TESTIMONY OF MATT HOGAN, ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE
THE SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REGARDING S. 525, TO AMEND
THE NON-INDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE PREVENTION AND CONTROL ACT OF 1990
June 17, 2003
Good
morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Matt Hogan, Deputy Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Fish and Wildlife Service). The Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service serves as a co-chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANS
Task Force) and I thank you, on both his and the Department of the Interior’s
(Department) behalf, for the opportunity to comment on S. 525, the “National
Aquatic Invasive Species Act.” The
Department, working primarily through the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), has a long history of aggressively working on
issues related to aquatic invasive species.
There
is no question that the introduction and establishment of aquatic invasive
species have significantly impacted our natural areas. We have only to look at a history of
invasions, from the sea lamprey to the zebra mussel to the snakehead fish last
summer, to understand the broad scope of the problem. The United States continues to see a number of aquatic species,
which may become invasive, crossing our borders, and we expect this trend to
continue. The Department supports the
overall direction of this bill and is encouraged by the leadership and
foresight shown by Congress in addressing this difficult issue. However, we have some concerns with the
bill, and offer to work with the Subcommittee on specific program details. We also note that new spending authorized by
these bills is not currently included in the President’s Budget and, as such,
these actions must be considered within existing priorities.
We
agree with the continued focus on partnerships and cooperative efforts to
address this nationally significant problem.
One of the purposes of the original law, the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, was to encourage federal and state
agencies to work with partners to enhance our collective efforts. We believe that the partnerships and
cooperative entities established through the ANS Task Force and the National
Invasive Species Council (Council) have been instrumental in making significant
progress to prevent and control aquatic invasive species.
We
support inclusion of research agencies, such as the USGS and the Smithsonian
Institution, as participants in the Task Force to encourage strong links
between research and the management of non-indigenous aquatic species. The ANS Task Force, authorized by the
original Act, met recently in New Orleans, Louisiana to discuss the aquatic
invasive species issues specific to the Gulf of Mexico region. Over the last 12 years, the Task Force has
held meetings throughout the country to better understand regional invasive
species issues, increase awareness, and enhance coordination efforts with local
and regional entities.
The
Task Force has been successful in establishing additional Regional Aquatic
Nuisance Species Panels, bringing together governmental and private entities to
coordinate aquatic invasive species activities at a regional level. The 1990 Act authorized the Great Lakes
Panel, and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) authorized the
establishment of a Western Regional Panel.
NISA also recommended that the ANS Task Force establish additional panels. Three additional panels have been
established since 1997, the Gulf of Mexico Panel in 1999, the Northeast ANS
Panel in 2001, and the Mississippi River Basin Panel in 2002. The ANS Task Force is also encouraging the
establishment of a Mid-Atlantic Panel and a Pacific Islands Panel. The ANS Task Force is proud of many of the
accomplishments made over the last decade including enhancement of regional
coordination on aquatic invasive species issues. While invasive aquatic species continue to be a significant
threat to our natural resources, we believe our efforts to prevent and control
aquatic invasive species have resulted in fewer species introduced and reduced
impacts from those that have become established.
In General
Let
me begin by saying that, while we have some concerns with the bill, we support
reauthorization and want to work with you and your staff to address some
technical details. As this bill is
very comprehensive, we will limit our comments today to several general areas. One general area of concern relates to the
number of reports and proposed deadlines required by
S.
525. We hope to have the opportunity to
work with you and your staff to try to consolidate some of these reporting
requirements to ensure that we can implement the activities outlined in the Act
aggressively, but also that the timeframes established are meaningful and
manageable.
Ballast Water
We
believe that substantial progress has been made regarding the management of
ballast water; however, much remains to be done. Through NISA, Congress required that the Coast Guard develop
voluntary guidelines for ballast water management, and that those guidelines be
made mandatory if the industry did not comply with the guidelines or did not
adequately report on compliance. In
1996, as required by NISA, the ANS Task Force provided the Coast Guard with a
report outlining the criteria for determining the adequacy and effectiveness of
the voluntary guidelines. The Coast
Guard utilized the input from the ANS Task Force and submitted their report to
Congress on the Voluntary Guidelines for Ballast Water Management, which
outlined a process to transition to a mandatory program. The Department supports the Coast Guard’s
ongoing efforts to transition from the voluntary national program to a
mandatory program, as well as efforts to establish a standard to serve as the
benchmark for ballast water management options, and we urge a continuation and
emphasis for research on ballast water management to assure that the resulting
standards are effective and environmentally sound.
Pathways
While
ballast water has been acknowledged as one of the leading vectors of
introduction, we are encouraged to see that additional emphasis is being placed
on other aquatic pathways. Some of
these other pathways include bait fish, the aquarium and pet trade,
horticulture, and live food. This
additional emphasis will encourage the development of management actions, which
may minimize the threats from new aquatic invasive species that have the
potential to impact our fish and wildlife populations and associated
habitats. We support interagency
priority pathway research and management efforts to identify high risk pathways
and develop management strategies to address them. In developing its strategic plan last year, the ANS Task Force
also identified the management of pathways by which invasive species are
introduced as a vital action to prevent future establishment of aquatic
invasive species. A number of the
actions called for in this bill are similar to those included in the
“Prevention” section of the Council’s National Invasive Species Management Plan
(Plan). A copy of that plan is
available at the following web address:
http://www.invasivespecies.gov/council/nmp.shtml
Screening of Planned
Importations
The
Department has recognized the need for the development of a screening process
for planned importations of live aquatic organisms. Having the opportunity to evaluate new non-native species that
are proposed to be imported into the United States is an invaluable tool to
ensure that we are proactive in preventing the introduction of new aquatic
invasive species into United States waters.
An example of the need for such a tool is the discovery last summer of a
population of snakehead fish in a pond in Maryland.
Snakehead
fish are an aquatic invasive species that are sold live for food or as aquarium
pets. Snakeheads are top predators that
multiply quickly and have several special features that enhance their ability
to survive in wild. In addition to the
population found in Maryland, another population was found a year ago in
Florida. After the discovery in Florida
during the summer of 2001, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the USGS initiated
a risk assessment to gather scientific information to determine the injurious
nature, and potential impacts, of snakeheads.
Data from this risk assessment indicated that the snakeheads were indeed
detrimental and the Fish and Wildlife Service began the process of listing
snakeheads as injurious wildlife. That
process was completed when a final rule was published on October 4, 2002. That rule makes it illegal under the Lacey
Act to import into the United States or transport across state lines all
members of the Channidae family,
including the 28 currently recognized species and any species that may be
classified under the Channidae family
in the future.
While
the Injurious Wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act give the Fish and Wildlife
Service the ability to evaluate and list species as injurious, the nature of
the law makes our efforts more reactive than proactive. The screening process outlined in the
proposed legislation is an example of a more proactive and effective approach
to preventing introductions of aquatic invasive species.
Having
recognized the need for improved screening, the Council’s Plan, which I
previously mentioned, also calls for working with key stakeholders to develop
and test a screening process for intentionally-introduced species. Preliminary work to develop this system has
begun in conjunction with the ANS Task Force.
We also recommend the development of risk assessment methods to evaluate
the potential threat of species that have not yet been introduced. This will be critical in making our
screening efforts effective. The Department, the Council, and the ANS
Task
Force would like to work with the Subcommittee to consider whether the
specifics of this proposal should be revised during the legislative process.
We
are concerned about the provisions in section 105 (b) that delegate authority
to screen species for use in aquaculture only to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Because of the risk to
native fish and wildlife, we believe that both the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in the
Department of Commerce, should also have a role in screening species imported
to be used in aquaculture.
In
addition to evaluating potentially invasive species through the screening
process, the Fish and Wildlife Service would also be responsible for
enforcement of the resulting regulations.
Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service has 92 uniformed Wildlife
Inspectors at 32 staffed ports. In 2002, there were 121,171 wildlife shipments
that were imported or exported through the United States. Of those, 27,218 or 22.5 percent were physically
inspected. The added workload
associated with developing the guidelines and regulations, conducting the
evaluations, and ensuring effective compliance will be substantial. Given the comprehensive nature of this
provision, it will be necessary to work cooperatively with other agencies that
may also have responsibility for aquatic invasive species. We embrace the opportunity to work with
these other agencies to develop an effective and efficient screening process
that is protective of both the human and natural environment.
State ANS Plans
The
State ANS Management Plan provisions have been very successful and we are happy
to see that the program is continued.
The ANS Task Force developed guidelines to help states develop ANS
plans, and made those guidelines available to the states in 2000. As outlined in the bill, the ANS Task Force
will update and enhance those guidelines to address additional components
related to early detection and rapid response, aquatic plant control and
screening of planned importations. We
look forward to continuing collaborative work with the states on their efforts
to more effectively address invasive species issues. The ANS Task Force provides us with an excellent venue to pursue
these collaborative partnerships. In
fact, the ANS Task Force and its Regional Panels have encouraged the continued
development of State and Interstate ANS Management Plans. There are currently 13 State and Interstate
Plans approved by the ANS Task Force and a number of other states are in the
process of developing plans. The Fish
and Wildlife Service provided cost-share grants to 15 states and tribes to
implement those approved plans in Fiscal Year 2003. Several additional states are expected to submit their plans to
the ANS Task Force for approval in 2004.
Cooperative
Control/Management Plans
The
ANS Task Force also has a long history of developing and implementing
cooperative control and management plans.
For example, plans for brown tree snake and Eurasian ruffe were
developed in the mid-1990s, and the ANS Task Force is currently developing
management/control plans for the Chinese mitten crab and Caulerpa taxifolia, a marine algae. The objectives of these plans are to outline strategies and
actions to control or manage aquatic invasive species. These plans are developed and implemented
cooperatively by federal, state, and regional entities where appropriate.
Early Detection and
Monitoring
We
support the objectives addressed in Section 301. An early detection network based on the best available science is
important to reducing the impacts of invasive aquatic species.
Information, Education and
Outreach
Education
and outreach continue to be critical elements to the success of invasive
species prevention and control. Within
the Department, the Fish and Wildlife Service has been actively working for
many years on a 100th Meridian Initiative to stop the westward spread of zebra
mussels and other aquatic invasive species.
The bill proposes to enhance these efforts through increased and
targeted outreach and education efforts.
The ANS Task Force and the Fish and Wildlife Service have established a
public awareness campaign known as Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! that targets
aquatic recreation users and promotes voluntary guidelines to ensure that
aquatic invasive species are not spread through recreational activities. Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! complements the
100th Meridian Initiative and was designed to unify the conservation community
to inform recreation users about the issue and encourage them to become part of
the solution to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species.
The
National Park Service also provides information to millions of visitors every
year regarding conservation of natural and cultural resources. The Act, as amended, recognizes the vital
role that the National Park Service has in education and outreach on resource
conservation and, more specifically, during the commemoration of the Lewis and
Clark Bicentennial Expedition. Invasive
species education and information, integrated within ongoing educational
efforts, will provide critical context to increase understanding of the impacts
of invasive species on natural resources.
Again,
we applaud the legislation’s multi-agency approach to education and outreach as
there are already significant efforts to coordinate the dissemination of
information. One example is the
National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII), an extensive information
network already in wide public use, which can be utilized as a means to facilitate
public access to survey, monitoring, and risk assessment information.
Aquatic Invasive Species
Research
We
are encouraged by the increased emphasis on research and monitoring efforts in
the bill. In its strategic planning
effort, the Task Force determined that additional actions were needed and
restructured its committees to better address these problems. Key areas addressed in the legislation,
including pathways, ballast water management, early detection and monitoring
and control, can only be successful if they are based on sound research.
We
recognize the need for methods for rapid assessment of newly detected aquatic
species, and recommend that adequate resources for conducting such assessments
be included as an integral component of coordinated planning for rapid
responses. We recommend that particular
attention be given to expanding and coordinating existing databases, such as
the USGS’s National Non-indigenous Aquatic Species Database, which provides
basic scientific information for addressing invasive species threats. Finally, we recommend that the legislation
ensure better coordination among the agencies and organizations that collect
and store invasive aquatic species information, and we offer our assistance to
the Subcommittee in this regard.
Conclusion
In
closing, I want to thank you for providing the Department with an opportunity
to comment on this legislation. As I
stated earlier, we are happy to work with you and your staff on programmatic
and other technical issues.
Mr.
Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks.
I am happy to respond to any questions you or the other Committee
members may have.