Table Of Content

S. Hrg. 103-602 HARMFUL NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES IN THE U.S. Y 4. G 74/9; S. HRG. 103-602 Harnful Hon-Indigenous Species in t... HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MARCH 11 AND 15, 1994 Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs iy SEP 9 fr :.-. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 77-«12cc WASHINGTON : 1994 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-044587-6 ' y S. Hrg. 103-602 ^ HARMFUL NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES IN THE U.S. Y 4. G 74/9: B. HRG. 103-602 Harnful Kon-Indigenous Species in t. HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MARCH 11 AND 15, 1994 Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs SEP Q it^ci, .>7-fji».. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 77-S12CC WASHINGTON : 1994 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-044587-6 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS JOHN GLENN, Ohio, Chairman SAM NUNN, Georgia WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware CARL LEVIN, Michigan TED STEVENS, Alaska JIM SASSER, Tennessee WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota Leonard Weiss, StaffDirector Kerry Taylor, Professional Staff Franklin G. Polk, Minority StaffDirector and ChiefCounsel Michal Sue Prosser, ChiefClerk (II) CONTENTS Opening statements: Page SenatorAkaka 1,35 SenatorGlenn '37 Prepared statement: SenatorLieberman 5 WITNESSES FRroAY, March 11, 1994 Dewey M. Caron, Ph.D., Professor ofEntomology, Department ofEntomology andApplied Ecology, University ofDelaware, Newark, DE 3 Don C. Schmitz, Wetland and Upland ForestAlien Plant Coordinator, Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL 6 Howard M. Singletary, Jr., Director, Plant Industry Division, North Carolina Department ofAgriculture, Raleigh, NC 8 James T. Carlton, Ph.D., Director, Maritime Studies Program, Williams Col- lege-MysticSeaport, Mystic, CT 11 Faith Thompson Campbell, Ph.D., Natural Resources Defense Council, Wash- ington, DC 21 Deborah B. Jensen, Ph.D., The Nature Conservancy,ArUngton, VA 23 Tuesday, March 15, 1994 Phyllis N. Windle, Senior Associate, Office ofTechnology Assessment, Wash- ington, DC, accompanied by Elizabeth Chomesky, Senior Analyst, Office ofTechnologyAssessment, Washington, DC 41 Robert Davison, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Departmentofthe Interior 47 Katharine W. Kimball, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmos- phere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department ofCommerce 50 B. Glen Lee, Deputy Administrator, Plant Protection and Quarantine, U.S. DepartmentofAgriculture 52 William L. McCleese, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture 55 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Campbell, Faith Thompson: Testimony 21 Prepared statement 78 Carlton, James T.: Testimony H Prepared statement 76 Caron, Dewey M.: Testimony 3 Prepared statement 69 Davison, Robert: Testimony 47 Prepared statement 100 Jensen, Deborah B.: Testimony 23 Prepared statement 87 (III) IV Page Kimball, KatharineW.: Testimony 50 Prepared statement 103 Lee, B. Glen: Testimony 52 Prepared statement 107 McCleese, William L.: Testimony 55 Prepared statement 109 Schmitz, Don C: Testimony 6 Prepared statement 73 Singletary, Howard M. Jr.: Testimony 8 Prepared statement 74 Windle, Phyllis N.: Testimony . 41 Prepared statement 95 APPENDIX Prepared statements ofwitnesses in order ofappearance 69 Statements submitted forthe record: Yukio Kitagawa 113 Kenneth Y. Kaneshiro, Ph.D 115 WalterR. Courtenay, Jr., Ph.D 118 Bruce E. Coblentz 119 Ducks Unlimited, Inc 121 U.S. Postal Service 124 NationalAudubon Society 125 PeterVitousek 129 Ms. Mary LouMcHugh 130 APHIS Responses to Questions aboutNon-Indigenous Species 132 OTAReportbrief 198 HARMFUL NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES IN THE UNITED STATES FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1994 U.S. Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs. Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel Akaka pre- siding. Presenc: Senator Akaka. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATORAKAKA Senator Akaka. The Committee on Governmental Affairs will be in order. Welcome to our guest witnesses here today. We welcome all ofyou to this hearing. Aloha £ind good morning! Today's hearing will focus on the problems that alien species pose to our Nation's agriculture, environment, and economy. The United States is being subjected to a slow, silent invasion of alien pests. These invaders hitchhike aboard planes, lurk in old tires, hide in household goods, and swim in the ballast ofships. We have a pie chart^ that helps us illustrate this point. Using Hawaii as an example, we can see that alien species use every con- ceivable mode oftransportation to invade our State. Developing loss estimates due to alien species is inherently dif- ficult. Studies place annual losses to U.S. agriculture, forests, rangeland, and fisheries in excess of $100 million. During high-im- pact years, losses increase to several billion dollars. Alien pests represent a serious threat to many, many areas of economic activity. Agriculture must contend with an array of alien weeds, insects, and pathogens. A significant portion of the $7 billion that farmers spend guinugdly on pest control is applied to con- tain alien species. Some weeds do not directly harm agriculture, but serve as hosts for agricultural pests instead. For example, crested wheatgrass, which was once planted for soil conservation, harbors the Russian wheat aphid. This pest caused $170 million in losses during 1988 alone. Chestnut blight, which arrived on diseased plantings from China, killed over a billion chestnut trees during the early part ofthe cen- tury. Another forest threat, the gypsy moth, was responsible for $760 million in losses during peak years. 1Seepage 138. (1) Hydrilla is the scourge of Eastern waterways. This aquatic weed blocks irrigation and drainage canals, promotes sedimentation in flood control reservoirs, impedes navigation, and suppresses fisheries. $100 million is spent annually to control this and other aquatic pests. Aquatic nuisances such as zebra mussels and Asiem clams regularly clog municipal water lines and irrigation pipes. But nowhere are the effects of alien species more dramatic than in Hawaii. The September 1993 Office of Technology Assessment report concluded that few economic or non-economic activities in Hawaii are unaffected by the influx of alien pests. The Aloha State is a case study ofwhat happens when alien pests run wild. Hawaii receives an average of 18 new pests annually. This is more than a million times the natural rate and more than twice the number absorbed each year on the mainland. The lack ofa win- ter frost means that these uninvited guests multiply all year long. Hawaii has no aloha for these noxious pests. Faced with a steady invasion of alien pests, it is no wonder that the State's environment has been overwhelmed. Ten percent ofHa- waii's plant species are already extinct, and about 30 percent of those that remgiin are threatened or endangered. Hawaii has become a magnet for the world's noxious pests. Be- cause of intentional and accidental introductions, alien pests such as banana poka, fire tree, army worm, five species of fruit fly, and a host of feral animals impose a tremendous burden on our economy and our environment. The list goes on and on. I recently received a letter^ fi*om Hawaii's Outdoor Circle asking that I investigate a new threat, the ivy gourd. According to their letter, this pest is growing out of control on the windward side of Oahu. The list of Hawaii's alien species seems to get longer each day. We also have a healthy fear of pests that have yet to reach our shores. The arrival of the brown tree snake would be an obituary for Hawaii's native forest birds. Alien pests do not just compete with native species; they dramatic£illy alter the landscape and change the rules of the game by which native species live. As a result, we are rapidly losing our liv- ing heritage of plants and animals that constitute the foundation ofbiological diversity. Due to the explosive growth in commerce, tourism, and travel, the army ofinvading pests is on the rise. Hawaii is a good example of this trend. A 50 percent increase in air traffic during the 1980's made Honolulu the 15th busiest airport in the Nation. Pests arrive as stowaways in transportation equipment and cargo. Plants and animals are brought in, intentionally or unintentionally, by the in- creasing numbers oftravelers. Even our own residents are to blame. In February 1992, the Ha- waii Department of Agriculture sponsored a 1-week amnesty program for residents to turn in illegal animals. The campaign netted 53 animals, including various snakes, reptiles, and amphibians, as well as harvester ants, hamsters, and birds. Experience in Hawaii and elsewhere demonstrates that we have no effective national policy to combat the threats of alien pests. 1Seepage 139. Federal and State initiatives simply are not keeping pace with new and spreading alien species. The recent OTA report echoes this concern. It found that our country has no real national policy for controlling harmful alien species. The current system is piecemeal, lacking adequate rigor and comprehensiveness. The charts ^ on display (here on your right and my left) illustrate these points. The first is a list of Federal agencies with alien species responsibihty. It shows that 24 Federal agencies are responsible for some aspect ofresearch, prevention, control, or use ofalien species. The list, as you can see, is very long. The second —chart shows the interrelationship among all the major inte—rests Federal, State, industry, academia, and the gen- eral public that affect alien species policy. The question for Congress to consider is how to achieve a more stringent and comprehensive national policy on harmful alien pests. I hope today's witnesses will offer their recommendations on how to improve on the current system. I ask that the witnesses limit their testimony to 5 minutes to provider greater time for discussion. Your written statements will be entered into the record in their entirety, and there is no need to read from a prepared text. The hearing record will remain open until the close ofbusiness April 11, 1994, to receive comments from individuals and organizations not present today. At this time I am delighted to have a panel of experts. First is Dr. Dewey Caron, Department of Entomology and Applied Ecology, University of Delaware; Mr. Don Schmitz, Wetland and Upland Forest Alien Plant Coordinator, Florida Department of Environ- mental Protection: Mr. Howard Singletary, Director, Plant Industry Division, North Carolina Department of Agriculture; and Dr. James Carlton, Director, Maritime Studies Program, Williams Col- lege-Mystic Seaport. We are delighted to have you here and look forward to your testimony. Let me call on Dr. Caron first. TESTIMONY OF DEWEY M. CARON, PH.D.,2 PROFESSOR OF EN- TOMOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY AND APPLIED ECOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE Mr. Caron. Thank you, Senator, and good morning. I would like to talk a little bit this morning on Africanized bees. Africanized bees are a very special circumstance of a non-indigenous population of organisms, insects, that have spread naturally into the United States. They are currently occupying three of our Southern States: Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. But it also rep- resents an alien species that there is a continuing need for intercept activities, and, in fact, that activity is ongoing, above and beyond where the population is existing and spreading naturally. We do not know the eventual final distribution ofwhat that population will be within the United States ofAfricanized bees. We believe it will be considerable. Coping with that population now, we have a large conglomerate, all of the agencies or nearly all ofthe agencies that you have listed ^Seepages 140 and 141. 2ThepreparedstatementofMr. Caronappearsonpage69. isnityuoatuironopweintihngthciosmmpeanrttisc,ulpalruspoSptualtaetiaognencwiietshatshweellle.adWeFehdaedrâ agency of perhaps not making up its mind as to what role it would play in a population both spreading naturally into the Southern Um^ted States and a need for an intercept. And for that reason, there was a bit of some difficulty at the beginmng as the popu- lsaotOminoenopmfaogOveUeTd7,cioIntmoomffet'enhretssUonamisetetcdoonSwsthiaadteetrs.atthieonfsu.tuYroeumaasy,kebdje..t.hIuawt4.o„wu.le^dro.htftfkêrer- '^'^SoftCia^^^^^^^ problem^with the Africanized bees we need Federal involvement beyond the current level There is a nun^ber of the agencies that are hsted, as you indicated in your opemng comments, that are now involved, and of course, there is a need for better coordination. There is the need for both research extension activities, and educational efforts with the Africanized beeThAestIarignedticaatueddi,enaclleoifntchleusdeesnebeodthtoobuer eixnpduasntdreydbeekeepers and tnheoesdeptolhlaitnabteinoenfistervfircoesm, obuurt ailnsdoustthrey,Sttahteo,secocurnotpy parnoddumceurmscitphaalt aamulutisheotnriintniotewrso,dfbuaoccteehdaecslpceeiccdtieeendst,aa—lnadnedn,ncoonou-fnetlceeocrutsresdew,,ittthhhaetthmgeeunsdeterfadelenas^Piûvbweliitbchehttahhvai-ts ir^Td that is the stinsfing ofAfricanized bees. A Wgh priority as^^ sêe it, for dealing with Mricanized bees is tnfooertirpceodmmuanctaeetritihoaelnwomhfaincl-reaopspssrioastntedectdailnmlgootvwhieenmgeavbnaetielkaoebfeilptiehtreysoAaffhrnoecnaasemoyznbaeebdelecboeolepopmogeres-- tdsdufeumtceûtdtaiytoirnotenoporfSpeTusttrehnshetureeaatlfphioaeerrinmarsiiidbntsauiebscclitenbeescsephseamcliiolertsee,nhsgoseabonbmmdyetcioronfantctewhrrheaeiasdcltischmtiiyTtoohenuisstmoaednhnodteosimw,otnrtioehn-e-d inPvoosusribolpeepnoirntgisotfaetnetmreynta,nhdaivseolfautnecdtigoenoegdr.aphical enclaves such as tesfhefeôreItsdslaaanndudssecoffounlHtapiwunaruipeodisdeaensidntrPtuuhceetriipo:anostoR,ficaaonccdniedweeedntncaeloenitdnivtnaoudehedrasvi.entTethrhdiiissccthoiaonsn- tfêd Shice the population ofAfricanized bees is both external to oaunrdslhiokerlevs'taondcoanltsi'on'uceurtroenstplryea>d^tihnitnotahdeditthiroenealStUam.tabetse^tnê^ra^r^li^t-ô^mr^yd,eetnde ptohssfibwihSloiltieespoofpmualna-taisosni-shtaesd sepxrpeaanddeodf,thtehegreenfeotriec making the task "^We Federal assistance in our efforts to help monitor the sapprronebualmdebmoefrwtihotefhAatfghreiinsccaipneoispzuetldhaatbtieoeanrpeoipnuclIuaDrt;rienottnhlawytitdihsoiinnigdtehntthîaUft.i.cSaWtiTeohnehroaefveatrheae bfceoaetremdsUeSaaDrsleAirev?AicRUeSSofDaAsIsDiAsiPtnsHteIirnSceAipfntristiicoaaflnltiyhzaeesdsAibPseHteeIdSiwdeiinnttthiefrticrceaappttipsoi.nnAgassnwdIaiprnedmris-- laefngmtohnyitolriniengofstsattaitoinosnsinatso1u-tmhilTeexâ^^st-etrhvealys-ebsuttabhlaisshendowa^f^trhb; dGroavw^nmmIetSis,uXncltearr,olaetAlPeaHsItStowomualndyaosfsuusmeouatfstiedretohfetAhfenclâemdezreadl