[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SAFEGUARDING AMERICAN AGRICULTURE FROM WILD, INVASIVE, AND NON-NATIVE
SPECIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 14, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-23
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-283 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Ranking
JIM COSTA, California Minority Member
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
FILEMON VELA, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands Arkansas
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
Vice Chair VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia DOUG LaMALFA, California
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York TED S. YOHO, Florida
TJ COX, California RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MIKE BOST, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
JOSH HARDER, California TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
KIM SCHRIER, Washington JAMES COMER, Kentucky
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DON BACON, Nebraska
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa
______
Anne Simmons, Staff Director
Matthew S. Schertz, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture
JIM COSTA, California, Chairman
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina,
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut Ranking Minority Member
TJ COX, California GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
JOSH HARDER, California VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
FILEMON VELA, Texas TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands JAMES COMER, Kentucky
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DON BACON, Nebraska
JIMMY PANETTA, California JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
Katie Zenk, Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 3
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Submitted letter on behalf of James D. Ogsbury, Executive
Director, Western Governors' Association................... 43
Harder, Hon. Josh, a Representative in Congress from California,
submitted chart................................................ 86
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 27
Rouzer, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from North
Carolina, opening statement.................................... 4
Witnesses
Ortega, Ricardo, General Manager, Grassland Water District, Los
Banos, CA...................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Submitted questions.......................................... 86
Thompson, J.D., D.V.M., Beth S., State Veterinarian, Executive
Director, Minnesota Board of Animal Health, Saint Paul, MN..... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Erickson, Bret, Senior Vice President for Business Affairs, J&D
Produce Inc., Edinburg, TX..................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Reichert, Kurt, Director of Fumigation, Western Industries--
North, LLC; d/b/a Western Fumigation, Lester, PA............... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Gaskamp, Joshua A., Technical Consultation Manager and Wildlife
and Range Consultant, Noble Research Institute, LLC, Ardmore,
OK............................................................. 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
SAFEGUARDING AMERICAN AGRICULTURE FROM WILD, INVASIVE, AND NON-NATIVE
SPECIES
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim
Costa [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Costa, Brindisi, Hayes,
Cox, Craig, Harder, Plaskett, Carbajal, Peterson (ex officio),
Rouzer, DesJarlais, Hartzler, Comer, Marshall, Hagedorn, and
Conaway (ex officio).
Staff present: Malikha Daniels, Prescott Martin III, Katie
Zenk, Ricki Schroeder, Patricia Straughn, Jeremy Witte, Dana
Sandman, and Jennifer Yezak.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
The Chairman. The Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign
Agriculture's hearing will now come to order.
The topic of this morning's hearing is safeguarding
American agriculture from wild, invasive, and non-native
species, a challenge that has plagued American agriculture
throughout the various regions of our country historically, and
one that American agriculture has to contend with and we hope
to have a balanced group of witnesses to testify here today as
to those challenges.
And obviously, while the Subcommittee's jurisdiction is on
livestock and foreign agriculture, a lot of our focus as it
relates to these issues of wild, invasive, and non-native
species relate to the foreign agricultural part of the
jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, because as we know, so much
of American agriculture is exported and oftentimes we have to
contend with issues on our ability to market our products
abroad with regards to issues of invasive species that are non-
native species that other parts of the world argue that may not
meet phytosanitary standards, and it is a part of our challenge
and a part of our effort.
I welcome the attendees here today, the Members of the
Subcommittee, and we look to hold a good hearing with the
witnesses that we have before us.
I want to thank everybody for being here. Obviously, the
impacts of invasive and non-native species impact agricultural
supply chains. We have a group of witnesses here that deal with
these issues regularly, and how we in fact deal with steps on
importers and exporters that we attempt to try to keep invasive
species from impacting the various commodities that we produce
so that trade can continue.
The Subcommittee oversees key parts of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's functions that addresses Wildlife Services at
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service as well as the
Department of Agriculture trade promotion efforts.
Recently, I had an intervention with USDA working on a
problem that we had with China on tomato seeds, for example.
Our discussion is going to complement the good work of our
colleagues on the Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research
Subcommittee, of which we have some Members here this morning
who serve on that Subcommittee as well, as well as the
Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee. And so the hope is to,
while there is overlap, to complement our efforts with the
other two Subcommittees.
Specifically for my own background, I can tell you in
California that we have a host of these issues both in invasive
and non-native species. Examples of those is the nutria
populations that have damaged wetlands and farmlands, but they
have also taken hold in Maryland and they have taken hold in
Louisiana as well.
We also have wild birds that have played a role in
introducing virulent Newcastle Disease in poultry flocks, and
while in other states these animals have also been linked to
similar damage and disease that has taken place. It is an issue
that affects the entire country, region to region.
In the 2018 Farm Bill that we all worked on together, we
started a pilot project to address the issue of feral swine in
the Southeast. I look forward to hearing more about how the
initial implementation of this program is going. If the pilot
project is working well, I would suggest to Members here, the
Subcommittee and the full Committee, that this might be a model
to address invasive species issues in the future. And so we
need to look at that.
Along our southern border and our ocean ports, the seasonal
nature of the specialty crop industry means trucks and barges
carrying fruits and vegetables from outside the U.S. are
potential vectors for dangerous pests that have not yet been
established in this country. And I have been at the border both
through California all the way to Texas and I have seen the
concern and the attempt to address that from ensuring that it
doesn't happen.
For all these reasons and more I think many of our
colleagues today here are joined with the agriculture inspector
resources at our ports and other points of entry. We can't
expect Customs and Border Protection or the Department of
Agriculture to evolve its capabilities to match these evolving
threats in my view without the resources to do so, and I think
that is one of the things we want to hear about here today is
whether or not we are actually providing the necessary
resources to do that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from
California
Thank you all for joining us today as we hold this hearing to
examine the persistent challenges posed to our agricultural supply
chains by wild, non-native, and invasive species.
I am happy to host these witnesses and to discuss the ways U.S.
farmers and ranchers are controlling key invasive species domestically
as well as the steps importers and exporters are taking to keep
invasive species out. These are important steps so that agricultural
trade can continue to flow.
This Subcommittee oversees key U.S. Department of Agriculture
functions that partner with industry to address these issues, including
Wildlife Services at the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service as
well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's trade promotion efforts.
Our discussion will complement the good work of our colleagues on the
Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research Subcommittee as well as the
Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee as we work on different aspects
of these pressing concerns.
In California, expanding nutria populations damage wetlands and
farmlands, and wild birds have played a role in introducing virulent
Newcastle Disease into poultry flocks, while in other states, these
animals have been linked to similar damage and disease.
The 2018 Farm Bill also started a new pilot to address the issue of
feral swine in the Southeast, and I look forward to hearing more about
how the initial implementation of this program is going and to consider
if this pilot program could be a model to address other invasive
species issues in the future.
Along our southern border and at our ocean ports, the seasonal
nature of our specialty crop industry means trucks and barges carrying
fruits and vegetables from outside of the U.S. are potential vectors
for dangerous pests that have not yet established in this country.
For all these reasons and more, I, and many of my colleagues have
joined a bill to increase agriculture inspector resources at our ports
and other points of entry. We can't expect Customs and Border
Protection or the Department of Agriculture to evolve its capabilities
to match these evolving threats without the resources to do so.
With that, I want to welcome our witnesses and recognize my
esteemed Ranking Member, Mr. Rouzer of North Carolina, for any remarks
he would like to make.
The Chairman. With that said, I want to make sure that all
Members understand that in consultation with the Ranking Member
pursuant to Rule XI(e) to make sure that Members of the
Subcommittee are aware that other Members of the full Committee
may join with us today. Obviously we welcome that
participation.
I want to welcome our witnesses and recognize my esteemed
Ranking Member, Mr. Rouzer, from North Carolina for any
remarks.
Mr. Rouzer. Do you want to recognize Conaway?
The Chairman. Sure. We have former Chairman, Ranking Member
Conaway here. Would you like to open?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. Conaway. Well, sure. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, I appreciate that.
I want to thank Chairman Costa and Ranking Member Rouzer
for having me here today.
I would like to touch on one of the more devastating
examples of invasive species that is currently affecting Texas
in addition to the Southeast, much of our country, is called
feral swine. Farmers, ranchers and landowners have been dealing
with the destruction caused by wild pigs for decades. Most
estimate that feral swine cause over $1.5 billion of damages
each year, with at least $800 million of that amount attributed
directly to agriculture. But the problem is growing so much
that it is not just affecting those in rural areas.
In 2017, the Dallas City Council authorized a 3 year
service contract for control and abatement of feral hogs on
city property. Feral swine are capable of breeding at just 6
months and have a gestation period of 115 days. They reproduce
at such a high rate that you would have to remove more than \2/
3\ of the feral swine population every year just to keep the
population stable.
These hogs can be vectors for several diseases, including
foot-and-mouth and African Swine Fever. Feral swine have also
had an unbelievable impact on native species and ecosystems.
According to USDA, feral swine have played a role in the
decline of nearly 300 native plants and animals in the U.S.
alone.
I am proud that in the 2018 Farm Bill we established the
Feral Swine Eradication and Control pilot program, directing
APHIS and NRCS to coordinate the removal of feral swine,
restore habitat, and provide assistance to producers for feral
swine control. We funded the program with about $75 million,
and in June USDA announced funding availability for projects in
nine states including Texas.
I am glad we are holding this hearing to review the impact
of non-native species on American agriculture, and want to
thank all the witnesses for being here today and sharing your
perspectives with us. I look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Congressman Conaway.
I will now defer to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee,
Representative Rouzer from North Carolina.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID ROUZER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Rouzer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward
to today's hearing to consider how we are currently
safeguarding American agriculture from wild, invasive, and non-
native species, and to discuss what steps we can take to
improve these efforts.
Invasive species pose a significant threat to the success
of production agriculture and environmental stewardship, and it
is important that we continue to improve the coordinated
national strategy to both prevent the introduction of invasive
species and to eradicate the ones that we already have.
In the 2018 Farm Bill we made significant strides in
safeguarding American agriculture from invasive pests. Mirrored
after the successful Plant, Pest, and Disease Prevention
Program, we created a National Animal Disease Preparedness and
Response Program, providing funding for USDA to enter into
partnerships with states, universities, and others to fund
targeted prevention, preparedness, detection, and response
activities.
The farm bill also provided funding, as has been mentioned
already, for a Feral Swine Eradication Program, which as of
today has made funding available for projects in nine states.
While our trading relationships continue to benefit
American farmers and ranchers, increasing levels of imports
come with additional pest and disease threats, and as I have
said at nearly every hearing, in fact almost everyone probably
on this Committee has said it at one time or another, it is so
critically imperative that we ratify USMCA. In addition to
increased market access and the numerous protections and
economic benefits that will stem from ratification of this
agreement across the agricultural industry, USMCA will foster
further opportunities between the three countries to monitor,
prevent, detect, and eradicate invasive species.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. Each of
you play an important role in safeguarding American
agriculture, and we thank you for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. The chair would request
that other Members submit their opening statements for the
record so we may begin with our witnesses and their testimony
to ensure that there is ample time for questions.
I would like to welcome all of our witnesses and introduce
you collectively before we begin.
First, Mr. Ric Ortega, who I have worked with over the
years. General Manager and Director of Policy and Governmental
Affairs for Grassland Water District in Los Banos. Congressman
Cox and I share the kind of overlap of the entirety of
Grassland Water District. It is the largest wetlands,
contiguous wetlands, in the United States, which is a fairly
interesting effort and it really is a key part of the Pacific
Flyway from Canada all the way to Mexico. We are glad to have
you here and talk about your efforts to fight feral nutria and
we welcome you to the Agriculture Committee.
We have a second witness here that I am going to defer to
Representative Craig who would like to introduce the second
witness.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor
to introduce Dr. Beth Thompson. Thank you so much for being
here.
As Executive Director of the Minnesota Board of Animal
Health, Dr. Thompson also serves as the Minnesota State
Veterinarian. In this role she oversees the planning and
implementation of state-wide programs for the detection,
control, and eradication of animal diseases.
Her work also includes working closely with the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture, the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, the University of Minnesota undefeated Golden
Gophers, 9 and 0, and the United States Department of
Agriculture.
Dr. Thompson, we are glad to have you here today, and I
look forward to your testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Representative Craig.
Minnesota has a great team. Fresno State almost beat them in
the first game of the season, but we fell a little bit short.
Our third witness is Mr. Bret Erickson, a Senior Vice
President for Business Affairs of J&D Produce in Edinburg,
Texas. He tells me they are busy harvesting right now a host of
important specialty crops, and Mr. Erickson is involved in
those specialty crop production efforts and the Rio Grande
Valley. Prior to his current role, he served as President/CEO
of Texas International Produce Association.
Bret, we thank you for being here.
In addition to that, we have Mr. Kurt Reichert, Fumigation
Director from the Western Fumigation in Lester, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Reichert works with both importers and exporters at the
Ports of Delaware and elsewhere to manage the transmission
risks, which is part of what we want to understand better here
with your testimony today. He also serves as the Western
Compliance Officer.
Mr. Reichert, we also look forward to hearing your
testimony.
And our final witness is Mr. Josh Gaskamp. I hope I
pronounced that properly. Technical Consultation Manager and
Wildlife and Range Consultant for Noble Research Institute in
Ardmore, Oklahoma.
Mr. Gaskamp works closely with farmers and ranchers on
tools and methods for addressing feral swine.
And we thank you all for joining us today and your
willingness to share your perspectives with the Subcommittee.
We will now proceed with hearing from our witnesses. Each
of you will have 5 minutes. I hope you understand the, you have
those lights in front of you. For the first 4 minutes it is
green, and then at the 5th minute it turns yellow, and then at
the end of 5 it turns red, and you are on your own. We know
most of you are familiar with it.
Mr. Ortega, why don't we begin with you today, and we thank
you for being here and we look forward to your testimony.
Ric Ortega, Los Banos, California.
STATEMENT OF RICARDO ORTEGA, GENERAL MANAGER, GRASSLAND WATER
DISTRICT, LOS BANOS, CA
Mr. Ortega. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Costa, Ranking
Member Rouzer, Members of the Committee.
My name is Ric Ortega, and I am the General Manager of the
Grassland Water District in California. Located in Merced
County, we are a Federal water contractor that conveys water to
wetland habitat on state, Federal, and private wildlife refuges
in the grassland ecological area.
The wetlands in the ecological area make up the largest
remaining block of freshwater wetlands in the West.
Encompassing over 300\2\ miles, this habitat and surrounding
wildlife-beneficial agriculture, such as alfalfa, cotton, corn,
wheat, and irrigated pasture, support hundreds of wildlife
species and millions of migratory birds each year. With less
than ten percent of historical wetlands remaining in
California, the ecological area is recognized by international
treaty as one of the most important wetland ecosystems in the
Americas.
The ecological area is also the epicenter of California's
nutria epidemic. Since their rediscovery in 2017, nearly 800
nutria have been taken, and many more documented at more than
200 sites across the San Joaquin Valley. The vast majority of
nutria to date have been taken within my district's boundaries,
but now they have expanded to four other counties in the San
Joaquin Valley, and threaten to spread further.
Nutrias reach sexual maturity at 4 months of age and can
have 40 offspring each year. They consume \1/4\ of their body
weight per day, but destroy ten times the plant biomass by
foraging almost exclusively on the fleshy bases of vegetation,
reversing hundreds of millions of dollars in restoration
efforts and also agricultural revenue.
The ecological area shares a water conveyance system with
agricultural water districts through vulnerable earthen-lined
canals. Nutria burrows are extensive, can extend hundreds of
feet, and cause levy failure and loss of scarce water supplies.
These water supplies are the lifeline of our precious remaining
ecosystems and agricultural economy.
Merced County alone is a $3.2 billion ag economy with over
100 types of crops grown over a million acres. Water and
wildlife agencies in California fear nutria expansion could
devastate the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta system.
In Louisiana, nutria convert 2,000 acres of marshland into
open water each year, and have compromised their water
infrastructure. This would not only impact the ecosystem, but
the hub of the state's flood control and water delivery system,
which also supplies water to over 25 million people.
We must act now to prevent catastrophic outcomes in
California. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has
taken lead on eradicating nutria in California. The
Department's emergency response has made great strides in
slowing the growth of nutria populations, while long-term
resources are pursued for a formal dedicated eradication
effort.
For a one-time state appropriation, they established a
nutria eradication program that is now expanding to 45 staff,
including five contracted specialists through the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services. This effort also
seeks to evaluate and utilize all effective detection tools
including the use of scent-detection dogs, eDNA, and
telemetered Judas nutria.
Eradication campaigns are inherently long-term and require
adequate and reliable funding to ensure a successful outcome. A
full-scale campaign in California is estimated to cost around
$5 million per year for at least 7 years before significant
progress is made. The Department estimates a total eradication
campaign will take decades to complete, based on successful
efforts in other parts of the country and the network of
suitable habitat in California.
The Department currently feels it has adequate operational
funding, but only through Fall of 2022 where they will
experience a significant budget deficit if no other funds are
identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the
Committee today. We look forward to working with you on
solutions to this very real problem.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortega follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ricardo Ortega, General Manager, Grassland Water
District, Los Banos, CA
Chairman Costa, Ranking Member Rouzer, Members of the Committee[:]
My name is Ricardo Ortega, and I am the General Manager of the
[Grassland] Water District in California. Located in Merced County, we
are a Federal contractor that conveys water to wetland habitat on
state, Federal and private wildlife refuges in the Grassland Ecological
Area. The wetlands in the Ecological Area make up the largest remaining
block of freshwater wetlands in the West. Encompassing over 300\2\
miles, this habitat and surrounding wildlife-beneficial agriculture
such as alfalfa, cotton, corn, wheat and irrigated pasture support
hundreds of wildlife species and millions of migratory birds each year.
With less than 10% of historical wetlands remaining in California, the
Ecological Area is recognized by international treaty as one of the
most important wetland ecosystems in the Americas.
The Ecological Area is also the epicenter of California's nutria
epidemic. Since their rediscovery in 2017, 758 nutria have been taken,
with many more documented, at 200 sites across the San Joaquin Valley.
The vast majority of nutria taken to date have been from within my
District's service area, but they have now expanded to four counties,
and threaten to spread further.
Nutria reach sexual maturity at 4 months of age and can have 40
offspring each year. They consume \1/4\ of their body weight per day
but destroy ten times the plant biomass by foraging exclusively on the
fleshy bases of vegetation, reversing hundreds of millions of dollars
in restoration efforts and potentially impacting agricultural revenue.
The Ecological Area shares a water conveyance system with
agricultural districts through vulnerable earthen-lined canals. Nutria
burrows extend hundreds of feet causing levee failure and the loss of
scarce water supplies, the lifeline of our precious remaining
ecosystems and agricultural economy. Merced County alone is a $3.2
billion ag economy, with over 100 types of crops grown on over 1.1
million acres, and nutria threaten its very existence.
Water and wildlife agencies in California fear nutria expansion
north could devastate the Sacramento[-]San Joaquin Delta system. In
Louisiana, nutria convert 2,000 acres of marshland into open water each
year and have compromised the water conveyance infrastructure. This
would not only impact the ecosystem, but the hub of the state's flood
control and water delivery system which also supplies water to 25
million people. We must act now to prevent catastrophic outcomes in
California.
In 2018, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has taken
the lead on eradicating nutria in California. The Department's
emergency response has made great strides in slowing the growth of the
nutria population while long-term resources are pursued for a formal,
dedicated eradication effort. Through a one-time state appropriation
and grants, they established a Nutria Eradication Program that is
expanding to 45 staff, including five contracted specialists through
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services. This effort also
seeks to evaluate and utilize all effective detection tools, including
the use of scent-detection dogs, eDNA, and telemetered Judas nutria.
Eradication campaigns are inherently long-term and require adequate
and reliable funding to ensure a successful outcome. A full-scale
campaign in California is estimated to cost more than $5 million per
year for at least of 7 years before significant progress is made. The
Department estimates a total eradication campaign will take at least 20
years to complete, based on successful efforts in other parts of the
country and the network of suitable habitat in California. The
Department currently feels it has adequate operational funding through
fall 2022 but will then experience a significant budget deficit if no
other funds are identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony [to the]
Committee today. We look forward to working with you on solutions to
this very real problem.
The Chairman. Well, we thank you, Mr. Ortega for your
succinct and concise testimony in under 4 minutes. But it is a
serious problem and of course I personally have seen the
challenges that you are dealing with there.
Our next witness is Dr. Thompson from Minnesota. Would you
please proceed.
STATEMENT OF BETH S. THOMPSON, J.D., D.V.M., STATE
VETERINARIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA BOARD OF ANIMAL
HEALTH, SAINT PAUL, MN
Dr. Thompson. Good morning, Members. My name is Beth
Thompson. I am the State Veterinarian in the great State of
Minnesota, and also the Executive Director of the Minnesota
Board of Animal Health.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today
about the importance of safeguarding American agriculture. It
is an honor to be here today.
Minnesota is one of the nation's leaders in poultry
production. We are ranked number one in turkey production, and
also have strong broiler and egg production in our state. Many
of our poultry farms are multi-generational and have supported
the ag and state economy directly through jobs on farms,
related businesses, and in our communities. I am very proud to
be part of agriculture in Minnesota and in the Midwest.
In every aspect of agriculture there is a component of
risk. In livestock agriculture, a risk that is faced by all
farmers is the introduction of disease. I provided written
testimony for you on poultry diseases which can be introduced
via wild waterfowl and other birds. I am going to focus my talk
on avian influenza, as Minnesota has had recent experience with
this disease.
Certain species of wild waterfowl and shore birds are
considered to be natural reservoirs for avian influenza. There
is little or no disease sign in these birds. Back in 2014 and
2015, the virus that was found in domestic and commercial
poultry here in the United States, that dreaded H5N2, likely
started in Asia and then spread to the North American wild
birds via commingling of wild waterfowl, because the migratory
pathways of these birds overlap in the far Northern Hemisphere.
The North American wild birds then brought the virus down
into the continental United States and there was a spillover
into our commercial flocks. In other words, the Eurasian H5N8
mixed with the North American Low-Path Avian Influenza Virus
and we had the outbreak of 2015.
One hundred and ten farms in Minnesota were affected and
over nine million birds either died or were depopulated because
of this disease. It was estimated that the economic damage to
Minnesota alone was $650 million and at least 2,500 jobs were
affected.
Epidemiological studies conducted revealed that there was
initial independent point-source introduction of the virus
directly into these farms, while the farms that were infected
later on during the outbreak, it was more than likely truck
traffic, workers' clothing, and the virus being carried in by
other methods.
This outbreak highlights the importance of many areas, but
briefly to three. First, surveillance, surveillance of both
wild and commercial birds. The information from all of this
surveillance must be shared. Wildlife researchers must share
this information with state and Federal livestock agencies and
vice versa. This is true in peacetime and it is also true
during an outbreak. And just as a note, I just received from
our USDA partners, the National Wildlife Disease Update just
before this hearing started, so that communication is going on,
but it must continue.
Second, response planning: This is also critical. During
the summer of 2015, Minnesota had at times over 500 responders
working per day on High-Path Avian Influenza, and that number
does not include the number of turkey farmers, other farmers,
veterinarians, and community members that have come together to
fight this disease. It was the work that was done in the months
and years before the response that assisted our producers and
regulatory responders, but again, that work must continue.
Last, and third, biosecurity: This is a day-to-day process
for our poultry farmers. Post High-Path Avian Influenza in
2015, researchers looked at the different types of introduction
of diseases into our flocks. It is very apparent that we need
to keep the disease out of the barns. All poultry sectors have
recognized this need for increased biosecurity and the National
Poultry Improvement Plan has adopted minimum standards for our
farmers to follow.
In closing, the U.S. poultry industry in cooperation with
state and Federal agencies has been very proactive post-2015
with efforts to fight foreign animal diseases. And a nod to our
comrades in California right now that are working very hard on
virulent Newcastle Disease in that state.
We can't stop the movement of wild waterfowl. However, if
ag and wildlife agencies continue to work together, we will
have communication, collaboration, and this will benefit our
international trade.
During a response, states know their farmers, their
veterinarians, their communities, but we can be overwhelmed,
and therefore, it is imperative that we have our Federal
partners well prepared.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Beth S. Thompson, J.D., D.V.M., State
Veterinarian, Executive Director, Minnesota Board of Animal Health,
Saint Paul, MN
What diseases are spread by wild birds to domestic/commercial
poultry flocks?
Diseases that have been detected in wild birds with possible
implications for commercial poultry flocks include Avian Influenza,
West Nile Virus, Newcastle Disease, Eastern Equine Encephalitis and
Avian Pox Virus; Avian Influenza and Newcastle Disease receive the most
attention. While it is possible for domestic or commercial poultry
flocks to become infected with viral diseases like avian influenza or
Newcastle Disease from direct contact with wild birds, it is more
likely these viruses are spread indirectly to poultry via contaminated
feed, clothing, and equipment. Producers are encouraged to prevent wild
birds and other wildlife from coming into direct contact with their
poultry flocks, and to avoid transporting wild bird fecal material and
secretions to poultry via boots, equipment and feed. These management
practices are part of biosecurity programs that will be discussed
later.
Avian Influenza
Avian Influenza (AI) is a viral infection that occurs naturally in
wild birds, especially waterfowl, gulls, and shorebirds without any
signs of illness. The viral infection is caused by type A influenza
viruses that may give rise to 144 possible virus subtypes. Influenza
viruses vary widely in their ability to cause disease and spread among
birds. Many strains of influenza viruses can infect commercial poultry,
but generally the viruses can be classified into two categories. Low-
Pathogenicity Avian Influenza (LPAI) viruses typically cause little or
no clinical signs in poultry. With LPAI, the clinical signs in poultry
are variable; they may appear depressed, have ruffled feathers and may
be off-feed. Signs of illness may also only be expressed as reduced egg
production or mild respiratory symptoms. Highly-Pathogenic Avian
Influenza (HPAI) can cause severe clinical signs and/or high mortality
in poultry. With HPAI, clinical signs may include quietness, extreme
depression and sudden drop in egg production. A few deaths may occur
over several days, followed by rapid spread and a mortality rate able
to approach 100% within 48 hours. H5N2 HPAI was the strain of avian
influenza present in 2014-15 during the largest foreign animal disease
event in U.S. history.
Newcastle Disease
Newcastle Disease (ND) is a viral infection of domestic poultry and
other bird species. It is a worldwide problem that presents primarily
as an acute respiratory disease, but depression, nervous
manifestations, or diarrhea may be the predominant clinical form.
Severity depends on the strain of the infecting virus and host
susceptibility. Occurrence of the virulent form of the disease is
reportable to state and Federal animal health officials and may result
in trade restrictions. Clinical manifestations vary from high morbidity
and mortality to asymptomatic infections. Severity of infection depends
on virus virulence, as well as the age, immune status, and
susceptibility of the host species. Chickens are the most susceptible
and waterfowl the least susceptible of domestic poultry.
Virulent ND (vND) strains are endemic in poultry in most of Asia,
Africa, and some countries of North and South America. Other countries,
including the U.S. and Canada, are free of those strains in poultry and
maintain their status by enforcing strict import restrictions and
eradicating the disease by destroying infected poultry. In the U.S.,
vND is considered a Foreign Animal Disease (FAD). Occasionally,
introductions of vND occur in backyard or commercial poultry flocks,
such as the current situation in California in 2018-19. Smuggled
poultry and psittacine species or resident cormorants or pigeons are a
potential source of Newcastle Disease infections in poultry. Movement
of infected domestic birds and movement of people and contaminated
equipment or litter are the main methods of virus spread between
poultry flocks. Besides cormorants and possibly pigeons, wild birds
have not been indicated as a major threat for introduction of ND in the
United States.
Vaccines for ND are available for chickens, turkeys, and pigeons,
so vaccinated birds must be exposed to a larger dose of vND virus to be
infected. Unfortunately, ND vaccines do not prevent all infections. In
many areas of the world, vaccines are used to prevent losses from
sickness and death, meaning vaccinated birds are still susceptible to
vND but at a lower death rate than unvaccinated birds. Minnesota has
never had a case of vND in poultry. However, a less serious form of the
disease has been identified in wild waterfowl (cormorants) in the state
in past years. Waterfowl have the ability to spread disease to poultry
through fecal droppings and secretions of the nose, mouth and eye. As a
result, poultry producers have taken additional steps to keep their
birds healthy by increasing biosecurity and implementing vaccination
programs. Among other measures, one of the most effective ways to
protect poultry is by making sure they are separated from wild birds.
Some ND viruses can produce a transitory conjunctivitis in people,
but the condition has been limited primarily to laboratory workers and
vaccination teams exposed to large quantities of virus. Poultry and egg
products are safe to consume.
What type of surveillance is conducted for each of these diseases
in commercial poultry and wild birds, and how do agencies collaborate?
How does the poultry industry, and state and Federal agencies respond?
Surveillance for diseases in wildlife is usually passive, meaning
state and Federal wildlife agencies respond to reports of mortality
events involving either dead or sick birds. For dead bird events more
attention is paid to multiple birds (>5) dead at the same time and
location. When wild bird mortality events occur, diagnostic testing may
be pursued depending on the species involved, time of year,
circumstances of the event and clinical signs observed. For the health
of Minnesota poultry and wildlife, it is important that relevant
government agencies maintain close communications on potential disease
events. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN-DNR) staff
hold positions on the Board of Animal Health's Emergency Disease
Management Committee, and regularly attend quarterly Board of Animal
Health meetings to collaborate on current disease events. USDA-Wildlife
Services will also be involved with meetings on disease issues. Outside
of those routine meetings, both agencies are at the top of emergency
notifications to one another if and when diseases are detected. Because
disease knows no barriers, a harmonized preparedness and response
effort is Minnesota's best strategy to protect our wild and commercial
populations. For example, when the MN-DNR are tracking disease in
cormorants, updates on sampling and diagnostic test results are shared
with animal health officials.
No active surveillance programs exist for ND in the U.S.; however,
the commercial poultry industry closely monitors the effectiveness of
their vaccination programs and investigates potential field exposures
through diagnostic testing.
There are two surveillance programs for avian influenza with USDA
oversight: the Live Bird Marketing System (LBMS) and the National
Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP)
A Live Bird Market is any facility (including botanica, poultry
store, or custom slaughter) that sells live poultry for onsite
slaughter or for offsite ritual use. LPAI viruses have repeatedly been
isolated from the LBMS in the U.S. In order to track an introduction
into the LBMS a cooperative State-Federal-Industry surveillance program
was created. Details are contained in the USDA ``Prevention and Control
of H5 and H7 Avian Influenza in the Live Bird Marketing System--Uniform
Standards for a State-Federal-Industry Cooperative Program''
publication.
The National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) is how much of the
surveillance for avian influenza in commercial and backyard poultry is
conducted. Surveillance is a cooperative, collaborative effort between
the poultry industry, State Animal Health Officials (SAHO) and the
Federal Government. The NPIP is an agency within the USDA, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Veterinary Services (VS). The
NPIP is the Federal Government's poultry disease control program
administered in cooperation with state animal health officials and
poultry producers. The General Conference Committee (GCC) of the NPIP
is the Official Federal Advisory Committee to the Secretary of
Agriculture on matters pertaining to poultry health and includes
individuals representing the U.S. poultry industry and state agencies.
The push for a national avian influenza surveillance program began
in 2002 when H7N2 Low-Pathogenic Avian Influenza (LPAI) was identified
in North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia; costing producers
hundreds of millions of dollars. At that time, a surveillance program
was not in place to detect the potential spread of Avian Influenza
(AI). In response, an LPAI program was created within the NPIP to
provide an incentive for regular AI surveillance and to protect poultry
producers through indemnification and compensation should H5/H7 LPAI be
found. Avian Influenza remains a concern for poultry producers in the
U.S. The NPIP is the only Federal program responsible for H5/H7 LPAI
surveillance, response, and containment activities.
Flocks identified with HPAI are fully indemnified and compensated
by USDA-APHIS-VS; however, indemnity and compensation funding for H5/H7
LPAI flocks by USDA-APHIS-VS is often not certain. Disruption of this
funding for H5/H7 LPAI response can result in loss of confidence and
trust by the poultry industry and could potentially create a harmful
impact on future responses to H5/H7 LPAI. This loss of confidence and
trust discourages poultry producers (commercial, independent growers,
and small flocks) from fully complying with NPIP testing programs and
cooperating with state and Federal regulatory authorities, potentially
risking the poultry industry's significant international trade. Without
dedicated funding for LPAI indemnity and compensation, there is no
incentive for producers to participate in the highly successful
voluntary NPIP programs.
Surveillance for influenza in poultry in the U.S. occurs on a
number of different levels. All flock owners are expected to monitor
their flocks for development of clinical signs suggestive of any
reportable disease. In Minnesota, as in most states, influenza in
poultry is a disease that is reportable to the State Animal Health
Official (SAHO) or State Veterinarian. This is the first level of
awareness and surveillance. When contacted, the SAHO, in conjunction
with the attending poultry veterinarian or other responsible party,
determines the next steps to arrive at an official flock status and
response activities. Active surveillance activities for influenza are
outlined in the NPIP Provisions and requires that commercial poultry
flocks are tested on a routine surveillance schedule to ensure that no
poultry, eggs or egg products from infected birds enter the food chain.
All testing for influenza must occur at an authorized laboratory that
is approved by the state and the NPIP. Many of these laboratories are
members of the National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN), which
is a nationally coordinated network and partnership of Federal, state,
and university-associated animal health laboratories. They provide the
diagnostic services to detect high-consequence livestock pathogens.
How does biosecurity work to keep diseases out of poultry flocks?
Biosecurity is a critical component of poultry health programs
designed to prevent disease transmission into or out of a poultry
flock. Biosecurity programs can not only reduce the possibility of a
disease introduction but can also help prevent disease transmission and
spread once an introduction is identified. According to the USDA Report
on the 2014-2015 Outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI)
in the United States, biosecurity can play an important role in
stopping the spread of avian influenza in domestic poultry. The report
states, ``In December 2014, highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI)
was detected in the United States for the first time in 10 years. In
total, during the 2014-2015 outbreak, there were 211 detections on
commercial operations and 21 detections on backyard premises (including
those premises designated as a Dangerous Contact Premises).
Approximately 7.4 million turkeys and 43 million egg-layers/pullet
chickens, as well as a limited number of mixed poultry flocks, were
affected by HPAI and died from the disease or were depopulated as part
of the response. This outbreak was the largest HPAI outbreak ever
recorded in the United States and arguably the most significant animal
health event in U.S. history.''
The USDA report continues, ``One of the greatest concerns and a
probable contributing factor to the spread of HPAI was the lack of
effective farm biosecurity measures. Stringent biosecurity, especially
during a large-scale response, remained one of the most challenging
aspects of the response effort.''
As a result of the 2014-2015 outbreak, many new biosecurity
materials were developed for the poultry industry to support
implementation of revised biosecurity recommendations. Expectations for
preventing or reducing future introductions require increased
biosecurity measures from those used prior to the outbreak in most
operations. To standardize biosecurity practices and expectations, USDA
APHIS published a rule: ``Conditions for Payment of Highly Pathogenic
Avian Influenza Indemnity Claims.'' This rule clarifies an existing
policy for the payment of indemnity of eggs and provides a formula for
the split of indemnity between poultry/egg owners and parties with
which the owners enter into contracts to raise or care for the eggs or
poultry. It also requires large owners and contractors to certify that
at the time of detection of HPAI in their facilities, they had in place
and were following a biosecurity plan that would prevent the spread of
avian influenza.
All sectors of the poultry industry recognized the need to
incorporate basic biosecurity principles, and thus the National Poultry
Improvement Plan (NPIP) adopted minimum management practices that all
producers should be able to follow. Biosecurity measures adopted at the
2016 NPIP Biennial Conference are intended to be the basic management
practices needed to prevent the introduction and spread of infectious
diseases. The 14 Biosecurity Principles require poultry producers and
companies to have a written biosecurity plan and a person designated as
the biosecurity coordinator. Auditing of the biosecurity principles is
based on flock size as outlined in 9 CFR 53.10. Audits shall be
conducted at least once every 2 years or a sufficient number of times
during that period by the Official State Agency to ensure the
participant is compliant. Each audit shall evaluate the biosecurity
plan's training materials, documentation of implementation of the NPIP
Biosecurity Principles and the biosecurity coordinator's annual review
for completeness and compliance with the NPIP Biosecurity Principles.
Conclusion
The U.S. poultry industry, in cooperation with state and
Federal agencies, has been proactive with its efforts to
prevent another foreign animal disease (FAD) event. These
activities include on-going surveillance efforts in all poultry
sectors, response planning, and implementation of biosecurity
programs to prevent another FAD, such as HPAI or vND. Congress
should be aware that current funding has helped support these
proactive steps.
Congressional funding to support avian disease surveillance
programs, response activities and implementation of farm-level
biosecurity programs at the state level is crucial to provide
on-going program support.
Maintaining appropriate staffing within the United States
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, Veterinary Services (USDA-APHIS-VS) is essential.
Currently two leadership positions within the National Poultry
Improvement Plan are vacant.
Adequate USDA resources and personnel are critical to move
quickly and immediately to support SAHO efforts when a FAD such
as HPAI or vND is identified.
Funding is needed to support the USDA-APHIS-VS effort to
provide a stable indemnity and compensation program for H5/H7
LPAI flocks. Congressional appropriation of new, no-year,
mandatory fiscal appropriations dedicated for LPAI indemnity
and compensation to ensure continued participation in NPIP H5/
H7 LPAI programs is fundamental to the entire program.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Doctor. We appreciate
your testimony.
And we will now go to Mr. Erickson. Please begin with your
testimony from Texas.
STATEMENT OF BRET ERICKSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR BUSINESS
AFFAIRS, J&D PRODUCE INC., EDINBURG, TX
Mr. Erickson. Hello and good morning, Chairman Costa,
Ranking Member Rouzer, and Committee Members. My name is Bret
Erickson and I am Senior Vice President at J&D Produce. I have
worked in agriculture my entire career. Prior to joining J&D I
was President and CEO of the Texas International Produce
Association for 6 years, and am quite familiar with the
challenges you are exploring here today, specifically as it
relates to the fresh produce industry.
We are a family-owned business based in Edinburg, Texas in
the Rio Grande Valley. We are a grower, packer, shipper, and we
produce almost 40 different types of greens, such as kale,
chards, collards, beets, and herbs, just to name a few, as well
as sweet onions, cabbage, and melons.
We farm approximately 6,000 acres in the Rio Grande Valley,
with growing and packing operations also in Deming, New Mexico,
Vidalia, Georgia, Vineland, New Jersey, Peru and Mexico. We are
a year-round operation and we employee approximately 180 full-
time employees in the U.S. That number swells to over 500
seasonal employees in full production as we are now, and up to
750 when you include the harvest crews that are managed by farm
labor contractors.
Our business is quite complex and we have several serious
challenges that prevent us from growing the business as quickly
as we would like to. Labor being number one. I would be remiss
if I did not mention how badly we need labor reforms, and I
must take this opportunity to ask you all to support the Farm
Workforce Modernization Act. We desperately need these changes,
as our business and many others like us are suffering from a
severe labor crisis that threatens our ability to maintain let
alone grow a sustainable farming business in the United States.
Our customers include wholesalers and food service
companies, but our primary business is dealing with retailers
who sell direct to you, the U.S. consumer. Some of our
customers include HEB, Wegmans, Publix, Meijer, Kroger,
Albertsons, and Wal-Mart.
We utilize imports to complement our overall business to
supply our customers with product year-round and when we are
not in production in our domestic locations. We are truly an
international farming and packing operation, and because of
that, the flow of our product and consequently the quality and
freshness of our perishable commodities are in the hands of the
Federal agencies who are responsible for inspecting product as
it crosses the border.
Additionally, the security of our domestic farms,
particularly in Texas on the border, are at risk of being
attacked by invasive pests and diseases. In Texas, we have seen
double-digit increases year over year for the last decade for
volumes of fresh fruits and vegetables. In the last 12 years,
we have increased the volumes coming from Mexico 143 percent.
The increase in imports creates a positive economic impact
for our country, and means that consumers can purchase whatever
item they want every day of the year. The downside is that
ports are overloaded with product. Volumes have exploded and
new products coming from Mexico and other parts of the world
bring with them new pests and diseases.
While this exponential growth in import volumes has
occurred, Federal agency staffing levels have not, creating
bottlenecks and delays that range from a few hours to several
days, at times rendering entire loads of product useless
because the quality has deteriorated to the point that we can
no longer send it to our customers.
Today I am here to ask the Committee to secure additional
resources that will put more manpower at our ports-of-entry.
Specifically, we need more USDA APHIS insect identifiers and
CBP ag specialists. Furthermore, I request that more time and
attention from USDA APHIS be directed towards training CBP ag
specialists on insect identifications, and that USDA grant more
authority to well-trained CBP ag specialists to make
identifications and make a determination if an insect is good
or bad.
The challenges detailed above are just some of the reasons
I and the produce industry strongly support the Protecting
America's Food and Agriculture Act of 2019. This legislation,
sponsored by Representative Filemon Vela, has the support of
Chairman Costa, Chairman Peterson, Senate Chairman Roberts, and
Ranking Member Stabenow, and it recognizes the challenge the
fresh produce industry faces.
As a domestic-based grower/shipper, I am here to ask for
your help to be a part of the solution to help keep American
fruit and vegetable growers in business, and to ensure that
American agricultural interests are protected from the threat
of invasive pests and diseases.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Erickson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bret Erickson, Senior Vice President for Business
Affairs, J&D Produce Inc., Edinburg, TX
Hello and good morning Chairman Costa, Ranking Member Rouzer, and
Committee Members. My name is Bret Erickson and I am Senior Vice
President at J&D Produce Inc. I have worked in agriculture my entire
career. Prior to joining J&D, I was President & CEO of the Texas
International Produce Association for almost 6 years and I am quite
familiar with the challenges you are exploring here today, specifically
as it relates to the fresh produce industry.
We are a family owned business headquartered in Edinburg, Texas in
the Rio Grande Valley. Our owners, Jimmy & Diane Bassetti moved from
Vineland, New Jersey to Texas to start the business in 1986. J&D is
truly an American Dream story. We are a grower/packer/shipper of fresh
greens, sweet onions, cabbage, and melons. To give you an idea of the
diversity of crops we grow, we produce almost 40 different types of
greens such as kale, chards, collards, beets and herbs to name a few.
We farm approximately 6,000 acres in the Rio Grande Valley. We also
have growing and packing operations in Deming, New Mexico, Vidalia,
Georgia, Vineland, New Jersey, Peru, and Mexico. We are a year-round
operation and we employ approximately 180 full time employees in the
U.S. That number will swell to over 500 when you include our seasonal
employees when we are in full production, as we are right now. This
number is closer to 750 when you include the harvest crews that are
managed by Farm Labor Contractors.
Our business is quite complex, and we have several serious
challenges that prevent us from growing the business as quickly as we
would like to, labor being number one, but trade, water, food safety,
and transportation are not far behind. I would be remiss if I did not
mention how badly we need labor reforms and I must take this
opportunity to ask you all to support the ``American Farm Workforce
Modernization Act.'' We desperately need these changes as our business
and many others like us are suffering from a severe labor crisis that
threatens our ability to maintain let alone grow a sustainable farming
business.
As I mentioned, we have growing and packing operations in Peru and
Mexico. We own farms in Peru and we have grower partners in both Peru
and Mexico who we provide seed, supplies, and funding to grow some of
our crops when our domestic operations are not in production. This is
an important distinction, as we use imports to complement our overall
business to supply our customers with product year-round when we are
not in production in our domestic locations.
Our customers include wholesalers and foodservice companies, but
our primary business is dealing with retailers who sell direct to you,
the U.S. consumer. Some of our customers include HEB, Wegmans, Publix,
Meijer, Kroger, Albertsons and Wal-Mart to name a few.
We also export a fair amount of business to some Canadian
retailers, such as Loblaw and Sobeys. We are truly an international
farming and packing operation and because of that, the flow of our
product, and consequently the quality and freshness of our perishable
commodities are in the hands of the Federal agencies who are
responsible for inspecting product as it crosses the border.
Additionally, the security of our domestic farms, particularly in
Texas, are at risk of being attacked by invasive pests and diseases.
In Texas, we have seen double digit increases year over year for
the last decade for volumes of fresh fruits and vegetables. This is a
bittersweet figure. J&D has increased the volumes of our own imported
products for several reasons. One, that our business is growing and
demand for fresh fruits and vegetables continues to grow, why? Simply
because the population is growing and there are more mouths to feed.
But we also have to import more product because we don't have the labor
to harvest the volumes that are demanded by our customers.
The increase in imports does create a positive economic impact for
our country. It also means that U.S. consumers are able to purchase
whatever item they want, be it strawberries, celery, cilantro, or
cantaloupes every single day of the year. The downside is that the
ports are overloaded with product, which has grown by leaps and bounds.
Not only have the volumes exploded, but the variety of products, new
exciting items that we have not seen before, which are coming from new
regions of Mexico and other parts of the world bring with them new
pests and diseases that we have never seen.
And while this exponential growth in import volumes has occurred,
Federal agency staffing levels have not grown accordingly, creating
bottlenecks and delays that can range from a few hours to 4-5 days, at
times rendering entire loads of product useless or headed to the food
bank as a donation because the quality has deteriorated to the point we
can no longer send it to our customers without it being rejected.
With respect to this hearing today, I am here to ask the Committee
to find a way to secure additional resources that will put more
manpower at our ports-of-entry. Specifically, we need more USDA APHIS
Insect Identifiers and CBP Ag Specialists. Furthermore, I would like to
request that more time and attention from USDA APHIS be directed
towards training [CBP] Ag Specialists on insect identifications and
that USDA grant more authority to well-trained CBP Ag Specialists to
make identifications and make a determination if an insect is ``good''
or ``bad''.
There have been some improvements over the years as USDA has
trained and authorized CBP Ag Specialists to make identifications, but
we need more of this, and we need more insect identifiers and more CBP
Ag Specialists. Trade volumes will continue to grow at fast pace
because the demand for food will continue to grow as the population
grows. And as the population grows, that means that farms turn into
subdivisions and shopping malls, not to mention the struggles we as
growers face to find labor and remaining cost competitive in a global
market place where we pay $12 an hour versus our competitors in other
countries, who pay $12 or less per day.
The challenges I detailed above are just some of the reasons I and
the produce industry strongly support the Protecting America's Food and
Agriculture Act of 2019. This legislation (H.R. 4482/S. 2107) sponsored
by Rep. Filemon Vela (D-TX), has the support of Chairman Costa,
Chairman Peterson, Senate Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow
and it recognizes the challenge the fresh produce industry faces. As
you may know, the bill authorizes U.S. Customs and Border Protection to
hire, train, and assign 240 new agricultural specialists a year until
they meet the requirements established by the Agriculture Resource
Allocation Model. The bill ensures that the assignment of such
specialists be done based off need and the predictable surges that
occur at certain ports-of-entry during certain times of the year. This
legislation represents a significant step in the right direction.
As a domestic based grower shipper, it is unfortunate, but it is a
fact that our ability to grow the business is limited to some degree by
what happens here in Washington DC. I am here to ask for your help to
be part of a solution to help keep American fruit and vegetable growers
in business and to ensure that American agricultural interests are
protected from the threat of invasive pests and diseases.
Thank you.
Attachment
Table 1. U.S. Imports of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables from Mexico by Truck, 2007-2018
40,000 Lb. Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Arizona California New Mexico Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 101,025 112,327 43,264 4,378 260,992
2008 105,522 115,609 45,713 4,304 271,147
2009 123,777 113,495 49,417 6,938 293,627
2010 133,039 136,031 53,849 6,462 329,381
2011 148,331 118,389 54,479 6,496 327,694
2012 158,968 130,019 60,006 10,154 359,147
2013 171,064 134,168 58,638 10,355 374,224
2014 172,648 130,549 57,989 9,594 370,779
2015 209,817 147,191 64,882 9,484 431,373
2016 221,662 160,602 68,237 13,254 461,505
2017 236,397 159,355 73,166 10,581 479,499
2018 246,143 156,380 70,490 11,008 484,021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Year Growth Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018/2017 4.1% ^1.9% ^3.7% 4.0% 0.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Year Growth Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-2018 143.6% 39.2% 62.9% 151.5% 85.5%
Growth
Average Annual 12.0% 3.3% 5.2% 12.6% 7.1%
Growth Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
U.S. Imports of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables from Mexico by Truck, 2007-
2018
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Erickson, and thank
you for making reference to the legislation that we are trying
to move forward with. It is important for the produce industry
in the country, and also a shout out to the Bipartisan
Agricultural Labor Reform Act. I think we are off to a good
start there as well.
I believe, Mr. Reichert, you are next. Please proceed with
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF KURT REICHERT, DIRECTOR OF FUMIGATION, WESTERN
INDUSTRIES--NORTH, LLC; D/B/A
WESTERN FUMIGATION, LESTER, PA
Mr. Reichert. Good morning, Chairman Costa, Ranking Member
Rouzer, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
invitation to testify before the Committee today.
My name is Kurt Reichert and I am the Fumigation Director
at Western Fumigation. I have worked for Western for over 28
years and I have been a multi-state licensed professional
applicator since 1991.
I oversee the activities, which I will talk about here
today, on a daily basis. I also work closely with many of the
state and Federal regulatory agencies which govern the
manufacture, transportation, and use of the fumigants which are
available to our industry.
Quarantine inspections are a critical tool in our nation's
efforts for protecting U.S. agriculture from invasive and non-
native species, a program critical to the American economy.
Western Fumigation works closely with both the United
States Customs and Border Protection and the United States
Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, plant protection, quarantine inspectors to help
safeguard United States agriculture against the introduction of
pests of significance.
With regards to imports, we fumigate perishable commodities
to eliminate invasive species which may have been hidden in the
shipment. We also fumigate non-perishable cargo such as
imported tile, machinery, military equipment, and cocoa beans.
Export treatments are frequently used for logs destined for
Europe or Asia, and cars and machinery en route to Australia
and New Zealand, and citrus and broccoli exported from
California.
Fumigation is often the only treatment method which can
effectively eliminate these pests without damaging the cargo.
Once an invasive species makes it into the U.S., its further
spread can be devastating, costly, and unstoppable.
Over the years, the United States has seen several invasive
species gain a foothold, causing widespread economic damage to
domestic agriculture. Most recently we have seen the
introduction and establishment of the Asian Longhorn Beetle,
the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug, and the Spotted Lantern Fly.
These pests have caused immense damage and hardship by damaging
crops and at times entire farms.
APHIS, CBP and the various fumigation companies which
operate at our ports-of-entry are literally on the frontlines
with respect to stopping invasive species. All invasive pests
can be tracked back to a port-of-entry where it must have
slipped by undetected, possibly due to the limited number of
inspectors being unable to keep up with their core mission with
the volume of goods entering the port. CBP and APHIS personnel
are true professionals that are dedicated to their core
missions, but they are human and can be over-tasked at times.
CBP and APHIS agriculture inspectors have two powerful
tools to use in the defense against invasive species. The first
is by direct inspection of goods and commodities. Direct
inspection is a targeted physical examination of the specified
portion of cargo which might be targeted due to the possible
presence of an invasive species from the exporting country, or
a hitchhiking pest which may have been inadvertently picked up
during transit to the United States. But inspectors can only
examine so many containers or vessels in a single day, and
inspectors can often not physically examine every single piece
of cargo in a shipment.
The second tool is to require mandatory treatments for
high-risk shipments. Mandatory treatments are required for
imports from certain countries or regions where a known
invasive pest is established and prevalent, or if a commodity
is imported in such a volume as to make a thorough inspection
impractical.
Both of these tools require a minimum number of CBP and
APHIS personnel at each port-of-entry. Proper staffing must be
in place for inspections during the day, as well as for
fumigation treatments which occur after normal business hours.
The increased cost of staffing will often be only a fraction of
the cost of an effective eradication effort after an invasive
species has become established.
We urge Congress to support our land and water ports in
places like Texas, North Carolina, California, Pennsylvania,
and New Jersey, which stand as our nation's first and only line
of defense against invasive species. Current staffing cannot
reasonably be expected to be able to examine the amount of
cargo they handle in a thorough manner.
Treatments can be applied to cargoes from questionable
regions in lieu of requiring physical inspections by APHIS or
CBP personnel. This allows APHIS and CBP to be more efficient
and targeted in their inspection programs until staffing is
brought up to full strength.
For these reasons, Western and our partner fumigation
companies around the U.S. support increased APHIS and CBP
staffing efforts such as House Resolutions 4482 and 3244, which
will appropriate funding to better staff our ports-of-entry and
guard American agriculture against invasive species.
I want to again thank the Committee for the opportunity to
testify here. I have additional remarks which have been
submitted for the record, and I will be happy to answer any
questions which you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reichert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kurt Reichert, Director of Fumigation, Western
Industries--North, LLC; d/b/a Western Fumigation, Lester, PA
Good morning, and thank you for the invitation to testify before
the Subcommittee today. My name is Kurt Reichert and I am the
Fumigation Director for Western Fumigation. I have worked for Western
for over 28 years, starting as a fumigation technician and working my
way up through the company to become a Director. I have been a multi-
state licensed professional applicator since 1991. I oversee the
activities I will talk about here today on a daily basis. I also work
closely with many of the state and Federal regulatory agencies which
govern the manufacture, transportation and use of the fumigants which
are available to our industry today.
Western Fumigation is a Division of Western Pest Services, which is
a full-service Pest Control company based in Parsippany, New Jersey.
Western was founded in 1928 as a family business, and has deep roots in
the East Coast from Virginia to New England. Our Fumigation Division
was spun off in the 1980s to be a standalone Division better suited to
the unique process and regulatory requirements of import/export
quarantine treatments.
Quarantine inspections are a critical tool in our nation's efforts
for protecting U.S. agriculture from invasive and non-native species, a
program critical to the American economy. Western Fumigation works
closely with both the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
and the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Plant Protection and Quarantine
Inspectors to help safeguard United States agriculture against the
introduction of pests of significance.
With regard to imports, we fumigate perishable commodities such as
grapes, citrus, blueberries, asparagus, kiwi, pineapples and bananas to
eliminate invasive species which may be hidden within the shipment. We
also fumigate non-perishable cargo such as imported tile, machinery,
military equipment and cocoa beans. Some of these items require
mandatory fumigation, and some require fumigation if an actionable pest
is found. Export treatments are frequently required for logs destined
for Europe or Asia, cars and machinery en route to Australia and New
Zealand, and citrus and broccoli exported from California.
Fumigation is often the only treatment method which can effectively
eliminate these pests without damaging the cargo. Without fumigation,
the availability of certain imported fruits and vegetables grown in
South America would be significantly reduced during the winter,
potentially leading to shortages and high prices for American families.
Once an invasive species makes it into the U.S., its further spread
can be devastating, costly and unstoppable. Over the years, the United
States has seen several invasive species gain a foothold, causing
widespread economic damage to domestic agriculture. Most recently, we
have seen the introduction and establishment of the Asian Longhorn
Beetle, the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug and the Spotted Lanternfly.
First, these pests have caused immense damage and hardship by damaging
crops and at times, entire farms. And, even when crops can be salvaged,
these species have increased costs and reduced the competitiveness of
U.S. agriculture and industry because foreign countries now require us
to fumigate U.S. exports to prevent the further world-wide spread of
these pests.
APHIS, CBP and the various fumigation companies which operate at
our U.S. ports-of-entry are literally on the front lines with regards
to stopping invasive species. All invasive pests can be traced back to
a port-of-entry where it must have slipped by undetected, possibly due
to the limited number of inspectors being unable to keep up with the
volume of goods entering the port. CBP and APHIS personnel are true
professionals and are dedicated to their core missions, but they are
human and can be over tasked at times. For example, APHIS Inspectors
regularly work their day shifts at their home ports and then work as
late as midnight supervising fumigation operations.
CBP and APHIS Agricultural Inspectors have two powerful tools to
use in the defense against invasive species. The first is by direct
inspection of goods and commodities. Direct inspection is a targeted
physical examination of a specified portion of a cargo which might be
targeted due to the possible presence of an invasive species from the
exporting country, or a hitchhiking pest which may have been
inadvertently picked up during transit to the United States. But
inspectors can only examine so many containers or vessels in a single
day, and inspectors can often not physically examine every single piece
of cargo in a shipment. The second tool is to require mandatory
treatments for high risk shipments. Mandatory treatments are required
for imports from certain countries or regions where a known invasive
pest is established and prevalent, or if a commodity is imported in
such a volume as to make thorough inspections impractical.
Both of these tools require a minimum number of CBP and APHIS
personnel at each port-of-entry. Proper staffing must be in place for
inspections during the day, as well as for fumigation treatments which
occur after normal business hours. The increased cost of staffing will
often be a fraction of the cost of an effective eradication effort
after an invasive species becomes established.
We urge Congress to support our land and water ports in places like
Texas, North Carolina, California, Pennsylvania and New Jersey which
stand as our nation's first and only line of defense against invasive
species. Many of these ports are understaffed to handle the growing
amount of imported goods which pass through them. Current staffing
cannot reasonably be expected to be able to examine the amount of cargo
they handle in a thorough manner. The ever increasing amount of goods
imported from China are of particular concern, as most of the recent
invasive species have originated from there.
Treatments such as fumigation are an important tool in safeguarding
U.S. agriculture from invasive species, as well as protecting U.S.
trade with our partners around the world. Treatments can be applied to
cargoes from questionable regions in lieu of requiring physical
inspections by APHIS or CBP personnel. This allows APHIS and CBP to be
more efficient and targeted with their inspection programs until
staffing is brought up to full strength.
For these reasons, Western and our partner fumigation companies
around the U.S. support increased APHIS and CBP staffing efforts such
as House Resolutions 4482 and 3244 which will appropriate funding to
better staff our ports-of-entry and guard American agriculture against
invasive species.
I again want to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
testify here today. I have additional remarks which have been submitted
to the record, but I will be happy to answer any questions which you
may have at this time.
The Chairman. We thank you very much, Mr. Reichert, for
your timely testimony.
And our last witness before we begin the question period
with Members of the Subcommittee is with Mr. Gaskamp. Please
begin.
STATEMENT OF JOSHUA A. GASKAMP, TECHNICAL
CONSULTATION MANAGER AND WILDLIFE AND RANGE
CONSULTANT, NOBLE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LLC,
ARDMORE, OK
Mr. Gaskamp. Chairman Costa, Ranking Member Rouzer, Members
of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide
testimony on behalf on Noble Research Institute.
Swine are not a species native to the United States. When
they were introduced as livestock for human consumption, they
were bred for high fertility and accelerated meat production.
Unfortunately, if swine were intentionally and unintentionally
released to live in a feral state, these same traits
contributed to an uncontrolled population growth and the
devastating ecological and economic impacts that I will address
later in my comments.
Land use changes and transportation and stocking for
hunting have also contributed to population growth and
geographic expansion. In the south-central U.S. feral swine
populations are estimated to grow at a rate of 21 percent per
year. Feral swine are now present in at least 37 states,
including the vast majority of states represented by this
Committee. And the total population is estimated to be more
than seven million animals.
Damage caused by feral swine comes in many forms. It is
widespread and extensive but rarely rigorously quantified.
Feral swine damage to U.S. agriculture is estimated to be more
than $1.5 billion annually. However, this commonly cited
estimate does not include many ecological damages and threats
to human health. As such, it is likely the true economic damage
caused by feral swine far exceeds $1.5 billion.
Examples of impacts on cultivated crops appear regularly,
including the 2006 E. coli outbreak in California's spinach, in
which feral swine were responsible. It was estimated that
spinach farms in California lost as much as $75 million due to
public fears of consuming spinach.
Other crops commonly impacted by feral swine include small
grains, fruits, beans, potatoes, and nuts. Feral swine also
regularly mingle with cattle, utilizing common water sources
and feed stations, and rooting and defecating in cattle
enclosures. The interact with domestic swine in non-confinement
pork facilities. These interactions result in livestock
exposure to more than 60 infectious diseases that cause weight
loss, abortions, and death in domestic livestock.
Specifically, feral swine commonly harbor Brucellosis,
Pseudorabies, and African Swine Fever, or ASF. To maintain
Brucellosis free status for cattle in the global market, any
time a cow tests positive for Brucella, an epidemiologic
investigation is required at considerable government expense.
Similarly, an occurrence of ASF in U.S. livestock would result
in substantial losses to the industry from international
markets.
Feral swine also threaten native wildlife populations,
including numerous endangered species that compete for food,
destroy habitat, and predate on these species.
Entire native ecosystems are impacted by the presence of
feral swine. Rooting accelerates the establishment and spread
of invasive plants, decreasing diversity and resilience of
these ecosystems.
Feral swine must be controlled to protect our nation's
agricultural resources. Studies have shown that 70 percent of
the feral swine population must be removed annually to halt
population growth. Unfortunately, most conventional trap
methods remove less than 50 percent of the population.
Moreover, research suggests that conventional traps may
actually be responsible for creating what is commonly known
today as trap-shy pigs.
Noble Research Institute has investigated strategies to
capture trap-shy pigs. The result of this research is a fully-
suspended trap that functions much differently than
conventional traps. Our research demonstrates that the
suspended trap design has an 88 percent capture rate and it is
now commercially available under the BoarBuster'
product name. Innovative techniques like the BoarBuster will be
essential to controlling feral swine populations as they become
more trap shy.
Education on best management practices that utilize the
most effective technologies in a strategic manner is vital to
successfully reducing feral swine populations. State and
Federal funding has extended the reach of producer education on
feral swine, but more educational programs are needed as feral
swine populations expand.
Funding for continued research is also vital to future
success in feral swine control. Stimulated by the USDA funded
grant in 2015, the National Water Research Center and Nobel
Research Institute partnered to develop performance and
monitoring tools for the management of feral swine. We
anticipate that USDA's new Feral Swine Control Pilot will
result in additional innovative ideas for educating producers
in increasing control efforts.
Feral swine populations continue to grow at the expense of
ag production and native ecosystems. If left unchecked, feral
swine could have devastating impacts on our nation's food
supply, ag industry sustainability, and environment.
Continued support for developing advanced control
strategies, conducting feral swine research, and educating
producers on strategic effects and control practices is
essential if we hope to prevail over this invasive and prolific
species.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaskamp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joshua A. Gaskamp, Technical Consultation Manager
and Wildlife and Range Consultant, Noble Research Institute, LLC,
Ardmore, OK
Chairman Costa, Ranking Member Rouzer, Members of the Committee,
thank you for this opportunity to submit a written statement on behalf
of Noble Research Institute, LLC.
Lloyd Noble, an oilman and philanthropist, founded Noble Research
Institute in 1945 to help revitalize agriculture following the Dust
Bowl. Mr. Noble was a visionary in land stewardship and conservation,
recognizing that ``. . . the land must continue to provide for our
food, clothing and shelter long after the oil is gone.'' Today, Noble
Research Institute is the largest, nonprofit independent agricultural
research organization in the United States. Among our efforts, we
conduct agricultural consultation, education for youth and adult, and
research focused on delivering solutions to great agricultural
challenges. One of the greatest challenges facing farmers and ranchers
(``Producers'') today is the negative ecological and economic impact
caused by wild, invasive and non-native species, including feral swine.
Noble Research Institute has conducted extensive research on various
methods for controlling feral swine populations. This research will be
the focus of my testimony.
Introduction to Feral Swine
Swine are a non-native species in the United States. The species
was introduced to North America during the European colonial period in
the 1600s. Swine eventually became a common form of livestock
production in the United States. As domesticated livestock, they were
bred for traits such as high fecundity (i.e., fertility) and
accelerated meat production. These traits significantly increased the
quality and quantity of pork available for human consumption.
Through accidental and, in some cases, intentional release of once-
domesticated animals, combined with the introduction of swine as a game
species for hunters, populations of feral swine began to develop. The
same traits that were bred into domesticated swine for increased
production have led to devastating ecological and economic impacts on
ecosystems when this species is allowed to live in a feral state.
Feral swine are the most prolific large mammal in the United
States. They have an early age of sexual maturity (6-8 months), short
gestation period (115 days), and the ability for year round breeding
and farrowing. Feral swine are a highly adaptable species that
flourishes in a wide range of environments. They are opportunistic
omnivores that consume an endless variety of plants and animals.
In addition to their genetic capacity for prolific reproduction,
certain human interventions over time have also facilitated increased
populations. Farm programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program,
reduced acreage in active agricultural production. This reduced the
need for crop damage protection programs so feral swine populations in
those areas were no longer trapped or hunted. At the same time, land
ownership patterns began to shift with more people becoming absentee
land owners of acreage not utilized as their primary means of income.
These unmanaged acres are ideal habitat for feral swine populations.
Practices intended to increase feral swine populations for recreational
hunting since the 1930s have also facilitated the spread of feral swine
in the United States. Intensive management for other game species such
as deer, including production of food plots and provision of
supplemental feeding, further favored establishment and growth of feral
swine populations.
In the south central region of the United States, specifically
Texas and Oklahoma, feral swine populations have experienced enormous
growth in the last decade, increasing at an estimated average annual
rate of 21% per year. While land use changes impacted population
increases for feral swine, their geographical expansion has primarily
been the result of feral swine transportation and stocking facilitated
by humans for hunting. Feral swine populations now exist in at least 37
states, including the vast majority of states represented by this
Committee. The total population in the United States is estimated to be
more than seven million animals.
Impacts on Agriculture and Natural Resources
Generally
Feral swine act like rototillers turning soil over in search of
roots, tubers, insects, and anything else with caloric value. Damage
caused by feral swine is widespread and extensive but rarely rigorously
quantified. The most commonly cited estimate of feral swine damages to
U.S. agriculture is $1.5 billion annually. This estimate includes
direct removal of crops, destruction through rooting of pastureland,
damage to fences and harvest equipment, depredation on livestock, and
livestock loss to disease from feral swine contact. However, this
estimate did not include altered habitat for native wildlife,
competition for food sources with livestock and wildlife, water
contamination, soil degradation and loss, unaccounted disease impacts,
vehicle collisions, and opportunity costs associated with non-
production due to the likelihood of crop or livestock damage. Examples
of significant impacts to agriculture appear regularly, including the
2006 E. coli outbreak in California spinach. Though contaminated
spinach was only linked to one farm, the source was determined to be
feral swine. Three people died, 60 contracted a unique type of kidney
failure and several hundred were sickened. It was estimated that
spinach farms in California lost as much as $75 million due to public
fears of consuming spinach. For all these reasons, it is likely that
the $1.5 billion damage estimate is grossly underestimated.
Crop Damage
Crops commonly impacted by feral swine include corn, cotton, milo,
wheat, oats, rice, peanuts, soybeans, potatoes, melons, and pecans.
Producers in areas with abundant feral swine populations are regularly
forced to replant portions of their crop after feral swine consume seed
or otherwise disrupt its establishment within days of planting. Mature
crops are also commonly impacted. Yield loss regularly occurs in
various crop species due to direct consumption by feral swine or
unsuitable harvest conditions caused by feral swine rooting. At Noble
Research Institute, researchers found pecan harvest in areas rooted by
feral pigs was 33.7% lower compared to unrooted areas.
Disease
Livestock exposure to diseases and parasites carried by feral swine
poses a significant risk for Producers. Feral swine regularly mingle
with cattle, utilizing common water sources and feeding stations, and
rooting and defecating in cattle enclosures. Similarly, the social
behavior of swine results in contact and interaction among feral
populations and domesticated swine in non-confinement pork production
facilities.
Feral swine carry more than 60 infectious diseases that can infect
humans and/or domestic livestock. Many of these diseases cause weight
loss, abortions, or death in domestic animals despite having little to
no impact on feral swine. Specifically, feral swine commonly harbor
swine brucellosis and pseudorabies virus, both of which can be
transmitted to domestic pigs. A recent study in Oklahoma and Texas
found that feral swine tested positive for Brucella spp. antibodies in
12% of the samples tested. Brucella from feral swine has been
identified in domestic cattle resulting in false positives in testing
and additional testing at additional expense in order to maintain
brucellosis-free status.
Pseudorabies commonly affects canids (i.e., domestic dogs, wolves,
coyotes, foxes, etc.) in areas where feral swine prevalence is high. A
separate study in Oklahoma found that feral swine tested positive for
pseudorabies antibodies in 24% of the samples tested. Multiple deaths
from pseudorabies in companion animals have been reported.
In addition to direct losses to domestic livestock and companion
animals, disease transmission from feral swine poses significant trade
risks with the potential to depress livestock markets in the event of a
widespread outbreak. To maintain brucellosis-free status for cattle in
the global marketplace, any time a cow tests positive for Brucella, an
epidemiologic investigation at considerable governmental expense must
be initiated.
Similarly, an occurrence of foreign animal diseases such as foot-
and-mouth disease or African swine fever (``ASF'') in U.S. livestock
would result in substantial losses to the industry from international
markets. Although ASF would have a small impact on feral swine numbers,
it could have a devastating impact on domestic pork production. U.S.
pork exports in 2018 totaled approximately $6.4 billion. If ASF is
found in U.S. domestic pork, exports could suffer and result in
catastrophic losses for U.S. pork Producers. Because feral swine are
reliable reservoirs for many infectious diseases that could harm U.S.
agriculture, they pose a serious risk to our biosecurity and economic
sustainability.
Wildlife and Native Ecosystems
Feral swine negatively affect native wildlife populations by
competing for food, habitat manipulation, and predation. Though
predation on livestock species (primarily sheep, goats, and poultry)
does occur, feral swine are more detrimental to a variety of wildlife
species. This is due to the fact that wildlife species lack the
protections that common animal husbandry practices provide for
livestock. Threatened and endangered species including whooping cranes
(Grus americana), Kemp's Ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempii),
interior least terns (Sterna antillarum athalassos) and Attwatter's
prairie chickens (Tympanuchus cupido attwateri) are all negatively
impacted by the presence of feral swine. Ground nesting birds,
amphibians, and reptiles are most susceptible to predation, but many
small and large mammals are also affected in other ways. Feral swine
disrupt, destroy and otherwise alter native plant communities. These
changes to plant community structure and plant species composition
displaces or destroys the wildlife species that evolved with and depend
on them.
In native ecosystems, the disturbance created by feral swine
rooting accelerates the establishment and spread of invasive plant
species, while decreasing diversity and resilience of the native plant
community. Feral swine degrade wetlands by wallowing and reducing
vegetation along riparian corridors. They are especially attracted to
wetlands as a means of thermoregulation and parasite control. Research
in Texas demonstrated that feral swine remain within 25 meters of water
24% of the time and within 100 meters of water 48% of the time. These
wetland ecosystems are among the most fragile and imperiled in the
country, but extremely important biological filters for our nation's
water supply.
The extent to which feral swine damage soils is not fully known,
but, at a minimum, they have impacts comparable to dragging a plow
through the soil without the subsequent benefit of planting a crop.
This contributes to erosion, especially on seepage slopes, and leaves
behind a number of pathogens that may persist in the environment for
extended periods of time.
Urban Areas
Due to high densities of feral swine in some regions of the U.S.,
populations are increasingly encroaching on urban areas, negatively
impacting these environments and increasing potential contact with
humans. Environmental impacts include rooting damage to golf courses,
public parks, green spaces, lawns and other landscaped areas. Vehicle
collisions with feral swine are also becoming more frequent threats to
human safety. From 2007 to 2017, at least two fatalities occurred in
Texas due to vehicle collisions with feral swine in the roadway.
Population Cont[r]ol Methods
Various public policy positions regarding feral swine population
management have created a complex suite of challenges, strategies, and
opportunities. Generally, Producers favor eradication of feral swine to
reduce damages to their respective agricultural enterprises and
maintain healthy and functioning ecosystems. However, some Producers
have elected to benefit financially from recreational opportunities
provided by feral swine on the landscape, e.g., guided and unguided
hunts. These incentives, in whatever form, for having feral swine on
the landscape perpetuate their existence and population spread. Due to
the overwhelmingly high financial and environmental cost of damage
caused by feral swine, population control strategies are vital to
protection of landscapes, native ecosystems, domestic animal
populations and other important agricultural production.
Trapping
Many techniques that were once effective for removing feral swine
from the landscape are now obsolete. Research studies have shown that
more than 70% of the feral swine population must be removed annually to
actually reduce overall population numbers. The only available
techniques capable of this level of control are trapping and Wildlife
Services administered shooting from helicopter.
Unfortunately, most conventional trapping mechanisms, such as a
simple box trap or a larger corral trap, can only remove 50% of the
feral swine population, but typically far less. Moreover, research
suggests that the conventional do-it-yourself traps that were suggested
by resource professionals in the past may actually be responsible for
what Producers and professional trappers today call ``trap-shy'' pigs.
Feral swine are highly intelligent. They travel in social groups
referred to as ``sounders.'' When a portion of a sounder is captured in
a conventional box trap or corral trap, it is commonly the most naive
feral swine that are captured. The more wary animals remain on the
landscape. These ``survivor'' animals then breed and contribute to
future generations of feral swine that have the advantage of maternal
guidance and are genetically wary. This natural selection for more wary
populations has resulted in the need for development of more effective
control systems and novel techniques to increase effectiveness and
longevity of control.
Noble Research Institute spent years investigating strategies to
catch trap-shy feral swine. The current result of this research is a
fully suspended trap that functions much differently than conventional
box traps and corral traps. This fully suspended trap design has been
commercialized and made available to Producers and other customers
under BoarBuster' product name. Multiple years of research
has shown that the fully suspended BoarBuster trap is capable of
capturing 88% of feral swine in a population. BoarBuster trap-related
research also revealed a higher capture rate than any other trap
available on the market. Real-time trap monitoring and activation from
a smart phone also saves Producers time and enhances the success rate
for capturing entire sounders. This negates the problem of creating
more trap-shy feral swine in the breeding population.
While the BoarBuster trap system has proven to be a very effective
control mechanism, Producers have a wide variety of control techniques
to deploy at varying costs. There is no silver bullet to the feral
swine problem. Agricultural resource professionals have previously
urged Producers to employ an integrated approach to feral swine
control, using multiple techniques in unison to achieve a cumulative
effect. Unfortunately, Producers are not likely to have extensive
experience with feral swine control when they first encounter damage on
their farms and ranches. As a result, Producers often gravitate to the
cheapest and easiest option first and not necessarily the most
effective option. Education on area-specific best management practices
that utilize the most effective technologies first is vital to
successfully controlling the feral swine population. Producers must
have access to the newest, proven technologies for feral swine control,
and they must be strategic and adaptive in their practices, not simply
apply an integrated approach.
Education
Feral swine experts from research organizations, universities,
state and Federal wildlife departments and other governmental agencies
across the nation often collaborate to educate the public about feral
swine biology, management, and control. This is accomplished primarily
through county-wide or regional presentations, workshops,
demonstrations, consultation, publications distributed to landowners,
and more recently through videos, social media, and websites. State and
Federal grants have extended the reach of Producer education on feral
swine, but more coordinated educational programs and delivery are
needed. As feral swine populations expand, it will be increasingly
important to ensure Producers are fully educated on the proper
management and control of this invasive species. Further, as Producers
shrink in numbers across the United States, non-traditional educational
methodologies will be necessary to reach land owners that are not
necessarily connected to agricultural production.
The continued collaboration and connection among feral swine
experts is critically important to encourage new ideas and the
dissemination of information across the U.S. Feral swine experts
convene annually at the International Wild Pig Conference (even years)
and the Wildlife Damage Management Conference (odd years) to educate
one another on the emerging issues in feral swine control. The experts
share information on the effectiveness of management strategies in each
state. Some states have successfully halted or slowed feral swine
population growth because of strategies they adopted or avoided based
on experiences shared by colleagues in other areas of the country.
Continued Research
Funding for continued research is also vital to future success in
feral swine control. As the recipient of a USDA grant in 2015 that
funded a collaboration between Noble Research Institute and the
National Wildlife Research Center (``NWRC''), I can personally attest
to the benefit of Federal funding for feral swine research. Through our
work, we ultimately developed feral swine abundance estimates for
measuring performance of management activities using catch per unit of
effort data. Results of this study are now being used to evaluate the
performance of feral swine control efforts around the U.S. and to
monitor population levels in several states. Following the completion
of this USDA-funded research, the collaborative relationship between
Noble Research Institute and NWRC continued, allowing our organizations
to collectively build educational and management tools for Producers.
Federal funding is also contributing to research on introduction of
a safe and effective toxicant for feral swine. Toxicants, which are
already being utilized in other countries to combat feral swine, will
be yet another tool for feral swine management. But again, they will
not be a silver bullet to the feral swine problem.
We anticipate that new funding available through the USDA's Feral
Swine Control Pilot will result in truly innovative programs designed
to educate Producers and increase efforts to control feral swine. Ideas
that achieve marked success will be amplified across other areas of the
country to further combat the exponential growth of feral swine
populations. The Feral Swine Control Pilot further stands to benefit
feral swine control professionals and the general public.
Conclusion
Despite improved knowledge and innovative solutions being brought
to the market, feral swine populations continue to grow at the expense
of agricultural production, wildlife populations and native ecosystems.
If left unchecked, feral swine could have devastating impacts on our
nation's food supply, agricultural industry, and environment. Continued
support for developing advanced feral swine control tools and
strategies, conducting additional feral swine control research, and
educating Producers on the most effective strategic and adaptive
control practices is essential if the United States hopes to prevail
over this invasive and prolific species.
The Chairman. We thank you, Mr. Gaskamp for your important
testimony.
I notice that we have been joined by the Chairman of the
House Agriculture Committee, and appropriately so we will defer
to him for any comments or questions he may want to make at
this time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Chairman Costa.
Dr. Thompson, welcome. I haven't had a chance to interact
with you directly in this position. I have had a lot of
experience with your predecessors who did outstanding jobs, and
I am told that you are going to be better than they are, so we
will see how that goes.
Minnesota has been a leader in a lot of different areas.
The poultry situation, as you mentioned, we learned a lot of
lessons. And I guess you were the head of the Willmar Lab at
one point, were you?
Dr. Thompson. Yes, Members, Minnesota has two labs.
Mr. Peterson. Yes.
Dr. Thompson. One is located in Saint Paul and one in
Willmar, which was well funded after avian influenza.
Mr. Peterson. Yes. And that was because we learned our
lesson and we had people taking turkeys to South Dakota to get
them tested because they couldn't deal with it all, the
distances and all that. We made a lot of progress and we
learned a lot about biosecurity that we thought we had a pretty
good system and it turned out we didn't. We had people working
at six different turkey farms that were staying together at
night and not showering and whatever and spreading this stuff.
We learned a lot of things, and I think the industry is pretty
much on top of it now as best as we can be.
The one question I have is, as I understand it, the hog
industry is kind of learning from what turkeys went through and
our upgrading their biosecurity to make sure we don't have the
same kind of things going on within the hog industry. Am I
right about that?
Dr. Thompson. Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members, that is very
correct. In Minnesota we have stood up additional committees,
taking a look at--and the disease of interest right now is
African Swine Fever, but it could be foot-and-mouth disease, it
could be any of a number of diseases. But yes, they are taking
a look at all the things that have been learned from avian
influenza. Specifically biosecurity but also surveillance, also
some of those other things that need to be in place.
Mr. Peterson. Right. As I understand it, the avian
influenza thing went pretty fast. As I understand, the African
Swine Fever is a slower moving virus, so I guess it has the
potential to get ahead of it, easier than avian influenza? Am I
correct about that?
Dr. Thompson. That is a correct statement, Mr. Chairman,
Members. The unfortunate thing about the way our hog production
happens in the United States, though, is there is much more
movement of hogs than there is turkeys, chickens, eggs. If it
is slow moving and there aren't clinical signs, there might be
movement of the disease prior to knowing about it.
Mr. Peterson. Yes. Well, they are trying to do everything
they can to get on top of it.
A lot of people aren't aware, we had a TB outbreak up north
that got transferred from deer to cattle, and we had to go in
and do a quarantine and we basically took a 30\2\ mile area.
Your predecessor, the State Veterinarian and the Federal Vet
were involved and a bunch of us, and we made a decision to
eradicate all the deer within 30 miles. We put helicopters in
there and killed every deer and we got it under control and we
eradicated it. And I don't know how long it took, a couple, 3
years. Michigan didn't do that and they still have TB because
they didn't do what needed to be done at the time when it broke
out, and now they can't get ahead of it. So that is another
example of why you have to be on the ball with this stuff.
The only thing that troubles me about your testimony here,
you say that there are two leadership positions that are vacant
at USDA APHIS, and we put extra money into this in the farm
bill. Why are these positions vacant? Do you have any idea?
Dr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, Members, I am not sure why
those two positions are currently vacant. There has been some
switch up in positions in Veterinary Services. As you all may
know, Dr. Shere has moved into a different position. We know
have Dr. Burke Healey heading up Veterinary Services, so there
has been some movement, but the states are looking at those two
positions and we would like to have those filled as soon as
possible.
Mr. Peterson. Can you see, at this point, any outcome out
of this $300 million that we put in there? Do you see any
upgrade in what is going on with APHIS from your position?
Dr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, Members, if you are speaking
specifically of the farm bill funding, there was a call for
proposals for training and exercise for this first year, and
all state-related agencies, some universities, and some private
groups have put in proposals for that money. We are waiting to
hear back from USDA at this point in time. We are very excited
about this opportunity.
Mr. Peterson. And Mr. Gaskamp, is it? Over in Denmark they
are building a wall. We are into walls in this world. But they
are building a wall between Denmark and Germany. I actually saw
the video of it. Because the feral hogs in Germany apparently
have African Swine Fever and the industry in Denmark is scared
to death that they are going to transfer these. They are
actually building a double wall so that these hogs can't
interact face to face.
I don't know that we have any indication that we have
African Swine Fever within the feral hog population in the
United States. I guess one question, if you are aware of that?
And the second thing is, how would the feral hog population
acquire African Swine Fever? Do you have any information about
that? Do any of you have any information, I guess?
Mr. Gaskamp. Thank you for the question.
African Swine Fever in countries where African Swine Fever
is endemic, it persists in native populations of wild pigs as
well as feral swine that are in those areas.
Here in the United States, until we can really get a hold
of actually controlling feral swine populations, we won't be
able to have a good way to control African Swine Fever if it
gets into feral swine populations. I am not an epidemiologist,
so I don't know exactly how feral swine would get the disease,
but they definitely can contract it from domestic livestock and
vice versa.
Mr. Peterson. Does anybody on the panel know how that
would, could possibly happen if it could get transferred into
the wild population?
Dr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, Members, one of the pathways
that I can think of is African Swine Fever virus is very hardy,
so if you think you are cooking it with salamis and different
dried meats or cured meats, you might not actually be killing
the virus. And if somebody throws out a sandwich that has some
African Swine Fever infected meat in it and feral swine get a
hold of it, that would be one pathway.
Mr. Peterson. But we don't have African Swine Fever in the
United States at this point that we know of, right?
Dr. Thompson. Correct. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. I know we have upped the things at the border
and so forth trying to stop the stuff from China, but how would
it--I guess that is one way. I guess it would have to get
almost into the domestic population first before it got into
the feral swine population, I would guess, right?
Dr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, Members, yes. That is probably
the most----
Mr. Peterson. Well, I have taken more time than I should,
but thank you very much. Thank you all for your testimony, and
I yield back.
The Chairman. All right. We thank Chairman Peterson for
your focus and always your insight as to the challenges we are
facing on these issues and others.
I would like to begin with the witness from California, Mr.
Ortega.
You noted in your testimony about the challenges you are
facing with this invasive, non-native species called nutria
that has also been a problem in other parts of the country.
My understanding is you have funding for eradication for 2
years, but what happens after that?
Mr. Ortega. A serious deficit. No long-term funding has
been secured. We think the effort will require about $5 million
annually. Five million dollars currently will support 45 staff
at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The Chairman. And the source of that funding is?
Mr. Ortega. The San Joaquin Delta Conservancy has issued a
one-time appropriation in the amount of $10 million. CDFW is
also reallocating staff, biologists, to this effort, so those
folks should be doing their normal day-to-day jobs, but yes, I
figure that if we don't secure some long-term funding, we are
going to have a real hard time controlling this outbreak.
The Chairman. And are you aware of the experiences in
Maryland and Louisiana and their eradication efforts and what
sources of funding that they were able to bring together?
Mr. Ortega. Yes, there was actually Federal funding
available here in the East that currently do not extend to
California through the eradication program.
The Chairman. Well, that is something we ought to look at
in terms of a comprehensive effort. If it is applicable in
Maryland and Louisiana, obviously we think it would be
appropriate in California. A lot of these efforts are a result
of cost-sharing anyway, local, state and Federal, so we should
work on that.
You noted in your testimony again the impacts on waterways
and levies and the importance of those waterways to deliver
water to agriculture and urban water users. Could you talk more
specifically. Have you had any cost analysis on potential
impacts on agriculture?
Mr. Ortega. No specific cost analyses have been conducted.
The Central Valley is a very flat area and most of the water is
wheeled through earthen-lined canals. And so the extensive
burrowing that can occur can really compromise----
The Chairman. I understand that is hundreds of feet and
they establish these caves within these levies in which you
will have colonies of nutria that begin breeding. And as you
noted, after 4 months and 40 offspring, the propagation of this
species obviously is very problematic.
Mr. Ortega. That is right. Absolutely, yes. The burrowing
is extensive and because of the density in these colonies, one
example is they pulled a hundred nutria out of a 10 acre pond.
They are very gregarious and they can attack specific
infrastructure. If we don't start to get control of these and
they do migrate into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, I think
that is the biggest threat that agriculture faces. The Delta is
a highly managed system to provide water throughout the state.
The Chairman. Well, Mr. Harder has legislation on that
effort of which I am a cosponsor and I will continue to work
with him. Hopefully he will get back here before the Committee
finishes its hearing.
Mr. Erickson and Mr. Reichert, you talked about the
importance of the impact of trade, and I noted that in my
opening comments. We all here on the Subcommittee believe that
that is absolutely critical and to ensure that we have enough
resources in our ports so that inspections are done thoroughly.
That was part of the problem I had with this tomato seed issue
in China where we had to try to provide some alternative
support. And that is why, as you all noted, that Mr. Vela's
legislation that many of us are cosponsoring to introduce
Protecting America's Food and Agriculture Act to make sure that
we can hire more ag inspectors at our ports-of-entry.
What kind of backlog are you folks seeing due to the lack
of inspectors, and what impact does that have on specialty crop
growers and consumers?
Mr. Erickson. It is not uncommon for--so we are a domestic
producer but we do import product to complement our business,
and we, I would say once a month on average perhaps, a couple
times a month, we run into issues where a load of cilantro or
broccoli crowns or something coming out of Mexico gets held up
at the port-of-entry because of insect identification, and the
local inspectors may not have the authority to identify that
insect. Then the insect needs to be sent up to Washington,
D.C., so it takes maybe, occasionally we see shipments that may
take 3 to 4 to 5 days to receive an insect identification when
it is something that is out of the ordinary, at which time we
typically would have to dump the load or send it to the food
bank. It would no longer be salvageable for us. It is not----
The Chairman. More examples of that will be important as we
try to move this legislation forward.
Mr. Reichert, briefly do you have anything you would like
to add?
Mr. Reichert. Well, to follow up on Mr. Erickson's
experiences we see about the same in the Port of Philadelphia.
Generally we handle more of the imported commodities. Our CBP
inspector staff is down by I believe four inspectors. Our APHIS
inspector count is generally at six. We understand they are
losing two of their people through a vertical integration. They
have offers out there now for additional inspectors. Two would
be the minimal. As Mr. Erickson said, the identifiers are also
in need. Certain commodities if they cannot be inspected or
identified locally must be sent down to Baltimore area, and
that can in the----
The Chairman. Bottom line is we need more help?
Mr. Reichert. Yes, we do.
The Chairman. Okay. I have exceeded my time and I would
like to defer now to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee,
Mr. Rouzer, from North Carolina.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I thank each of
you for being here today.
We are talking about feral swine and their ability to
harbor any number of diseases. Do we know exactly how many
different diseases they can harbor? Is it thousands, hundreds
of thousands, ten, 20?
Mr. Gaskamp. That is a great question, Ranking Member
Rouzer.
We don't know exactly how many diseases swine can actually
harbor. We know there are about 66 that are important to
agriculture here in the U.S. That doesn't include some of the
foreign animal diseases like foot-and-mouth and African Swine
Fever, a funny story is that we work with a colleague out in
western Texas at the Texas Institute for Environmental and
Human Health. He has been very good at exploring new diseases
that may be harbored in our swine populations, and every time
he sends us some advice, ``Hey, maybe we ought to start testing
for this,'' it seems that we find some prevalence of every
disease we have tested for in feral swine. They are a huge
reservoir for diseases that could harm U.S. agriculture.
Mr. Rouzer. Following up on that, there is a great movement
in the country, free range chickens, free range hogs, whatever
you want to call it. In this case feral. I have a huge
population center on the coast and then further inland it is
all agriculture and I have a tremendous number of hogs,
turkeys, and chickens that are produced in my district. And
invariably every single week when I am back home I have two or
three folks who will come up to me and say, ``I just really
don't like the way that American agriculture, these factory
farms, all these hogs put together, all these chickens put
together, all these turkeys put together, how inhumane it is
and everything else.'' It seems to me that we need to do a
better job of talking about the risk with this movement out
there to move to backyard production agriculture. There is
after all a reason why we moved away from it. Economics is part
of it, and sophistication and new techniques and new
developments, et cetera. But in your circles, is anybody
talking about this movement and the potential impact in terms
of promoting and having an environment where you have even more
infectious diseases that are much more difficult to control?
Mr. Gaskamp. Absolutely, Ranking Member Rouzer. We have in
the domestication process of many of these livestock species we
incorporate these proper animal husbandry practices, and we
haven't spoken a lot on wildlife species. Those wildlife
species don't have those animal husbandry practices that
protect them. When you take livestock species and move them out
into more free range type scenarios you are putting them more
at risk just like those wildlife species that are out there.
Mr. Rouzer. From my education and to my knowledge, swine
fever has no impact on human health. Is that correct?
Dr. Thompson. Yes, that is correct. It affects only species
of swine. There are no other species infected, including
humans.
Mr. Rouzer. Can the human body be a carrier of it, I
assume, like all of us I assume have some type of dormant virus
that we carry, although it may not show up?
Dr. Thompson. That is an excellent question. No, the human
body wouldn't be a carrier itself other than if there is some
sort of virus that is picked up on clothing, on shoes, on
things like that. But the body itself, no, the human body would
not accept that virus.
Mr. Rouzer. Okay. When you mentioned earlier today in the
hearing where you throw out food that may be contaminated with
swine fever, assuming that food is digested or ingested by the
human body, it has no effect?
Dr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, yes, thanks for that
clarification. No, it wouldn't be the humans eating the African
Swine Fever. It would be a human having a sandwich that
contains some of the virus and not eating the sandwich and
throwing it out to the pigs.
Mr. Rouzer. Right. But in terms of that portion of the
sandwich the human ate, no, it does not stay in the human body?
Dr. Thompson. Correct.
Mr. Rouzer. Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
One quick last thing, Mr. Reichert, there is a bill in
Congress, as you may know, to ban the use of Chlorpyrifos, and
if I am pronouncing that correctly, but it is a common,
obviously a common insecticide that is used. There are 115
cosponsors including some Members of this Committee that are on
that bill. Is there a real problem with the EPA in terms of
risk assessment, et cetera as it relates to that insecticide?
Mr. Reichert. Ranking Member Rouzer, unfortunately I do not
know the answer to that. My division specifies fumigation only.
We do have a pest control division, so I could get than answer,
but I do not know that.
Mr. Rouzer. Okay, thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member.
And the next Member on our list here is Congressman Harder
from just north of me in the great San Joaquin Valley, and he
has a piece of legislation that deals with one of these issues
that we were talking about earlier on non-native invasive
species. Congressman Harder.
Mr. Harder. Thank you, Chairman Costa and Ranking Member
Rouzer.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify about the threat
nutria poses to the California Central Valley and I especially
want to thank Congressman Costs for identifying ways USDA and
the California Fish and Wildlife Service can work together to
contain and eradicate these swamp rats.
For folks who have no idea what a nutria is, all you need
to know is this is a giant swamp rat which can destroy vital,
vitally important parts of our agriculture, everything from
crops, including almond trees, irrigation canals, they can even
cause flooding by burrowing into water control systems and
threatening our water infrastructure. And if we don't take
action now, there could be 250,000 nutria just in California
within 5 years, because one female can lead to 200 offspring in
a year, 200. That is why I have introduced a bill that invests
$7 million now to help our community and our country get ahead
of this issue before it is too late.
And to illustrate this, I brought this fantastic prop,
which is called the Invasion Curve, thanks to the California
Fish and Wildlife Service. I call it the nutria curve. We can
also call it the feral hog curve. We will talk about that. And
essentially what you see here is you see the exponential growth
of an invasive species. You see that at the beginning you have
the introduction of an invasive species. You see the first
detection, then you see when folks are aware, and then when
public awareness begins, and then finally when eradication is
all but impossible when all you can do is have local control
and management. And this is the cost of containment, obviously
also exponential as the population grows.
[The chart referred to is located on p. 86.]
Mr. Harder. This is where we are right now on nutria. We
are right here. We have detected the problem but eradication is
still feasible. If we don't combat this problem quickly, pretty
soon we are going to be right here. By the time the public
awareness really begins, by the time you see these nutria all
up in your farm, it is already too late to eradicate the
problem completely.
And you see the exact same thing, by the way, with what has
happened in feral hogs. Feral hogs are actually an example of
not taking this as seriously as we should have at the
beginning. In the 1980s, wild pigs were where nutria is today,
only found in a handful of states. But today they are found in
35 states, costing $2.5 billion in damage annually. Some
farmers in southern states lose up to 50 percent of their yield
just from these pigs, and folks have to worry about 30 to 50
feral hogs in their backyard attacking their kids.
And so the farm bill has set aside $75 million over 5 years
to address this crisis, but I wish what we would have done is
actually addressed it years earlier, decades earlier, when it
was still easier to eradicate it.
And so my goal is to make nutria not the next feral hog
infestation. We come from a state where there is a lot of
droughts, floods, wildfires. We need to be able to get ahead of
disasters, and invasive species are just the next one.
And I hear a lot of my colleagues talk about fiscal
responsibility and I couldn't agree more. By getting ahead of
this problem now when it is still manageable, we are spending
$7 million to eradicate this problem instead of spending $2.5
billion every single year like we are on feral hogs. We
actually end up saving a whole lot of money in the long run
before they actually get out of control.
And I want to thank the Administration for taking this
issue very seriously, working with my office to identify a
bipartisan bill that addresses the serious problem. And I also
want to thank the Agriculture Committee for holding this
hearing on this vitally important issue. We need to make sure,
because the challenge here, just the last point I make is that
by the time public awareness begins, eradication is very
unlikely. And by the time folks really understand the depth of
this problem, eradication is actually all but impossible. And
so we have to get started now when we are seeing these invasive
swamp rats all over. I mean, these things can get up to 30, 40,
50 pounds. They are huge. And one female, 200 offspring, we
have to be able to nip it in the bud.
With that I yield back my time. Thank you so much, Mr.
Chairman, and Ranking Member, and I look forward to hopefully
getting our bill across the finish line.
The Chairman. Well, we look forward to working with you.
Before, I asked questions of Mr. Ortega who is dealing
specifically with the problem in our area, and the example of
the infestation in Maryland and in Louisiana resulted in
Federal funding to match state and local, and so it is
appropriate there is a precedent there. And I intend to work
with you, and I hope other Committee Members, to move on this
legislation working with the Department of Agriculture, because
it is a very serious issue, as you noted.
Okay. Our next Member is Mr. DesJarlais. No, it is, put my
glasses on.
Mr. Rouzer. Comer.
The Chairman. Comer. I am sorry. Mr. Comer is from
Kentucky.
Mr. Comer. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairman.
And I wanted to begin with talking about the feral hogs as
well. I represent southern Kentucky and western Kentucky along
the Mississippi River, and the mind-set in Kentucky is those
feral hogs are just concentrated along the Mississippi River
area. My farms are about 4 hours east of there and my brother
killed one on his farm last year.
I also wanted to note that just this week the--there was an
announcement that the Kentucky Division of Fish and Wildlife
will join the Forest Service in an attempt to kill the feral
hogs from helicopters, and there was a picture of the--I know
they had done that before in Kentucky, so Kentucky is serious
about it. I was Commissioner of Agriculture and this was a big
issue in several counties along the Mississippi and Ohio River
parts of Kentucky.
I was just curious, I will ask Mr. Gaskamp, is that
something that other states are doing, working with the Fish
and Wildlife to try to eradicate the feral hog population, and
does that prove to be a good relationship in every state?
Mr. Gaskamp. Thank you for the question. Absolutely,
collaboration is key. When dealing with feral swine
collaboration is key to get ahead of the problem.
Aerial gunning is that practice that we refer to is, is
basically Wildlife Services, USDA Wildlife Services getting in
helicopters and administering control, lethal control via
helicopters. That is happening in a lot of states in the South.
Texas and Oklahoma, Kansas, have very active programs where
Wildlife Services is flying and working on eradication in that
regard.
Mr. Comer. Yes.
Mr. Gaskamp. In a couple of those states, in Texas and
Oklahoma, we actually have commercial operators that are also
selling hunts from helicopters and that sort of thing for the
public to engage in.
Aerial gunning has been proven to be one of those more
effective techniques for removing swine, but those techniques
need to be strategic in nature, designed for control and not
for recreation.
Mr. Comer. Right. Thank you.
Dr. Thompson, I wanted to ask you, in my district we have
five poultry processors and ours is the biggest poultry
dependent district as any in America, in Kentucky. What is the
status of programs to safeguard the health of poultry to
prevent any type of livestock disease outbreak? How successful
are we right now? I know there have been instances even in
Kentucky and other states where you have had an outbreak of
West Nile and different things like that.
Dr. Thompson. And thank you for the question. Mr. Chairman,
Members, there is a lot of work going on within our poultry
industries right now. I am most familiar with what is going on
in Minnesota, of course, but on the level of biosecurity, the
lessons learned from High-Path Avian Influenza in the past
years. In addition to that all poultry processors are working
together with their producers on biosecurity audits.
Mr. Comer. Yes.
Dr. Thompson. And as an official state agency we are
reviewing the audits of individual farms. On many different
levels there is a lot of work going on right now.
Mr. Comer. My last question I wanted to ask you, Dr.
Thompson, pertained to black vultures. This has been a huge
issue in Kentucky with my cattlemen. Of course, that was a
protected species. We changed that. I assume we changed that in
the farm bill. It was supposed to be changed in the farm bill
last year. What success has Minnesota had. Very quickly, what
success has Minnesota had with dealing with black vultures?
Dr. Thompson. And I am afraid I would have to look into
that. I am not aware of any issues with black vultures in
Minnesota.
Mr. Comer. All right.
Okay. All right. Well, I will just conclude with a
statement here.
One concern that I hear from constituents and agencies
overseeing the vulture issue in Kentucky, which is a huge issue
with livestock producers, is that the Federal Government is not
the most helpful when it comes to this. I know that that may
come as a surprise to many of my farmer friends. I hear from
several cattle producers that Fish and Wildlife Services keeps
USDA and landowners from being able to manage this problem
independently from the government. This is a classic example of
government getting in its own way, and I believe this is an
issue with a simple solution. I hope we can resolve it in a
fast way, but I believe that farmers would be the best people
to be able to resolve this issue on their farms, and I hope
that is something that we can talk about as we move forward in
trying to eradicate predatory species, especially the black
vultures.
But, Mr. Chairman, my time is out. I yield back.
The Chairman. All right. I thank the gentleman, and I will
now refer to the gentlewoman from the wonderful State of
Connecticut, Representative Hayes.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Chairman Costa, for holding this
important hearing, and thank you to all the witnesses for being
here today.
I don't have a visual, but I look forward to working with
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get ahead of
eradicating these species that are damaging many of our
agricultural sectors.
In Connecticut, my district in particular, it is home to a
variety of greenhouses and poultry farms. According to the
USDA, the greenhouse industry is the fastest growing
agricultural sector in my state. The value of this sector to
Connecticut's economy is estimated at $3.5 billion, according
to the University of Connecticut.
There are roughly 10.5 million square feet of greenhouse
space in Connecticut that is used to cultivate climate-
controlled food crops, bedding plants, seasonal plants,
vegetables, and herb plants.
When it comes to poultry, Connecticut always leads the way.
Henry Saglio, a pioneer in the poultry industry, hailed from
Connecticut. He is a global leader in the industry and owner of
Arbor Acres Chicken Farms. At Arbor Acres he developed breeding
chickens for the world and played a pivotal role in making
chicken America's most-consumed meat. His chickens would go on
to be associated with products ranging from Campbell's Soup to
Perdue. Not surprisingly, for a time chickens were the state's
main export.
In keeping in line with our rich history in poultry, the
College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources at the
University of Connecticut has a poultry farm and resource unit
within their School of Animal Health.
For these reasons, it is particularly important to me to
work diligently to help farmers protect their poultry and
greenhouses against wild, invasive, and non-native species.
With that in mind, I would like to discuss greenhouses and then
shift to poultry.
Mr. Reichert, my district is a major producer of nursery,
greenhouse, and floriculture products. At Western Fumigation,
how do you address pest risks for imports and are they handled
in the same way for fruits and other products? And then
finally, are there any special considerations given to food
versus non-food products?
Mr. Reichert. Yes, thank you, Representative Hayes.
As far as the pest risk assessment, those are generally
handled through the USDA. Any time a new product or country
wants to bring a new product into the U.S., they do have to
apply for clearance. USDA will issue a pest risk assessment
which will be put out to industry for comment, after which they
will assign certain treatments based on the risk of an imported
product. And it can be edible commodity or not edible
commodity. Generally we just deal with the edible commodities.
Most of the non-commodities are inspected prior to admission.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you.
Dr. Thompson, your state has a vibrant poultry sector as
well. We are located east of you, and as you discussed earlier,
diseases spread by migratory birds. They tend to go west to
east. How do you coordinate with other State Veterinarians, in
say New England, so that those of us on the Atlantic Flyway can
stay up to date and prepare for what is heading our way?
Dr. Thompson. Thank you for that question. Mr. Chairman,
Members, there are a variety of different ways that we
communicate across states. Most importantly, I would bring up
United States Animal Health Association. It is an association
of all state regulatory officials, and specifically animal
health officials. As part of that organization, we also have
the National Assembly which is made up of only state animal
health officials.
Certainly, in my view, the best way to communicate with
each other is picking up the telephone and calling somebody.
Mrs. Hayes. Imagine that. Do you see the USDA taking a
leadership role in convening some sort of discussions around
those, like communication, best practices to make sure that we
are ahead of any potential outbreaks or spreads?
Dr. Thompson. Yes. That is a very good question. USDA does
convene meetings on an ongoing basis depending on the disease
and depending on the species.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. That is all I have, Chairman Costa.
I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. Yes. All right, thank you very much,
Representative Hayes.
Our next Member is the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr.
Hagedorn.
Mr. Hagedorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Rouzer. It is a pleasure to be here. I thank the witnesses for
their testimony.
First I would like to associate myself with Ranking Member
Rouzer's comments about everything that you are doing is very
important, but the number one important thing for agriculture
right now is to get the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade
Agreement through. It is very critical. It is going to help us
build momentum for other deals with China and others. I say if
we can't get a deal done with our best friends to the north and
south, who expects the President and others to get something
done with China? To my thinking that has to be the focus of
this Committee and everyone else as we move out of here.
Mr. Gaskamp, so we have had people from agriculture and
others come up and talk with us about African Swine Fever, and
I have always impressed upon them we should probably be doing
more like they do in other countries, like Taiwan, to try to
keep products out of their country coming from China. We even
have a situation now where people check the box with customs
and border security to say they have been on hog farms in
China. They fly into our country. They are not even sometimes
talked to, let alone investigated to see if they have any
products or anything that would cause harm to us.
Chairman Peterson brought up the point, though, about how
would it get in the country, and we have talked about that. But
I have said, it is one thing to try to protect the United
States from African Swine Fever, but what about Mexico and
Canada, particularly Mexico? We have a bit of a porous border
there. Is it possible that we could get it just from these
feral hogs being infected in Mexico, running over the border? I
take it that they don't really pay attention to our borders,
correct?
Mr. Gaskamp. Thank you for the question. That is correct.
We have done research just in, I mean, Oklahoma-Texas border is
not the same border as the U.S.-Mexico border, but feral swine
do not pay attention to boundaries, especially water
boundaries.
Feral swine, unfortunately they do, contrary to a lot of
popular belief, feral swine do have home ranges. They don't
just--they are not nomadic, roaming the landscape endlessly.
Most of their geographic expansion has been the product of
recreational hunting, increasing populations in areas for
recreational hunting, and so fortunately an effort like that to
keep, if African Swine Fever were to get into Mexico, for
example, we could focus efforts along that border in order to
keep it from moving. Now, you still have the issue of
transportation on shoes and in bologna and all those things.
Mr. Hagedorn. Sure.
That is good to know. Thank you.
Dr. Thompson, nice to see you today. Thank you for being
here. If we ended up with a case of African Swine Fever in the
State of Minnesota, which we hope never happens, it would be
pretty devastating, right? It wouldn't just be our hog farmers,
but it would be our crop farmers, our grain farmers, implement
dealer, seed corn, everybody. It would be devastating to our
economy. If that happened, though, I take it you have a plan or
you have been working with people that have a plan on how to
contain it? Can you share a little bit about that and who you
might be working with in other states or the Federal Government
in order to implement that?
Dr. Thompson. Yes, thank you for that question. Members,
for that I could go on for a long time to talk about how much
planning we have been going through, Representative----
Mr. Hagedorn. We only have a minute, 38.
Dr. Thompson. Certainly, we have a variety of different
committees that we have set up within the state, and very
importantly when you talk about hog production, it is not only
about production within the state but our systems that our hog
systems that are located in Minnesota have connections and move
pigs and move feed and move sows and move all sorts of things
with other states.
What we are looking at this as is a regional approach. We
have pulled in, importantly, Iowa, but also other states within
our region to start talking about and continuing to work on our
plans of what is going to happen.
In addition to that, very recently there was a nationwide
ASF exercise, which I believe was 15 states highly involved
with hog production we are involved with. It was a 3 day
exercise. We looked at things like what does a stop-movement
mean, how are we going to permit things from state to state,
and some of those important issues. But I can tell you at any
point in time during the week there is something going on
within the Minnesota Board of Animal Health related to African
Swine Fever.
Mr. Hagedorn. Okay. Thank very much. With that I yield
back.
The Chairman. Gentleman yields back, and the next Member on
the list is Mrs. Hartzler from Missouri, right?
Mrs. Hartzler. Yes, absolutely.
The Chairman. The ``Show Me State.''
Mrs. Hartzler. That is right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you, Mr. Gaskamp and all of you for being here.
I grew up on a hog farm and so I am very, very supportive
of pork production and very concerned about the feral swine
issue that is all across our country, even in my district and
part of south Missouri there. I am very interested in your
testimony. You talked about the effectiveness of the BoarBuster
suspended trap system. I have had a chance to see that. The
Missouri Department of Conservation is recommending that as the
eradication method. They are opposed to the hunting that some
people are doing.
What is your opinion about hunting?
Mr. Gaskamp. Thank you for the question. Specific to feral
swine, I am a hunter and feral pigs are fun to hunt.
Mrs. Hartzler. Yes.
Mr. Gaskamp. They really are and, however, the cultural
mind-set around hunting for that particular species, for feral
swine in particular, has increased its abundance, just like
conservation efforts for native wildlife species. We promote
populations from hunting. That mentality that has gone into
feral swine management where, why would I travel 8 hours across
the country to go on a pig hunt when I can own them right here
in my back yard, or hunt them right here in my back yard. That
mentality has increased populations across the country.
Hunting still proves to be an effective control strategy in
very limited cases where populations are very small, but in
general we do not consider hunting a population control method.
Mrs. Hartzler. Yes. Okay. You mentioned that toxicants are
being used in other countries, but yet you say that we need
more Federal funding to contribute to research on toxicants, so
how come we can't just use the toxicants that other countries
are using?
Mr. Gaskamp. Well, so right now Australia is using
toxicants for feral swine. They have about as many feral swine
as they have people on the continent. There are a number of
toxicants that we have been testing here in the United States.
The primary challenges associated with toxicants are making
those safe for humans to use, but more importantly, making them
species specific so they don't affect other species, including
humans. If a toxicant is administered, we can't be impacting
native populations of wildlife.
Mrs. Hartzler. You would say that the ones being used in
Australia aren't really researched enough to make sure that
they are safe for humans and other species?
Mr. Gaskamp. Sure. Differences in Australia are they don't
have a lot of omnivorous species. In the United States we do.
The omnivorous species that Australia has are also other
invasive species.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay.
Mr. Gaskamp. In the U.S. we have black bears that could be
impacted as well as others.
Mrs. Hartzler. Last question with the feral swine. As you
mentioned in your testimony, they are the most prolific large
animal in the United States, early age of sexual maturity 6 to
8 months, short gestation period, only 115 days for year-round
breeding and farrowing. I have heard there has been some
efforts trying to look at sterilization, and can you talk to
those efforts in trying to stop----
Mr. Gaskamp. I am not aware of any particular reproductive
inhibitors, is the terminology we use in that space. I am not
familiar with any reproductive inhibitors that are available or
close to being available. They pose a lot of the same risks or
challenges that toxicants do, making them specific to feral
swine only. And there is--but there is work being done in
several universities across the South trying to identify and
develop those reproductive inhibitors.
Mrs. Hartzler. Great. Well, thank you so much.
Mr. Reichert, I was interested in your testimony about the
fumigants and the testing that is important as we come into the
ports. I was just wondering from a practical standpoint, can
something be considered organic if it has been fumigated?
Mr. Reichert. Thank you for the question, but no, there are
no fumigants that are approved for use on organics.
Mrs. Hartzler. Is that an issue with the growing demand for
organics? Are we exposing ourselves to risk bringing in fruits
and vegetables from other countries not fumigating them and
bringing them in?
Mr. Reichert. That certainly is a risk. The USDA does tend
to focus on those for inspection when they come in, but again,
they only inspect a certain amount of each lot of produce that
is brought in, so they are not inspecting every single piece
and things can be missed.
Mrs. Hartzler. Just how much does it cost to fumigate one
container?
Mr. Reichert. It is generally between the $500 to $1,000
range for our charges and then there are additional charges for
the USDA.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay, great. Thank you very much for the
information.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlewoman yields back.
And our next Member is Mr. Marshall from Kansas.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my question is
going to be directed to Mr. Gaskamp and Mr. Ortega, I am
guessing.
My concern is about a different invasive species. It is a
plant invasive species. And I see you both have some grassland
expertise.
In Kansas our major rivers are lined with salt cedars. At
least, that is what we locals call them. Salt cedars soak up
hundreds, maybe thousands of gallons of water per day. I think
of Rattlesnake Creek which flows into the Quivira Wildlife
Refuge, and we are having some flow issues in that particular
creek. I think of the Arkansas River. Some people call it the
Arkansas River, but we call it the Arkansas River. It flows out
of Colorado and across Kansas, and large portions of that river
typically doesn't have water in it anymore, and it is also
lined with salts cedars.
Throughout the prairies now, grasslands, traditional red
cedars have taken over many, many areas. I have talked to
farmers who have mowed down cedars, and creeks that have never
ran before started running again.
Any experience on the impact of these on the water and
long-term solutions? We mow the salt cedars down. It is real
expensive to do. They grow back.
Josh, Mr. Gaskamp, any experience with salt cedars and red
cedars?
Mr. Gaskamp. Thank you for the question. I have limited
experience. I have more experience with the eastern red cedar.
It is a native plant that is encroaching on rangelands across
the southern Great Plains. We consider it invasive because it
was, back in history it was relegated to steep drainages and
things like that.
Mr. Marshall. Right.
Mr. Gaskamp. The suppression of prescribed fire has brought
on that species, has grown the potential for it to invade
grasslands. And so there is movement in a lot of the rangeland
areas to re-implement prescribed fire back in our landscape. It
is a process that our rangelands evolved with, fire and
grazing, and so that is one way to deal with invasive red
cedar.
As far as the salt cedars, I have less experience with
those. I do know that they establish from just clippings, so
mowing them actually spreads them even more, and it is a very
serious issue. There has been work done. I am not sure who has
done the work, but to identify biological solutions of pests
that does hinder its growth.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you. Mr. Ortega, any experience with
either of those?
Mr. Ortega. Not specifically, but we do deal with invasive
species of plants very regularly and I agree with the
gentleman. You have to hit it hard with mechanically,
chemically, and fire is probably the most cost-effective
strategy.
Mr. Marshall. Okay. Any other in the panel with experience
with the plants? Okay.
All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
back.
The Chairman. All right. Everyone who wanted to participate
this morning has had that opportunity to do so, and I will
allow the Ranking Member to make any closing remarks before I
close the hearing.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
all of our witnesses for being here today. It was very helpful
and instructive for me, and I appreciate you taking the time to
share your expertise.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
The Chairman. All right. I thank the Ranking Member Rouzer
for your cooperation, and your staff always along with our
staff, who did a very good job this morning.
The witnesses came well prepared and focused on areas that
normally the Subcommittee doesn't always get an opportunity to
really weigh in on, and that is the impacts that invasive
species, both native and non-native species, have on
agriculture economy throughout the country, and as it relates
to the foreign markets that we obviously are actively engaged
in and have to deal with as it relates to phytosanitary
standards and with our efforts to export. Of course we also
import and it is a two-way street. I think the takeaways
besides the specific comments that members, those of you who
testified this morning, are--I would urge this Committee and
the full Committee, if they are not cosponsors of Mr. Vela's
legislation that focuses on improving staffing within the
inspection services and also within the USDA, to look at that
legislation carefully. It is worth supporting and it has a lot
of merit.
And in addition, while Mr. Harder's legislation deals with
the invasive species of nutria, and specifically right now in
California, we know with the invasions in Maryland and
Louisiana that this very aggressive swamp rat, as Mr. Harder
likes to refer to it, can in fact be a real problem in other
areas of the country. And it deserves support as well, and we
will be working with both authors on those pieces of
legislation.
Having said that, I want to thank again those who testified
this morning and your cooperation with the Committee and we
will look forward to continue to work with you. And if there
are any follow up questions by Members of the Subcommittee,
obviously we will forward them to you for your response.
Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplemental written responses from
witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
And, so at this point in time, hearing no objection, this
hearing of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign
Agriculture is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from
California; on Behalf of James D. Ogsbury, Executive Director, Western
Governors' Association
November 12, 2019
Hon. Jim Costa, Hon. David Rouzer,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Livestock and Subcommittee on Livestock and
Foreign Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Costa and Ranking Member Rouzer:
In advance of the Subcommittee's November 14 hearing on
``Safeguarding American Agriculture from Wild, Invasive, and Non-Native
Species,'' attached please find two Western Governors' items related to
biosecurity and invasive species management:
Western Governors' Association Policy Resolution 2019-06
(http://www.westgov.org/images/editor/WGA_PR_2019-
06_Biosecurity_and_Invasive_
Species.pdf), Biosecurity and Invasive Species Management; and
the Western Governors' Biosecurity and Invasive Species
Initiative Special Report (http://westgov.org/images/editor/
2019_WGA_BISI_REPORTvF.pdf).
I request that you include these documents in the permanent record
of the hearing, as they articulate Western Governors' policy positions
and recommendations on this important issue.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require further
information. In the meantime, with warm regards and best wishes, I am
Respectfully,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
James D. Ogsbury,
Executive Director.
attachment 1
Policy Resolution 2019-06
Biosecurity and Invasive Species Management
A. Background
1. Per Executive Order 13751, ``invasive species'' means ``with
regard to a particular ecosystem, a non-native organism
whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or
environmental harm or harm to human, animal, or plant
health.'' This definition can include aquatic and
terrestrial plants and animals, forest and agricultural
pests, and pathogens.
2. The 2017-2027 Hawai`i Interagency Biosecurity Plan defines
biosecurity as ``the set of measures taken to manage the
risk from invasive species to the economy, environment, and
health and lifestyle of the people.'' This includes pre-
border measures, border measures, post-border measures, and
measures that increase public awareness about invasive
species.
3. The Plant Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-224) defines
``biological control'' (biocontrol) as the use of
biological control organisms as an ``enemy, antagonist, or
competitor used to control a plant pest or noxious weed.''
When used properly, biocontrol can be an effective tool in
efforts to manage and eradicate invasive species.
4. States have different definitions of biosecurity, biological
control and invasive species. They also may use regulatory
and non-regulatory terms that are related to, but not
synonymous with, the term invasive species, including pest,
nuisance species, noxious weed, and injurious wildlife.
5. Invasive species have substantial negative effects on ecosystems,
economies, and communities in the West. Studies have found
that invasive species cost the U.S. more than $120 billion
ever year, and the National Wildlife Federation estimates
that 42 percent of threatened or endangered species are at
risk due to invasive species. Invasive annual grasses such
as cheatgrass, medusahead, fountain grass, and ventenata
pose a major threat to western rangelands by increasing the
risk of wildfire, outcompeting native grasses, and
diminishing soil and water quality. Aquatic nuisance
species, including invasive quagga and zebra mussels,
decrease water quantity and quality, impair native
wildlife, harm hydroelectric and irrigation systems, and
can impede maritime transport by fouling vessel hulls.
Invasive pathogens affect human health and welfare, and
invasive species, such as mosquitoes, can vector human
diseases. Invasive species damage multiple types of
environments, from virgin forests to urban tree canopies.
Invasive species harm a wide variety of economies dependent
on natural resources, including agriculture, ranching,
tourism, energy production and transmission, and forest
products. Invasive species threaten many native plants
central to western life and the cultures of Native
Americans, Native Hawai'ians, Alaska Natives, and other
indigenous peoples.
6. The spread of invasive species results from a combination of
human activities, susceptibility of invaded environments,
climate change, biology of the invading species, and
dispersal. These characteristics are not dictated by
geopolitical boundaries, but rather by ecosystem-level
factors, which cross state and national borders.
Scientists, private landowners, and state and Federal land
managers across the West have expressed the need to develop
a more aggressive and cohesive strategy for invasive
species management that includes prevention, monitoring,
control, and eradication.
7. The impacts of invasive species on natural resources and human
health and welfare are similar in scope and intensity to
the threats posed by wildfire. Wildfire management on
Federal, state, Tribal, and local land is coordinated
through a sophisticated planning and response network,
which includes the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC).
8. Many invasive species were introduced, or their distribution was
expanded, due to inadequate Federal and state regulations
dealing with interstate transport, international trade and
interstate commerce, and a lack of communication and
coordination between land management agencies.
9. Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) is a coordinated set of
actions to find and eradicate potential invasive species in
a specific location before they spread and cause harm. The
Incident Command System (ICS) is a management system
designed to enable effective and efficient incident
management, including invasive species rapid response, by
integrating a combination of facilities, equipment,
personnel, procedures, and communications operating within
a common organizational structure.
10. In the West, biosecurity and invasive species management is the
responsibility of a wide network of state, Federal, and
local agencies. Federal agencies manage invasive species on
Federal lands and waters under a complex system of mandates
and authorities.
11. Cooperative agreements, grants, and procurement contracts between
Federal agencies and state and local invasive species
management authorities are effective in establishing
structured partnerships for collaborative invasive species
management. The use of cooperative agreements lessens the
burden on local Federal land managers, while increasing the
efficiency of invasive species management programs
utilizing local collaborative goal setting. Additionally,
cooperative agreements simplify project-based contracting
utilizing the authorities of state and local government
agencies. This can be extremely useful, especially where
infestations extend across multiple landownerships or EDRR
is the management objective.
12. Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) allows states to enter into
agreements with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) or Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) permitting them to perform various
land management activities on Federal lands. These tools
have been successfully used by forest and rangeland
managers to achieve various land management objectives
across Federal, state and local government, and privately-
owned lands
13. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulation of interstate
movement of commodities via airlines is focused on the
protection of agricultural industries in the contiguous
United States. This is particularly evident in Hawai`i,
where baggage destined for the U.S. mainland is subject to
Federal inspection, while baggage moving from the mainland
to Hawai`i is not.
14. Environmental DNA (eDNA) is DNA present in an environmental
sample, as differentiated from traditional sampling of DNA
directly from an intact organism. eDNA frequently is
thought of as DNA in tissue and cells that have been shed
by an organism but can also refer to DNA within an intact
organism, if that organism is collected in the
environmental sample. eDNA can be used to detect a wide
range of organisms, including those that are endangered or
invasive, and be used for both research and monitoring
purposes.
15. The West includes a number of highly important seaports on the
U.S. mainland and across the Pacific region. Maritime
vessels represent a primary pathway for the movement of
aquatic invasive species. With the passage of the Vessel
Incidental Discharge Act in 2018, regulations regarding
ballast water and other discharges are centralized under
Section 312 of the Clean Water Act with the Environmental
Protection Agency setting environmental standards, the U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG) setting vessel requirements to meet
those standards, and the USCG and interested states
enforcing those requirements.
16. State invasive species councils and invasive plant councils
provide policy level direction, planning, and coordination
for state-level biosecurity and invasive species prevention
and management actions in the West. Councils are led by
state agencies, nonprofit organizations, industry, private
landowners, and public-private partnerships. These groups
empower those engaged in the prevention, detection, and
eradication of invasive species, and serve as forums for
invasive species education, communication, and strategic
planning. Invasive species councils can collaborate on
regional-level issues and benefit from mechanisms that help
them to coordinate and solve cross-boundary, cross-
jurisdictional challenges.
B. Governors' Policy Statement
1. Western Governors support the creation of a Western Invasive
Species Council (WISC) to help enhance coordination between
existing state invasive species councils, improve
communication and collaboration on regional biosecurity and
invasive species control efforts, and to advocate for
regional needs at the Federal level. The WISC should be
initially coordinated through the Western Governors'
Association and should work to address cross-boundary and
cross-jurisdictional challenges identified in this
resolution.
2. Western Governors urge Congress and the Administration to support
state, territorial, and Tribal invasive species prevention,
control and management programs and redouble efforts on
Federal lands. This should be accomplished through
accountability and oversight of programs administered by
the USDA, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S.
Department of Defense, the USCG, and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. These programs provide
valuable services in the detection and elimination of
invasive species, as well as coordination, public outreach,
and communication.
3. Western Governors support research as needed to provide
understanding of invasive species life potential range
distribution, and to develop geographically-appropriate
control measures. Western Governors urge Congress and the
Administration to support much-needed research on
biosecurity and invasive species, including programs under
the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and to
facilitate funding mechanisms that enable land grant
universities to conduct research and development of new
pesticides. Institutions conducting research on
biosecurity, biocontrol and invasive species control
methods should look for opportunities to pool funding
resources and exchange information across administrative
lines. Invasive species managers and policymakers should be
encouraged to develop new decision-making tools and
economic analyses, as well as build and improve upon the
decision-making tools and analyses currently in use.
Invasive species managers should strive to incorporate
economic analyses and regional-level, science-based
decision-making tools into management decisions.
4. Western Governors strongly encourage expansion and creation of
partnerships--such as invasive species councils with
representation from local weed and pest districts,
conservation districts, county governments, nonprofit and
industry organizations, local stakeholders, state, island,
Tribal, Federal, regional and international agencies--
committed to preventing the spread of invasive species,
averting new unauthorized introductions, responding rapidly
to new introductions, and working together to find creative
regional approaches for protecting and restoring natural,
agriculture, power and water conveyance infrastructure, and
recreational resources. Federal agencies should build a
more sophisticated and centralized biosecurity and invasive
species management network, including a National
Biosecurity and Invasive Species Management Center based on
the model of the NIFC.
5. Congress and the Federal Government should ensure that invasive
species funding, including support for emergency response,
is sustainable, flexible and able to be maximized by
Federal, state and local agencies with pooled resources and
collaborative funding mechanisms. Federal funding,
cooperative agreements grants, and procurement contracts
for state and local biosecurity and invasive species
management should be structured in a deliberate and
transparent way that allows for the greatest amount of
flexibility and long-term planning. When possible, Federal
agencies should look for collaborative projects and funding
opportunities that multiply state resources and support
state-led biosecurity and invasive species management
projects.
6. Western Governors call upon Congress to promote state-directed
programs to combat invasive species. Regional leadership
and state-directed programs provide place-based solutions
tailored to unique regional or local conditions in land and
aquatic ecosystems. The Federal role should be one of
partnership and policy-making that strengthen states' on-
the-ground efforts and mitigates risks associated with the
movement of invasive species between states.
7. Federal agencies are encouraged to expand the use of cooperative
agreements with state and local governments and should
ensure that they are approved in a timely manner and in
collaboration with implementing state agencies. Federal
agencies can also support invasive species management
efforts by encouraging contract recipients to coordinate
with state and local invasive species management agencies,
regulatory programs, and cooperative weed and invasive
species management areas. State invasive species managers
should consider using Good Neighbor Authority on USFS and
BLM lands for cross-boundary collaborative invasive species
control, management and eradication programs.
8. Federal actions should support state biosecurity and invasive
species management efforts by ensuring the timely approval
of state permits for biosecurity, quarantine, biocontrol,
and rapid response actions. Federal agencies should consult
with Governors early and substantively regarding
biosecurity or invasive species management decisions that
affect state resources and state actions.
9. Federal agencies should identify individuals within district and
region offices that can be contacted and assist in the
planning and implementation of local cross-boundary
invasive species management programs.
10. The threats that invasive species pose to western landscapes and
communities are serious and should be met with a
sophisticated and coordinated response commensurate with
the level of their impacts.
11. Prevention is the most efficient and cost-effective method of
invasive species management. Effective biosecurity,
prevention, and containment methods can mitigate the need
for more expensive and burdensome control and eradication
programs. Prevention strategies should be coordinated
across state, national, and international lines. Federal
and state agencies should increase the use of innovative
biosecurity prevention and detection programs, including
increased use of electronic manifesting in interstate
shipments for the purposes of inspection, and the use of
canine detection resources.
12. Western Governors support the EDRR framework as a method to limit
or eliminate new introductions and existing species
expansion. Programs for the control and/or eradication of
invasive species must result in more on-the-ground
prevention, management and eradication. The ICS should be
evaluated for use in instances of fast-spreading invasives
and used as part of EDRR; state, Federal, and local
agencies can opt to practice and implement the ICS as part
of rapid response. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
can support these efforts by working with western states to
create an ICS training module for invasive species rapid
response. The Executive Branch can support state-led rapid
response programs by: (1) increasing Federal funding for
state-led aquatic invasive species rapid response programs,
including those that provide mechanisms for flexible, long-
term support of state early detection rapid response
efforts; (2) streamlining Federal permitting and approval
processes for treatment and management actions for new
mussel detections; (3) creating a single Federal authority
for aquatic invasive species treatment permitting and
approval in freshwater systems; and (4) simplifying
reporting on new invasive mussel infestations by creating a
single Federal point of contact for new mussel detections.
13. Federal agencies should support states' effort to identify, study
and approve the use of biological control organisms.
Federal permitting models should be structured to ensure
biocontrol can be utilized by states in a safe and timely
manner. Biocontrol research is encouraged at a regional
level, with biocontrol research information being
encouraged to move freely between institutions and across
state lines. Invasive species managers in the West would
benefit from the creation of a new, state-of-the-art
biological control facility, as well as a collaborative,
multi-agency plan for maintaining and staffing new
biocontrol facilities at a level that more adequately meets
the expanding needs of the region. Furthermore, effective
biocontrol, biosecurity, and invasive species research
depends upon a highly-skilled workforce. State and Federal
agencies should collaborate with universities to support
programs essential to biosecurity and invasive species
management, such as botany, zoology, plant pathology,
taxonomy, systematics, and related fields.
14. The containment of invasive quagga and zebra mussels at infested
waters in the West depends upon the collaboration and
mutual effort of Federal, state and local agencies. Many
state-led containment programs benefit from Federal
cooperation and funding, and state and Federal agencies
should be encouraged to sustain and expand these effective
partnerships as necessary. However, to adequately protect
the West from the movement of aquatic invasive species,
Federal agencies must be able to act as full partners in
invasive species containment efforts and must have the
funding and authorities necessary to contain invasive
species within lands and waters under their jurisdiction.
To this end, Federal agencies, including the National Park
Service and BLM, should be vested with clear authority to
manage watercraft upon their departure from infested
waterbodies under Federal jurisdiction.
15. Integrated pest management, biocontrol, outcome-based grazing,
and targeted grazing can be effective tools to control the
spread of invasive annual grasses. Federal, state, and
local agencies should view invasive annual grasses as a
regional threat and strive to identify and implement cross-
boundary projects to control invasive annual grasses at a
regional level. Such projects should include those
utilizing alternative management techniques such as
outcome-based grazing.
16. Agricultural industries in the Pacific Islands need to be
similarly protected from the risk of interstate movement of
invasive species as the contiguous U.S. mainland. USDA
quarantines and commodity inspections should incorporate
the priorities of the West, including noncontiguous states
and territorial islands in the western region. This
includes maintaining Federal quarantines on pests that have
not yet reached the West, like the emerald ash borer, and
adopting policies that adequately protect Pacific states
and territories, such as inspection of baggage moving from
the contiguous U.S. to non-contiguous areas.
17. State, Federal and local agencies and regional coordinating
groups should develop and implement a set of best practices
for conducting eDNA monitoring and incorporating positive
detection results into rapid response strategies.
18. To effectively prevent, contain, and control invasive species,
Federal, state and local invasive species managers need
Federal laws that support on-the-ground action. Western
Governors support a states-led review of Federal
biosecurity and invasive species statutes, including the
Lacey Act and the National Invasive Species Act, to
evaluate how they support on-the-ground management,
identify any gaps in their application, and ensure that
their structure and implementation are able to address 21st
century biosecurity and invasive species challenges. Of
particular interest are opportunities to expand the
taxonomic scope of the Lacey Act to benefit U.S.
biosecurity.
19. As directed by the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, the U.S.
Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency should
consult with Western Governors and work closely and
collaboratively with states on the implementation of that
act to ensure that state and regional aquatic resource
protection needs are met across the West and the Pacific.
Federal and state partners should collaborate on the
development of evidence-based risk assessments and should
work together to assess the efficacy of policies and tools
that may be used in mitigating the impact of various types
of discharges, including hull biofouling. Western Governors
believe that protecting the diversity of marine habitats in
western states and Pacific territories is best accomplished
by working with states that have the greatest knowledge of
their ecosystems and invasive risks.
20. Accurate, standardized, and accessible geospatial data is
essential to biosecurity and invasive species management in
the West. Western Governors support efforts to standardize
and centralize invasive species occurrence data, streamline
the exchange of data between the nation's major invasive
species data aggregators, and increase the accessibility of
data to Federal, state, and local land and resource
managers.
C. Governors' Management Directive
1. The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional
committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other
entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of
this resolution.
2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the
Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the
objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors
apprised of its progress in this regard.
Western Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend
existing resolutions on a bi-annual basis. Please consult
westgov.org/resolutions for the most current copy of a
resolution and a list of all current WGA policy resolutions.
attachment 2
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Special Report
Biosecurity and Invasive Species Initiative
The Chairman's Initiative of Hawai`i Governor David Ige
2019
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Life in the West is built on our unique landscapes: our natural
resources, our agricultural production, and our communities. The West
is a region of great diversity, from the dense rainforests of the
Pacific Islands to the sprawling sagebrush sea of the Great Basin and
beyond. A respect for, and reliance on, our natural environment gives
meaning to western life and shape to the western character. The
diversity of these resources forms the breadth of western culture and
fuels some of our most important economic sectors, such as agriculture,
ranching, recreation, and tourism.
But the natural resources that define life in the West are under
attack: Invasive species, including plants, animals, and pathogens,
pose a significant threat to the western experience. Every day,
populations of invasive species such as fire ants, fire-prone grasses,
saltcedar, and tree-boring beetles expand into new territory, damaging
and degrading native ecosystems. New invasive species are transported
across borders daily, with each invader bringing the potential for
permanent harm to the region.
The damage done by invasive species is real, and their impacts on
western ecosystems, economies and communities can be staggering.
According to the National Wildlife Federation, approximately 42 percent
of threatened or endangered species are at risk due to invasive
species. The West has more federally-listed threatened and endangered
species than any other region of the U.S. One study estimates that
invasive species costs the U.S. more than $120 billion every year. A
single species, the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta), costs
the mainland U.S. billions of dollars in economic damage each year and
would cost Hawai`i hundreds of millions of dollars annually if it were
to be introduced into the state.
These invaders also threaten our culture. Here in Hawai`i, Rapid
`Ohi`a Death, an invasive forest pathogen, continues to diminish
populations of the native `Ohi`a, a tree at the heart of Hawai`i's
culture and a foundational species of our native forests. This is a
story familiar throughout the West, as multi-generational ranching
communities face pressure from non-native annual grasses and Native
American communities reliant on native salmon are negatively affected
by aquatic nuisance species.
We are not helpless in the face of these invasions. Biosecurity--
measures taken to manage the risk from invasive species to economies,
environments, health and lifestyles--is an essential element in the
fight against invasive species. Throughout the West, a network of
state, Federal, Tribal and local biosecurity agencies strive to protect
resources from new invading species. Simultaneously, a broad coalition
of stakeholders work to monitor, control and eradicate invasive species
once they have been established.
My goal in launching the Western Governors' Biosecurity and
Invasive Species Initiative was to examine the efforts of the West's
dedicated biosecurity and invasive species professionals and to
identify areas where Western Governors could support and enhance their
work. To accomplish this goal, the Western Governors' Association
hosted a series of workshops throughout the West, which brought
regional leaders together to discuss how invasive species affect life
in the region, how established species can be better managed, and how
biosecurity practices can be improved to limit new introductions. These
workshops were followed by webinars focusing on discrete issues arising
from the workshops.
This report's findings, recommendations, best practices and case
studies are the culmination of that process. I encourage you to use
this document as a bipartisan policy roadmap on the issue and to work
with Western Governors as they implement the recommendations through
the WGA Working Lands Roundtable and the Western Invasive Species
Council.
Thank you for joining me on this journey over the last year. I am
grateful for all the hard work and investments made by our state and
Federal partners, industry, private landowners and non-governmental
organizations. I look forward to collaborating on the solutions to one
of the most pressing environmental issues of our time.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
David Y. Ige,
Governor, State of Hawai`i.
Dear Friend of the West,
As national politics have become more polarized--as our Federal
Government has become more dysfunctional--people throughout the country
(and of all political stripes) have increasingly looked to states and
their governors for bipartisan leadership and solutions to problems
facing our nation and region.
Western Governors have risen to that challenge in a big way.
Through the Western Governors' Association, the Governors have
developed deliberative policy and generated creative ideas to sustain
and develop the economies and environments of the great American West.
I commend your attention to their detailed, substantive and policy-rich
resolutions on energy, water, forest fires, species conservation,
public lands management and a host of other critical resource issues.
Though these detailed resolutions articulate measured and thoughtful
principles, Western Governors are men and women of action. As valuable
as their policy pronouncements are, the Governors prefer to get things
done.
It was with this mentality that WGA Chair and Hawai`i Governor
David Ige launched the Western Governors' Biosecurity and Invasive
Species Initiative. The Initiative has mobilized Western Governors to
leverage their influence and resources to more aggressively confront
the scourge of invasive species. The impacts of invasive species in the
West are as pervasive as they are under-reported. The spread of noxious
weeds threatens ranching communities and fuels wildfires. Invasive
species can radically alter habitat, compounding threats to wildlife
and endangering species. The competition that non-native species pose
to native game impacts hunting and fishing. Industries across the
West--including agriculture, forestry and tourism--are struggling to
eradicate, contain and mitigate the insidious impacts of these
invaders.
Governor Ige's Initiative builds on a significant body of work
executed by the Association in recent years. In 2016, for example,
Western Governors formed the WGA Invasive Species Advisory Group, which
provides technical assistance to inform our work on this critical
issue. In the last year, the Association conducted the WGA Invasive
Species Data Management Workshop, which produced new regional guidance
for the interagency exchange of invasive species occurrence data. In
2018, WGA published a compendium of the Top 50 Invasive Species in the
West, a first-of-its-kind regional invasive species prioritization
tool. And we continue to work collaboratively with the Department of
the Interior to combat the spread of invasive quagga and zebra mussels
in the West.
The Western Governors' Biosecurity and Invasive Species Initiative
represents an even greater commitment of resources and attention to
this issue and these ongoing efforts. This report--which communicates
specific recommendations and distills information generated by
Initiative workshops, webinars and other channels--will help guide
WGA's work on invasive species for years to come.
Thank you for your consideration of the report's findings and for
your interest in the work of Western Governors.
Appreciatively,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Jim Ogsbury,
WGA Executive Director.
Executive Summary
The spread of invasive and non-native species affects nearly every
aspect of life in the West. As invading species replace native plants
and wildlife, the ecosystems, economies and communities that depend on
the West's natural resources are damaged and diminished, sometimes
permanently. Improving biosecurity and invasive species management
practices is essential to protecting the West from new invading
species, reducing the effects of established species, and restoring the
region's working lands and native ecosystems.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hawai`i Governor David Ige launched the Biosecurity and
Invasive Species Initiative as his central policy effort as WGA
Chair.
Hawai`i Governor David Ige, Chair of the Western Governors'
Association, launched the Biosecurity and Invasive Species Initiative
in July 2018 in response to this challenge. The Initiative focuses on
the impacts that nuisance species, pests and pathogens have on
ecosystems, forests, rangelands, watersheds and infrastructure in the
West, and examines the role that biosecurity plays in addressing these
risks.
The Biosecurity and Invasive Species Initiative commenced with an
exploration of these issues through workshops hosted by Western
Governors Brian Sandoval in Nevada, Matt Mead in Wyoming, Steve Bullock
in Montana, and David Ige in Hawai`i. The workshops, which were live-
streamed to reach the widest possible audience, assembled leaders in
biosecurity and invasive species management to discuss the challenges
that invasive species pose to the West and identify opportunities for
Western Governors to address those challenges.
The workshops were followed by webinars that examined discrete
issues surrounding invasive species management and control. Webinars
examined several topics, including the effects of invasive species on
fisheries, the role of conservation districts in invasive species
management, and impacts of invasive species on Pacific Islands forests
and ecosystems.
This report presents the findings of the Initiative and recommends
actions Governors can take to achieve the following goals:
Protect the West from the introduction of new invasive species
through enhanced biosecurity practices, preparedness, and planning.
State and Federal agencies should develop state and regional level
biosecurity plans and utilize new and emerging biosecurity
technologies. A regional biocontrol research center should be
established, and interagency collaboration on biocontrol research,
permitting, and utilization should be improved and streamlined.
Improve cross-boundary collaboration and coordination for the
management of established and emerging invasive species. State, Federal
and local agencies should strengthen existing invasive species
coordination mechanisms and build new collaborative structures to
improve invasive species management at a regional scale, including a
new Western Invasive Species Council. Rapid response practices can be
enhanced by expanding the use of the Incident Command System,
conducting regular practice exercises, and establishing a Federal
center dedicated to biosecurity and invasive species management.
Empower state and Federal agencies to manage invasive species by
aligning Federal laws, regulations, and funding mechanisms with states'
needs. State and Federal agencies should have the funding and
authorities necessary to effectively manage established and emerging
species. Federal statutes and regulations should be structured to
provide states greater flexibility with respect to invasive species
funding, permitting, and rapid response. Federal regulations should
reflect the broad diversity of habitat types and uses in the West.
Where necessary, Federal law should make provisions to effectively
protect all states, whether their habitats include arctic tundra,
rangeland, or tropical forests.
Support and utilize biosecurity research, technology and planning
tools. Research and innovation are essential components of invasive
species management in the West. State and Federal agencies should
identify and seize opportunities to pool research funds, coordinate the
employment of new technology, and develop new monitoring, analytical,
and decision-making tools. Enhanced use of electronic manifesting for
commodity shipments, detector dogs, in-water vessel cleaning, and other
tools can increase our effectiveness in mitigating invasive species
impacts.
Standardize and mobilize invasive species data. Invasive species
managers need access to accurate regional invasive species occurrence
data to address invasive species at a landscape scale. However,
technological barriers often prevent large amounts of useful invasive
species occurrence data from being shared. As part of the Initiative,
Western Governors will lead an effort to improve the mechanisms by
which interagency invasive species data are standardized, stored and
exchanged in the West.
The Western Governors' Biosecurity and Invasive Species Initiative
has provided a valuable regional forum to examine one of the most
pressing natural resource issues in the West. The following report
describes WGA's invasive species work in greater detail and will guide
the Association's ongoing efforts.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Initiative workshops were hosted by, from top, Western
Governors Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Matt Mead of Wyoming and
Steve Bullock of Montana.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Background
The effects of invasive species on life in the West are as broad
and diverse as the region itself. Nearly every acre of land and body of
water is either host to an invading pest or pathogen or at risk of
being invaded. The impacts of these invaders are sometimes easily
overlooked; at other times they are clear, inescapable and devastating.
Invasive species cause substantial cumulative harm to the West's
natural and built environments, as well as to the communities and
economies that depend upon those environments.
Global economic losses caused by biological invaders were estimated
at more than $1.4 trillion as far back as 2002.\1\ Another study
highlighted that, in the U.S., nearly 50,000 foreign species were
responsible for $120 billion in major environmental damages and losses
annually.\2\ This estimate represents economic losses from
environmental damages only; it does not capture substantial control
costs or public health impacts. As much as \1/4\ of the U.S.
agricultural gross national product is lost due to foreign pests \3\
and as much as 42 percent of the species on threatened or endangered
species lists are at risk primarily because of alien invasive
species.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pimentel, D., McNair, S., Janecka, J., Wightman, J., Simmonds,
C., O'Connell, C., . . . & Tsomondo, T. (2001). Economic and
environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 84(1), 1-20.
\2\ Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., & Morrison, D. (2005). Update on the
environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species
in the United States. Ecological economics, 52(3), 273-288.
\3\ Simberloff, D. (1996). Impacts of introduced species in the
United States. Consequences, 2(2), 13-22.
\4\ Wilcove, D.S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A., & Losos,
E. (1998). Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United
States. BioScience, 48(8), 607-615.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These estimates, however, may not fully reflect the toll of
invasive species. Quantifying the effects of invasive species can be
challenging because of the complexities of modern economies and the
difficulty of monetizing biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits.
Not only do invasive species impact local resources, they can combine
with other environmental stressors, such as drought or climate change,
to further diminish native ecosystems. These factors contribute to a
lack of up-to-date regional-level economic impact studies and risk
assessments, an information gap that can hamper land managers' ability
to incorporate invasive species impacts into management decisions.
Some invasive species infestations have grown to such an extent
that they fundamentally change the landscape. For more than a century,
for example, invasive cheatgrass has spread throughout the West. It is
now present in every western state and, in some places, has permanently
altered ecosystems. As little as one percent of cheatgrass groundcover
can double the wildfire risk in an area; by some estimates cheatgrass
covers more than 15 percent of the ground in 31 percent of the Great
Basin.\5\ These conditions contributed to the 2018 Martin Fire, which,
at more than 435,000 acres, was the largest wildfire in Nevada's
history. In addition to increasing wildfire risk, cheatgrass reduces
forage, outcompetes native vegetation, and diminishes habitat for
native wildlife, including the greater sage-grouse. In Hawai`i,
watershed forests are threatened by plants including Himalayan ginger,
strawberry guava, and miconia. Miconia alone is estimated to cause
roughly $700M in damage annually to Hawai`i's forests.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Bradley, B.A., Curtis, C.A., Fusco, E.J., Abatzoglou, J.T.,
Balch, J.K., Dadashi, S., & Tuanmu, M.N. (2018). Cheatgrass (Bromus
tectorum) distribution in the intermountain Western United States and
its relationship to fire frequency, seasonality, and ignitions.
Biological invasions, 20(6), 1493-1506.
\6\ Burnett, K., Kaiser, B., & Roumasset, J. (2007). Economic
lessons from control efforts for an invasive species: Miconia
calvescens in Hawaii. Journal of Forest Economics, 13(2-3), 151-167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatic invasive species, such as quagga and zebra mussels, can
pose similar landscape-level threats. These invasive mussels arrived in
North America in the 1980s, and have since spread to nearly every major
waterway in the U.S. They have caused substantial damage to water
delivery systems, hydroelectric facilities, agriculture, recreational
boating and fishing, and native wildlife. Once established in a
waterbody the mussels are expensive to control and virtually impossible
to eradicate. The damage to North American power plants and municipal
drinking water systems can reach as high as $1 billion per year.\7\ If
the mussels spread to the Columbia River Basin--the last major
uninfested water system in the continental U.S.--the control costs in
the Basin alone could reach $500 million annually.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Connelly, N.A., O'Neill, C.R., Knuth, B.A., & Brown, T.L.
(2007). Economic impacts of zebra mussels on drinking water treatment
and electric power generation facilities. Environmental Management,
40(1), 105-112; Pimentel, D. (2005). Aquatic nuisance species in the
New York State Canal and Hudson River systems and the Great Lakes
Basin: an economic and environmental assessment. Environmental
Management, 35(5), 692-702.
\8\ https://www.nwcouncil.org/fish-and-wildlife/fw-independent-
advisory-committees/independent-economic-advisory-board/economic-risk-
associated-with-the-potential-establishment-of-zebra-and-quagga-
mussels-in-the-columbia-river-basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many other pests and pathogens continue to harm western
communities.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A shoe encrusted with invasive mussels vividly illustrates
the impact of the rapidly spreading invasive species.
Since it first emerged in the U.S. in 1999, West Nile virus has
infected at least 17,737 people and caused 1,654 deaths.\9\ Chronic
wasting disease, an emerging infectious disease that is fatal to free-
ranging and captive deer and elk, has been discovered in 24 states and
continues to spread.\10\ In Hawai`i, invasive fungal pathogens are
resulting in Rapid `Ohi`a Death, a vast die-off of endemic `Ohi`a trees
that are crucial to Hawai`i's ecosystems and culture. The emerald ash
borer has killed hundreds of millions of ash trees in North America and
has caused lasting damage to native and urban forests since 2002.\11\
In Guam, the coconut rhinoceros beetle caused the native fadang tree,
once the most abundant tree in Guam's forest, to be placed on the
endangered species list in 2015.\12\ The beetle was detected in Hawai`i
in 2013 in the area around Pearl Harbor and has been contained to that
area thus far. The beetle is now threatening the native coconut palm, a
tree central to the environment, economy, and culture of Guam, Hawai`i
and other Pacific Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Barrett, A.D. (2014). Economic burden of West Nile virus in the
United States. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene,
90(3), 389.
\10\ Carlson, C.M., Hopkins, M.C., Nguyen, N.T., Richards, B.J.,
Walsh, D.P., & Walter, W.D. (2018). Chronic Wasting Disease: Status,
Science, and Management Support by the U.S. Geological Survey. U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
\11\ http://www.emeraldashborer.info/.
\12\ https://cnas-re.uog.edu/crb/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This short list is merely illustrative of the harm that invasive
species are causing in the region.
In the West, biosecurity and invasive species management are the
responsibility of a large network of state and Federal agencies, as
well as stakeholders that include industry, nonprofit organizations and
conservation groups, private landowners and private citizens. Each of
these entities operates under a different set of laws, regulations, and
authorities. Their capacities vary, as do their incentives, interests
and objectives. Such a diverse network offers opportunities to
implement creative and flexible biosecurity and invasive species
management practices, but its decentralized nature creates challenges
in developing and implementing sophisticated regional management
strategies.
It is with these challenges in mind that WGA Chairman Hawai`i
Governor David Ige launched the Biosecurity and Invasive Species
Initiative. Hawai`i is often called ``the invasive species capital of
the world,'' not only because of the threats that invasive species pose
to its native ecosystems, but also due to the groundbreaking and
innovative work the state is undertaking to confront these threats.
With the Initiative, WGA has drawn on Hawai`i's experience and
harnessed Western Governors' unique ability to assemble state and
Federal experts and a broad group of stakeholders to foster a
bipartisan dialogue to improve regional coordination and collaboration
to protect the West from invasive species.
Through workshops, webinars, surveys and ongoing dialogue with
stakeholders, Western Governors have made genuine progress on this
formidable challenge. The Initiative has produced a new set of
recommendations, best practices, technical tools, and collaborative
frameworks to confront this pressing environmental issue and help
preserve the West's natural heritage and resource economies for
generations to come.
Findings and Recommendations
The Western Governors' Biosecurity and Invasive Species Initiative
assembled a wide variety of stakeholders over the past year to find new
solutions to one of the oldest and most challenging environmental
issues in the West. Surveys, workshops and a webinar series elicited a
diverse set of perspectives from Federal, state, local and Tribal
governments, researchers, higher education, industry, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and conservation groups, private landowners and
citizens.
The comments, perspectives and opinions expressed by these
stakeholders have been synthesized into these findings and
recommendations, which are organized into key recommendations. Each
recommendation includes steps that Governors, Congress, Federal
agencies, and regional coordinating groups might take to improve
biosecurity and invasive species management practices in the West. Also
included are case studies highlighting specific invasive species and
their associated management challenges and opportunities.
Recommendation: Protect the West from the introduction of new
invasive species through enhanced biosecurity practices, preparedness
and planning.
Biosecurity is the most cost-effective method of invasive species
control. Stopping new invading species before they are introduced not
only prevents any impacts on economic activities, it also protects
natural resources and human health. Federal, state, Tribal and local
agencies, as well as industry and private landowners, work diligently
throughout the West to prevent the introduction of new invasive
species. While many of these biosecurity programs work effectively,
there is often a lack of communication between state, Federal, and
local program managers, as well as a lack of regional interagency
coordination. Biosecurity managers in the West should develop state and
regional biosecurity plans, improve coordination and increase
collaborative funding on biosecurity and biocontrol research projects,
and increase the development and implementation of new biosecurity
technologies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biosecurity
The set of measures taken to manage the risk from invasive
species to economies, environments, and health and quality of life
for citizens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve regional biosecurity planning. In January 2017, the Hawai`i
Invasive Species Council adopted the Hawai`i Interagency Biosecurity
Plan: 2017-2027. This plan provides state agencies in Hawai`i with a
coordinated path forward to increase support for local agriculture,
protect the state's environment, and provide safeguards for the health
and lifestyle of Hawai`i's people.
Other western states should consider following the Hawai`i model by
developing state-level biosecurity plans. These plans could be used as
the foundation to develop a first-of-its-kind biosecurity plan for the
western region. Such a plan could help further prevent movement of
invasive species by standardizing and regularizing biosecurity
practices between state, Federal and local governments in the West.
Increase international collaboration. The Initiative demonstrated
that effective communication and collaboration of biosecurity and
invasive species management across administrative boundaries is an
evolving process. Cross-boundary communication presents a challenge to
Federal, state and local agencies, but the challenge is even greater
for international collaboration to address invasive species.
State and Federal agencies should examine how they collaborate
internationally on biosecurity and invasive species management issues
and, when possible, consider developing formal and enduring agreements
and communication structures with other countries. Improved
international coordination on biosecurity and invasive species
management has the potential to increase the effectiveness of
monitoring, early detection and rapid response, and control and
eradication programs.
Create regional reciprocity between states for U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) baggage inspections. USDA regulation of interstate
movement of airline baggage is focused on the protection of
agricultural industries in the contiguous United States. This is
particularly evident in Hawai`i, where baggage destined for the U.S.
mainland is subject to Federal inspection, while baggage moving from
the mainland to Hawai`i is not. Agricultural industries in the Pacific
Islands need to be similarly protected from the risk of interstate
movement of invasive species. USDA quarantines and airline baggage
inspections should incorporate the priorities of non-contiguous states
and territorial islands in the western region. This includes
maintaining Federal quarantines on pests (such as the emerald ash
borer) that have not yet reached the West, and adopting policies that
adequately protect Pacific states and territories, such as inspection
of baggage moving from the contiguous U.S. to noncontiguous areas.
Workshop
The Prevention, Control, and Management of Established Species
Lake Tahoe, Nevada (Sept. 17-18, 2018)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval noted in his keynote that invasive
species ``can interrupt the very social fabric of the West.''
The Biosecurity and Invasive Species Initiative workshop
series kicked off on the shores of Lake Tahoe in Stateline,
Nevada. The workshop focused on cross-boundary collaboration
and efforts to control, manage, and eradicate established
invasive species in Lake Tahoe and throughout the region.
Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval delivered a keynote in which
he reminded the audience of what is at stake in the fight
against invasive species, asserting that ``Invasive species
impact nearly every economic sector that depends upon western
working lands, and by doing so they can interrupt the very
social fabric of the West.'' The Governor added that ``invasive
species are an underlying cause of many challenges in the West,
including the record 2018 wildfire in Nevada that swept across
439,000 acres, in many cases fueled by invasive cheatgrass.
That area will now be an area where invasive species will
flourish again.''
WGA Executive Director Jim Ogsbury also spoke and highlighted
how ``Western Governors are using their convening power and
energy to confront the scourge of invasive species. The impacts
of invasive species in the West are as pervasive as they are
underreported.''
The keynotes were augmented by a series of roundtables over 2
days moderated by California Secretary for Natural Resources
John Laird. Panelists from state and Federal agencies,
nonprofits, industry, and academia discussed issues such as:
the relationship between invasive species, wildfire, and
vegetation management; the economic impacts of invasive species
and tourism; and the implementation of new research and
technology in invasive species management.
Increase use of innovative biosecurity prevention and detection
programs. Western states should invest in tools and technology that
increase the likelihood of interception and bolster the efforts of
limited personnel. The use of electronic manifesting for imported goods
allows agricultural inspectors to focus on those commodities designated
as high-risk for carrying invasive species. Similarly, the use of
detection dogs can greatly enhance interdiction efforts. A pre-
departure detection dog program for brown tree snakes on Guam, managed
by USDA Wildlife Services, has saved Hawai`i and the mainland U.S.
billions of dollars in damages and can serve as a model for the
interdiction of other invasive species.
Enhance regional biocontrol coordination. Biological control
(biocontrol) can be an important component of invasive species control
and integrated pest management strategies. Effective biological control
is only possible through thorough and deliberate research, as well as
effective interstate and Federal-state communication and collaboration.
Federal decisions related to the use of biocontrol should only be made
after Federal agencies engage in substantive consultation with
implementing state agencies. The effectiveness and utilization of this
important management tool could be improved by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biological Control (biocontrol) is the reduction of pest
populations by natural enemies (predators, parasites or diseases).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creating a regional biocontrol research center. For invasive
species that have established beyond land managers' ability to
conduct manual removal, biological control represents the most
cost-effective, and often only, option for large-scale
mitigation of invasive species. Invasive species do not
recognize state boundaries, and neither should research and
control efforts. Invasive species managers in the West would
benefit from the creation of a new, state-of-the-art biological
control facility, as well as a collaborative, multi-agency plan
for maintaining and staffing new biocontrol facilities at a
level that more adequately meets the expanding needs of the
region.
Establishing an interagency working group to improve
coordination and increase information exchange for biocontrol
research, permitting and utilization. As part of the Western
Invasive Species Council (see below), Western Governors will
convene a working group to explore the status of biological
control research, permitting and utilization in the West. This
working group comprised of representatives from state and
Federal agencies, academia, and private industry will examine
how stakeholders can better work together to promote the
development and utilization of safe and effective biocontrol
methods. The working group will also examine how biological
control actions are permitted by Federal agencies and how
states can exercise a more active role in permitting decisions.
Recommendation: Improve cross-boundary collaboration and
coordination for the management of established and emerging invasive
species in the West.
The management of emerging and established invasive species is
conducted by a large network of public agencies, industry, private
entities and NGOs. These entities often work to manage, control or
eradicate invasive species for the benefit of specific resources such
as wildlife, grazing, water, or hazardous fuel reduction. Many invasive
species managers are also restricted, either by statute or by habit, to
only implementing invasive species management at the level of their
districts, management units, or specific area of geographic
responsibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 13112 ``invasive species'' means ``with regard
to a particular ecosystem, a non-native organism whose introduction
causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm
to human, animal, or plant health. States may have different
definitions, as well as regulatory and non-regulatory terms that
are related to but not synonymous with the term, including pests,
noxious weeds and injurious wildlife.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasive species are often not viewed as the cross-cutting,
interdisciplinary resource threat that they truly are. States, Federal
agencies, regional coordinating groups, and local invasive species
managers should manage invasive species at a regional level by
improving formal invasive species management coordination mechanisms
and developing new and innovative ways to address key aquatic and
terrestrial species. They also should utilize existing innovative tools
for cross boundary management, such as Good Neighbor Authority and the
Incident Command System.
State and Federal invasive species managers would benefit from the
creation of new coordination mechanisms for invasive species policy
development, as well as the planning, implementation, and monitoring of
regional management actions. To this end, the following coordination
instruments should be created:
Western Invasive Species Council: State invasive species councils
and invasive plant councils provide policy level direction, planning
and coordination for state-level biosecurity and invasive species
prevention and management actions in the West. Councils are led by
state agencies, nonprofit organizations, industry, private landowners,
and public-private partnerships. These groups empower those engaged in
the prevention, detection, and eradication of invasive species, and
serve as forums for invasive species education, communication, and
strategic planning. Invasive species councils collaborate on regional-
level issues and benefit from mechanisms that help coordinate and solve
cross-boundary, cross-jurisdictional challenges.
Western Governors support the creation of a Western Invasive
Species Council (WISC) to enhance coordination among existing state
invasive species councils, improve communication and collaboration on
regional biosecurity and invasive species control efforts, and to
advocate for regional needs at the Federal level. The Council should
initially be coordinated through the WGA and work to address cross-
boundary and cross-jurisdictional challenges identified through the
Initiative.
A National Biosecurity and Invasive Species Management Center to
streamline and centralize Federal invasive species management:
Throughout the Initiative, stakeholders often compared the threats
posed by invasive species to the threats posed by wildfire. Like
wildfire, invasive species move rapidly once established, can have
devastating effects on landscapes and communities, negatively affect
public health, and require a sophisticated response from a wide variety
of Federal, state and local agencies. Although invasive species present
a landscape-level threat comparable to wildfire in terms of scope,
scale and economic impact, Federal coordination mechanisms for
biosecurity and invasive species management receive only a fraction of
the Federal funding of wildfire coordination.
Workshop
WGA Working Lands Roundtable: Invasive Species and Restoration
Cheyenne, Wyoming (Oct. 11-12, 2018)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Working Lands Roundtable attracted regional experts such
as Bob Budd of the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust.
The Initiative's second workshop was conducted as part of
WGA's Working Lands Roundtable, an effort to examine
crosscutting policy issues and engage a broad coalition of
stakeholders to advance WGA Chair Initiatives and other policy
priorities. The focus of the event in Cheyenne, Wyoming was on
efforts to restore western lands after invasive species
infestations have been controlled and eradicated.
In his opening remarks, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead encouraged
participants to work within the WGA framework, which ``is
sincere about finding solutions and doing it in a bipartisan
way.'' He reminded attendees ``you are sitting here today
involved in a process that will work through the Western
Governors and have potential for change in Congress. Time here
is well spent because it can make a difference. This is a place
where answers can be found. This is not a place where
bipartisanship is just a talking point.''
USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
Jim Hubbard participated in a panel on Restoration Challenges
in Fire-affected Landscapes. Hubbard observed how collaboration
with states is a central component of the new USDA Shared
Stewardship Initiative. ``The Shared Stewardship notion is that
the Forest Service is going to sit down with states through
Governors' offices and see what our shared priorities are.''
The goal ``is to have a discussion about where to make
investments and, as much as possible, have mutual priorities''
for active management of western forests and rangelands.
The event also included a discussion on best practices and
policy tools to help restore native western ecosystems and
working lands after invasive species infestations. Additional
panels examined rangeland restoration, post-fire restoration,
and livestock and wildlife disease management.
The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise, Idaho,
coordinates wildfire response throughout the U.S. Through NIFC,
Federal, state and local agencies develop regional wildfire
preparedness strategies, coordinate wildfire response actions, and pool
intelligence gathering and predictive services.
To improve national interagency communication and collaboration on
biosecurity and invasive species management, a National Interagency
Biosecurity and Invasive Species Management Center should be created on
the model of NIFC. Such a center should act as a nerve center for
coordinating invasive species prevention, early detection and rapid
response, and eradication efforts. The center should house
representatives from all relevant Federal land management agencies, as
well as interested states, local, and Tribal agency representatives.
Develop new approaches to regional species. The spread of
cheatgrass and other invasive annual grasses has become a critical
threat to healthy western rangelands. These invaders fuel
uncharacteristic wildfire, harm watersheds, outcompete native
vegetation, and diminish wildlife habitat on a large scale. Similarly,
invasive quagga and zebra mussels fundamentally alter infested
waterbodies, diminishing water quality and quantity, imperiling native
species, and driving up the cost of boating, irrigation and
hydroelectric power generation. As an outcome of this initiative, WGA
will work with the Western Invasive Species Council to:
Work with state, Federal and private entities to identify
and implement cross-boundary projects to control invasive
annual grasses at a regional level. Such projects should
include those using alternative management techniques such as
outcome-based grazing.
Continue efforts to improve the interagency management of
invasive quagga and zebra mussels in the West by hosting a WGA
Invasive Mussels Leadership Forum. The goal of the forum will
be to collectively determine common interagency priorities for
the prevention and containment of invasive mussels in the West
and identify a shared interagency strategy to address these
priorities.
Utilize and expand the Incident Command System. The Incident
Command System (ICS) can be a powerful tool for rapid response to new
invasive species introductions. Federal, state and local agencies have
increasingly been using ICS for rapid response efforts. Utilization of
the system could be improved by the following practices:
Increasing state, Federal and local interagency preparedness
training exercises. The effective use of ICS depends upon
practice and preparedness training by emergency responders in
advance of incidents. State, Federal, local and Tribal agencies
can opt to practice and implement the ICS as part of rapid
response and strive to prepare for these responses through
increased interagency training and preparedness exercises.
Creating an aquatic invasive species (AIS) ICS module. To
improve and standardize interagency response to new invasive
species introductions, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) should work with states to develop a new ICS training
module for AIS rapid response.
Identify and expand use of Good Neighbor Authority. Good Neighbor
Authority (GNA) allows states to enter into cooperative agreements with
certain Federal agencies permitting them to perform various land
management activities on Federal lands. These tools have been
successfully used by forest and rangeland managers to achieve various
management objectives across Federal, state and local government, and
privately-owned lands. State and Federal invasive species managers
should learn from these successes and consider using GNA for cross-
boundary collaborative invasive species control, management and
eradication programs.
Utilize effective partnerships. Regional interagency stakeholder
groups are key to the success of biosecurity and invasive species
management in the West. When possible, policy-makers and invasive
species managers should rely on these groups' expertise and
collaborative frameworks.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hawai`i Gov. David Ige described his state's battle against
invasive species as not only the ``right thing'' to do but work
that makes ``economic sense.''
Recommendation: Empower state and Federal agencies to manage
invasive species.
State and local agencies--including conservation districts,
collaborative weed management areas, and collaborative invasive species
management areas--are key players in the fight against invasive
species. These institutions are the tip of the invasive species
response spear, providing the resources, local expertise, and on-the-
ground results necessary to control the spread of invasive species in
the West. These agencies not only manage invasive species on lands and
waters under their own jurisdiction, but also often provide direct and
indirect support to Federal invasive species management programs.
Whenever possible, Congress and the Executive Branch should support
the efforts of state and local groups. Federal agencies should
recognize the role these groups play in protecting Federal resources,
and Federal funding mechanisms should be structured so that these
groups have sustainable, predictable and flexible long-term funding for
invasive species management actions. Congress and the Executive Branch
should engage in early and substantive consultation on biosecurity and
invasive species management decisions that affect state resources.
Workshop
Early Detection and Rapid Response
Helena, Montana (Nov. 14, 2018)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rayola Jacobsen took part in the Montana workshop, which
included a focus on rapid respond to new infestations.
The third Initiative workshop focused on efforts to monitor
for the introduction of new invasive species and rapidly
respond once new infestations are detected. Panels at the event
in Helena, Montana, moderated by Invasive Species Action
Network Executive Director Leah Elwell, also examined topics
like regional collaborative groups for invasive mussel
containment, international coordination on feral swine
management, and the use of emerging environmental DNA
technologies.
In his keynote, Montana Governor Steve Bullock identified
invasive species and their associated impacts as one of the
``great environmental and economic threats to western
landscapes.''
``This is not a local problem, but a global problem, one that
can impact virtually every facet of natural resource
management,'' said Gov. Bullock. ``Fortunately, I think that
view is starting to change and it's one that we can continue to
broaden through WGA. Land managers, policy makers, and the
general public are really working to discuss the broad
implications of invasive species on the western landscape.''
WGA Executive Director Jim Ogsbury opened the workshop by
saying ``we are here to drive towards affirmative, positive
action. We are here to devise and lay the groundwork for
implementation of on-the-ground solutions to the scourge of
invasive species in the West. Because, as we have seen time and
again, no one is more capable than Western Governors to
approach land management challenges in a methodical, practical,
effective and bipartisan way.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of effective collaborative and cooperative invasive
species management programs include: the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation's Pulling Together Initiative; the Natural Resources
Conservation Service's Working Lands for Wildlife Program; the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
and interagency collaborative programs under the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) State and Private Forestry Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal agencies should also be provided with the full suite of
authorities necessary to control and contain the movement of invasive
species in lands and waters under their jurisdiction.
Provide necessary Federal authorities. The containment of invasive
quagga and zebra mussels at infested waters in the West depends on the
mutual effort of Federal, state and local agencies. Many state-led
containment programs benefit from Federal cooperation and funding;
state and Federal agencies should be encouraged to sustain and expand
these effective partnerships. However, to adequately protect the West
from the movement of aquatic invasive species, Federal agencies must
act as full partners in invasive species containment efforts and have
the funding and authorities necessary to contain invasive species
within lands and waters under their jurisdiction. To this end, Federal
agencies, including the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land
Management, should be vested with clear authority to manage watercraft
upon their departure from infested waterbodies under Federal
jurisdiction.
Consult with states on biosecurity decisions. Congress and Federal
agencies must ensure early and substantive consultation with states
regarding biosecurity and invasive species management decisions that
affect state resources, including:
Federal pest quarantine decisions can affect state
ecosystems, economies and public health. USDA's Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service should consider effects on
state resources and strive to engage with states in early and
substantive consultation when making pest quarantine decisions.
State and local agencies are leaders in on-the-ground
biosecurity and invasive species management. Federal funding,
cooperative agreements, grants, and procurement contracts for
state and local biosecurity and invasive species management
should be structured in a deliberate and transparent way that
provides for the greatest amount of flexibility and long-term
planning.
Review Federal biosecurity and invasive species statutes. Federal,
state and local invasive species managers need Federal laws that
support on-the-ground action to prevent, contain and control invasive
species. Western Governors encourage the Western Invasive Species
Council to lead a state review of Federal biosecurity and invasive
species statutes--including the Lacey Act, the National Invasive
Species Act, and the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act--to evaluate how they support on-the-ground management,
identify gaps in their application, and ensure their structure and
implementation addresses 21st century biosecurity and invasive species
challenges. Of particular interest: opportunities to expand the
taxonomic scope of the Lacey Act to benefit U.S. biosecurity.
Utilize cooperative agreements. Cooperative agreements, grants and
procurement contracts between Federal agencies and state and local
invasive species management authorities establish structured
partnerships for collaborative invasive species management. Cooperative
agreements lessen the burden on local Federal land managers, while
increasing the efficiency of invasive species management programs and
enabling local collaborative goal setting. Additionally, these
agreements simplify project-based contracting by using the authorities
of state and local government agencies. This can be extremely useful
where infestations extend across multiple landownerships or the
management objective is early detection and rapid response.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Springer Kaye of the Big Island Invasive Species Committee
makes a point during a panel on Integrated Pest Management.
Federal agencies should be encouraged to expand the use of
cooperative agreements with state and local governments and ensure that
they are approved in a timely manner and in collaboration with
implementing agencies. Federal agencies can also support invasive
species management efforts by encouraging contract recipients to
coordinate with state and local invasive species management agencies,
regulatory programs, and cooperative weed and invasive species
management areas.
Provide collaborative and flexible funding. Formal and informal
collaborative efforts involving Federal, state, local and Tribal
governments, researchers, higher education, industry, NGOs,
conservation groups, and private landowners are a source of place-based
expertise and responsive invasive species management actions. Invasive
species managers should participate in inter-agency programs and
collaborations that include private landowners and implement cross-
boundary biosecurity invasive species management actions. Congress and
the Executive Branch should support these programs and ensure that they
benefit from long-term, stable and flexible funding that bolsters
state, local and private invasive species management efforts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau of Reclamation defines environmental DNA (eDNA) as
``DNA present in an environmental sample, as differentiated from
traditional sampling of DNA directly from an intact organism. eDNA
frequently is thought of as DNA in tissue and cells that have been
shed by an organism but can also refer to DNA within an intact
organism (usually microscopic), if that organism is collected in
the environmental sample. For eDNA analysis, samples are collected
from the environment and DNA is then extracted from the full sample
or some fraction of it.
eDNA assays allow surveillance for the presence of an organism
in an environment without having to collect the whole organism
itself . . . Because the purified eDNA is a mixture representing
multiple species and individuals present in the environment, this
technique can be used to detect a wide range of organisms,
including those that are endangered or invasive, and be used for
both research and monitoring purposes.'' (source: https://
www.usbr.gov/mussels/docs/eDNA.pdf)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workshop
Biosecurity and Agriculture
Kohala Coast, Hawai`i (Dec. 9-10, 2018)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Jules Kuo of the Hawai`i Department of Natural Resources took
part in the panel ``Pre-Border Detection and Prevention
Strategies.''
The Initiative's final workshop was held on the Kohala Coast
of Hawai`i. The event began with a field trip to the Pu`u
Wa`awa`a Forest Reserve, where participants learned about the
detrimental impacts that invasive species have on watersheds as
well as some of the ways that the Hawai`i Department of Lands
and Natural Resource is reducing those impacts through invasive
species removal, hazard fuel control, and native tree planting.
Hawai`i Gov. David Ige opened the workshop the next day by
highlighting his state's significant work to battle invasive
species as not only the ``right thing,'' but work that makes
``economic sense.''
The Governor observed that ``too often, we focus on managing
and eradicating invasive species once they are established.
However, it is more effective and cost-efficient to prevent
these harmful invaders from entering our lands in the first
place. That is why enhancing border biosecurity is a key
component to invasive species management.''
Panelists then participated in a discussion of pressing
issues related to biosecurity and invasive species management
in agriculture, with panels on pre-border prevention and
detection strategies, the economic impacts of invasive species
on agriculture, and the use of biocontrols.
Moderator John Laird, California Secretary for Natural
Resources, offered closing remarks reflecting on the Initiative
workshop series. ``One goal of the workshops has been to
broaden the conversation about invasive species, their impacts,
and the work being done to prevent their movement. By that
measure, I feel that these workshops have been an outstanding
success.'' Laird added: ``The work of preventing, controlling,
and eradicating invasive species will never end, and neither
will the work of improving the way that agencies collaborate to
address these risks.''
Coordinate state and Federal aquatic invasive species inspection,
decontamination and quarantine programs. Aquatic invasive species
coordination groups have worked with the National Sea Grant Law Center
(See [Case Study]) to develop a set of best practices for aquatic
invasive species containment. These efforts have improved interagency
communication and coordination on such containment in the West. Federal
agencies should work to promote and implement these best practices in
invasive species response efforts.
Support state-led rapid response programs. Prevention and
containment are the most effective methods to control the spread of
invasive species, particularly invasive quagga and zebra mussels. Once
a species is no longer contained, however, state-led rapid response
programs represent key efforts to control their spread. Congress and
the Executive Branch can support state-led rapid response programs by
taking the following steps:
Increasing Federal funding for state-led aquatic invasive
species rapid response programs, including those that provide
for flexible, long-term support of state early detection rapid
response efforts;
Streamlining Federal permitting and approval processes for
treatment and management actions for new mussel detections;
Creating a single Federal authority for aquatic invasive
species treatment permitting and approval in freshwater
systems;
Simplifying reporting on new invasive mussel infestations in
states by creating a single Federal point of contact for new
mussel detections.
Case Study
National Sea Grant Law Center
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
nsglc.olemiss.edu/.
The National Sea Grant Law Center at the University of
Mississippi School of Law is a nationally-recognized resource
for information on aquatic invasive species (AIS) laws and
policies. The Law Center has undertaken extensive research on
ballast water management in the Great Lakes and published
articles related to genetic biocontrol of invasive species and
the impact of climate change on marine invasions.
The Law Center began conducting dreissenid mussel law and
policy work in 2012. That year, Oregon Sea Grant, in
partnership with the Law Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance
Species, secured funding from the National Sea Grant College
Program to support a ``Collaborative Learning Workshop for
Assistant Attorneys General, Aquatic Invasive Species
Coordinators, and Law Enforcement Officials'' in Phoenix,
Arizona.
To enhance collaborative learning during the Phoenix
workshop, and to answer questions state agencies and AIS
Coordinators had about authorities for watercraft inspections,
decontaminations and quarantine, a team of Law Center staff and
law students identified key legal issues that needed to be
addressed in the region. Background papers were drafted for
workshop attendees, which were further developed into five
articles published in the Arizona Journal of Environmental Law
and Policy. The law review articles covered a range of topics
including the Lacey Act, 4th Amendment search and seizure
issues, and state privacy laws.
Following the Phoenix workshop, the Law Center, in
collaboration with the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies (AFWA), led efforts to develop a model legal framework
for watercraft inspection and decontamination (WID) programs.
In April 2014, the Law Center and the AFWA released
``Preventing the Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species by
Recreational Boats: Model Legislative Provisions & Guidance to
Promote Reciprocity among State Watercraft Inspection and
Decontamination Programs.'' The ``Model Regulation for State
Watercraft and Inspection Programs'' was released in December
2016 and the ``Model Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] for
Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Programs'' in
December 2018. With the publication of the Model MOU,
policymakers and regulators now have access to a model legal
framework identifying model WID provisions from legislation
through implementation.
To assist state natural resource managers and policy-makers
in identifying commonalties, differences, and gaps among
states, the Law Center undertook a review of each state's WID
laws and regulations to see how each state's program compared
to the authorities set forth in the Model State Legislative
Provisions and Model Regulation. This companion report, updated
in December 2018, contains a summary of the Law Center findings
for all 50 states and detailed state-by-state comparisons for
the 19 states with WID programs. This analysis has provided
crucial information in support of state legal reform efforts to
address identified gaps. In 2017, for example, 12 states and
the Tahoe Regional Planning Commission engaged in legal reform
efforts related to their WID programs.
To support this policy work, the Law Center conducts
extensive legal research and provides technical assistance to
western state partners. The Law Center maintains a compilation
of AIS laws and regulations relevant to WID programs in the
western United States. The Law Center prepares summary
documents to inform legal reform efforts upon request. For
example, in July 2016, the Law Center prepared a memo on state
``Clean, Drain, and Dry'' provisions and related requirements
to inform discussions of the Western Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA), which subsequently led to WAFWA
adopting a resolution on drain plugs and vegetation removal.
The Law Center also conducts and publishes scholarly research
related to invasive species. In addition to the law review
articles mentioned above, in 2016, Law Center attorneys
authored a law review article entitled ``Working Together to
Combat Invasive Species Threats: Strategies for Facilitating
Cooperation between the National Park Service and the States.''
This article was included in a special issue of the Natural
Resources Journal commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the
National Park Service. In 2014, the Law Center director
contributed a chapter in Climate Change Impacts on Ocean and
Coastal Law: U.S. and International Perspectives entitled
``Confronting the Marine Invasive Species Threat: Practical and
Legal Challenges.''
Work collaboratively with states to implement the Vessel Incidental
Discharge Act. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection
Agency should consult with Western Governors and states on
implementation of the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act to ensure aquatic
resource protection needs are met across the West and the Pacific.
Federal and state partners should collaborate on the development of
evidence-based risk assessments and assess the efficacy of policies and
tools to mitigate the impact of various discharges, including hull
biofouling. Protecting marine habitats in western states and Pacific
territories is best accomplished by working with states that have the
greatest knowledge of their ecosystems and invasive risks.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
WGA Executive Director Jim Ogsbury highlighted the Western
Governors' collaboration to ``confront the scourge of invasive
species.''
Recommendation: Support and utilize new biosecurity research,
technology and planning tools.
Research and technology development are essential components of
biosecurity and invasive species management. Emerging technologies may
lead to solutions for some of the West's most intractable challenges.
By utilizing new research, technology and planning tools, invasive
species managers can dramatically increase the effectiveness and cost-
efficiency of invasive species management actions.
State and Federal agencies can support biosecurity and invasive
species research by encouraging invasive species workforce development,
pooling research funding, and improving biocontrol information
exchange. Invasive species managers can implement new research and
technology by encouraging the development of modeling, risk-assessment
and decision-making tools, as well as improved regional invasive
species economic impact analyses.
Improve and utilize environmental DNA monitoring. Monitoring
environmental DNA (eDNA) can be an effective tool to assess new aquatic
invasive species introductions. State, Federal and local agencies and
regional coordinating groups should develop and implement a set of best
practices for conducting eDNA monitoring and incorporating positive
detection results into rapid response strategies.
Encourage biosecurity and invasive species education and workforce
development. Effective biosecurity and invasive species management
depends on a dedicated and highly-skilled workforce. State and Federal
agencies should collaborate with universities to support programs
essential to biosecurity and invasive species management, such as
botany, zoology, plant pathology, taxonomy, and systematics.
Take advantage of new research and technology. Emerging research
and technology can dramatically increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of biosecurity and invasive species management actions.
When possible, state and Federal agencies should evaluate and utilize
emerging technologies in areas such as remote sensing and monitoring,
unmanned aircraft, use of artificial intelligence for species
identification, and the use of innovative targeted grazing practices.
Congress should continue to support research as a fundamental component
of effective invasive species management.
Pool research funding. Institutions conducting research on
biosecurity, biocontrol and invasive species control methods should
look for opportunities to pool funding resources and exchange
information across administrative lines. By pooling resources, state,
Federal and private researchers can decrease redundancy and increase
the efficiency of research funding. Pests and pathogens that affect
wildlife at a regional scale, such as chronic wasting disease and elk
hoof disease, present unique threats to western resources that would
benefit from pooled resources and collaborative research efforts.
Encourage the development and use of decision-making tools.
Biosecurity and invasive species decision-making tools help land
managers examine invasive species management issues at a regional level
and make sound, science-based decisions. Examples of these tools
include risk-assessments, modeling programs, and prioritization tools
such as the WGA Top 50 Invasive Species in the West.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
WGA Top 50 Invasive Species in the West. Individual states have
developed invasive species risk assessments within their
boundaries, but previously no such list existed for the entire
western region. WGA surveyed invasive species coordinators in its
member states and territories to develop the ``Top 50 Invasive
Species in the West,'' a first-ever regional prioritization tool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasive species managers and policymakers should be encouraged to
develop new decision-making tools, as well as build and improve upon
the decision-making tools now in use. Invasive species managers should
strive to incorporate regional-level, science-based decision-making
tools into management decisions.
Develop and utilize economic assessments. The costs associated with
invasive species management, both in terms of lost economic activity
and control costs, are substantial but often poorly understood.
Biosecurity and invasive species managers need to understand these
costs in order to develop effective prevention and control strategies.
Too few regional-level biosecurity and invasive species economic impact
studies exist, however, and existing analyses are often too
infrequently updated to reflect changing conditions.
State and Federal land managers should be encouraged to develop new
biosecurity and invasive species economic analysis tools and implement
these tools into management decisions. When possible, state and Federal
agencies should pool resources to develop regional-level invasive
species economic impact assessments.
Support National Institute of Food and Agriculture programs. The
USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) operates several
agricultural, biosecurity and biocontrol research programs that
facilitate state efforts to prevent the introduction of new invasive
species. The programs are focused on detection and diagnostics,
regulatory systems support, and development and deployment of new pest
management systems and protection technologies.
Among these programs are the Tactical Sciences Initiative, which
develops and deploys tools to protect food and agriculture production
systems against threats from pests, diseases, contaminants and
disasters. Congress and the Executive Branch should continue to support
and expand needed research on biosecurity and invasive species,
including work accomplished under NIFA such as the Tactical Sciences
Initiative.
Recommendation: Standardize and mobilize invasive species data.
High-quality information is essential in the fight against invasive
species in the West. Land managers, conservation groups, industry and
private landowners need access to accurate, up-to-date regional
invasive species occurrence data. Technological barriers often prevent
large amounts of useful invasive species occurrence data from being
shared. Western Governors are leading an effort to improve how
interagency invasive species data is standardized, stored and exchanged
in the West.
Standardize Invasive Species Data. On March 14-15, 2018, WGA held a
workshop that focused on the interagency management and exchange of
invasive species occurrence data in the West. The WGA Invasive Species
Data Management Workshop in Denver, Colorado, convened 27
representatives from state and Federal agencies, NGOs, industry, and
other groups. The goal of the workshop was to develop a set of
agreements to improve the reporting, exchange and utilization of
invasive species occurrence data by state and Federal agencies,
invasive species data aggregators, private landowners, industry, and
other stakeholders. The workshop outcomes were memorialized in the
workshop's Findings and Recommendations document.
Western Governors encourage all public and private invasive species
data managers to consider the findings and recommendations developed at
the WGA Invasive Species Data Management Workshop, and to record,
store, and exchange invasive species occurrence data using common
regional standards and formats whenever possible.
Mobilize Invasive Species Data. As an outcome of the Initiative,
Western Governors will lead a new ``Invasive Species Data Mobilization
Campaign'' to increase the availability of invasive species occurrence
data to all land managers in the West. Through the campaign, WGA will
work with Federal, state, local and Tribal governments, researchers,
higher education, industry, NGOs and conservation groups, private
landowners and citizens. The goal will be to encourage stakeholders to
enter data that is not recorded using a common standard or is not
shared or recorded using a common data aggregating platform into
existing invasive species data management platforms as described in the
Findings and Recommendations document.
Webinars
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Giant Salvinia.
Webinar: Biosecurity and Invasive Species Initiative Launch.
WGA Chair and Hawai`i Governor David Ige highlighted the importance
of invasive species management in the West and the Initiative's goals
and deliverables. WGA Policy Advisor Bill Whitacre then moderated a
discussion with leaders in invasive species data management that
showcased the outcomes of the WGA Invasive Species Data Management
Workshop, an effort to improve the interagency exchange of invasive
species occurrence data in the West.
Moderator: Bill Whitacre, WGA Policy Advisor. Panelists: Chuck
Bargeron, Associate Director for Invasive Species and Information
Technology, University of Georgia; Pam Fuller, Program Leader,
Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, USGS; Stinger Guala, Director
of Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation, USGS; Jamie Reaser,
Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council; Lori Scott,
Interim President & CEO, NatureServe.
Comments included:
``We've developed the Hawai`i Interagency Biosecurity Plan to
establish a path forward to a more secure future where Hawai`i
is better protected from new invasive species threats, and to
better mitigate our current threats.''
Governor David Ige.
``All invasive species management is local. When you start
telling the story about these problems, you need to make sure
that the data is available at a larger level in order to paint
an accurate picture of what the problem is and what the next
one might be.''
Chuck Bargeron.
``We try to provide the national view of aquatic species:
where they are, where they have been, and where they're moving.
We also keep track of pathway information. We are trying to
serve land managers with this information.''
Pam Fuller.
``BISON (Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation) is the
place to go for a geographically and taxonomically
comprehensive overview. That's why the data management piece is
important to us; we're trying to do national-scale views of
where the deepest problems are in invasive species.''
Stinger Guala.
``There's a step beyond just sharing the data. There's a
necessary collaboration around the development and open access
to the decision support tools that move the data in a direction
needed by decision-makers, whether in policy or land
management.''
Jamie Reaser.
``In building this integrated system, we're thinking about
data standards not only for moving data back and forth, but
moving data in a way that doesn't end up ballooning on
itself.''
Lori Scott.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Native salmon.
Webinar: Invasive Species Impacts on Fisheries.
Land managers and invasive species experts discussed the impacts of
invasive species on fisheries in the Pacific Northwest. Speakers from
Washington highlighted the management challenges related to northern
pike in the Columbia River Basin. Panelists also discussed the effects
of non-native predation of salmon in Alaska.
Moderator: Justin Bush, Executive Coordinator with the Washington
Invasive Species Council. Panelists: Joe Maroney, Director of Fishery
and Water Resources, Kalispel Tribe of Indians; Parker Bradley,
Invasive Species Research Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish & Game;
Laura Robinson, Program Liaison Coordinator, Northwest Power &
Conservation Council.
Comments included:
``Predation of northern pike has really wide-reaching
impacts. In the Columbia River Basin, over $1 billion has been
invested in salmon recovery over the last 2 decades. This
investment and the progress made towards recovery of those
species are directly threatened if northern pike continue to
spread downstream of the Columbia River and they begin to prey
on salmon and steelhead.''
Justin Bush.
``Managers local to the Columbia River Basin need to be
concerned about what they're going to do (about northern pike).
It's better to do something now than to do something later
because the costs associated will be significantly less.''
Joe Maroney.
``We have evidence that pike specifically target salmon. When
pike are introduced to a new area that also have salmon, often
they will target salmonids, and when those populations become
depleted or extirpated then they'll shift their diet over to
other species of fish . . . finally they'll move on to
invertebrates because that is all that is left.''
Parker Bradley.
``Working across jurisdictions allows for really wonderful
things like coordination and collaboration, but it can also
make reaching an agreement difficult. An invasive species in
one state could be a game fish in another.''
Laura Robinson.
Webinar: Conservation Districts and Invasive Species Management.
Representatives from conservation districts in Hawai`i, Oregon and
New Mexico discussed innovative, cross-boundary efforts to manage
invasive species. Panelists also highlighted how Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) programs and funding can facilitate
invasive species management on private land.
Moderator: Travis Thomason, Director Pacific Islands Area, NRCS.
Panelists: Mae Nakahata, Director, Maui County Soil and Water
Conservation District; Michelle Delepine, Invasive Species Program
Manager, West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District; Lindsey
Karr, WeedWise Specialist, Clackamas Soil and Water Conservation
District; Debbie Hughes, Executive Director, New Mexico Association of
Conservation Districts.
Comments included:
``I learned from experience that if I wanted to be successful
with any conservation program, whether it be Federal, state, or
local, it needed to be done hand-in-hand with conservation
districts.''
Travis Thomason.
``Conservation districts help provide immediate boots on the
ground who are aware of local risks. It is important to be able
to take immediate action when circumstances change.''
Mae Nakahata.
``Garlic mustard is considered an ecosystem modifier. It has
been documented to cause ecosystem imbalance where it becomes
established. It is a highly elastic plant that adapts easily to
different growing conditions and climate.''
Michelle Delepine.
``Conservation district partnerships can help address gaps in
management. Invasive weeds don't pay attention to property
lines. Public land managers will often treat a weed only for it
to be re-infested by a neighboring property on private land.
Conservation districts can step in and work with private
landowners to address this challenge.''
Lindsey Karr.
``Many of the ranches we work on are checkerboard ranches of
private, state and Federal land. Being able to use farm bill
funding on BLM and USFS land has made a huge difference in
being able to leverage resources and form partnerships.''
Debbie Hughes.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle.
Webinar: Innovative Approaches to Addressing Forest Health &
Invasive Species in the Pacific Islands.
Invasive species can have particularly devastating effects on
specialized island ecosystems and economies. Panelists discussed the
unique challenges related to invasive species prevention and control in
the U.S. Pacific Islands.
Moderator: Bill Whitacre, WGA Policy Advisor. Panelists: Susan
Cordell, Director, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, U.S. Forest
Service; Pua Michael, Head Forester, Division of Forestry, Palau Bureau
of Agriculture; DJ Sene, American Samoa Community College, Agriculture,
Community and Natural Resources Division; Chelsa Muna-Brecht, Director,
Guam Department of Agriculture.
Comments included:
``Many island species are highly endemic and have lost their
ability to compete with invasive species. These systems are
more vulnerable to invasion from the get-go. Once an invasive
species becomes established, it can create cascading effects
system-wide.''
Susan Cordell.
``Our Congress passed a `Green Fee,' which is a tax built
into the ticket price to come to Palau. The fund helps support
marine and terrestrial environments. The funds are working
really well, and we are now looking at ways to expand outside
of protected areas to prevent invasive species from entering
sensitive areas.''
Pua Michael.
``Increased funding would be a great help not just for more
personnel, but for additional training and workshops with our
sister islands and the U.S. mainland. Having other managers or
researchers visit American Samoa or other islands to share
knowledge and resources would help us to better tackle issues
together.''
DJ Sene.
``Our top three forest species from 2002 are now facing
annihilation from the Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle and Asian Cycad
Scale, two invasive species. You need to think about what
losing your top three species will do to your landscape, let
alone your ecosystem.''
Chelsa Muna-Brecht.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Emerald Ash Borer.
Webinar: Exploring the State-APHIS Relationship.
Panelists focused on how the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) collaborates with western states to prevent the spread
of invasive species. Participants from Hawai`i highlighted the role of
state authority in regulating the movement of pests and plants and
explored strategies to improve coordination between Federal and state
regulations. The discussion also included regulations affecting the
movement of forest pests in the West.
Moderator: Bill Whitacre, WGA Policy Advisor. Panelists: Andrea
Huberty, Director, Plant Health Programs, Plant Protection and
Quarantine, APHIS; Rob Hauff, State Protection Forester, Hawaii Dept.
of Land & Natural Resources; Jonathan Ho, Acting Manager, Plant
Quarantine Branch, Hawaii Dept. of Agriculture; Bob Simpson, President,
Greenwood Global Consulting.
Comments included:
``Through increased conversations between states and APHIS,
agencies have the opportunity to share what their capacities
and challenges are in managing biosecurity and pests, and model
an example for future efforts.''
Bill Whitacre.
``Our actions need to be based on risk, and we can only
implement the least drastic action that is feasible and
adequate to address that risk. We want to make sure we are only
stepping into states' issues when there is an extraordinary
emergency in front of us.''
Andrea Huberty.
``The preemption issue we have with the Plant Protection Act
is that it requires us to act at both the state and Federal
level if we are going to protect Hawaii from additional
invasions of this pest. Both require information to demonstrate
the potential damage caused by additional introductions. This
is an especially difficult issue when you're trying to protect
an endemic species that only exists on a remote archipelago.''
Rob Hauff.
``We are preempted from inspecting foreign commerce. Hawaii
has gotten a few pests that were not invasive in their native
range, but upon entering Hawai`i they became a pest. The state
has the ability to regulate things that aren't necessarily a
pest yet, but not necessarily through the Plant Protection
Act.''
Jonathan Ho.
``From European colonization to 1930, over 300 years, America
lost only two tree species to invasive species: the American
Chestnut and the American Elm. Loss of the Chestnut almost
decimated eastern forests. This led to near extinction of the
eastern black bear, turkey, and white-tailed deer. Today, 25%
of all trees greater than 1" in diameter have a great chance of
expiring by 2027 due to invasive species. This means that over
the next 50 years we are expected to lose over 20 tree
species.''
Bob Simpson.
Webinar: Species Distribution Modeling and Scenario Planning.
Decision support tools and scenario planning strategies can help
land managers plan for and react to uncertain future conditions.
Panelists discussed a collaborative effort between the U.S. Geological
Survey and National Park Service to develop species distribution models
for high-priority invasive plants. Panelists also reported on a
research project that pairs scenario planning with quantitative
modeling to explore potential effects of climate scenarios and
management alternatives on rangelands in South Dakota.
Moderator: Jeff Morisette, Science Coordinator with the National
Invasive Species Council Secretariat. Panelists: Terri Hogan, Invasive
Plant Program Manager, National Park Service; Catherine Jarnevich,
Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey; Greg Haubrich, Noxious Weed
Coordinator, Washington Department of Agriculture; and Brian Miller,
Research Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey.
Comments included:
``I want to look at the issue of private, state, and Federal
collaboration. People focus on where their mandate mission
takes them, which makes a lot of sense, but one of the
opportunities that WGA brings through these webinars and future
work is to leverage the work that is being done across those
various jurisdictions.''
Jeff Morisette.
``Land managers need tools to help make strategic decisions
about where to focus their limited resources to best address
invasive plant control.''
Terri Hogan.
``We used modeling to create maps where cheatgrass may
actually be on the landscape. The Forest Service was then able
to use the maps to first get funding, and then to guide aerial
herbicide application to try to control cheatgrass in the post-
burn landscape.''
Catherine Jarnevich.
``With the 23 major invasive species in Washington, if we had
let them expand to their potential, we would be looking at $1.3
billion in losses per year and loss of up to 8,000 jobs.''
Greg Haubrich.
``Something we're able to find with quantitative ecological
modeling is being able to identify some tradeoffs. For example,
having a lower density of livestock on a landscape may provide
a buffer in forage for dry years, but allows for increased
growth of cool-season exotic grasses.''
Brian Miller.
State Programs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Zebra Mussels. USFWS photo.
Colorado
Colorado has the largest mandatory watercraft inspection and
decontamination station network in the nation. The network prevents the
introduction of zebra and quagga mussels, as well as other aquatic
invasive species, into the nation's headwaters to protect natural
resources and the critical water storage and supply infrastructure
necessary for municipal, agricultural and industrial uses.
Following the detection of quagga mussels in Lake Mead more than a
decade ago, Colorado quickly implemented a multi-jurisdictional network
focused on halting the single largest pathway of invasive mussel
spread--recreational watercraft. Education is a cornerstone of the
invasive species program, but the state also requires professional
inspection and decontamination of all motorized or trailered watercraft
entering the state, and those that launch on high-risk waters.
Colorado's robust lake and reservoir sampling and monitoring
program exceeds regional standards for early detection monitoring.
While states without these kinds of networks continue to detect new
invasions of zebra or quagga mussels, Colorado has remained negative
for invasive mussel infestations.
The state also developed the Regional WID Data Sharing System, now
the main method of communication among inspection stations and
managers. The system is now performing watercraft inspection and
decontamination in ten western states, as well as for numerous local
governments, national parks, and private industry. It consists of a
mobile application for field personnel, a website for managers and a
shared database. The system, which sends out real time alerts when
infested watercraft are moving into uninfested waters, has directly
resulted in more interceptions preventing new invasions.
Colorado has additionally provided leadership by chairing the
Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, the main
coordinating body for western aquatic invasive species programs and is
focused on the multi-state implementation of the Quagga Zebra Action
Plan for Western Waters.
Hawai`i
The State of Hawai`i adopted its first interagency biosecurity plan
in 2017, presenting a comprehensive gap analysis of biosecurity
policies, personnel, and infrastructure alongside a 10 year
implementation plan of 147 action items to address gaps identified. The
Hawai`i model takes a broad view of biosecurity, examining needs in
pre-border risk mitigation, border interception, and post-border
detection and response.
Interagency Scope: The Hawai`i Interagency Biosecurity Plan (HIBP)
recognizes that dealing with invasive species is a team effort. Plan
development was led by the Hawai`i Department of Agriculture (HDOA) and
the Hawai`i Invasive Species Council (HISC), with input from the
Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Department of Health
(DOH), University of Hawai`i (UH), Department of Transportation (DOT)
and Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT).
Critically, plan development included several workshops for industry
representatives and members of the public, including farmers,
nurseries, air and sea transportation companies, and commodity
consolidators.
Gap Analysis: The HIBP identified a number of critical policy,
infrastructure, and capacity gaps in Hawai`i, including:
A need for new biocontrol research facilities for both
pathogens and insects;
A need for modern databases for import manifests, ballast
water inspections, and data collection to inform risk
assessments;
Policy gaps regarding the regulation of biofouling on vessel
hulls;
Adequate funds and standardized policies for emergency
response; [and]
The need for increased operating funds and staffing. While
Hawai`i's economy and visitor industry rebounded from the 2008
economic downturn, staff numbers at HDOA, DOH, and other
important agencies had not similarly rebounded from a reduction
in force.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Long-term Goals: The 2027 biosecurity vision described in the HIBP
would effectively protect Hawai`i's agriculture, natural resources,
economy, and way of life from the risks associated with invasive
species. Key components of biosecurity in 2027 include:
New state and Federal biocontrol laboratories, capable of
serving regional biocontrol needs;
Fully implemented electronic manifesting for incoming cargo,
allowing for commodity and pathway risk analyses built on
interception databases;
Transitional inspection facilities to allow biosecure
agricultural inspections away from busy port areas;
State policies on ballast water and biofouling allowing for
in-water cleaning and standardized reporting;
Emergency response plans and training based on Incident
Command Systems; [and]
Fully restored DOH Vector Control Branch, doubled capacity
for agricultural inspection and pest response.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Paper manifests for incoming cargo will soon be replaced with
electronic manifesting that speeds up import while more
effectively directing limited inspection resources. (photo:
HDOA).
Progress to Date: Agency staff provide status updates every 6
months on each of the 147 action items in the HIBP. By January of 2019
half of the action items in the plan had been initiated, primarily
those actions that could be completed with existing staff and funding.
Remaining years in the implementation window will focus on increasing
staff and enhancing facilities. To date:
DOH Vector Control Branch has been restored;
Additional positions provided to HDOA for import risk
assessments;
Electronic manifest and import database development in final
stages at HDOA;
UH has added a number of extension agents focusing on the
nursery industry;
Funds provided for biocontrol facility planning, detector
dog program restoration, and construction of ungulate exclusion
fences; [and]
Increased funding provided to HISC for interagency project
support. The HIBP and biannual progress reports are available
online at http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/hisc/plans/hibp/.
Montana
The Montana Invasive Species Council (MISC) identifies and
coordinates independent science advisory panels to inform state efforts
based on the current status, trends, and emerging technology related to
invasive species management.
Environmental DNA (eDNA) was identified as the first area for
further exploration, specific to invasive dreissenid mussels. The use
of eDNA to detect the presence of invasive mussel DNA in the
environment holds both promise and uncertainty. eDNA technology is
evolving rapidly and may in the future surpass traditional methods for
efficiency and confidence. However, natural resource managers across
the West have struggled with how best to utilize information provided
from eDNA results in real-time management applications as well as
having confidence in the method and results.
An international panel of six technical experts was assembled to
evaluate the value of eDNA for dreissenid mussel early detection and
provide guidance to managers regarding its use. The panel also
responded to questions related to the state of the science, sampling in
the field, lab analysis, interpreting results, and management
implications. A workshop attended by MISC members, stakeholders, and
partners provided an opportunity for discussion of those questions and
answers and for panelists to identify the challenges and formulate
recommendations for the use of eDNA.
Panelists agreed on a set of nine recommendations spanning areas
such as communications planning, confirmation of results, and
appropriate applications of eDNA. WRP has since formed a subcommittee
to address the panel recommendations.
Utah
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is working with the
Arizona Game and Fish Department and the National Park Service
at Lake Powell.
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) has worked
cooperatively with Arizona Game and Fish Department and the National
Park Service since 2013 to conduct watercraft inspection and
decontamination activities as part of a containment program for
invasive quagga mussels at Lake Powell.
The agencies reported in 2018 that they had inspected nearly 70,000
watercraft destined for other waterbodies, decontaminating nearly 4,500
boats. Lower lake levels and an expanding mussel population resulted in
floating adult mussels in the water column--something not observed
previously.
Upon inspection, adult mussels were frequently found in sea
strainer devices aboard watercraft, necessitating the quarantine of
dozens of boats in Utah and surrounding states. Through collective
knowledge and creativity, UDWR was able to rapidly modify and adapt
standard inspection and decontamination protocols used throughout the
West to combat these new developments.
The changes quickly resulted in improved inspections and
decontaminations, a significant decrease in the number of boats found
with mussels aboard upon subsequent inspections, and spawned a
partnership between UDWR, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the National
Park Service to conduct research studies examining the viability of
both larval and adult mussels passing through different types of
ballast pumps. Study results indicated that adult mussels can easily
survive passage through ballast pumps, spurring further research
studies and critical analysis of current decontamination protocols.
Washington
Washington's approach to invasive species has five key aspects. The
state focuses on collaboration and works with many groups, including
tribes, agencies, industry and academia.
Education: The state created Washington Pest Watch--a citizen
science initiative led by agencies and universities that enables
citizens to report sightings, which are delivered immediately to
responders.
Prevention: There are state boat inspection stations at two Ports-
of-Entry. Increased funding enables the state to keep stations open
longer and add a mussel-sniffing dog. To further increase protection,
the state created agreements with the National Park Service and a
county sheriff's office to give officers the state's authority to
inspect boats; arrest drivers for not stopping at the inspection
stations; enforce clean, drain, dry requirements; and issue
decontamination orders.
Early Detection and Rapid Response: The state has created a
collaborative to improve readiness for urban forest pests. This
collaborative is developing a plan that will clarify response roles
between cities and state and Federal agencies in protecting
Washington's more than 200 cities from invasive insects and infectious
diseases that could decimate forests.
Containment: To prepare for invasive mussels, Washington is holding
a first-in-the-West field exercise with on-the-ground response,
containment, watercraft inspection & decontamination, rapid monitoring
and assessment, and mock treatment.
Long-Term Management: Washington State and Canada created an action
plan for European green crab that delivers a coordinated response in
the Salish Sea and guides research and management in both
jurisdictions. In addition, Washington created a collaborative to
address flowering rush by sharing best practices and developing an
action plan for basin-wide management.
On the Web: Find Initiative resources and join the conversation at
westgov.org.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The work of the Western Governors' Biosecurity and Invasive Species
Initiative focused on the impacts that nuisance species, pests and
pathogens have on ecosystems, forests, rangelands, watersheds and
infrastructure in the West. The Initiative examined the role that
biosecurity plays in addressing these risks and identified emerging
issues to develop policy recommendations, best practices and technical
tools to address those challenges. To ensure the conversation reached
the widest possible audience, WGA launched an online resource that
includes videos of all workshops and webinars. We've also created the
Initiative Appendix, a document that delivers expanded detail on the
conversations at each workshop and webinar.
Workshops.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
WGA hosted four regional Initiative workshops that attracted nearly
300 attendees combined. The workshops were live-streamed via YouTube
and Facebook, amassing more than 7,300 views during the Initiative's
first year. Workshops were hosted by Western Governors Brian Sandoval
in Nevada, Matt Mead in Wyoming, Steve Bullock in Montana and David Ige
in Hawai`i.
All workshops may be viewed on WGA's website or YouTube Channel.
Webinars.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Initiative was launched with a webinar, hosted by WGA Chair and
Hawaii Gov. David Ige, that featured a discussion on how to improve the
interagency exchange of invasive species occurrence data. Additional
webinars included topics such as ``Invasive Species Impacts on
Fisheries,'' ``Conservation Districts and Invasive Species
Management,'' ``Exploring the State-[APHIS] Relationship,'' ``Species
Distribution Modeling and Scenario Planning,'' and ``Innovative
Approaches to Addressing Forest Health and Invasive Species in the
Pacific Islands.''
All webinars may be viewed on WGA's website or YouTube Channel.
The Western Governors' Association would like to thank the
following for their support of the Biosecurity and Invasive
Species Initiative.
Initiative Sponsor
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Workshop Signature Sponsor
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Federal Partners
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Participants
WGA appreciates the time and effort that workshop panelists
provided to the Initiative.
Panelists and Speakers
Lake Tahoe, Nevada Workshop, September 17-18, 2018
The Honorable Brian Sandoval, Governor, State of Nevada
John Laird, California Secretary for Natural Resources, California
Amy Berry, Chief Executive Officer, Tahoe Fund
Meghan Brown, Deputy Administrator-Plant Industry, Nevada Department
of Agriculture
Nicole Cartwright, Executive Director, Tahoe Resource Conservation
District
Sudeep Chandra, Associate Professor, University of Nevada Reno
Cindy Gustafson, Chief Executive Officer, North Lake Tahoe Resort
Association
Lisa Heki, Project Leader, Lahontan National Fish Hatchery Complex,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Karen Jetter, Research Economist, University of California Davis,
Agricultural Issues Center
Doug Johnson, Executive Director, California Invasive Plant Council
John Kabashima, University of California Cooperative Extension,
Emeritus
Kacey K.C., State Forester, State of Nevada
Elizabeth Leger, Associate Professor, University of Nevada Reno
Jeff Marsolais, Forest Supervisor, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit,
U.S. Forest Service
Ken Mayer, Fire and Invasive Initiative Coordinator, Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Laura Megill, Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator, Nevada
Department of Wildlife
Don Neal, Director of Environmental Services, Southern California
Edison
Heath Packard, Director of Government & Public Relations, Island
Conservation
Jesse Patterson, Chief Strategy Officer, League to Save Lake Tahoe
Paul Petersen, Fire Management Officer, Nevada Bureau of Land
Management Office
Roland Quitugua, Extension Biosecurity Associate, University of Guam
Extension and Outreach
Julie Regan, External Affairs Chief, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Jon C. Sjoberg, Chief of Fisheries, Nevada Department of Wildlife
Sheri Smith, Regional Entomologist, Pacific Southwest Region, U.S.
Forest Service
Katie Steiger-Meister, Public Affairs Specialist, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Martha Volkoff, Environmental Program Manager, California Department
of Fish and Wildlife
Dennis Zabaglo, Aquatic Resources Program Manager, Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency Cheyenne, Wyoming,
WGA Working Lands Roundtable, October 11-12, 2018
The Honorable Matt Mead, Governor of Wyoming
Jim Hubbard, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Doug Miyamoto, Director, Wyoming Department of Agriculture
Willow Bish, Wildlife Biologist, Wyoming Game and Fish Department
Bob Budd, Executive Director, Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource
Trust
Bill Crapser, State Forester, State of Wyoming
Jessica Crowder, Policy Director, Western Landowners Alliance
Randy Crowl, Manager, Colorado Seed Lab, Colorado State University
Daniel Denipah, Forest Development Restoration Manager, Santa Clara
Pueblo
Curtis Elke, Idaho State Conservationist, Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Colleen Faber, Environmental Health & Safety Supervisor, Anadarko
Mary Farnsworth, Deputy Regional Forester, Intermountain Region,
U.S. Forest Service
Bobbie Frank, Executive Director, Wyoming Association of
Conservation Districts
Garth Fuller, Eastern Oregon Manager, The Nature Conservancy
Don Hijar, Owner, Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc. Matt Holloran, Principal,
Operational Conservation LLC
Camille Hopkins, Wildlife Disease Coordinator, Ecosystems Mission
Area, U.S. Geological Survey
Shara Howie, Program Manager, NatureServe
Gwyn McKee, President, Great Plains Wildlife Consulting
Peggy Olwell, Plant Conservation Program Lead, Bureau of Land
Management
Dave Pellatz, Executive Director, Thunder Basin Grassland Prairie
Ecosystem Association
Barry Perryman, Professor, University of Nevada--Reno
Jolie Pollet, Division Chief, Fire Planning and Fuels Management,
Bureau of Land Management
Lisa Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, State of Colorado
Brenda Richards, Coordinator, Idaho Rangeland Conservation
Partnership
John Ruhs, Assistant Director, Fire and Aviation, Bureau of Land
Management
Derek Sebastian, Western Area Sales Manager--Vegetation Management,
Bayer U.S.
Scott Smith, Deputy Director of External Operations, Wyoming Game
and Fish Department
Tom Spezze, Senior Director of Conservation--Western U.S., National
Wild Turkey Federation
Peter Stahl, Professor of Soil Ecology, University of Wyoming
Scott Talbott, Director, Wyoming Game and Fish Department
Jeremy Maestas, Sagebrush Ecosystem Specialist, Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Michael Miller, Senior Wildlife Veterinarian, Colorado Department of
Wildlife
Kurt VerCauteren, Feral Swine and Ungulate Project Leader, National
Wildlife Research Center
Noreen Walsh, Director, Mountain-Prairie Region, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Jeff Whitney, State Forester, State of Arizona
Helena, Montana Workshop, November 14, 2018
The Honorable Steve Bullock, Governor, State of Montana
Leah Elwell, Executive Director, Invasive Species Action Network
Gary Adams, Montana State Plant Health Director, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Jon Amberg, Fish Biologist Researcher, U.S. Geological Survey
Josh Atwood, Invasive Species Coordinator, Hawai`i Invasive Species
Council
Hans Bodenhamer, Northern Rocky Mountain Grotto
Ryan Brook, Associate Professor, University of Saskatchewan
Elizabeth Brown, Invasive Species Coordinator, Colorado Parks &
Wildlife
Dave Burch, State Weed Coordinator, Montana Department of
Agriculture
Justin Bush, Executive Coordinator, Washington Invasive Species
Council
Leigh Greenwood, Forest Health Program Director, The Nature
Conservancy
Justin Hossfeld, President, Sunlight Ranches
Mike Ielmini, National Invasive Species Program Leader, U.S. Forest
Service
Rayola Jacobsen, Invasive Species Coordinator, Bruneau River & Soil
Conservation District
Chuck Laudner, Senior Advisor for Congressional and Legislative
Affairs, National Park Service
Jane Mangold, Associate Professor and Extension Invasive Plant
Specialist, Montana State University
Christy Martin, Program Manager & Public Information Officer,
University of Hawaii-Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, Coordinating
Group on Alien Pest Species
Brian Mealor, Director and Associate Professor, Sheridan Research
and Extension Center
Dale Nolte, National Feral Swine Program Manager, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife
Services
John Steuber, Montana State Director, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife
Services
Tahnee Szymanski, Assistant State Veterinarian, Montana Department
of Livestock
Erin Raney, Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator, Arizona Game and
Fish Department
Helmuth Rogg, Director of Plant Program Area, Oregon Department of
Agriculture
Steve Tyrrel, Central & Eastern Montana Invasive Species Team
John Vore, Game Management Bureau Chief, Montana Fish, Wildlife &
Parks
Germaine White, Information and Education Program Manager,
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes
Tom Woolf, Aquatic Invasive Species Bureau Chief, Montana Fish,
Wildlife & Parks
Kohala Coast, Hawai`i, December 9-10, 2018
The Honorable David Ige, Governor of Hawai`i
John Laird, Secretary for Natural Resources, State of California
Josh Atwood, Program Supervisor, Hawai`i Invasive Species Council
Patty Baiao, U.S. Program Manager, Island Conservation
Matt Baur, Associate Director, Western Integrated Pest Management
Center
Kimberly Burnett, Associate Specialist, University of Hawai`i
Economic Research Organization
Suzanne Case, Chair, Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural
Resources
Scott Enright, Chair, Hawai`i Department of Agriculture
Josh Fisher, Invasive Species Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service
Mark Fox, Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy,
Hawai`i Program
Vernon Harrington, State Plant Health Director, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Robert Hauff, State Protection Forester, Hawai`i Department of Land
& Natural Resources
Jonathan Ho, Plant Quarantine Branch Manager, Hawai`i Department of
Agriculture
Flint Hughes, Ecologist, Institute of Pacific Island Forestry, U.S.
Forest Service
Tracy Johnson, Research Entomologist, Pacific Southwest Research
Station, U.S. Forest Service
Springer Kaye, Program Manager, Big Island Invasive Species
Committee
Jules Kuo, Ballast Water and Biofouling Coordinator, Division of
Aquatic Resources, Hawai`i Department of Land & Natural Resources
Chris Manfredi, President, Hawai`i Coffee Association
Christy Martin, Program Manager & Public Information Officer,
University of Hawai`i-Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, Coordinating
Group on Alien Pest Species
Michelle Montgomery, Program Specialist, Hawai`i Ant Lab
Darcy Oishi, Biocontrol Section Chief, Hawai`i Department of
Agriculture
Roland Quitugua, Extension Biosecurity Associate, University of Guam
Extension and Outreach
Joel Price, Biological Control Entomologist, Oregon Department of
Agriculture
David Smith, Administrator, Division of Forestry and Wildlife,
Hawai`i Department of Land & Natural Resources
Cas Vanderwoude, Research Manager, Hawai`i Ant Lab
Warren Watanabe, Executive Director, Maui County Farm Bureau
We would also like to thank the groups and organizations who
participated in workshops, webinars, and initiative surveys over the
past year:
3 Quarter Circle Land & Water Co. Inc.
A&B Diversified
Ag Association Management Services, Inc.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Altar Valley Conservation Alliance
American Samoa Community College
American Samoa Department of Agriculture
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Ann Walker Consulting
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Bayer U.S.
Bear Lake Watch
Big Island Invasive Species Committee
Bonneville Power Administration
Boone and Crockett Club
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Invasive Plant Council
California Natural Resources Agency
California State Lands Commission
California State Parks
Cardno
Clackamas Soil and Water Conservation District
Colorado Attorney General's Office
Colorado Department of Agriculture
Colorado Department of Wildlife
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Colorado State University
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes
Council of Western State Foresters/
Western Forestry Leadership Coalition
Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition
East-West Center
Ecosystem Research Group, LLC
Edison International
ESRI
Fort Belknap Indian Community
Great Plains Wildlife Consulting
Greenwood Global Consulting
Guam Department of Agriculture
Hawai`i Ant Lab
Hawai`i Coffee Association
Hawai`i Department of Agriculture
Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources
Hawai`i Invasive Species Council
Idaho Office of Species Conservation
Idaho Rangeland Conservation Partnership
Idaho State Department of Agriculture
Integrated Ag Services
Intermountain West Joint Venture
Invasive Species Action Network
Island Conservation
Kauai Invasive Species Committee
Laramie County Conservation District
League to Save Lake Tahoe
Lonesome Pines Land & Cattle Co.
Maui County Farm Bureau
Maui County Soil and Water Conservation District
Maui Invasive Species Committee
Montana Department of Agriculture
Montana Department of Livestock
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
Montana Department of Transportation
Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks
Montana Invasive Species Council
Montana State University
Montana Trout Unlimited
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Interagency Fire Center
National Invasive Species Council Secretariat
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National States Geographic Information Council
National Wild Turkey Federation
National Wildlife Research Center
NatureServe
Nevada Department of Agriculture
Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Nevada Department of Wildlife
Nevada Division of Forestry
Nevada Division of State Lands
Nevada Tahoe Conservation District
New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts
New Mexico State University
NIC Inc.
North Dakota Game and Fish Department
North Lake Tahoe Resort Association
Northern Rocky Mountain Grotto/Bigfork High School Cave Club
Northwest Power & Conservation Council
Oahu Invasive Species Committee
Off-Road Business Association
Operational Conservation LLC
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon Invasive Species Council
Palau Bureau of Agriculture
Partners for Conservation
Pawnee Buttes Seed
Placer County
Research Corporation of the University of Hawai`i
RiversEdge West
Rosebud County Weed District
Ruckelshaus Institute, University of Wyoming
Santa Clara Pueblo Forestry
Sonoma Water
Southern California Edison
Sunlight Ranch
Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable
Tahoe Chamber of Commerce
Tahoe Fund
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Tahoe Resource Conservation District
The National Audubon Society
The Nature Conservancy
Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association
U.S. Air Force, Colorado State University--Center for Environmental
Management of Military Lands
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
U.S. Geological Survey
University of California Agricultural Issues Center
University of California Cooperative Extension
University of Georgia Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem
Health
University of Guam
University of Guam Cooperative Extension and Outreach
University of Hawai`i
University of Hawai`i at Manoa
University of Hawai`i Economic Research Organization
University of Hawai'i--Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit,
Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species
University of Nevada--Reno
University of Saskatchewan
University of Wyoming
Utah State University Extension
Washington Invasive Species Council
Washington Recreation and Conservation Office
Waterweed Solutions
West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District
Western Integrated Pest Management Center
Western Association of Agriculture Experiment Station Directors
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Western Landowners Alliance
Working Dogs for Conservation
Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts
Wyoming Department of Agriculture
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
Wyoming Reclamation and Restoration Center
Wyoming State Forestry Division
Wyoming Stock Growers Association
Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust
Wyoming Wildlife Federation
______
Submitted Chart by Hon. Josh Harder, a Representative in Congress from
California
Invasion Curve
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Invasives/
Species/Nutria/Infestation.
______
Submitted Questions
Questions Submitted by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress
from California
Response from Ricardo Ortega, General Manager, Grassland Water
District, Los Banos, CA
Question 1. Can you please elaborate on the need for funding to
combat invasive nutria?
Answer. In 2018, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
took the lead on eradicating nutria in California. Through a one-time
state appropriation and grants, they established a Nutria Eradication
Program that is expanding to 45 staff, including five contracted
specialists through U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services.
Eradication campaigns are inherently long-term and require adequate and
reliable funding to ensure a successful outcome. A full-scale campaign
in California is estimated to cost ($5,000,000) per year for at least
of 7 years ($35,000,000) before significant progress is made. The
Department estimates a total eradication campaign will take at least 20
years to complete ($100,000,000), based on successful efforts in other
parts of the country and the expansive network of suitable habitat in
California. The Department currently feels it has adequate operational
funding through fall 2022 but no other funding has been identified.
Question 2. Can you discuss what would happen if the nutria were to
reach and establish habitat in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta?
Answer. Nutria burrows extend hundreds of feet causing levee
failure and the loss of scarce water supplies, the lifeline of our
precious remaining wetland and riverine ecosystems, drinking and
industrial water supply and our vibrant agricultural economy. Water and
wildlife agencies in California fear nutria population expansion north
could devastate the Sacramento[-]San Joaquin Delta system which is a
complex network of channels and earthen levees. Nutria would not only
impact the delta ecosystem, but the hub of California's flood control
and water delivery system which also supplies water to 25 million
people in the bay area and southern California. In
Question 3. Can you elaborate on the impacts or potential impacts
to agriculture of invasive nutria?
Answer. The San Joaquin Valley which is largely dependent on water
exports from the Delta and supports more agricultural jobs than any
other sector in California, providing over 200,000 jobs. The top four
counties for agricultural sales in California are located in the San
Joaquin which generates over $20 billion in agricultural sales
annually. Nutria's destructive behavior especially on water supply
delivery infrastructure threaten the very existence of agriculture in
the San Joaquin Valley. Congress must act now to ensure a successful
nutria eradication program is implemented and sustained.