important issue. 

As you have already well indicated, Senator Cardin, this is a 

very, very critical issue in I think probably all 50 States where we 

face the question of what kind of management we need to undertake to effectively deal with invasive species. And Idaho is certainly 

one of those States that has its share of issues. 

In Idaho, a number of the problematic invasive species are things 

like the yellow star thistle, the quagga mussel, cheat grass, bark 

beetles and your Asian millfoil, to name just a few. One of these 

issues that we have in Idaho is that, because such a large percentage of our State is owned by the Federal Government, it is more 

than half, closer to two-thirds of our State is Federal land, the activities and enforcement of the Federal Government and the agencies that manage these lands are critical to our ability to control 

and manage these invasive species. 

So, among the many other different types of issues that we face, 

one of them is simply the interaction at the different levels of government, between State and Federal, as well as local governments, 

to deal with this and, frankly, the private citizens as they have responsibilities as well. 

Again, I thank you for your attention to this. I know there is legislation in several different forms being considered that can significantly change the way that we are approaching these efforts to control invasive species, and I have not yet reached a conclusion in my 

own mind as to whether the proposed changes are going to be an 

improvement or not. But it is important for us to evaluate these 

proposals as you are doing here today and, again, I appreciate your 

bringing attention to these issues. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you. 
5 

Senator Barrasso, the Ranking Republican on the Oversight 

Committee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

for calling this important hearing. I am very pleased that we are 

going to be here today discussing invasive species and the impact 

on native wildlife. I welcome our guests as well. 

In Wyoming, just as in the other States we have heard about, we 

do have a number of invasive species issues. Saltcedar and Russian 

olive trees severely impact water availability for farmers along the 

North Platte River. Cheat grass, juniper and other invasives 

threaten the sage brush ecosystem that our sage grass depends 

upon. Our State is also on the watch for the potential threat of 

zebra mussels, which is a problem I already know is plaguing the 

Great Lake States. Noxious species are also a threat on native species in Wyoming. 

Wyoming faces an urgent problem, as they do in Idaho, for the 

bark beetle infestation. In the Medicine Bow National Forest, almost a half-million acres of these trees are infected already by bark 

beetles. We have over 9 million acres of national forest lands in 

Wyoming, and a Forest Service analysis shows this epidemic doubled in size between 2007 and 2008. 

These beetles destroy our forests and leave nothing but dead timber standing in the wake. This represents a clear and present 

threat to public land users, to communities, and to homeowners. 

We have mountains of kindling just waiting to burn. This is not a 

safe situation for the communities in and around these mountains. 

So, we must go into the forests, remove some of this dead timber, 

and reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. 

The threat to our forests and the species that inhabit those forests are very real for Western States, and more must be done to 

address this threat. 

Now, in terms of regulating invasive species from foreign countries, I do have a number of concerns. We have a very limited number of resources available. We need to put those resources where 

they will do the most good. We have laws on the books that regulate the importation of species. We need to make sure that the 

funding is there to ensure that these laws are properly enforced 

and that the agencies are properly staffed. I would not want to 

pass additional legislation that would in any way hurt our economy, including our pet economy, our sport fishing economy, or our 

farming industries. 

Let us not forget that, historically, the majority of livestock and 

crops in the United States are non-native species to North America. 

Many breeds of cats and dogs are non-native to the States, as are 

many of the breeds of fish that we use to stock our lakes, our reservoirs and our ponds for sport fishing. So, to this day, species are 

brought from overseas for these and other industries. 

Most of these species, if left unchecked and not properly managed, can cause significant damage to the surrounding ecosystem. 

These species have been vital to key industries in our economy and 

to pet owners and recreationists across the country. 
6 

I am looking forward to the testimony today. I have a very open 

mind on this and thank the Chairman for holding the hearing. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to indicate that I, 

too, have another hearing right now, a climate change hearing in 

the Finance Committee, so I will also be moving back and forth. 

Senator CARDIN. I pointed that out, that I know members will be 

coming in and out because of the commitments for other committees, and every member’s opening statement will be made part of 

the record. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

When you see our colleagues here from other States, from Western States as well as those of us from the Eastern side, joining together, we know that we have a problem of serious magnitude. I 

appreciate greatly your holding this hearing about threats to animals and ecosystems across the country from changing climate, 

vanishing habitats and invasive species. 

Now, as you know and mentioned, and I appreciate it, I am particularly concerned about a threat that could wipe out an entire bat 

population from New Hampshire to Virginia. One might react less 

concerned about bats. They are typically thought of as an ugly little 

thing that is often rabid. But nothing could be more invalid. 

The threat to their population is a fungus called white-nose syndrome. Since it first surfaced in 2006, it has spread from cave to 

cave, leaving 90 to 100 percent of bat populations in some caves 

dead or dying. And since bats are slow breeders, scientists fear that 

the white-nose syndrome could cause many bat species to go extinct. Over the last two winters, more than 1 million hibernating 

bats have died. 

Now, at one bat cave in New Jersey, the Hibernian Mine, which 

I entered for my own familiarization with that population, there 

are normally 30,000 bats hibernating. As of April, this past April, 

only 750 bats were found alive there. The thing that struck the 

great alarm was the number of dead bats lying all over the place. 

We have got to stop the spread of this disease. We are dealing 

with a major threat to an entire ecosystem, potentially able to 

cause major environmental and economic problems, as my colleagues have discussed, with their non-invasive species. This is not 

a non-invasive species, but the disease is a threatening one to that 

particular species. 

Bats are on the front line of defense in protecting the public’s 

health and our crops. They prey almost exclusively on insects, such 

as mosquitoes, which spread disease, and moths and beetles as 

well, which damage crops. A single bat can easily eat more than 

3,000 insects in a night, and an entire colony will consume hundreds of millions of insects. It is said that a single bat will eat 

enough insects to be half its weight. So, it is a pretty voracious and 

very important species. 
7 

Bats also reduce the needs for pesticides which costs farmers billions of dollars every year and can be harmful to ourselves. With 

fewer bats, there are more mosquitoes to breed disease, more insects to destroy the crops grown on New Jersey’s farms, threatening the livelihood of our farmers, and damaging our economy. 

And the problem is not limited, as you know, Mr. Chairman, to 

New Jersey. This serious threat to our health, environment and 

economy is repeating itself all along the East Coast. We need to act 

fast, and we need help from the Administration. 

In May, along with Senate and House colleagues, I sent a letter 

to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar requesting emergency funding for 

research into the cause of white-nose syndrome, and to develop a 

solution to stop its spread. I look forward to the Secretary’s response. 

Now, some of the witnesses on this panel have experienced fighting the spread of diseases like white-nose syndrome and helping 

species survive such threats. I look forward to hearing their ideas 

on how we can save the bat population in New Jersey and nationwide. Much is at risk. And the bats have become more beautiful as 

we learn more about them. 

Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from New Jersey. 

The issues that we are addressing today are about invasive species. But the reason why it is so important is because it fundamentally affects our economy, it fundamentally affects our health and 

well being, and it fundamentally affects the costs of having to address these invasive species at a time when we have record high 

unemployment and enormous burdens on our municipalities and 

towns and local governments. 

When they have to address some of these invasive species, those 

are costs that will have to be spent on addressing the invasive species as opposed to other priorities that we have. So, these are significant issues for our economy. 

I will start with the white-nose bat syndrome. One of the reasons 

why it is so important, just as Senator Lautenberg said, is that because bats eat mosquitoes, in particular, and other insects, they are 

very important to keeping our communities safe. 

One of the biggest threats we had around New York State was 

the West Nile virus and I watched in many, many towns, where 

we sprayed towns to kill mosquitoes to prevent our children from 

getting the West Nile virus. It was a significant expense for local 

municipalities and local towns. 

Without the natural order of things, the natural life cycles and 

many of the roles that bats and insects and other species play, if 

we do not have the natural order of things, there is much in disarray and it creates enormous expense and risk. So that is one 

area. 
8 

The second area is that bats also help pollination, and that 

brings to mind another problem, the colony collapse disorder. The 

bee populations are being seriously decreased, all across America 

and the world. In fact, 36 percent of bee colonies were reported to 

be wiped out in the United States because of the colony collapse 

disorder. 

If you do not have bees, and you do not have bats, you do not 

have pollination. If you do not have pollination, you do not have 

fruits and vegetables in America. If you do not have fruits and 

vegetables in America, we have a serious national security risk to 

our food chain or our food supply. These issues are critical to America’s safety, from an agricultural safety perspective, a national security perspective, and an economic perspective. 

We also have other great costs in New York State because of 

some of our invasive species because we have so many natural resources in our lakes. We have the Great Lakes, we have the Adirondack Lakes, we have lakes all across New York. And a number 

of the species are particularly threatening to our economy of tourism in these lakes. 

Whether we are looking at millfoil, which was mentioned by my 

colleague Mr. Barrasso, or zebra mussel, what these kinds of 

invasive species do is go so far as to clog drainage pipes, to clog 

intake pipes, to clog damns, to really affect tourism. Those are all 

of significant importance to our communities for our clean water 

and for economic growth for our communities. So, many of these 

invasive species must be addressed. 

And the last group that I would like to just touch on is some of 

those that affect our timber industry. We have the Asian longhorn 

beetle and we have the cyrus wood wasp. Both of them are extremely expensive to eradicate. But they must be eradicated because, if they are left unchecked, they will destroy the timber industry, they will destroy a lot of our forestry, which will undermine 

many other economic issues like tourism. 

For example, the Asian longhorn beetle, it has cost more than 

$180 million to eradicate it in the suburbs around New York City 

so that it does not spread toward the Catskills and the Adirondacks 

where it could be devastating to our tourism and timber industries. 

So, I am very appreciative of this hearing because, you know, 

these are very serious economic, health and agricultural impacts 

that affect not only the livelihood of New Yorkers, but the health 

and well being of our children. 

I appreciate your focusing attention on these very important 

issues. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I think each of the members’ opening 

statements points that we have a common challenge around the 

Nation on dealing with the protection of our native wildlife species, 

and we look forward to trying to work together to figure out what 

we can do in a constructive manner. 

Our first panel includes two of our colleagues that are very actively involved on this issue, Senator Carl Levin from Michigan 

who has been a leader in regards to the Great Lakes, and Senator 

Bill Nelson from Florida, who has been very actively involved in 

the Everglades and preserving those issues. 

Senator Levin. 
9 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Chairman Cardin and colleagues, for 

inviting us to testify very briefly and to make an introduction. 

As the Chairman mentioned, I represent Michigan, a Great 

Lakes State. Invasive species have done severe damage to our 

Great Lakes as well as to the land mass of Michigan. Everything 

from zebra mussel, which a number of you have mentioned, to the 

emerald ash borer which are destroying ash trees. We have 180 

invasive species identified in the Great Lakes alone. 

I was thinking about bringing in a zebra mussel, by the way, but 

then I had word that Senator Nelson might bring in an exhibit 

which would make our poor zebra mussel look so puny by comparison that you would think it would not be a problem. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEVIN. Let me just mention, I am not going to tell this 

panel and these two subcommittees about the problems of invasive 

species. You all know them. You have them in your States. You 

have all made reference to them in your opening statements. I just 

would reinforce one point that you made, which is the universality 

of the problem, at least in terms of all of our States. 

The zebra mussels started in the Great Lakes. Thirty States are 

now infested with zebra mussels. Like global warming, these things 

do not stay in one place. 

Second, the solution, at least one of the key remedies, lies in your 

hands. That is to adopt a significant ballast water treatment technology requirement for our ships. Most of our invasive species in 

the Great Lakes States come in through the water. In the ballast 

is our invasive species that come in from other places. And when 

that ballast is exchanged in the Great Lakes, it drops these 

invasive species in the Great Lakes, including zebra mussels. 

You had under your consideration, as has the Commerce Committee had under consideration for many years, bills which would 

require ships to have new technologies to destroy the species instead of just being to remove or transfer ballast from saltwater to 

fresh water and so forth. We actually have a technology to destroy 

the species. 

There has been a conflict in two bills. One bill, which I think has 

been favored by many members on this committee and these two 

subcommittees, basically would allow the States to adopt a higher 

technology over the years than the national standard which we 

would start with. 

The Commerce Committee, and I do not want to generalize here 

because I am not sure it applies to every member, but in general, 

there is a Commerce Committee bill, I will identify it, which says 

we are going to have a national standard, and we are then going 

to let that standard apply for a reasonable period of time without 

the shipping companies facing the possibility that States will up 

the ante. 

This is a traditional conflict. It is the not the first time that we 

have faced this kind of a conflict. We have it all the time. But it 

needs to be resolved. And I believe the right resolution is for us to 

adopt a tough national standard, and then to give the shipping industry a period of repose. They will be guaranteed that there will 
10 

not be any increase in that standard for a reasonable period of 

time. 

That is not the bill which many members of this committee have 

favored. But that is the conflict that needs to be resolved. I have 

taken a position on it which is, by the way, different from the position I think of my own legislature, which would like the State to 

be able to have a higher standard a year from now. You have shipping companies put in expensive technologies this year, and then 

a year from now any one of the States can say, whoops, there is 

a new technology and we want you to adopt a new one? 

We are never going to get this accomplished unless we adopt a 

national standard and let it stick for a reasonable period time, 

whether it is 5 years or 10 years. I would urge the members that 

are considering this to consider that option. But it is in your hands. 

This conflict needs to be resolved between these two bills. And 

again, the position I have taken is not my own State legislature’s 

position. 

Having said that, I am really here to make an introduction, not 

to lobby my colleagues. 

I want to introduce a panelist who will be on the second panel, 

Rebecca Humphries. She is the Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. She worked her way up through the 

ranks of the Michigan of Natural Resources. She has more than 30 

years’ experience in the field. She has considerable knowledge on 

the impacts of invasive species and disease on native wildlife. She 

has served, in recent years, as Chair of the Fish and Wildlife 

Health Committee of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

So, she has a lot of information. She has tackled issues in Michigan involving invasive species such as VHS, chronic wasting disease, emerald ash borer and so forth. She is going to have a lot of 

valuable information for these two subcommittees that meet today. 

We are grateful for your doing what you are doing. I know that 

you are going to excuse me, and I appreciate that. 

I have talked to Senator Nelson about his testimony and I agree 

with everything that he says, for what that is worth. And I am glad 

this damn python is a long way from where we live. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:] 

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

Thank you, Chairman Cardin and Chairman Whitehouse and the members of 

your subcommittees, for holding today’s hearing on the very important topic of 

threats to our wildlife. 

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

of allowing aquatic invasive species to enter our waters. About 180 non-native organisms have been identified already in the Great Lakes. Some of my colleagues may 

remember that back in the late eighties and nineties, the zebra mussel was released 

into the Great Lakes through ballast water. At that time people considered the 

zebra mussel to be just a problem for the Great Lakes. Today, almost 30 States are 

fighting to control and prevent them. Zebra mussels can significantly change the nature of the lake bottom, affecting fish habitat and spawning. They trap nutrients 

and disrupt the normal flow of these nutrients into deeper waters. The mussels also 

excrete nutrients creating an environment that may be linked to water quality problems, such as algal fouling on rocky shorelines, off-tastes in drinking water and lethal outbreaks of botulism in wildlife, especially during warm water periods. Mussels eat by filtering algae from the water. This is the same food source for many 

native fish which means less food available to native species. Zebra mussels have 
11 

caused drastic declines in the native Great Lakes mussels (commonly called clams) 

not only by competing for food, but also by nesting on top of exposed clamshell so 

that the native mussel cannot get enough food to survive. 

Because invasive species can quickly spread throughout the country, the best effort that we have against invasive species is prevention. Maritime commerce is the 

largest pathway for new species to be introduced into our waters, and I believe that 

we need to enact legislation that will require ballast water discharge management 

that will result in ballast water treatment technology onboard ships as soon as possible. I support establishing a strong national ballast water technology standard for 

all ships. Technology that meets this standard would be approved for a minimum 

period of time—5, 8, or 10 years. 

I also believe it is important to address other pathways of introduction such as 

intentional introductions. Right now, anyone can order almost any organism on the 

Internet and have it shipped into the U.S., and no one considers whether that organism is invasive and harmful. We need to establish a process to screen incoming 

organisms. The Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act, which I and Senator 

Voinovich introduced, establishes a screening process for invasive organisms. 

Third, we need to be more aggressive about adding organisms that are invasive 

and injurious to the Lacey Act list. Listing a species as injurious under the Lacey 

Act would prevent the intentional introduction of these species by prohibiting the 

interstate transportation or importation without a permit. One species that I believe 

should not be imported is the bighead carp, and I will introduce legislation to list 

the bighead carp as injurious under the Lacey Act. Three other species of Asian carp 

have already been listed. The Asian carp grow very big, reproduce quickly, and are 

now the most abundant fish in the Mississippi River. It’s important to Michigan to 

prevent these fish from entering the Great Lakes and destroying the native fishery. 

Mr. Chairmen and Ranking Members, the impact of invasive species on Michigan’s native wildlife is large. I am only able to touch on a few of the invaders that 

have had such a negative impact to my State, and I know that each of your States 

is also suffering. So I encourage this committee to support legislation to implement 

a strong ballast water management program, to create a screening process for live 

organisms being imported into the country, and to simplify the process of listing a 

species as injurious under the Lacey Act. 

And now I want to say a few words of introduction about Director Rebecca Humphries, the Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, who will testify later on the third panel. Director Humphries has worked her way up through 

the ranks of the Michigan DNR and has more than 30 years of experience in the 

natural resources field. She has considerable knowledge on the impacts of invasive 

species and disease on native wildlife. Over the last few years, she has served as 

the chair of the Fish and Wildlife Health Committee for the Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies helping to develop a package of information related to State and 

Federal authorities to manage diseases in fish and wildlife so that when a disease 

outbreak occurs, State agencies are prepared with plans, well trained staff, and 

legal authorities. Director Humphries has tackled issues in Michigan such as viral 

hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS), chronic wasting disease, emerald ash borer, and I 

believe that she will have some valuable recommendations on how the Federal Government can work with States to minimize the threats to native wildlife. Thank you, 

Director Humphries, for coming to Washington to share your insights into these 

issues. 

In closing, I want to thank the members of the two subcommittees for today’s 

hearing as well as the other witnesses. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Levin, thank you very much for sharing 

your thoughts on the subject with us. We appreciate your testimony. 

Senator Nelson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, while Senator Levin is still 

here, I just want to say that I am a sponsor of that bill in the Commerce Committee. 

This mussel, this zebra mussel, is really a problem. What happens is, instead of using rocks like they did in the old days for ballast on ships, they use water. They take this water from a foreign 
12 

land. Well, this water is invaded with all of these species, and they 

come into the Great Lakes and they dump the water, and then the 

species get out. This zebra mussel goes and attaches itself to drain 

pipes and so forth, and it completely clogs up everything. 

So, it is just another example that the Congress of the United 

States needs to address this problem in law. It needs to address 

what I am going to show you in law as well. And there is something that you can do about that, and that is the bill that we filed 

which adds to the List of Injurious Species the Burmese python. 

Now, let me tell you how bad this has become in the Florida Everglades. These snakes that people import into this country and 

buy as pets, well, a Burmese python can grow as much as 7 feet 

in 1 year. So they get them as these little bitty snakes, and then 

they get too big, and people release them. And they are so prolific. 

As a matter of fact, in an environment like the Florida Everglades that, by the way, the U.S. Government is spending a lot of 

money, along with the State of Florida, to reform the Florida Everglades from the diking and draining that had occurred for the last 

three-quarters of a century, and now we are allowing a species to 

take over that is at the top of the food chain, and all of the natural 

species that is in the Florida Everglades that we are restoring back 

to what Mother Nature intended, all of that native species is being 

thwarted. 

For example, they found that this snake has swam across the 

ocean to Key Largo. It is the top key in the chain of the Florida 

Keys. And there they found, in the belly of one of these snakes, the 

endangered Key Largo wood rat. They have found in these snakes 

a full grown Florida deer. They have found a full grown Florida 

bobcat. It is only a matter of time before a Florida Panther is found 

inside of one of these invasive pythons. 

As you can see, by the size of this critter, you can see that this 

one is probably 16 or 17 feet, what they do is they have fangs that 

have fish hooks on them. Their modus operandi, since you cannot 

see them, they will lie in wait perfectly still for their prey. They 

then strike, and grab their prey with their fangs which, because it 

has a barb on the end, the prey cannot pull away, then immediately wrap their constrictor body around the prey and suffocate 

their prey to death. 

Unfortunately, the worst happened last week in Florida. A pet 

Burmese python only 8 feet long, not this long, slithered out of its 

glass cage and, in the middle of the night, worked its way up into 

the baby crib, attached its fang to the head of a 2-year-old child, 

wrapped its body around the child and strangled the child to death. 

This happened in Sumter County, which is to the west of Orlando and north of Tampa. It is just a matter of time before one 

of these snakes gets to a visitor in the Florida Everglades. 

Mr. Chairman, I have had the Superintendent of the Everglades 

Park tell me that they now estimate that these snakes have proliferated to the tune of 150,000 in the Florida Everglades National 

Park. The reason they are so prolific is, they killed a 16-footer and 

inside of her were 56 eggs ready to hatch. So, you see how it has 

become such an invasive species. And it is taking over anything 

that is natural to the Florida Everglades. 
13 

Now, fortunately, at the end of May, we took Secretary Salazar 

down the Everglades, took him out in an airboat and he got to see 

this natural phenomenon called the River of Grass. But before we 

took the tour in the airboat, we brought this, it is a 16-footer, you 

can see the body, and you can see Secretary Salazar here looking 

at this snake. This snake is about as large as this one. And you 

see the power. It took three men to hold that snake and that snake 

was not hungry. You can see the power. 

The middle of that snake, the middle of him, is this big around. 

And it is all muscle. You have heard the phrase a pig in a python, 

with the hump in the middle of the snake? Well, that is exactly 

what they do. Once they have suffocated their prey to death, then 

these jaws separate and they ingest the whole prey and the body 

expands and that is where the phrase the pig in the python came 

from. 

In the food chain, there is only predator that is higher than this, 

and that is the alligator. But that is only a very large alligator. We 

have had a 12-foot python attack an 8-foot alligator. And they 

thrashed around in the water for 30 hours right off of the headquarters of the National Park in the Florida Everglades. 

We have found a 6-foot alligator inside of a python. Here again, 

this is only a 6-footer, and you can see what they look like against 

St. Augustine grass, but when these critters get into the natural 

swampy conditions, you cannot find them. They had captured one, 

they put an electronic chip in one. So they trapped it and they had 

the electronic antenna saying that the snake is right there, and all 

of the biologists standing around could not see the snake. That is 

how difficult they are. 

What I am going to enter into the record, with your permission, 

is a 10-page document that will detail the number of python attacks on human beings in the last 10 years. And I can tell you, Mr. 

Chairman, it has been 17, and 7 people have died as a result of 

the attack. 

So not only do we have a species that is threatening to humans, 

and the superintendent of the park told me one day that he has 

never experienced anything like this, they saw a python starting to 

come across the road out in the park. He said his attention was diverted momentarily and he turned around and the python was 

right in front of him. They move that quickly. 

So, endangerment to humans, especially endangerment to the 

natural ecological phenomenon of what Mother Nature intended because of this snake going after all the other prey, and, ultimately, 

changing the very nature of something that we are trying to return 

to what Mother Nature intended, and that is the Florida Everglades. 

I would close with this. This snake coming out of Burma, all it 

knows is that it likes moist, humid climates. This is not restricted 

just to the south end of the peninsula of Florida. This snake, if it 

continues to proliferate, you are going to find it all over the southern United States and that is all the way, and the biologists will 

tell you as they testify, there are conditions in California and all 

across the sunbelt that are conditions for this snake to prosper in. 

As you look at these invasive species, and there are plenty of others you all have mentioned, and I would add that the Brazilian 
14 

pepper plant and the Nile monitor lizards are other invasive species, we have got to have the ability to stop it. 

Because we have the problem in Florida, I have been asking the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, administratively, to do something 

about the import. And for 3 years they have not. They said that 

they are studying it. I am hopeful now that, under Secretary Tom 

Strickland, who was down there with us, I am hopeful that they 

are going to administratively get into it. 

But you can do something about it, Mr. Chairman, by a one word 

change in the law and restricting it to, not all of the constrictor 

snakes, but to this particular one. And that would be the help that 

we need to address this problem. 

Thank, you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:] 

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

Chairman Cardin and Chairman Whitehouse, thank you for inviting me to testify 

at this hearing today. 

Last week tragedy struck in a small town northwest of Orlando, Florida. As the 

family awoke a scene of horror unfolded. An 8-foot albino Burmese python escaped 

from its container, slithered through the house and up into a crib where 2-year-old 

Shaiunna Hare lay asleep. The snake bit the child and wrapped itself around her 

body. By the time the paramedics had arrived, the child was already dead from asphyxiation. This is truly the scene of a parent’s worst nightmares. 

We have been warning about the dangers that these lethal snakes present. I have 

a 10-page document that I will submit for the record detailing python attacks over 

the last 10 years. During that period at least 17 people have been the victim of an 

attack, of which 7 died as a result. 

Besides posing a threat to safety, invasive species like the Burmese python are 

wreaking havoc in our most treasured environments. Some estimate there are upwards of more than 100,000 of these deadly pythons in the Everglades National 

Park. The crown jewel of our national park system has been transformed into a 

hunting ground for these predators. 

When is the time for action? We already have one tragedy on our hands. How long 

will it be before one of these snakes gets a hold of the extremely endangered Florida 

Panther? How long will it be before a tourist in the Everglades National Park has 

a dangerous encounter with one of these massive pythons? It took this tragic event 

to bring back focus to this problem, but there is something we can do about it. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has the capability, under law, to declare this an 

injurious species under the Lacey Act. 

After the South Florida Water Management District made a request in June 2006, 

Fish and Wildlife has spent the last 3 years studying it. I think that Secretary of 

the Interior Ken Salazar will take them from studying this issue to acting on it. 

But there is something else we can do. Congress can change the law. 

I filed a bill in February which amends the Lacey Act and declares pythons as 

an injurious animal. This will halt the importation and interstate commerce of these 

deadly snakes. Classifying the Burmese python or python molurus bivittatus as an 

injurious animal would also stop the importation of these snakes between States. 

This is of particular importance—while Burmese pythons have already established 

a breeding population in South Florida, climate maps from the United States Geological Service indicated roughly a full third of the U.S. is suitable habitat. 

The State of Florida has been working from its end to get a handle on these 

snakes. They now require a yearly registration fee, owners must display knowledge 

of handling and care, and snakes are now micro-chipped—so if one got loose you 

would have a chance to chase them down. It’s time for the Federal Government to 

step up and address this ecological crisis. 

With more than a hundred thousand of these snakes on the loose in the Everglades we must do something before the ecological balance is destroyed. We must 

change the law, and we must do it quickly. 

Finally, I would like to thank you again for taking a look at the impact non-native 

plants and animals are having on our Nation’s natural resources and protected ecosystems. Florida is ground zero for exotic plants and animals. From the Brazilian 

pepper to Nile monitor lizards, we have seen it all. 
15 

I would welcome the opportunity to work with you on reforming the way we allow 

species from all over the world into the United States. There might be a way to stop 

the next Burmese python from establishing a foothold here. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you for your very powerful testimony, Senator Nelson. 

Our first panel will consist of our Federal agencies. We have, 

representing the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat Conservation, Gary Frazer, and then from the United States Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Acting Associate Administrator Bill Clay. 

Mr. Frazer, we are glad to hear from you. Your full testimony 

will be made part of the record. You may proceed as you like. 

STATEMENT OF GARY FRAZER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR 

FISHERIES AND HABITAT CONSERVATION, U.S. FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. FRAZER. Thank you. 

Chairman Cardin, Chairman Whitehouse and members of the 

subcommittees, I am Gary Frazer. I am the Assistant Director for 

Fisheries and Habitat Conservation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. I also serve as co-chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Task Force. 

I am joined today by Dr. Jonathan Sleeman, Director of the U.S. 

Geological Survey’s National Wildlife Health Center. And thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Non-native invasive species have significantly affected the health 

of our native species and ecosystems, and the U.S. continues to see 

non-native potentially invasive species crossing our borders 

through various pathways. Given the global nature of our economy 

and transportation systems, we expect this trend to continue. 

Invasive species are among the primary factors that have led to 

the decline of native fish and wildlife populations in the United 

States and are among the most significant natural resource management challenges facing the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

We know that about 4 in 10 species that the Service protects 

under the Endangered Species Act are at risk in large part due to 

the effects of invasive species. Aquatic invasive species have 

harmed America’s sport and commercial fisheries. And invasive 

species are one of the most significant threats to the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

A September 2008 report of the Government Accountability Office listed invasive plants as the No. 1 threat to habitats on refuges 

and invasive animals as the third greatest threat. 

Preventing non-native species from being introduced or established is the most cost-effective strategy for dealing with invasive 

species. Control is costly, and the conservation community has limited tools for long-term management, particularly of aquatic 

invasive species once they become established. 

Preventing the introduction and spread of non-native invasive 

species requires a comprehensive approach including Government 

regulatory tools, such as import screening and injurious wildlife 

prohibitions, pathway management, and public education and outreach. 
16 

Now I would like to turn to the threats of disease to native fish 

and wildlife. 

Human-induced changes to the landscape, including the introduction of non-native species, climate change and declining water 

and environmental quality, appear to be contributing to a surge in 

infectious disease and parasites afflicting native fish and wildlife. 

Some pathogens are endemic to the United States while others are 

introduced and the pathogens themselves could be classified as 

non-native invasive species. 

Non-native infectious diseases are of particular concern because 

native wildlife populations are less likely to have developed immunity to these pathogens. Non-native pathogens introduced into 

highly mobile wildlife species can spread rapidly, be difficult to control, and have severe ecological, economic and even human health 

impacts. 

An example is white-nose syndrome of bats, which was first documented in January 2007 in hibernating bats in New York. It has 

since been documented in hibernating bats in 9 States including 

Virginia and West Virginia. More than 90 percent of bats in affected caves have died, with a few caves showing close to 100 percent mortality. 

Thus far, six bat species have been affected, including the endangered Indiana bat. The sudden and widespread mortality associated with white-nose syndrome has never been observed before in 

any of the more than 1,100 species of bats known to science. 

The Service is leading the Department of the Interior’s response 

to the emergence and spread of white-nose syndrome in bats, in cooperation with the USGS, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, State fish and wildlife agencies and many other partner agencies and organizations. And we expect to have management recommendations in place by September of this year. 

The Service and USGS work very closely with State fish and 

wildlife agencies on surveillance, diagnosis and management of fish 

and wildlife disease. The nature of State and Federal authority 

over fish and wildlife requires close and collaborative relationships 

and capability among all the partners. To this end, the Service and 

USGS are partners with the State fish and wildlife agencies in development of a National Fish and Wildlife Health Initiative, an initiative of the Association of the Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

The overarching goals of this initiative are to establish and enhance fish and wildlife agency capability to address health issues 

of free ranging fish and wildlife and to minimize the negative impacts of health issues affecting free ranging fish and wildlife 

through management, surveillance and research. As with invasive 

species, preventing and controlling disease in fish and wildlife requires capability and coordinated effort among many parties. 

Invasive species and fish and wildlife disease are existing threats 

to fish and wildlife populations that will only grow in significance 

in the face of changes to the physical environment caused by climate change. Managing these existing stressors to fish and wildlife, and anticipating how they may be exacerbated by a changing 

environment, are essential elements of sustaining our Nation’s fish 

and wildlife in the face of climate change. 
17 

Mr. Chairman, the Service appreciates your interest in these 

issues and looks forward to working with you to address these 

threats to our Nation’s fish and wildlife. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, 

and I would be happy to respond to any questions you or the subcommittees may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frazer follows:] 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Frazer. 

Mr. Clay. 

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

Mr. CLAY. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before your subcommittees. 

I am Bill Clay, the Acting Associate Administrator for the USDA 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS. I am joined 

this morning by Dr. Jere Dick, Associate Deputy Administrator for 

APHIS’ Veterinary Services Program, and I will be speaking to you 

about APHIS’ role in relation to wildlife diseases and invasive species. 

APHIS’ mission is to protect the health and value of American 

agriculture and natural resources, which we primarily accomplish 

under the Plant Protection Act, the Animal Health Protection Act, 

and the National Animal Damage Control Act. 

Wildlife are reservoirs for a number of serious diseases such as 

chronic wasting disease, brucellosis, plague, rabies and bovine tuberculosis, to name a few. Many pose a risk of disease spread to 

agricultural animals, particularly as the interaction between wildlife and livestock continues to increase. And in several cases, wildlife can pose an elusive reservoir for diseases that APHIS is trying 

to eradicate in livestock. 

APHIS, through its Veterinary Services and Wildlife Services 

Programs works to address the animal disease threats from both 

the wildlife and livestock interface. In addition to protecting livestock, our agency also seeks to safeguard wildlife resources from 

livestock diseases, as well as emerging diseases and invasive species. 

One example is our cooperative effort in Michigan to combat bovine tuberculosis in both wildlife and livestock. We are a lead agency, in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and our industry partners in the Federal-State Wildlife 

Risk Mitigation Program, which assists livestock producers in preventing disease spread from wildlife to livestock. 

APHIS conducts wildlife risk assessments of livestock facilities, 

develops and funds mitigation plans to increase the separation between wildlife and livestock, and conducts bovine tuberculosis surveillance and disease management in affected herds, among other 

things. 

Another example is viral hemorrhagic septicemia, which has 

caused die-offs in many freshwater species in the Great Lakes. The 

virus could also affect commercially raised fish in other parts of the 

country. So, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

we issued a Federal order preventing the movement of potentially 

infected fish out of the Great Lakes watershed region to unaffected 

parts of the country. 

Our work to address rabies has significant public health and 

wildlife health impacts. We work closely with our State partners 

and others to annually distribute more than 11 million oral rabies 

vaccination baits to reduce the threat to humans, domestic animals 

and wildlife. 
41 

We also work closely with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention and with Canada and Mexico as part of an international strategy for rabies. This program is a model for the One 

Health Initiative, a worldwide strategy that promotes expanding 

interdisciplinary collaboration and communication and that recognizes the critical link between human health and animal health. 

We also work cooperatively with the States to eradicate invasive 

species which can devastate ecosystems. For example, nutria, a 

large semi-aquatic rodent native to South America has caused extensive damage to wetlands, agricultural crops and structural foundations and may serve as a reservoir for disease. We are working 

to eradicate nutria on the DelMarVa peninsula in Maryland and 

have removed more 13,000 to date. 

Also, in Florida’s Grassy Key, we are working with the State to 

eradicate the Gambian giant pouched rat, a rodent native to Africa. 

We are in the final stages of surveillance and removal of any remaining rats which could cause significant agricultural damage 

and damage to natural resources if they reach the mainland. We 

also have ongoing invasive species programs for brown tree snakes 

in Guam, for coqui tree frogs in Hawaii and for feral swine in several of the States. 

Finally, research is a vitally important part of our wildlife disease management efforts. Our National Wildlife Research Center 

scientists design, develop and test new tools for minimizing humanwildlife conflicts that are biologically sound, environmentally safe 

and socially acceptable. National Wildlife Research Center scientists investigate the ecology and transmission of wildlife diseases, as well as develop and test wildlife vaccines and new disease 

surveillance methods. 

Wildlife diseases studied there include avian influenza, bovine 

tuberculosis, chronic wasting disease, pseudorabies, West Nile 

virus, rabies, and others. 

In summary, APHIS has a deep understanding of the link between the health of wildlife, the health of our Nation’s agricultural 

animals, and the impacts of invasive species. We are committed to 

continuing the strong cooperative partnerships with other Federal 

agencies and our State partners as we work to protect the agricultural and natural resources of our Nation. 

We appreciate the interest of your subcommittees in these efforts, and we look forward to working with you on wildlife issues 

of mutual interest. 

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

any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Clay follows:] 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Nelson has asked the committee to include the fact 

sheets on the python incidents. Without objection, that will be 

made part of the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 

Senator CARDIN. Let me point out to the members of the committee that I have been informed there will be two votes starting 

in a few minutes on the floor of the Senate. It is my intention to 

keep the hearing in session. Senator Whitehouse has indicated that 

he will be back after the first vote, in time for me to do that. If 

that, in fact, carries out, we will try to continue the hearing. 

Let me start with some questions, if I might, in regards to the 

eradication programs, Mr. Clay, which you are referring to. I have 

seen first hand the work that has been done on the nutria in 

Blackwater, and I am very impressed with the public-private partnership. I think you said it was 13,000 or 8,000—— 

Mr. CLAY. Thirteen thousand. 

Senator CARDIN. Thirteen thousand nutria have been removed. 

That is quite an impressive effort, and I know that we have seen 

the result, the effects of these results. 

My question is, how effective is this program? Can we expect 

that we can completely eradicate the nutria from the Eastern 

Shore of the DelMarVa peninsula? Or is this a management issue 

more so than effort to completely eradicate? 

Mr. CLAY. Well, Senator, once that invasive species becomes 

firmly established, like nutria have in the DelMarVa peninsula or 

in Louisiana, or as brown tree snakes have become established in 

Guam, I think we have to be careful about using the word eradicate because I am not convinced that we can entirely eradicate 

every single animal. 

I do think with the nutria, brown tree snakes and other 

invasives that have become firmly established, we can control the 

problem to the point where it is no longer, where it does not cause 

any environmental effects. I am not sure that we can entirely 

eradicate them, but I do think that we can make it not the problem 

that it is today. 

Senator CARDIN. So it is more of a management issue than an 

eradication issue? 

Mr. CLAY. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Frazer, I heard you say that our strategy 

should be to try to prevent the introduction of invasive species. We 

have the Lacey Act dealing with injurious species. Do we need to 

look at changing that law? Is there the right balance? As I understand it, there is more focus on livestock-type products than there 

are for general control at our borders. People can bring in pets and 

then release them, as we have seen with the snakehead, as we 

have seen with the python. 

Do we need to look at changing that law? Is this an enforcement 

issue? What do we need to do to be more effective in dealing with 

injurious types of introductions into the United States? 

Mr. FRAZER. Well, Senator, there are multiple authorities to address controlling the importation of non-native species into the 

United States. When it is a public health issue, CDC has authorities. When it is an agricultural health issue, USDA has authorities. 

When it is an issue related to injurious nature to fish and wildlife, 

the Service has authority under the Lacey Act to undertake rulemaking to add a species to the list and prevent its importation and 

to interstate transport of those species. 
63 

It is a rulemaking process. It is process laden and cumbersome. 

The Service has not been resourced to staff that program at a high 

level. And so it has taken, in many cases, several years for us to 

move through the process of adding a single species to the list. 

It is also been administrated in a fashion that is more reactive 

in the past. Species that already have been imported and demonstrated to be of concern in the U.S. or those that have tended 

to be the focus of adding them to the list. 

So, I do think that we need to be looking both administratively 

to improve the process and do what we can, in terms of adding 

more resources, doing everything we can to improve the administrative process of getting through the rulemaking, and we should 

also be looking at other approaches that will be more proactive in 

nature. 

Senator CARDIN. We would look forward to your recommendations there. I mean, I think Senator Nelson makes a very strong 

point about the Burmese python, that even if it were added to the 

list, the damage has been done. The question is, can we stay ahead 

of the curve? 

Are there certain types of animals that should not be permitted 

in this country because of its tendency to be a pet for a short period 

of time and then released to the wild that could cause damage here 

in America? I think that is an issue that we should try to stay 

ahead of the game, rather than just trying to be reactive, as you 

said. I am not sure what the answer is, but we certainly welcome 

your thoughts as to giving you additional tools to deal with that. 

Mr. FRAZER. We would be happy to work with you. I testified recently before the House Natural Resources Committee on a bill 

that has been introduced on the House side that took a different 

approach. So, we would be happy to explore options with you. 

Senator CARDIN. And what was that approach? 

Mr. FRAZER. It was one that established two different lists, an 

approved list and an unapproved list. It recognizes some species 

that might fall in the middle, and you have to do a case-by-case approach. It was one that sought to provide a more proactive approach, provide more certainty to importers. It placed the onus 

upon importers to provide information upon which to make the risk 

assessment. It was designed to be more timely, more proactive. 

There are a number of issues that are associated with making such 

a thing work, not the least being the resources that would be involved. 

Senator CARDIN. I think Senator Barrasso raises a very valid 

point about industries in America depending upon diversity in species, which is certainly something that we do not want to stop. But 

there are certain types of wildlife that really does not serve that 

purpose, that the potential danger seems to me outweighs any of 

the benefits, including it being an exotic pet. And we would hope 

you have the authority to move more rapidly to prevent a Burmese 

python circumstance in the future. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

thank you for that reference. I do have letters from the Chamber 

of Commerce of the United States and the Retail Leaders Association. I would like to introduce those—— 
64 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, it will be included in the 

record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The referenced letters follow:] 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Clay, my impression has been that the 

USDA has broad authority in controlling injurious wildlife species 

in terms of entering into agreements with States, with local jurisdictions, with individuals to control these invasive species. How can 

we use the existing authorities, which the USDA already has and 

the Fish and Wildlife Service has, to address some of these threats 

to our native species? Are there things we can do right now with 

the laws already in place? 

Mr. CLAY. Well, I think, as far as the APHIS wildlife services 

program, we are not a regulatory program, unlike the other programs in APHIS. So, we would work strictly on a request basis 

from State or Federal agency or the private sector. As far as the 

regulatory authorities in APHIS regarding livestock health, I think 

there are appropriate authorities that cover veterinary services activities there. 

So, we will be glad to assist any State or Federal entity that requests our assistance if it falls under the regulatory authority. 

Senator BARRASSO. Following up with Mr. Frazer, I look at the 

Game and Fish Department in Wyoming. It is very concerned 

about some of these aquatic invasive species that we talked about, 

that Senator Levin talked about beginning in the Great Lakes, and 

we have concerns. 

What can the U.S. Fish and Wildlife do to support a State effort 

to tackle this threat, short of adopting some sweeping new Federal 

law which I know my State is not really asking for? They are just 

asking for some help. 

Mr. FRAZER. Well, as I said, I co-chair the Aquatic Nuisance Task 

Force, which is organized to coordinate Federal efforts to address 

aquatic nuisance species but also is closely connected with six different regional panels that reach out to State agencies. 

Through that effort, the Fish and Wildlife Service led what we 

called the Hundredth Meridian Initiative, which, through the 

1990s, served to try to prevent the movement of zebra and quagga 

mussels from the Great Lakes into the Western States. For a number of years, it was successful. But that barrier was breached and, 

as you know, zebra and quagga mussels are now established in the 

Colorado River. 

But we are still working closely with our States, including 

through the limited dollars that we have, to provide support, financial support, to State invasive species programs, to mount effective 

prevention and control programs, to contain the species where it is 

now, to do extensive public education and outreach, because much 

of the movement is through recreational boating and other pathways, and otherwise to provide leadership and support to the 

States and others that have to be part of a solution dealing with 

prevention and containment. 

Senator BARRASSO. Can I ask, also, have you done an economic 

analysis? I mean, I introduced a letter from the Chamber of Commerce about some of the impact that a broad piece of legislation 

would have on things like sport fishing if you really go ahead and 

adopt a precautionary approach, as opposed to a risk-based approach. 

Mr. FRAZER. We have not done them in a generic fashion. But 

part of the challenge of us moving through an individual injurious 
70 

wildlife determination is that we do need to do an economic analysis and look at the effects of any prohibition on importation on 

small businesses, small organizations. Those are the sorts of additional analyses that require time and resources and make the process challenging. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Chairman, I know they are calling for 

the vote. If I may just introduce a couple of other questions in written form so that Senator Lautenberg has an opportunity to ask 

questions. 

Senator CARDIN. Certainly. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thank each of 

you for your very depressing testimony. 

This has been a difficult hearing because we are facing up to a 

problem that exists all around us, and one that has not received 

the right kind of attention, in my view. When I think about recreational boaters and what they might carry, what does one do 

about that? I mean, are we out saying that you have to wash down 

your boat with a particular kind of material, and so forth, and I 

just cannot imagine getting people that alarmed about it. That 

question does not deserve an answer. It is just a rhetorical question. 

Mr. Frazer, I have asked Interior to devote more resources to 

curbing the white-nose syndrome. Now, is this situation considered 

among the more serious in terms of the bat population? Is this recognized as an imminent and massive danger? 

Mr. FRAZER. We consider this a crisis in bat conservation, particularly in the Eastern United States, and we are redirecting existing dollars to tackle that now to the extent that we can. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So, is there a provision in the structure 

that enables you to move funds to the more critical situations? Are 

there enough funds, as we listen to the testimony and our colleagues have presented, are there enough funds in reserve that are 

available to get out and start fighting these situations where there 

are invasive species or, in this case, a virus or whatever it is that 

is killing these bats? 

Mr. FRAZER. We are directing funds under the Endangered Species Act Recovery Program, as well as within our Environmental 

Contaminants Program, to tackle this. USGS is directing their discretionary research dollars to this. And a number of other agencies 

are also directing, to the extent that they have discretion, resources 

to tackle this issue. I cannot speak to whether that is viewed as 

adequate. Now, we are all Federal bureaucrats, so we could always 

do more. But there is a significant effort mounted. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. Scientific studies suggest that 

humans may play a role in the spread of white-nose syndrome. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service has called for a voluntary moratorium on 

caving in affected areas. 

Now, since most of this depends on State supervision, what does 

the Federal Government do to monitor what State activities are 

taking place to do their part since this is not typically a Federal 

jurisdiction? 
71 

Mr. FRAZER. As I said in my testimony, management of fish and 

wildlife disease requires a very close and collaborative partnership 

with State fish and wildlife agencies. They have the authority and 

responsibility, as well as the field presence, to deal with wildlife 

disease that exceeds most Federal agencies. The Federal Government can provide leadership, it can provide financial support, it 

can provide research, but in many cases it is the State agencies 

that are going to be involved in the operational management activities—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. But what happens, Mr. Frazer, if it is observed that a particular State is not doing quite what they should? 

Is there a corrective action that can be taken by the Federal Government that says, hey, it is going to get you involved with us in 

funding or something like that? 

Mr. FRAZER. We have not experienced that situation. But if we 

did, at least the Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the kind 

of authority to step in and federalize management of a disease 

issue affecting a resident fish and wildlife population. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Not to manage it, but rather to report on 

it in some manner or form so that we look at whether or not we 

have to make adjustments and, considering the threats that these 

conditions pose, we would like to stress as much action as we can 

possibly muster. Is it possible the white-nose syndrome will result 

in serious direct human health impacts if it continues to spread? 

Mr. FRAZER. We do not know of human health impacts associated 

with this disease. Certainly, ecological impacts to bats, a potentially catastrophic affect to bats. 

I would say, with regard to our relationships with States, it is 

a very close and very positive relationship, and I would not anticipate a situation where we would be at loggerheads. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. As you pointed out, you have a 

great deal of authority under different sections. I am trying to understand when you consider it urgent to act quickly. I know you 

have emergency powers to protect the public health of the people 

of this Nation. 

What standards are used in order to take emergency precautions 

where there is an immediate threat? And is there anything that we 

can learn from that that could help us, perhaps, deal with some of 

these other problems in trying to streamline the process for making 

decisions on border issues? 

Mr. FRAZER. The Fish and Wildlife Service does not have authority to an emergency listing under the Lacey Act. We are governed 

by the Administrative Procedures Act. So, the standard there 

would be, basically it is a due cause standard that we have to establish in order to take emergency action under the Administrative 

Procedures Act. We do not have authority like under the Endangered Species Act to just simply do an emergency listing. 

Senator CARDIN. But you do have, USDA does have certain emergency powers. Maybe I can try to get Mr. Clay involved here. 

Mr. CLAY. Yes, sir. Senator, the Animal Health Protection Act 

does give APHIS broad authority to deal with any type of animal 

that poses a risk to livestock or to agriculture, whether it is a pet 

or any kind of animal. If there is a risk specifically to agriculture 
72 

and it can impact agriculture, APHIS has the authority to go in 

and deal with that. 

Senator CARDIN. But it does not extend to the situation such as 

the python or the invasive nutria. If there are snakehead, you 

could not list prohibited imports because of the fear it would have 

on agricultural products in the country, or could you? 

Mr. CLAY. We could if there was a threat from the animal. Like, 

for instance, hedgehogs are prohibited from entering the country 

because of the threat of tuberculosis or foot and mouth disease 

from them. So, they are an animal that would be regulated as far 

as watching closely. Other animals, if they do not pose a disease 

threat to livestock of agriculture, would not fall under the regulatory authority of APHIS. 

Senator CARDIN. It seems that is a pretty narrow area where you 

can act. It is hard to anticipate that an exotic pet, which could pose 

a threat to livestock, or a plant to agriculture, would be prohibited 

from being introduced into America because of the fear that it 

would be released into the environment. 

Mr. CLAY. There have been several species of tortoises that have 

been prohibited because of the ticks and other arthropods that they 

carry on them that are vectors of livestock diseases. So, it really 

depends on the type of animal and the country it is coming from, 

if there is foreign animal diseases, foot and mouth disease or high 

path avian influenza or whatever, coming from that country. That 

is when there would be specific restrictions or import regulations. 

Senator CARDIN. And when you have taken this action, how effective is the border control and enforcement? 

Mr. CLAY. Well, we work closely at all the ports of entry with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the other Federal partners on this. 

We all have different authorities that we operate under, some of 

them impact wildlife or affect wildlife and others do not. But we 

have been working with these Federal partners for years. We have 

had long standing cooperative relationships with them, so we understand their authorities, their expertise, and I believe we are 

working very closely with them at the ports of entry. 

Senator CARDIN. But there are certain prohibited items and of 

course we all know what happens at the borders. Is this generally 

monitoring commercial activity at our borders more so than the individual who is returning to our country? 

Mr. CLAY. Well, it is looking at, primarily, wildlife or agricultural 

animals coming in or their products that are coming in that could 

pose a threat to the livestock or agricultural health. 

Mr. FRAZER. For the Fish and Wildlife Service, Senator, there are 

designated ports of entry for legal commerce and wildlife. We permit and license importers of wildlife. They are required to file declarations that describe what and where their products come from. 

So, legal commerce is something that comes through those designated ports, and it is in the form of commercial activity. There 

are certainly illegal and unauthorized imports of wildlife and wildlife products that come into the country. 

Senator CARDIN. I will just make one final observation, and that 

is that some of this could be better education, to let the public understand the dangers of these types of releases. I think that publicizing what has happened in Florida, for example, the loss of life 
73 

as the result of someone innocently, they thought, releasing a 

snake into the wild. I think we could do a better job. That is something that I think all of us need to take a look at to see what we 

can let people know—— 

Mr. FRAZER. Public education is, excuse me, the effective educating and really changing the perspective of the public on invasive 

species is extremely important. Senator Lautenberg talked about 

washing boats or modifying the behavior of recreational boaters. 

We have a specific campaign to do that, and it has been very effective. 

With regard to invasive species, particularly pet species, we have 

something called Habitattitude that seeks to educate pet owners 

about the dangers and risks of releasing their pets or aquatic 

plants into the wild. So those are effective parts of our strategy. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank both of you, and we look forward to working with you as we try to improve our tools to deal 

with this problem through our Federal regulators. 

Before calling the next panel, we are going to take a very brief 

recess. I expect that Senator Whitehouse will be returning shortly 

which will reconvene the second panel. And as soon as I have a 

chance to cast my votes, I will be returning. 

[Recess.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [presiding]. I call the hearing to order and 

start getting under way. The other members of the committee will 

come back from the vote as they have concluded their business. I 

gather they are back-to-back votes, so they will be able to vote 

twice and then come on back. 

In the meantime, Chairman Cardin has asked that we continue 

the hearing, and I am delighted to welcome the witnesses who are 

here today. 

I gather that Director Humphries has already been somewhat introduced by her Senator, Carl Levin. We are so pleased with Senator Levin’s and Senator Stabenow’s contributions to the Senate. I 

have to say you come very well represented here, and I am very 

pleased to have you here as Michigan’s Director of the Department 

of Natural Resources. 

We are also joined by Dr. Gregory Ruiz, who is a Senior Scientist 

at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Marine Invasions Research Laboratory. The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center is a global leader for research focused on the connections between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Dr. Ruiz leads 

SERC’s Marine Invasions Laboratory, a national-international center for research on biological invasions in coastal marine ecosystems. 

I want to tell Dr. Ruiz that I am married to a marine biologist 

who specializes in estuary science, and during the course of my 

pursuit of her, I was actually dragged into her sampling, some of 

which took place underwater in Narragansett Bay in February. I 

guess with that I impressed her enough that we have now ended 

up man and wife, or, in her case, probably woman and husband. 

I am very pleased to have you here with us to bring the marine 

and coastal side of this. I think it is extremely significant. 

Also to a degree emphasizing the marine and coastal side of this 

is my friend, John Torgan, from Rhode Island, who is the 
74 

Baykeeper of Narragansett Bay and works for our really primary 

environmental organization of Rhode Island, Save the Bay. John 

has been connected to the Narragansett Bay watershed his entire 

life. His Baykeeper Program is part of the National Waterkeeper 

Alliance, specialists with a passion for defending the environment 

and a devotion to working among communities. 

As our Baykeeper, Mr. Torgan is responsible for monitoring 

invasive species in the bay and collaborating with Federal, State 

and local agencies to help prevent the introduction and spread of 

invasive species. Narragansett’s native scallop, river herring, Atlantic salmon, rainbow smelt, sturgeon and American shad populations are all impacted by invasive species. 

Finally, we are joined by Dr. Jeffrey Hill, who is an Assistant 

Professor with the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

at the University of Florida. 

We welcome all of the witnesses, and why do we not go across 

the board beginning with Dr. Ruiz. 

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

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning and thank 

you for the opportunity to be here today. 

My name is Greg Ruiz. I am a Senior Scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center or SERC, located on the 

Chesapeake Bay. SERC is a leading national center of research on 

non-native species invasions in coastal marine systems. A primary 

goal of SERC’s invasion research is to advance fundamental science 

to understand patterns and mechanisms of coastal invasions. 

Today, I would like to highlight the current state of knowledge 

about invasions in marine ecosystems, considering Chesapeake Bay 

and Nation more broadly. I also wish to underscore the need for 

vector management to reduce the risk and impacts of invasions. 

Invasions are rapidly changing the earth’s ecosystems, having 

dramatic effects on ecological processes, critical habitats, commercial fisheries and disease outbreaks. The cost of invasions to society 

is enormous, estimated in excess of $100 billion a year in the 

United States alone. Invasions result in the loss of crops and fisheries, damage to infrastructure and water supplies, and effects on 

human health. 

Coastal bays and estuaries are especially vulnerable to invasion 

by non-native species. This is exemplified by Chesapeake Bay, the 

Nation’s largest estuary. SERC’s research has documented over 177 

non-native species with established populations in Chesapeake 

tidal waters. The rate of documented invasions here has increased 

dramatically over the last century. These organisms were delivered 

from around the globe by a diverse range of human activities. 

Some invasions have large effects on the Chesapeake Bay region. 

For example, the oyster parasite MSX, from Asia, causes mass 

mortality of the native Eastern oyster, contributing to the collapse 

of Chesapeake’s iconic fishery and undermining efforts for recovery. 

As Senator Cardin indicated, the nutria, a South American mammal, is responsible for destruction of salt marsh habitat, converting 
75 

marsh to bare mud and removing critical habitat for waterfowl, 

fish and other organisms. 

Also of great concern is the observed increase in new invasions 

for the Chesapeake. On a daily basis, non-native species are delivered to our shores by many different human activities, including 

the movement of ships, recreational vessels and live trade organisms such as seafood, bait, aquarium pets and aquatic plants. As 

a result, new invasions continue to occur, such as the mitten crab, 

which has been found now from Chesapeake up to New York. 

The Chesapeake serves as a model for what is occurring with invasions across the Nation. As Senator Nelson indicated today, invasions pose a significant challenge for resource management and undermine restoration efforts. This situation is exacerbated by the 

growing number of invasions and also the effects of climate change. 

Increasing temperatures expand the number of species that can 

colonize by creating suitable conditions for survival and reproduction that did not previously exist. 

There are two key steps that are needed to address invasion impacts. The first is to reduce the risks of future invasions by new 

species. The second is to eradicate or control selected high impact 

species that are already established. However, unless we address 

the increasing number of new invaders, our capacity to mitigate established evasions is rapidly overwhelmed. 

One obvious priority for the Nation is vector management. Rather than a species-by-species approach, vector management seeks to 

disrupt the shared transfer process of many species at once. I describe this in more detail in my written testimony. 

There is still considerable work to be done to achieve effective 

vector management. The Nation’s current approach is a patchwork 

applied inconsistently across different transfer mechanisms or vectors. 

There are also critical scientific gaps that limit vector management. One of these is tracking and measuring the occurrence of invasions over time. This is key to identifying the source of new invasions for response. This is also needed to assess the long-term effectiveness of vector disruption. 

Remarkably, there exists no national program to provide the type 

of standardized measures needed to assess the status and trends 

of coastal invasions in America today. This presents significant 

problems for vector management. Many regions, habitats and taxonomic groups have not been surveyed in recent years or even decades, providing only a party picture of invasion dynamics. 

Piecing together data from existing programs is insufficient because they have conspicuous gaps. To reduce invasion risks and impacts, we need a consistent approach to vector management. This 

requires the use of standardized quantitative surveys to track invasions. Without such field measures, we are often left guessing 

about the status, trends and emerging threats of invasions, limiting 

effective responses. 

In my written testimony, I have outlined some possible approaches to meet this challenge. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruiz follows:] 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Dr. Ruiz. 

Director Humphries. 

STATEMENT OF REBECCA HUMPHRIES, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Ms. HUMPHRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am Becky Humphries, Director of the Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources, and I am also the Chair of the Fish and Wildlife Health Committee of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

I appreciate the opportunity to share with you today the perspectives of State fish and wildlife agencies on the vital issue of emerging fish and wildlife disease. 

All 50 States are members of the Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies. The Association strives to enhance and facilitate cooperation and coordination among State, Federal and tribal agencies 

with respect to fish and wildlife conservation. 

Today, I will share with you the Association’s approach to this 

challenge through the development and implementation of the National Fish and Wildlife Health Initiative. I will characterize the 

national approach to managing chronic wasting disease, CWD, 

through the development of a State, Federal and national plan 

which I think was a good model. I will also briefly reflect on my 

experiences in Michigan, our lessons learned with several of these 

diseases, including bovine tuberculosis, chronic wasting disease, 

and viral hemorrhagic septicemia. 

State fish and wildlife agencies have the statutory, and often 

constitutional, responsibility for the conservation of fish and wildlife within their borders for the benefits of their citizens. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies developed the National Fish 

and Wildlife Initiative to create a system for coordination between 

State, Federal, tribal and private industry to ensure the early detection of pathogens and the appropriation response and management of these diseases. 

The two overarching goals of the initiative are first, as you have 

heard, to assist States and Federal agencies in enhancing their capacity and appropriately addressing fish and wildlife health issues. 

And second, to facilitate close cooperation between State and Federal fish and wildlife, animal health and human health agencies 

with respect to fish and wildlife pathogens and diseases in order 

to minimize their negative effects. 

The initiative is a policy framework by which all interested parties may seek both to minimize the negative impacts of disease 

agents in fish and wildlife and to proactively promote healthy fish 

and wildlife populations. A copy of the initiative is appended to my 

statement for your reference. It is interesting to note that we have 

three of the Steering Committee members here today testifying. 

The growing importance of fish and wildlife health issues in natural resource management is dramatic. It makes it imperative that 

more resources be directed toward them in the future. Building capacity at all levels of government for early detection and the execution of coordinated response plans provides the best known strategy for successfully dealing with disease incidents. 
111 

State and Federal coordinated disease response planning is a 

model that has been successfully practiced in recent years. In 2002, 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Interior convened a taskforce to coordinate CWD management, which 

included both Federal interests and eventually State interests as 

well. The work of the taskforce culminated in the development of 

a national plan that guides surveillance and management actions. 

Congress followed up by appropriating over $10 million for CWD 

management, part of which has been made available to the States 

for use in surveillance and monitoring. In Michigan, we used the 

national plan and the funding made available through USDA 

APHIS to specifically plan for and prepare a response to the potential detection of CWD in Michigan. 

In the fall of 2008, in the late summer, we found CWD in Michigan. Over a period of 2 years, funds made available through USDA 

APHIS accounted for testing of nearly 12 percent of all cervids tested in Michigan for CWD so far. By coordinating Federal efforts and 

funding within State specific planning efforts, State fish and wildlife agencies have been better positioned to characterize the distribution and intensity of CWD and evaluate the risks. 

These Federal funds and the flexibility of cooperative agreements 

between States like Michigan and the Federal Government have 

made it possible to conduct large scale wildlife disease surveillance, 

in some States for the very first time, which certainly could not 

have occurred without this coordinated effort. 

Through our experiences with bovine TB and VHS, Michigan has 

learned another important lesson. Fish and wildlife disease management is not restricted to the identification of vectors, the isolation of infected individuals, and the removal from the population. 

Fish and wildlife bring significant economic and cultural interests 

to bear upon management strategies, and those interests bring political attention as well. 

These juxtaposed interests have required a new paradigm in disease mitigation. Because diseases like bovine TB and VHS can be 

vectored through the action of hunting and angling communities, it 

has become essential to plan and provide for inclusion and partnership with the public. 

The new cultural norm where traditions have been altered to 

conform to the new demands of disease on the landscape have been 

partially achieved, but not without concerted and consistent effort 

in the face of, at times, an unwilling public. Planning for cultural, 

social and political consequences of a disease incident should be 

viewed as essential. 

Through our experiences with CWD, bovine TB and other diseases, we believe adequate authorities already exist. However, we 

need to put more resources into our work so that we can adequately expand our capacity and capabilities to respond to what we 

expect to be an increasing number of diseases. 

We have also learned that disease planning efforts need to include the public and have their involvement and engagement. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share the Association’s perspectives and I would be happy to address any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Humphries follows:] 
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 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Director. I appreciate your bringing your views. 

Next is Baykeeper Torgan. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN TORGAN, NARRAGANSETT BAYKEEPER, 

SAVE THE BAY, INC. 

Mr. TORGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is really an honor to 

be here. 

The problem of invasive species poses serious economic and environmental risks to rivers, bays and coastal systems nationally. According to recent estimates, the United States spends in excess of 

$138 billion annually on control measures. 

While this problem itself is not new, changing environmental factors and new species introductions have contributed to dramatic 

shifts in the types of plants and animals we see in our region and 

across the country and have opened the door for non-native species 

to take hold. 

In Narragansett Bay and Southern New England, we have observed fundamental changes in the fish and shellfish populations 

as water temperatures have warmed over the past 30 years. 

The extent of low-oxygen dead zones on the bottom has spread 

as warmer water and pollution contribute to massive algae blooms. 

The populations of classic cold water New England fish and shellfish species, like lobster, cod, winter flounder, river herring and 

scallops, are all down as jellyfish, algae, and other warm water-tolerant fish like striped bass and menhaden have recently increased. 

You mentioned Dr. Whitehouse’s dissertation work on winter 

flounder. That is very much on point here. That looked at a kind 

of shrimp that used to be excluded in cold winters in Narragansett 

Bay, but in warmer winters it can now get in, called the 

crangonshrimp or seven spine shrimp, and eat the baby winter 

flounder. So, this is an example of, not an invasive species, but a 

changing condition that opens the door to more problems from invasions. 

Invasive plants and animals thrive under these warmer conditions. They are causing some negative, but mostly unknown, impacts on the broader coastal ecosystem. Asian shore crabs, which 

we first observed in the mid-1990s, are now the most common species of crab, the most prolific in front of our main offices in Providence. You cannot turn over a rock there without finding one. We 

do not know if they have driven out the native crabs or what the 

extent of the damage is yet, but that is something that we need to 

study. 

Certain shellfish diseases like dermo, MSX and juvenile oyster 

disease, once much more common in Mid-Atlantic waters, have 

nearly wiped out our native oyster populations. Lobster diseases 

further weaken an already struggling industry in Southern New 

England. Commercial fisheries and the historic seafood industry of 

the region are facing unprecedented challenges from these and 

other changes. 

The same changes can be observed in avian, other fish populations, mosquitoes with West Nile, and EEE, these may also be related to temperature. 
140 

Understanding biological invasions requires knowledge of past 

and present populations. We are only just beginning to get a clear 

picture of what is in our ecosystem today. Doing comprehensive 

baseline assessments in States helps us understand what is really 

new and what has been there and what is a threat. 

Rhode Island has just established a citizen-based environmental 

monitoring program for aquatic invasive species which is an interagency and university effort. We participate in that. 

The National Invasive Species Act has enabled all of this progress to date. Since its passage, Congress has appropriated $1.7 

million per year for States to develop invasive species management 

plans. Individual States’ shares of that money have been declining 

though as more States receive approval for their plans from the 

Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Rhode Island’s 

share, for example, dropped from $45,000 to $35,00 in the past 

year. So, it would help States a great deal if Congress were to appropriate the additional $3 million authorized in that Act. 

While my organization is focused primarily on coastal waters and 

estuaries, invasive species on land affect our environment significantly, especially where land and water interface. I will use the example of phragmites, the giant reed grass. I took the train from 

Providence, and you can see vast acres of it as you go through 

coastal Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, all the 

way down here. We have an invasive species, phragmites, which 

takes over and transforms wetlands into a monoculture. 

But we have identified some feasible control measures for it. 

Habitat restoration, allowing tidal water and salt water from the 

tide, where that is feasible, can knock out phragmites. Where that 

is not possible with some of the other aquatic plants species, you 

can treat them using a combination of approved herbicides, cutting 

and treating over the course of several seasons. But that is expensive and is labor intensive. 

Forests, as some of the other witnesses have pointed out, are also 

at risk with things like the Asian longhorn beetle. By managing 

those, by clearing forests, that has an impact on water quality 

through increased runoff. 

We know that prevention, as Senator Cardin had said earlier, is 

the best and most cost-effective control measure. But investing in 

screening and other controls at ports, airports and other points of 

entry would help. Once they are established, it is very difficult to 

get them out. 

Another important role for non-profit organizations like mine is 

in education, in public communication and in outreach, to directly 

involve people in understanding the problem and the solution. 

Finally, we believe that regional management is the most effective approach to these issues and this approach needs to engage 

multiple States because the species do not respect borders. In New 

England, the Northeast Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel of the Federal Task Force helps to coordinate regional efforts and maintain 

frequent communications with the public. We view this as an effective model. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Torgan follows:] 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, John, and once 

again, welcome. It is wonderful to see you here. 

Our last witness is Professor Jeffrey Hill from the University of 

Florida. 

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

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

concerning the threats of invasive species to native wildlife. 

I am Dr. Jeffrey Hill, Assistant Professor of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences at the University of Florida. My teaching, research and 

extension programs involve ecology and management of non-native 

aquatic species. I teach a course in invasion ecology, conduct field 

laboratory research, and apply ecological theory and practical experience to risk analysis. I have conducted and reviewed risk analysis 

efforts for sports fish, aquaculture species and ornamental species 

at State, Federal and international levels. 

I am the President-Elect of the Introduced Fish Section of the 

American Fisheries Society and a member of State and national 

non-native species scientific advisory committees, including the Research Committee and the Detection and Monitoring Committee of 

the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. 

Invasive species threaten native species and ecosystems, economic values and human health in every State and U.S. Territory. 

Invasive species arrive in the United States through a variety of 

pathways, including intentional importation and interstate trade, 

as well as via unintentional pathways such as ballast water. 

The negative effects of many invasive species, such as zebra mussels and brown tree snakes, as well as wildlife diseases such as 

VHS, are well known. I will not discuss them further, except to say 

that some invasive species are ecologically devastating or economically important and costly pests. 

Few would argue that invasive species are not a problem in the 

United States. It is imperative for Federal and State agencies to 

provide effective, reasonable regulation of pathways and problematic species to reduce the frequency and negative effects of species 

invasions. 

Invasive species or a small subset of non-native species, specifically non-natives that threaten ecological or economic harm, or 

human health. All invasive species must go through a series of 

steps to become invasive. They must be introduced into the environment, established, spread and then some will become invasive. 

Although these steps sound simple, you may be surprised to 

learn that the process is fraught with difficulty and that most introductions fail. Literally millions of individual animals and thousands of species are moved across State lines or imported annually. 

Some of these get introduced into the environment. Of these introductions, only a small percentage make it to the establishment or 

spread phase, and only a few established species have important 

negative effects. 

The primary Federal regulatory tool for non-native species is the 

Lacey Act. Unfortunately, this system, as currently implemented, 

is not as effective as it should be. An effective system needs to 
146 

focus limited resources on problematic species, address gaps in authority, for example diseases that primarily impact wildlife, be 

timely reducing listing time to months rather than years, be open, 

transparent and stakeholder inclusive, use science-based credible 

risk analysis, allow for a regional approach to managing risk, be 

centralized and adequately supported with resources. 

These recommendations could be accommodated within the current system. Invasive species prevention and management hinges 

on risk. Risk is a function of the probability of an event occurring 

and the consequences if the event occurs. Risk analysis is a complex scientific and sociological exercise that seeks to identify risks, 

estimate their magnitude and reduce risks to acceptable levels. 

Risk assessment should be transparent, repeatable, scientifically 

credible and defensible. It must also be acknowledged that there is 

scientific uncertainty in all methods. Risk assessments are expensive and time consuming, usually requiring months to complete. 

Data needs for assessing risks are considerable. Data is lacking for 

many species, and most current data bases are inadequate for the 

task. 

Risk management can seldom reduce risks to zero. Non-zero levels of risk must be considered for any use of non-native species. Decisions on acceptable risk levels should be based on scientific information, on probable, not possible effects, cost-benefit analysis, conservation analysis and cultural factors. 

It would be a Herculean task to assist thousands of species with 

hundreds of interest groups with these species. It is my expert 

opinion, based on having done risk analysis, that it is impractical 

to conduct thorough, defensible risk analysis of thousands of species in a timely manner given any reasonable level of research allocation. 

The focus should be on highly problematic species. States have 

broad authority to manage fish and wildlife resources and have 

considerable experience and expertise related to the regional nature of pathways, ecosystems and risk. 

Important roles for the Federal Government would be to coordinate the efforts of State, especially States with common pathways 

and ecosystems, facilitate State-based programs, bridge important 

gaps where States lack sufficient authority, and help resolve differences between States. 

Working with States would provide a mechanism for reducing 

risk on a regional basis. The Federal Government could considerably leverage resources by sharing the burden of risk analysis, regulation and enforcement with States. 

In conclusion, my recommendations are to thoroughly revisit the 

Lacey Act with extensive input from scientific experts and interested stakeholders, provide substantially increased resources of 

staff and funding to the Fish and Wildlife Service, use appropriate 

screening methods followed by risk analysis if needed for any nonnative species newly proposed for importation, and begin a risk 

based process for those species currently in trade that are identified as problematic or likely to become problematic. 

Many of these recommendations are already contained in the National Invasive Species Management Plan developed by the National Invasive Species Counsel. 
147 

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views. I look forward to working with you on these issues. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:] 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 

Senator CARDIN [presiding]. Let me thank all of our witnesses for 

their testimony, their contribution to this hearing. 

Dr. Ruiz, first I want to welcome you to the panel. As a person 

who lives in Maryland, we are very honored that you are here with 

us and the work that you do. I thank all of the members of the 

panel, but I have to certainly acknowledge my Marylander who is 

on the panel. 

I want to talk about the Chesapeake Bay for a moment. As you 

point out, there is over a hundred invasive species in the Chesapeake Bay. I do not know if that is the Chinese mitten crab that 

you have there or not. Is that what you have in front of you? 

Mr. RUIZ. Yes, it is a Chinese mitten crab that has been showing 

up in the Chesapeake Bay and to the north. 

Senator CARDIN. That has me greatly concerned. The crab industry is synonymous with Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay, and 

particularly in the month of July we all very much think about our 

delicacy that we have given to the world. What danger do we have 

that this crab could become a significant part of the population and 

effect the blue crab, the Maryland blue crab? Is this a risk factor 

that we do not know about yet? 

I ask that because one of the questions, one of the points, that 

all of you have been raising, is do a risk assessment early so you 

do not have to try to clean up the mess later, which becomes much 

more difficult. 

Mr. RUIZ. I think the mitten crab is a concern. It underscores exactly the point that you are making, I think, and also that Professor Hill made, that there is a lot of uncertainty about what will 

happen when a non-native species shows up in one of our ecosystems like the Chesapeake Bay and that it is a species that 

transported from one part of the world and moved to another one 

with a different community, a different suite of organisms. And so, 

we really have a very poor understanding of how it is going to 

interact and what will play out. 

The mitten crab is of concern because it is a species that goes 

through massive outbreaks, kind of like cicadas do seasonally here, 

but on a much longer time scale. There was an outbreak that occurred in San Francisco Bay that damaged some of the water supply system in the San Francisco delta. 

In the Chesapeake region, I do not think we really know what 

the impact is going to be of this crab if it is established, what effect 

it might have on infrastructure, water supply in particular, and 

how it might interact with the blue crab in terms of competition 

for resources or even as a predator on juvenile blue crab that it 

may interact with as it moves down into salt water. 

Senator CARDIN. We already have a problem with the survival of 

juvenile crabs, the blue crabs. The protective grasses are being affected by pollution and global climate change. So we already are 

finding it a challenge to preserve the food stock basically for the 

mature crabs. In some cases, they eat their own. And now, if the 

Chinese mitten crab is going to be competing with that, if could 

complicate the survival of the blue crab in Maryland. 

Mr. RUIZ. I think that is exactly right. As we are struggling to 

recover the commercial fishery and the blue crab population in 

Chesapeake, the arrival of new non-native species is one more 
160 

stressor, one more factor, which makes it even more challenging to 

recover a fishery like the blue crab. 

We do not, of course, know what the impact of Mitten crabs will 

likely be if it is established and becomes abundant. It is a point of 

concern, and it is something that I think we need to take very seriously. 

Senator CARDIN. Do we know how this was introduced into the 

Bay? 

Mr. RUIZ. The mitten crab is also an interesting example in that 

it underscores some of the uncertainty there. There are two likely 

ways in which it could have come. One is through the ballast water 

of ships. What we know from specimens that we have collected so 

far is that the genetics tell us it is likely coming from Europe 

where the mitten crab is also established. It has been there for 

over 100 years now. So, it could have well come from ships delivering ballast into the Chesapeake or the Mid-Atlantic region. 

The other possibility is that it could have come as live trade in 

that it is a commercially important crab, particularly in Asia. It is 

also eaten in Europe. So it is possible that someone brought it in. 

It is illegal to do that now under the Lacey Act. Whether it could 

have been brought in when it was still legal, or whether it could 

have been brought in illegally, we do not know. 

So, there is some uncertainty. But those are the two pathways 

or mechanisms by which it could have arrived. 

Senator CARDIN. And, of course, the related issue is that there 

is an intentional introduction of an invasive species, the Asian oyster, and it certainly has its controversy when we intentionally introduce a new species into the Bay. That is being done because of 

the real concern of the loss of oysters, which are not only a commercial crop but are a filtering agent for clean water. I know there 

is a lot of work being done to monitor the Asian oyster. Are there 

adequate resources to monitor the mitten crab? 

Mr. RUIZ. At the present time, I would say no. The approach that 

we have taken has been to develop an alert system and a reporting 

system across the Mid-Atlantic region by having watermen and 

fisherman, as well as citizens, report records as they come across 

them, taking advantage of the rather large commercial fishing effort and recreational fishing that occurs in the Chesapeake and 

Delaware and the Hudson River. By doing that, we have learned 

of over 80 crabs that have been caught and confirmed. 

At the present time I would say that is the extent of the effort 

that is being—— 

Senator CARDIN. Well, what worries me is that, if you are correct, that this all of a sudden you see a huge increase because of 

the seasonal aspects to it, we might be faced with a crisis in the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Professor Hill, if I could. There is criticism out there of the existing fish and wildlife framework and that it utilizes a dirty list. 

Some say that this approach is too reactive because it only addresses species after they have been introduced as harmful. Dr. Ruiz 

talked about the Lacey Act. Is there any reason why we cannot 

work within the Lacey Act to initiate proactive screening? 
161 

Mr. HILL. Senator, there is no reason that the Lacey Act could 

not be used to proactively screen species. The screening of species, 

I think, is an excellent way of identifying some of the more potentially problematic species that are out there, and I think that it 

could be accommodated in the current system. 

Senator BARRASSO. Many of the proposals that address the 

threat of invasive species suggest that, aside from those few species 

that are exempted like pets and farm animals, there are thousands 

of perfectly safe non-native species and they are going to be 

blacklisted until a thorough scientific assessment can prove that 

they have no impact on the ecology of the United States. Is this the 

most prudent course of action? 

Mr. HILL. Well, one point is that it is very difficult to prove that 

a species will not have some impact onto a system. There is a lot 

of scientific uncertainty in this estimation. So that is one issue that 

plays into this. 

A blacklist approach, or a dirty list approach, seeks to really 

focus on those species that are problematic or likely to be problematic. They do not have to already be a problem to list a species. 

And we certainly have those. The State of Florida, for instance, 

uses an approach similar to this where species have been identified 

as potentially problematic. These are not species which are already 

introduced into Florida, these are species that may be in trade, or 

have been in trade in years past, but are not in the environment. 

And they been prohibited or placed on a conditional species list. So 

it is a workable type of solution. 

Senator BARRASSO. Let me ask a question about an approved list 

and how that would play into this, because some of what might be 

some of the most damaging invasive species in the country are also 

popular pets. I am not talking about the boa constrictor that we 

saw, but popular house pets. How do you view that whole thing 

working out? 

Mr. HILL. Well, I tend to look at this from terms of risk and a 

risk analysis standpoint. When you go through a risk analysis, you 

assess risk and what are the bad things that these organisms may 

do. But then you also balance those risks during the management 

process to determine, do you still want to have those organisms 

and do you balance that risk against the benefits. 

There are a number of species that, from a purely scientific risk 

assessment standpoint, are clearly problematic. I am a dog person, 

but the domestic house cat is probably one of the No. 1 species in 

probably all the States, as being an invasive species when it is in 

the environment. Obviously, people love cats and they have societal 

and economic benefits. From a purely risk standpoint, cats are 

problematic. But when you put the management side to that, then 

cats would obviously be a banned species. 

Senator BARRASSO. Director Humphries, if I could. We had Senator Levin here who gave great testimony, and he listed you as the 

expert from Michigan. He also said that his position in Michigan 

was the exact opposite of the position of, I think, the Michigan legislature. So, as the expert, can you tell all of us who is right and 

who is wrong? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HUMPHRIES. They are both right. 
162 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, then we have a seat for you right up 

here. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HUMPHRIES. But I would like to respond that it is very, very 

difficult to screen risk, to screen organisms by risk, and rely on 

that solely. So, I caution all of us that, when we look at this, we 

also need to be nimble, to be able to address when one of these species or diseases crops up unexpectedly. Because it is going to go 

through a filter at some point in time, and we will have the unexpected. That is one to the things that the Fish and Wildlife Association has been trying to address, is making sure that we have 

both capacities and authorities across the United States to address 

these issues adequately. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No further questions. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you. 

Let me, if I could, Mr. Torgan, you talked about regional cooperation during your testimony. I think about our efforts on the Chesapeake Bay, which has been regional. We have been able to get all 

of the regional governments to work together on a strategy on the 

Bay and we could easily bring this subject into the debate and we 

have. It has been, I think, an effective way to deal with it. 

As I have listened to the testimony, I see an effort made by the 

Federal Government, working with the States on specific issue 

problems. I just really want to get your view, and perhaps others 

on the panel, as to whether we need to do more to empower regional approaches to dealing with these issues. Not just on a crisis 

basis, or not just where there is a popular effort that has been supported over a long period of time, such as the Chesapeake Bay, 

which has its challenges, but whether we need to try to institutionalize this in a more effective way. 

Mr. TORGAN. Thank you, Senator. I think so. The Chesapeake’s 

situation and the recent move by EPA to create a multi-State restoration and protection framework are unique to the Chesapeake. 

There is a similar effort now for the Great Lakes. And we have 

thought a lot about whether such an approach would work, for example, for New England or for the Mid-Atlantic States. 

There are a lot of lessons that we could learn in Rhode Island 

from what you have accomplished in Maryland and in the Chesapeake Bay and many of these issues have parallel there. So, it does 

make sense to cooperate, collaborate and have synergy on that. 

Rhode Island is a small State, obviously, so our ability to manage 

and communicate on the State-wide level is good. 

The regional cooperation, the challenges of that have always had 

to do with the teeth of whatever regulations compel interstate partnerships. But we really believe, because these species do not respect State boundaries, and the issues are, if not national, then at 

least regional, that a regional approach that brings together States, 

Federal agencies and people involved on the ground in the universities and in the non-profit, non-government community who are 

engaged in this, to work together for a solution. I think that is the 

only way to crack it. 
163 

Senator CARDIN. We, in this region, look at the Chesapeake Bay 

partnership with the Federal Government as an area of major national priority, but also a model that could be used in other parts 

of the country where you have multi-jurisdictional issues. 

Now the Great Lakes is the other area that is frequently mentioned as where you need to have multiple jurisdictional impact if 

you are going to be able to have effective results. And ,of course, 

you are also dealing with another country. How do the Great Lakes 

manage the governmental challenges of multiple levels? 

Ms. HUMPHRIES. Well, the Great Lakes certainly is a difficult situation because, as you say, you have a number of political boundaries in there and countries. But, nonetheless, we get scientists together, as well as policymakers, through the Great Lakes Commission, the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, to set priorities and 

help address these issues, including the science on those issues 

with research priorities. It has worked very well for us. 

There are a number of other models when you look around the 

country with this regional approach. The Southeast Disease Cooperative was established back in the 1950s, where Southeastern 

States in the United States banded together in order to develop a 

scientific approach to address deer population problems that were 

occurring in that area. That model is still in place. 

So, I think there are a number of different models and I have appended some of those within the Initiative that I attached to my 

testimony. They will give you some ideas of some these regional approaches. They are, I think, the most effective in the fact that you 

have partners coming together and talking about the specific risks 

in those areas. And also some of the cultural things that you need 

to change with your citizens to address the risk out there. 

Senator CARDIN. I know that Senator Levin is working on a reauthorization under the Clean Water Act of the Great Lakes. We are 

working on the Chesapeake Bay reauthorization, looking for more 

effective ways to enforce the goals that are established by the local 

governments. Because we want to make sure there is not only a 

partnership with the Federal Government, but that there is reasonable expectation that we can achieve the goals that we set. We will 

be working with all of you in that regard. 

Senator Barrasso, anything further? 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank our witnesses again for their 

testimony and for their participation at this hearing. This has been 

a very interesting hearing for, I think, the members as well as an 

educational one for the Chairman. 

Thank you all very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Good morning. I would like to first welcome Senators Levin and Nelson, who I 

know care greatly about the topic of this hearing this morning. I think that the protection of our native wildlife from harmful invasive species should receive increased 

Federal attention. I would like to thank the subcommittee Chairmen for holding this 

important hearing on potential threats non-native species pose to native wildlife in 

this country. However, as we chart a course of action we must be prudent and avoid 

prematurely banning species that pose no threat to the environment. 
164 

I understand that the House of Representatives had a similar hearing on this 

topic in April, in which a specific legislative proposal—H.R. 669—was examined to 

address the threats of invasive species. It is also my understanding that this legislation received widespread criticism for casting too wide a net on pets, sports fishing 

and other species that generate billions of dollars in our economy with no demonstrated threat to the environment. I realize that this hearing will not be examining a specific piece of legislation, which I must say makes me skeptical, considering this committee’s habit of marking up bills without a legislative hearing on the 

specific proposal—especially one that could put in place a new, cumbersome bureaucratic process for examining the threats without consideration of effective laws already on the books. 

Common sense reforms are needed to prevent the importation or breeding of species that would be harmful to our ecosystem; however, these reforms must avoid 

placing burdensome requirements on the retail and agriculture industries and 

sportsmen. I appreciate the efforts of environmental groups, mainly the Defenders 

of Wildlife, in attempting to address the threat posed by non-native species, but I 

am concerned that their proposal could harm important sectors of our economy. 

Any policy that Congress considers should include a reasonable risk analysis process that would take into consideration risk management options for controlling nonnative species. It should not adopt a policy that automatically bans species until 

proven safe. Acknowledging similar risk management processes that are used elsewhere in Federal agencies would effectively address the issue at hand. We don’t 

need legislation that bans species that we know are safe. Invasives legislation 

should use existing scientific evidence without requiring industries to unnecessarily 

spend resources and time completing scientific testing that tells us what we already 

know: the vast majority of non-native species in the United States are safe and 

present little or no harm to their surroundings. 

Thank you. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

I am pleased that the Environment and Public Works Subcommittees on Oversight and Water and Wildlife are holding today’s hearing to discuss threats to native 

species. In Vermont we face several such threats, and two in particular I want to 

highlight. 

Our bats, and bats across the Northeast, are increasingly susceptible to death 

from white-nose syndrome. White-nose syndrome appears to be a fungus that turns 

their noses and bodies white and kills with a mortality rate of between 90 and 100 

percent in some caves. More than 1 million hibernating bats have died over the past 

2 years. Bats prey on harmful insects such as mosquitoes which spread disease, and 

moths and beetles which damage crops. Bats reduce the need for pesticide use and 

are beneficial for the environment. 

On May 5th of this year I signed a letter along with 24 of my colleagues in the 

Senate and the House asking the Department of the Interior to provide emergency 

fiscal year 2009 funding to respond to this crisis. Summer research is critical to stop 

the spread of this disease and develop a cure. 

In addition I want to highlight another invasive species threat that deserves the 

attention of scientists and the Administration. That is the threat from the Asian 

longhorned beetle. This beetle uses maple trees as a host. Vermont leads all States 

in maple syrup production, producing 920,000 gallons in 2009 and creating millions 

of dollars in value for Vermont’s economy. I ask that the Administration work with 

State and local officials in Vermont and put the appropriate resources into finding 

solutions to the spread of Asian longhorned beetles. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 

Æ