<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:50341.wais]
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON PILOT PROGRAM TO CONTROL NUTRIA AT THE BLACKWATER
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IN MARYLAND
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 16, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-97
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-341 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
Carolina SAM FARR, California
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Harry Burroughs, Staff Director
John Rayfield, Legislative Staff
Christopher Mann, Legislative Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held July 16, 1998....................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 2
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Baldwin, Andrew, Assistant Professor, Biological Resources
Engineering Department, University of Maryland............. 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 83
Carowan, Glenn, Refuge Manager, Blackwater National Wildlife
Refuge accompanied by Dixie Bounds, Assistant Unit Leader,
Wildlife Research, Maryland Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit.............................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Haramis, Michael, Wildlife Biologist, Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center............................................ 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Pierce, Richard B., Director of Operations for Ducks
Unlimited, Inc., Great Lakes/Atlantic Regional Office...... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 78
Rapp, Jim, Director, Salisbury Zoological Park............... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 80
Soutiere, Edward C., President and Manager, Tudor Farms, Inc. 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 78
Taylor-Rogers, Sarah, Assistant Secretary, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources accompanied by Robert C.
Colona, Maryland Department of Natural Resources........... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Additional material supplied:
Linscombe, Greg, Programs Manager, Fur and Refuge Division,
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, prepared
statement of............................................... 95
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON PILOT PROGRAM TO CONTROL NUTRIA AT THE BLACKWATER
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IN MARYLAND
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on
Resources, Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton
(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Saxton. The Subcommittee will come to order for the
purpose of conducting a hearing.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Saxton. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans is meeting today to conduct an oversight
hearing on a pilot program to control the non-indigenous
species, nutria, which is destroying valuable wetlands in the
Blackwater National Refuge in Cambridge, Maryland. And it goes
without saying that this hearing has been called at the request
of our good friend from the Eastern Shore, Mr. Gilchrest, who
is I know very concerned about this issue.
By way of background, nutria are large semi-aquatic rodents
that are native to South America. They have brown fur with
small ears. Very good.
[Laughter.]
Webbed hind feet, and a long, lengthy tail. They cannot be
called little rats because they are big rats, it says here. The
nutria may weigh up to 20 pounds. Nutria live along the banks
and lakes, marshes, ponds and rivers. They are surface feeding
herbivores that can be extremely destructive to marsh
vegetation. These powerful animals forage directly on the
vegetative root mat leaving the marsh pitted and digging sites
and fragmented with deep swim canals. In the face of rising sea
levels, nutria damage is particularly problematic because it
accelerates the erosion and the processes associated with tidal
currents and wave action.
Nutria were introduced in Maryland in the 1950's to assist
the fur industry. There are currently between 100,000 and
150,000 nutria living in the Blackwater National Wildlife
Refuge and private fur trappers have not begun to keep pace
with the animal's ability to reproduce. To compound this
problem there are no natural pred-
ators to control nutria and nutria are causing serious problems
for native wildlife, fish, plants and marsh ecosystems.
During the past year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has been working with the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, the Maryland Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Unit, and the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, the University
of Maryland and Tudor Farms on a strategy to deal with the
growing problem. This group issued a report on April 3, 1998,
entitled ``Marsh Restoration: Nutria Control in Maryland''.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about this
report and how or if, its recommendations can be implemented.
Thank you all for being here today. I would now like to
recognize Mr. Gilchrest for any statement he may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey
The Subcommittee will come to order. The Subcommittee on
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans is meeting today to
conduct an oversight hearing on a pilot program to control the
nonindigenous species nutria, which is destroying valuable
wetlands at the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in
Cambridge, Maryland.
By way of background, nutria are large, semi-aquatic
rodents that are native to South America. They have brown fur
with small ears, webbed hind feet, and a long, lightly haired
tail. Wild nutria may weigh up to 20 pounds. Nutria live along
the banks of lakes, marshes, ponds, and rivers. They are
surface-feeding herbivores that can be extremely destructive to
marsh vegetation. These powerful animals forage directly on the
vegetative root mat, leaving the marsh pitted with digging
sites and fragmented with deep swim canals. In the face of
rising sea levels, nutria damage is particularly problematic
because it accelerates the erosion and processes associated
with tidal currents and wave action.
Nutria were introduced in Maryland in the 1950's to assist
the fur industry. There are currently between 100,000 and
150,000 nutria living at the Blackwater National Wildlife
Refuge, and private fur trappers have not begun to keep pace
with the animals' ability to reproduce. To compound this
problem, there are no natural predators to control nutria, and
nutria are causing serious problems for native wildlife, fish,
plants, and marsh ecosystems.
During the past year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has been working with the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, the Maryland Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Unit, the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, the University of
Maryland, and Tudor Farms on a strategy to deal with the
growing nutria problem. This group issued a report on April 3,
1998, entitled ``Marsh Restoration: Nutria Control in
Maryland.''
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the
report and how, or if, its recommendations can be implemented.
Thank you for being here today.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the fact that you've--that you're having this hearing this
afternoon. Many of the people in the audience that will discuss
this issue today are the constituents of the First District of
Maryland. They've been wrestling with this problem for decades
if not for years, and we look forward to your testimony and
we're up here to try to figure out what we can do to not only
resolve the problems of the nutria to bring them into some type
of balance, if not eliminate them entirely and appropriate
the--or authorize, because we're not the appropriators although
that would be an interesting change in next year's rules, the
authorizing committees could also be the appropriators. We'd
solve a lot of controversy on that, not only to figure out what
to do about the nutria, and I think we as human beings are
smart enough to figure out how to reduce their numbers and
actually eliminate their numbers. We've done it to a lot of
other species so we could probably do it to the nutria or ship
them all back to South America.
But in the process I think what we'd like to get out of
this project as well in collaboration with Louisiana and other
States that are doing the same kind of thing, is an
understanding of the complexity of natural processes and how
over just the length of time that the planet Earth first came
into being to now, the interaction of the complexity of the
mechanics of creation are rather extraordinary. That if you
pick up a piece of dirt--you go almost anywhere and you get a
handful of dirt, and the organized structure in the genetic
code of that handful of dirt is more complex than all the land
mass of all the planets in the solar system. And we're dealing
with natural processes and biological systems are the most
complex systems in the universe, and it's not something we want
to pass off lightly.
So understanding the nature of introducing a non-indigenous
species to the United States and other areas and its impact on
the natural processes and how they have evolved over many
millions of years, going to teach us I think a valuable lesson
about biological diversity and not interfering to the extent
that it is possible with the mechanics of those biological
systems.
And so I'm really looking forward to the testimony of the
witnesses here today, for one, I don't see all of you folks as
often as I would like to see you because we've been discussing
a lot of these issues, whether they're endangered species;
whether they're Delmarva fox squirrel; or whether they're the
interesting topic with many of the State people on Wetlands;
all of us have been involved in these issues for a number of
years. So we look forward to not only your testimony but your
continued expertise in resolving some of these issues, and
thanks again for coming.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Would you like to introduce the panel of
witnesses?
Mr. Gilchrest. Sure, all right. On the first panel is Glenn
Carowan. He's the refuge manager down there; that I think, at
least on Sunday, you have nutria for your main course.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Sarah Taylor-Rogers, assistant secretary, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources. Sarah and I have gone over a
lot of issues relating to the Chesapeake Bay, and I think Sarah
probably eats there twice a week.
Michael Haramis, Wildlife Biologist, Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center--thanks for coming, Mike.
Dr. Andrew Baldwin, assistant professor of Biological
Resources Engineering Department, University of Maryland.
We want to welcome all of you here this afternoon and we
look forward to your testimony.
And Ms. Dixie Bounds, I didn't--there you are--Assistant
Unit Leader, Wildlife Research, Geological Survey, is here with
us today. We've done an interesting thing a few years ago in
Congress. We put the Biological Services under--what was that
called, the biological--we're going to count the biology.
National Biological Sur-
vey--thanks--and it's now in the U.S. Geological Survey, along
with nutria. Thanks for coming, Ms. Bounds.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Gilchrest. We're going
to proceed. We operate here under what we call a 5-minute rule
which gives everybody 5 minutes to make an outline of their
testimony and of course, your full testimony, written, will be
included in the record if you desire. We'll start with Dixie
Bounds and move from your right to your left across the table.
So Ms. Bounds, if you would like to begin we're ready to hear
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GLENN CAROWAN, REFUGE MANAGER, BLACKWATER NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE ACCOMPANIED BY DIXIE BOUNDS, ASSISTANT UNIT
LEADER, WILDLIFE RESEARCH, MARYLAND COOPERATIVE FISH AND
WILDLIFE RESEARCH UNIT
Mr. Carowan. Dixie is going to be accompanying me, sir.
Mr. Saxton. OK, very good. Thank you. Glenn Carowan.
Mr. Carowan. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
members of the Subcommittee. I am Glenn Carowan and I'm the
manager of Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge on Maryland's
Eastern Shore. Accompanying me is Dr. Bounds, the Assistant
Unit Leader for Wildlife with the Maryland Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Unit.
During my 28 years of managing wetlands for the National
Wildlife Refuge System, I've never witnessed marsh loss
anywhere as significant as it is occurring now on the lower
Eastern Shore. My colleagues and I are very concerned about the
health of our marshlands and the impacts that nutria are having
on our wetlands in Maryland and throughout our country.
Before you is an average size nutria. These highly
invasive, non-native rodents were introduced from South America
to the United States in the early 1900's to stimulate the fur
industry. When fur businesses failed in the 1940's nutria were
released into the wild. In Louisiana the population quickly
grew from 13 in 1937 to an astounding 20 million by the late
1950's. From release sites on or around Blackwater Refuge,
refuge populations have grown from 30 released animals in the
early 1950's to estimates as high as between 50 and 100,000
today. This is the story for almost half the States and many
other refuges in this country as seen on the map. Nutria are
established in 22 States and Ontario, with sightings in 40
States and three Canadian provinces.
Nutria devour our wetlands. They consume the above-ground
vegetation, excavate the root mat, eliminate plant
reproduction, and create large crater-like depressions and deep
swim canals that allow saltwater to enter and degrade these
delicate ecosystems. The result is that thousands of acres of
our Nation's valuable marshlands are degraded or converted to
open water. No place on Maryland's Eastern Shore is this more
evident than in and around the marshes of Blackwater Refuge, as
seen on the comparable aerial photographs that are in front of
you.
Over 7,000 acres of marshland have been lost during the 50
years since nutria were first released into the wild. While
other factors including sea level rise, land subsidence and
salinity changes also affect marsh loss, we recognize that we
can only con-
trol nutria populations. Therefore, any effective plans for
preserving and restoring our marshlands has to include efforts
aimed at eradicating nutria. But with the rate of marsh loss
accelerating we must move quickly. Accordingly, 17 Federal,
State, and private organizations have joined forces to develop
a plan to determine the feasibility of eradicating nutria.
The initial phase of this effort entitled ``Marsh
Restoration: Nutria Control in Maryland'' is based on 5 years
of collaboration among the partners with input from private
land owners and specialists, and specifically on
recommendations by Dr. Morris Gosling, a nutria expert from
England. We feel that this pilot program is most applicable to
Maryland because of the strength of this multi-agency private
partnership that contributes over $1 million in in-kind
services, because the nutria population is geographically
isolated on the lower Eastern Shore, and because the overall
State-wide population is still relatively small when compared
to other States.
The National Wildlife Refuge System exists for the
protection and management of plants and animals native to the
United States. The policy of the Fish and Wildlife Service is
to prevent further introduction of exotic species on national
wildlife refuges, and to protect those resources from competing
with non-native species such as nutria.
Control procedures are delegated to the Secretary of
Interior by Executive Order 11987, which also directs Federal
agencies to restrict the introduction of exotic species into
areas they administer.
Therefore, in addition to being extremely important to the
future of Blackwater Refuge, the pilot program also helps other
affected refuges achieve the mission for which the National
Wildlife Refuge System was established and the purposes for
which Congress established these individual units. If
successful the program will likewise be helpful to State and
private managed areas throughout this country and the world.
The adverse effect of nutria foraging and burrowing on our
forested and emergent wetlands, our agricultural areas and
levees, seriously compromise our ability to achieve our
wildlife management objectives and have long-lasting adverse
environmental, cultural and economical consequences.
Therefore, we believe that this pilot effort is extremely
important to the future welfare of the trust resources which
the Fish and Wildlife Service manages for the benefit of the
American people.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today
and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carowan may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
We'll move right along then to the next witness, Mr.
Haramis.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HARAMIS, WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST, PATUXENT
WILDLIFE RESEARCH CENTER
Mr. Haramis. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, it
is with pleasure that I appear before you today to provide
information relevant to the nutria/marsh loss issue in
Maryland. Thank you for inviting me.
My name is Michael Haramis and I'm a research wildlife
biologist with the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, part of
the U.S. Geological Survey.
In 1995 I was asked by the State of Maryland Department of
Natural Resources and the Fish and Wildlife Service's
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge to conduct a study to
investigate the role of non-native nutria on the extensive loss
of marsh that has occurred over a number of decades along the
Blackwater River and adjoining tidal river marshes in
Dorchester County, Maryland. Specifically, since the 1950s,
about six square miles of vegetation have been converted to
open water on the refuge and over 50 percent of remaining
vegetation has been termed unhealthy and likely to be lost in
the near future. The result of this habitat change has been to
create a large lake out of what was once nearly continuous
marshland. You can refer to the black-and-white aerial photos
on display that depict this very clearly.
Managers were blaming this loss of marsh on the South
American nutria, a large 8-18-pound invasive, beaver-like
rodent that was introduced to Maryland's Eastern Shore marshes
in the 1940s. The interest in this animal was its potential fur
value. No other grazing rodent of this size has ever occupied
these habitats in the developmental period of these marshes
since the Chesapeake Bay was formed some 10,000 years ago.
Nutria are plant eaters that graze surface marsh vegetation and
are particularly fond of Olney bulrush, a plant that grows in
extensive stands at Blackwater.
To better understand the role of nutria and marsh loss at
Blackwater, I designed the largest exclosure study of its kind
to address this issue. Over 1.5 miles of fencing were
entrenched in the marsh to exclude nutria from 20 experimental
plots, each a quarter acre in size. These exclosures would
allow us to measure the ability of marsh plants to recover in
the absence of nutria grazing and compare it to the plant loss
or gain outside the exclosures where nutria were still present.
As you can imagine, installing this fencing required several
months of intense labor.
To demonstrate the maximum effect of exclosure, I direct
your attention to the poster exhibit on your left. The plot on
the left half of the photo is one of the first plots fenced and
the plants show a remarkable recovery in one growing season
after fencing. However, our original fencing technique was not
strong enough to keep out the nutria and after 1 year they
breached the fence and caused extensive damage to the
vegetation on the right. These photographs clearly depict the
compelling nature of the devastation that nutria have on marsh
vegetation in this area.
One could ask why vegetation didn't recover as rapidly in
every exclosure in the absence of nutria? The answer lies in
the type and extent of damage that has been inflicted in the
marsh. Nutria not only graze the above ground stems of plants,
they are powerful animals that dig into the marsh and excavate
the root systems which makes plant recovery extremely difficult
and in many instances unlikely. This damage to the root mat of
vegetation is especially critical because much of the marsh in
the Blackwater Basin is floating on a layer of fluid mud, and
the root mat is the fabric that holds the marsh together. Once
the nutria cut through the root mat, the underlying mud is
easily eroded away by water action. The result is that the
marsh breaks up, sinks, and the vegetation is killed by
inundation.
I found nutria abundant in this marsh and can report severe
damage in much of the marsh that could only likely occur during
periods of overpopulation of these animals. Although lightly
damaged marsh such as depicted in the above poster has good
probability of recovery after nutria are removed, heavily
damaged marsh has little recovery potential without some
restoration effort.
Although my study will not be completed until 1999,
evidence and observations made so far lead me to offer the
following conclusions: (1) nutria play a direct role, may have
initiated, and I can state with certainty have accelerated the
loss of marsh in the Blackwater Basin region; (2) nutria are
destructive to this marsh because they have the ability to
excavate the root mat, fragment the marsh surface and expose
the subsurface to water erosion; (3) nutria are abundant and
frequently overpopulated in the marsh. Traditional harvest
methods clearly have proven inadequate to control their
numbers. And last (4), controlling or eliminating nutria would
clearly be beneficial in mediating marsh loss in the Blackwater
River Basin.
This ends my presentation. Again, I would like to thank you
for this opportunity. I'd be glad to answer any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Haramis may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, sir.
Dr. Taylor-Rogers of the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF SARAH TAYLOR-ROGERS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT C.
COLONA, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Dr. Taylor-Rogers. Indeed so, sir. Thank you kindly, Mr.
Chairman and Congressman Gilchrest. My name is Dr. Sarah
Taylor-Rogers. I am an assistant secretary for resources
management in the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. I
appreciate the opportunity to share with you Maryland's
perspective on nutria and also some aspects of the pilot plan
that's been developed.
We are concerned about nutria because there is no natural
predator for the control of the population and the population
is growing. In addition to that, besides the destruction of
native habitat, we will be losing that native habitat to the
destruction of those very natural resources that use it, such
as the fish and shell fish which spawn in these nursery areas.
And the Blackwater is part of the Atlantic flyway. To date,
eight counties have established populations. Maryland is the
best place for this pilot study because the land available on
which the nutria happen to be found are primarily Federal and
State, so therefore, there is accessibility. The States of
Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia,
along with the Federal partners, have supported a no net loss
wetland policy and have fostered species diversity under the
Bay Program.
The Department of Natural Resources is also a trust
resource partner with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and,
as such, is responsible for managing and protecting native
natural resources to the best of our ability. And for the last
9 years the State has formed partnerships to assess the nutria
problem and its effect on marshland.
These studies are as follows: In 1989 we began a catch per
unit effort to assess population characteristics; in 1993 we
developed the first multi-agency nutria task force to find ways
to control nutria and passed Senate bill 27 which provides for
50 percent of the duck stamp revenues to go toward the control
of nutria. In 1994 we contracted with Dr. Gosling from England
who had successfully eradicated from East Anglia, and in
essence, he told the task force that the same thing could be
done in Maryland but to do so we had to do several things.
First, we had to garner information; we had to carry out
the exclosure studies which Mike Haramis just described for
you; we had to develop a well-structured approach; develop a
nutria removal scheme through the use of trappers to assess
population and to figure out what it would take to eradicate
these 30 pound rats.
The third thing, to assess progress. To set up a monitoring
team to assess progress and assess the effect on wetlands and
their ability to rebound--and Alan Baldwin will talk about
that--and to educate the public through the use of valuable
videos and kits, information kits, to inform them that this
particular species is non-native.
Aspects of the plan which are before you and in your packet
include the following: We propose the 3 year effort totaling
$3.7 million.
Two, of that total amount slightly over $902,000 is being
offered in kind by the State, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Geological Survey, University of Maryland, Ducks
Unlimited, and Tour de France.
No. 3, we propose to use three areas for the pilot program
located within and outside the Blackwater National Wildlife
Sanctuary boundaries. Two of the sites will undergo intensive
trappings with humane measures being taken and one area will be
the control.
No. 4, we anticipate that an advisory team will be formed
comprised of the Federal, State and private partners and that
this team will provide advice and guidance to assure success.
No. 5, the trappers and the researchers will together
assess the range, health and dynamics of the nutria population
as well as the effect on the marsh, and this will garner the
information needed. We will do so through the use of radio
collars, ear tags, and various trapping techniques will be
compared. And also a reward will be established for the return
of marked animals.
No. 6, the effect of nutria foraging on marsh vegetation
will be assessed and a method will be explored to restore areas
of marsh which have experienced the eat-out effect of nutria.
And finally, a public awareness and education campaign is
also proposed with exhibits, tool kits and videos being the
means for getting the word out. Dr. Gosling noted that the key
to successfully removing nutria is to conduct the pilot study
that will help the managers and researchers to modify harvest
techniques and refine strategies. The pilot plan for which we
are seeking funding from either unspent Federal moneys or new
dollars, represent the best thinking and practical approach
toward the resolution of this problem.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to present
Maryland's perspective. I look forward to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Taylor-Rogers may be found
at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Dr. Rogers.
Dr. Baldwin.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW BALDWIN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Dr. Baldwin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Andy Baldwin. I'm with the Department
of Biological Resources Engineering at the University of
Maryland at College Park. I'm a wetland biologist there. I'm
going to be talking today about the wetland restoration
demonstration project which is a component of this pilot
program to eliminate nutria.
The objectives of this wetland restoration demonstration
are first of all to demonstrate that nutria eradication will
enhance efforts to restore coastal wetlands. Second, we want to
investigate the effects of increases in marsh elevation and
planting of native species on the success of restoration
efforts. Finally, this information will be used to support the
design and implementation of large-scale restoration programs
for coastal marshes that are experiencing nutria grazing as
well as coastal submergence.
What are some of the factors that control marsh
deterioration? Well, you've heard about nutria; these animals
cause damage to leaves and roots of marsh plants and they
remove the resources of the plants for growth. There's another
factor, coastal submergence, and this is the increase in water
level relative to the marsh as a result of land subsidence,
that is, the sinking of land as well as sea level rise. Higher
submergence reduces the ability of plants to grow and inhibits
seed germination, preventing colonization of marsh habitat. The
combination of nutria grazing and submergence can actually kill
wetland vegetation rapidly and this can lead to wetland loss.
How do you restore wetlands? Well, nutria eradication is
certainly one component of this. Other important components may
be increasing the elevation of marsh sediments somehow to
reduce submergence, promoting plant growth and colonization.
Another technique is to plant vegetation which should speed the
reestablishment of desirable native plant communities and
reduce colonization by non-native or invasive species like
Phragmites, the giant reed.
One way of restoring or increasing marsh sediment elevation
is to use a technique called thin layer sediment deposition.
This is a technique where sediment is pumped out of a canal or
a channel and pumped through a sprayer so it's deposited on a
marsh surface in a very thin layer. This has several advantages
over traditional or conventional dredging techniques.
First of all, you can operate this dredging system in a few
feet of water such as you have out at Blackwater and other
deteriorating areas. You can pump the sediment a long way away
from the dredge unit. You can spray it onto both vegetated and
non-vegetated areas and this technique has been used
successfully down in Louisiana to restore coastal marshes
there. What we are proposing to do is to establish two acre
areas at both Tudor Farms properties and Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge and subject them to different amounts of
sediments, sprayed on using this thin layer deposition
technique. In each of these areas we will plant half and leave
half unplanted, plant it with a native desirable marsh species
such as three Olney's square, and then within that, fence a
portion of that area and leave another portion unfenced. That
way we could look at interactions among all these factors and
how these different treatments, these restoration treatments,
affected the success of restoration.
What do we think this will--what kind of benefits will this
provide? Well, first of all, it should provide a visual and
scientific demonstration of the effects of nutria eradication
as well as sediment elevation and vegetation planting on the
success of restoration efforts. These findings should be
directly applicable to designing and implementing large-scale
wetland restoration projects in the mid-Atlantic region and
elsewhere in coastal marshes experiencing wetland loss. And
finally, this project will have the substantive benefit of
creating several acres, restoring several acres of deteriorated
coastal marsh.
Thank you very much and I'll take any questions that you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Baldwin may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you all very much. I just have a couple
of questions. I guess the answers to these questions seems to
be self-evident, but let me ask them anyway for the record.
Obviously, as has already been stated, there are no natural
enemies for these critters, is that correct? At least in
Maryland? Are there natural enemies in other parts of the
world, South America?
Dr. Baldwin. Down in Louisiana there are alligators that
eat some of the nutria. Nutria are a real problem down there
but there aren't enough alligators to diminish the population
to any great extent.
Mr. Saxton. And it would be a bad idea to import
alligators?
[Laughter.]
Dr. Baldwin. It could be. Another exotic species.
Mr. Saxton. These critters live obviously above water level
in some fashion. How do they change the habitat other than
eradicating vegetation and the roots of the vegetation? What
kind of houses do they live in? Are they like beaver or
muskrats or----
Mr. Carowan. They generally live on the surface of the
marsh. In Maryland they tend to build leaf nests right on the
surface of the marsh. They also burrow into our levees and our
dike systems. Particularly in Louisiana we have a large problem
with nutria burrowing into the levees around New Orleans and
other places. We call them vagabonds. They tend to move around
a lot on the sur-
face of the marsh. They don't really build a lodge as such like
a beaver would or as a muskrat would.
So they tend to move around and they live pretty much where
they can find a spot. If they find a dry spot underneath a tree
they'll bed under there. They'll get underneath your building,
and they'll get under your front porch. Wherever they can find
a place to get out of the weather, that's what they do.
Mr. Saxton. I see. And the damage they do appears to be
quite similar to the damage done by snow geese in some of our
central flyway marshes and East Coast flyway--East flyway
marshes. Is it the same kind of thing?
Mr. Carowan. Very similar. Very, very similar with the
exception that nutria tend to excavate much deeper than the
snow geese do. That's been my personal experience on
Blackwater. They tend to dig that root system up and destroy
the vegetation so that it does not come back. Once they dig
that root system up we just do not get very much reproduction,
recolonization of those areas that have been destroyed.
Mr. Saxton. And one of the things that Mr. Gilchrest and I
have noted over the years is that if it's possible--let me put
it another way. Oftentimes we are successful in creating
markets for various types of critters--I'm thinking mostly of
fish, I guess--and then the supply of fish diminishes in direct
correlation to the demand that has been created. Is it possible
to create any kind of a demand for fur or meat or any--is there
any variation thereof that is a feasible, partial answer?
Dr. Taylor-Rogers. We have been following Louisiana with
respect to meat as a delicacy, and also, I think, nutrias
trapped for fur. But the problem is that this is an exotic
specie that does not have a very strong market at all and the
fur market is a very weak one. Most of the exporting of these
pelts would go to those very countries that are having
difficulty economically.
With your indulgence, I could call in Dr. Robert Colona,
who knows a bit more about this if you wish to go into further
depth with the question you've asked.
But we've assessed it from the State of Maryland and it
just simply isn't practical at all and it would not create a
market for us.
Mr. Saxton. Then the answer is taking the nutria population
out via some form of trapping. Is that----
Dr. Taylor-Rogers. That is correct.
Mr. Saxton. Is that correct? What kind of traps would be
used?
Dr. Taylor-Rogers. I would have to defer to Dr. Colona on
that one, if I might, please.
Mr. Saxton. Why don't you come over, so the recorder can
hear you, if you don't mind?
Dr. Colona. The pilot project is designed to investigate
all the commonly used traps out there now, from foothold traps;
instant kill traps; caged traps; blow traps. Each one of those
will be evaluated for efficiency, impacts on non-target
species, and general control characteristics. At this point in
time we don't know. That's one thing we have to investigate. We
don't know what the most efficient technique is.
Mr. Saxton. Does hunting hold any possibilities?
Dr. Colona. Under very specific circumstances you can
harvest a lot of them in a very short period of time. But those
circumstances only occur sporadically throughout the year so
you can't base any eradication efforts solely on hunting. It's
got to be a marriage of a lot of different techniques.
Mr. Saxton. Are these nocturnal animals or are they around
during the daytime or both?
Dr. Colona. They're more dependent on the tides than they
are on day or night. You can find them out during the day, you
can find them out at night. In the winter time when it's very
cold you tend to find them out during the day. They're laying
out sunning themselves.
Mr. Saxton. Adaptable little devils, aren't they?
Dr. Colona. Very much so. They're like furred cockroaches.
Mr. Saxton. This guy seems to be very well behaved, by the
way.
Let me turn to Mr. Gilchrest at this point. I guess, I want
to ask you all and I guess Mr. Gilchrest will do this--it will
be interesting for me to know at least how we can be helpful
because this is obviously a very significant problem. Mr.
Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few
questions. You mentioned they were in eight counties. Are those
eight counties on the Eastern Shore?
Dr. Taylor-Rogers. A number of them are on the Eastern
Shore, that is indeed correct, but we've also seen some
evidence on the Western Shore as well.
Mr. Gilchrest. Where would that be on the Western Shore?
Dr. Taylor-Rogers. In the Patuxent, to my knowledge, and
there may be other areas that are not coming to mind right now.
And Potomac.
Mr. Carowan. Both the Patuxent and the Potomac.
Mr. Gilchrest. Patuxent River and the Potomac River?
Mr. Carowan. And the Potomac River.
Mr. Gilchrest. So on the Eastern Shore are they north of
Dorchester? Could they be as high as Kent County?
Dr. Colona. We have established populations from Kent
Island South to the Virginia line.
Mr. Gilchrest. Because I think I've seen one at Turner's
Creek but I'll have to look a little more close. It wasn't a
beaver; sure wasn't a possum. Do they have a--do they have a
very narrow range of habitat or are they more like an
opportunistic type of creature where they could live outside
of--Kent County is not like Dorchester County in the extent of
its marsh or wetlands, so could they adapt to an area on Kent
County?
Dr. Colona. We found that they possess more latitude in
their habitat or they're able to utilize a larger latitude of
habitats than initially thought. Typically, they were thought
of as a brackish-water estuarian species, but now we find them
up into our freshwater systems; they're in wet forested areas,
and we also have them coming up now into some of our croplands.
We get crop damage complaint.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is the habitat here giving this range,
similar to where they came from in South America?
Dr. Colona. There's some overlap but it isn't identical.
Mr. Gilchrest. Where did they come from? Which country?
Dr. Colona. A couple of different countries in South
America: Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina.
Mr. Gilchrest. But their habitat down there was similar
to----
Dr. Colona. Yes, it's a similar wetland ecosystem. There's
some overlap, ours varies a little bit.
Mr. Gilchrest. What was--can you identify the difference
between what Maryland is going to do or wants to do with what
the program has been for some time in Louisiana?
Mr. Carowan. I'm sorry, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. The program, they have a program in
Louisiana, apparently for some time partially funded by the
Federal Government, State government, so on, dealing with
nutria. This program that we're looking to begin here, how is
it similar or different from what they've already been doing in
Louisiana?
Mr. Carowan. My information is fairly limited about
Louisiana but what I understand there is the funding that
Louisiana has received they're putting directly into means to
deal with the fur industry as well as to explore other uses of
nutria. This program is entirely different than that and what
we're looking at is trying to take this opportunity while these
animals are somewhat isolated to the Eastern Shore and the
population is still small in regards, in comparison to the
Louisiana population, to eradicate these animals.
Mr. Gilchrest. We're looking simply to eliminate them from
the landscape completely.
Mr. Carowan. We're looking to remove the image of nutria
from Maryland.
Mr. Gilchrest. Why, why is it--yes, ma'am?
Dr. Bounds. I'd just like to add a little bit to what Glenn
Carowan said. We have talked with biologists in Louisiana and
they are trying to exploit the restaurant market, trying to
make nutria an exotic table cuisine. We've talked about that in
our task force and we don't think that would go over very well
in Maryland for a couple of reasons.
First of all, there's a strong seafood industry and most
folks who visit and vacation on the Eastern Shore want to eat
seafood and not a rat.
And second, I've lived on the shore for a long time and
I've found that most local folks don't even want to eat the
native muskrat. So there's not much chance the locals would eat
nutria.
Mr. Gilchrest. But you don't think you could make nutria
taste like a crab cake?
[Laughter.]
Dr. Bounds. I haven't found that recipe yet.
Mr. Gilchrest. We can make catfish taste like crab cake but
I guess that would really be a stretch.
Dr. Bounds. One other point about Louisiana is that they're
not trying to completely eradicate nutria. Louisiana is
atempting to control nutria, and we are hoping to eradicate
nutria.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Is there a reason the population has
remained? Is it because of the geographic location or the
population in Maryland has remained relatively small compared
to the population in Louisiana?
Mr. Carowan. Probably the No. 1 thing that we tend to see
is that these animals are all in the northern part of the range
on the Atlantic seaboard and the cold weather does have a
tremendous impact on nutria because they are a South American
species.
Mr. Gilchrest. So the map up here, those States in the red
have nutria?
Mr. Carowan. The States in the red have nutria, and as
you'll see up there, we also have nutria up as high as
Michigan, but I'm not sure under what circumstances or when
those were reported. One of the things that we're trying to do
now through the co-op unit is to readdress that with every
State that's on that map and also with all the refuges that are
represented within those States, to get a better handle on just
how serious the problem is. The map means there are nutria in
Michigan, not necessarily that they have a major problem.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are they in Michigan or Oregon or Washington
or Idaho because they were brought in to expand the trapped in
species or----
Mr. Carowan. That's my understanding. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Along around the same period of time?
Mr. Carowan. Yes, sir. Actually, between 1899 and the early
1940's is when nutria were brought into just about all those
States.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. I just have a couple more questions,
Mr. Chairman. I see you turned the lights off.
How many acres of marshland--Dr. Baldwin, you mentioned the
restoration project for wetlands and something they'll have to
get over up here is creating another beach replenishment
project. I know this is not beach replenishment, but if we're
looking at a long--we look at--and I understand the problems of
the nutria and the tidal marsh and the wetlands destruction.
But also there is land subsidence and sea-level rise. If you
take the nutria out of the picture, which I hope we can do in
the next few years. But then you can't take out land subsidence
and you can't take out sea-level rise, would it be prudent to
continue to pursue the restoration of the marsh which might be
eliminated down the road anyway.
Dr. Baldwin. Well, that's right, you can't control sea-
level rise or land subsidence directly but there are techniques
where you can increase or help the marsh keep pace with sea-
level rise and one of these is to put in additional sediment.
Down in Louisiana they're doing things like using this thin
layer deposition technique I talked about, and also diverting
the Mississippi River into some areas to get more sediment in
there so the marshes can keep pace with sea-level rise.
I personally think it's important--I mean you're right,
this is something that's going to be, sea-level's going up. But
I think it's important to maintain this habitat as much as we
can, especially if we need to dredge canals and we need to
dispose of this material somehow, let's put it to some good use
and create a marsh.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would agree there is a problem all over
the country, especially in Maryland where you put the dredge
material and if it can be of some beneficial use all the
better. There is though, in certain areas of Maryland, when you
put the dredge material on the land, especially upland, the
chemical make-up of the dredge material or the sediment under
water is different than when you transfer it up into the open
air, and then it can become a problem with releasing certain,
you know, whatever acidic mate-
rials, certain heavy materials that would have to be--how would
you deal with that?
Dr. Baldwin. That's exactly right. When soils are flooded
the iron in it is in a reduced state because there's no oxygen.
You take it out and you dry it out the iron becomes oxidized,
essentially rusts, and that can lead to the formation,
especially in saline soils where there's a sulphate source like
saltwater soils, can actually form sulfuric acid. In a wetland,
a salt marsh, the soil is saturated enough that they're still
reducing and so iron is still in a reduced form in a wetland.
So if you create a wetland that is still saturated soil, you're
not going to have a problem with any sulfur being oxidized.
Mr. Gilchrest. So as long as it's in these wetlands that
leaching----
Dr. Baldwin. That's not going to be a problem because
they'll still be reduced. Now if you created a pile that was
dry, say a few feet out of the water, that's exactly right and
that's what can happen with conventional dredging when you make
big piles of dredge spoil, you have that same reaction going
on.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have an estimate as to the number of
acres at least in Blackwater that would have to be restored
right now?
Dr. Baldwin. I'm not sure but if you look at those two
maps, what was there I guess in 1938 on the left and then that
big open area. A lot of that open area is very shallow water
and so it only needs a little bit of sediment but it needs some
sediment. In this program we're, through this experimental
approach, hoping to restore a maximum of 30 acres, it would
probably be somewhere around 15 to 20 acres that would actually
get restored.
Mr. Gilchrest. So as part of this whole nutria elimination
program, is the restoration of about 30 acres of wetland?
Dr. Baldwin. That's for the pilot program, yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. And the pilot program would cost--this whole
pilot program, is there an estimate to the cost?
Dr. Taylor-Rogers. This particular portion of it or the
whole thing?
Mr. Gilchrest. I guess the whole thing. How many--do you
have an estimate as to the number of years it's going to take
to eliminate nutria and are those number of years a part of
the--I guess, the pilot project then is going to take how long
to figure out what to do I suppose and then what's the
estimated cost?
Dr. Bounds. The pilot program is scheduled for 3 years and
during that time we hope to look at the feasibility of complete
eradication of nutria and marsh restoration. And we would like
to point out that by simply removing nutria you are slow down
marsh degradation. However, to bring back those areas that have
suffered from severe nutria eat-out, we think we do need to go
ahead with wetland restoration, that's why we've included the
demonstration project.
Mike Haramis has found on his exclosure study that some of
the vegetation comes back, as you see in the poster, but in
areas that have been severely overgrazed, you have to do
something more aggressive than just remove the nutria. You have
to also add back some soil to raise the elevation of the marsh
so that the plants can come back.
And to answer your question, the total cost for the 3 year
pilot would be $2.9 million. We also have contributions of
almost $1 million from the 17 partners. So the total effort
would be about $4 million.
Mr. Gilchrest. But you're looking for about 2-something
from the Federal Government?
Dr. Bounds. Two point nine million.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Is there anybody, any other State--
has any other State had an elimination program?
Dr. Bounds. We are conducting a survey of all 50 States and
focusing on all the State agencies for natural resources and
the national wildlife refuges within the States shown in red on
this map, to find out how they're managing nutria. To our
knowledge, at this time, there are no other plans in States to
eradicate nutria.
Mr. Gilchrest. What will be done with the trapped nutria? I
mean I understand in past years you've trapped or killed up to
10,000 of these little critters. Is there a specific policy as
to what you're going to do with these trapped nutria in this
program?
Dr. Colona. A large portion of the animals will be
necropsied and used to obtain data to further this research.
Now we'll be----
Mr. Gilchrest. They'll be, they'll be what?
Dr. Colona. They'll be necropsied. We'll look at
reproductive tract----
Mr. Gilchrest. What was that word? I want to learn this
word.
Dr. Colona. OK. On humans it's autopsy; on animals it's
necropsy.
Mr. Gilchrest. Necropsy?
Dr. Colona. Yes. We will necropsy the animals, look at
reproductive tracts----
Mr. Gilchrest. So you have a thousand, 10,000; you're going
to necropsy how many of that?
Dr. Colona. A representative sample, a large sample. The
rest of them will be----
Mr. Gilchrest. So what will the--I mean, so you get--I'm
just curious now because I have a question. You get 10,000; you
necropsy 100?
Dr. Colona. You can necropsy 10 percent.
Mr. Gilchrest. Ten percent, you necropsy 1,000; you've got
9,000 of these things. Seriously, can they be processed at a
local processing plant and then sent to Joseph's House in
Salisbury or some other place? If it's meat and it's edible,
can it be distributed in that manner?
Dr. Baldwin. I think it could be. I actually have had the
opportunity to eat nutria down in Louisiana and I enjoyed it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Can you tell us what it tastes like?
Dr. Baldwin. I could say it tastes like chicken, but that's
the obvious answer. It's actually a light meat and these
animals just eat plants so it's a clean meat, they're running
wild, it's very low fat. I know that Paul Prudomme and his
sister are trying to come up with a recipe to try and further
it. It's not--they have a nutria festival there, but still not
big because they call----
Mr. Gilchrest. Dorchester has a nutria festival?
Dr. Baldwin. No, this is down in Louisiana.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, I wondered why I hadn't gone to that.
Dr. Baldwin. But they serve nutria and that sort of thing.
But it's still not even popular down in Louisiana as a food
because they still call it swamp rat or nutria. They don't--I
think the concoction that Prudomme came up with called
``Ragondin etoufee,'' which sounds a lot better but----
Mr. Gilchrest. I think it would be at least--then I'll
close up my questions. The chairman is being very lenient with
me.
Sarah, do you have a comment?
Dr. Taylor-Rogers. Might I respond also? We do have a,
although albeit it's more plentiful, we have a program where we
provide deer, venison, in our hunting program to various areas
that could use the meat to help feed the hunger or to help
others and I think we could also look into that as well as a
State with respect to nutria.
Mr. Gilchrest. I'm sure it might be worth--now I suppose
the program only affects Blackwater refuge. No other spot in
Maryland?
Mr. Carowan. Oh, no, sir. In terms of the pilot program?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Mr. Carowan. No, sir. The pilot program is actually just
using the refuge as one of three sites.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, I see.
Mr. Carowan. We are particularly interested, as you will
hear later, also for looking at Tudor Farms, which is a private
site, and they have done a lot of work on their own and are a
significant contributing partner to this effort. And we're also
looking at the State area on Fishing Bay Wildlife Management
Area that's managed by Maryland DNR. So we're kind of looking
at three different sites throughout Dorchester County.
Mr. Gilchrest. So eventually we're looking to eradicate
nutria in the State or, the State of Maryland, that Delmarva
Peninsula, this region?
Mr. Carowan. That's correct.
Mr. Gilchrest. Often the chairman of the full Committee
brings moose meat on the House floor. Maybe Jim and I could
bring nutria sometime in the future before the session's over.
[Laughter.]
And it might become possible in Washington. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Let me just ask Dr. Rogers a question. I get
the feeling that--not only the feeling--I mean you've carefully
stated that the program is an eradication program not a
population control program--and then I get the feeling in
another court, you know, when we're talking about creating a
market for the meat or whatever, that you would rather not, I
just get this feeling, you haven't said this, that you would
rather not be involved in that because in some ways it runs
counter to an eradication program. In other words, if you
create a market there's a reason to keep some of these guys
around and you don't want to do that. Is that correct?
Dr. Taylor-Rogers. That is correct. I'll be clear in my
answer, and the reason why is the resources that so depend upon
the Blackwater area for their very life cycle and sustenance,
could very well continue to be endangered if we do not
eradicate the nutria from this area. And it is those resources
that are native to Maryland and native to the Delmarva
Peninsula that are important to try to maintain, protect and
manage over a non-native specie.
I hope that is a clarification.
Mr. Saxton. Yes, ma'am, that's very clear and I think
that's very helpful. Now what Mr. Gilchrest, who has been the
real leader here in Congress on this issue would like to do is
to be helpful as possible and he has drafted legislation that I
think you're aware of. Is that correct?
Dr. Taylor-Rogers. I have heard that he has drafted it. I
haven't seen it but I have heard he has. Yes.
Mr. Saxton. OK, well, it's a fairly simple bill that goes
to support your program which provides for a Federal share not
to exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the program and that
the local shares can be in the form of income contributions and
will authorize the Appropriations Committee to appropriate
whatever the amount of money is that's needed. And that is the
approach that you're looking for and that's what you want us to
do in a general sense. Is that correct?
Dr. Taylor-Rogers. Yes, we are indeed and you had asked how
can the Committee be helpful, that is indeed what we're looking
for by way of help. And we will also as a State, be trying to
secure some additional supplemental funds to help out with this
as well.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. I have no further questions at this
time and we thank you very much for coming and articulating the
issues so eloquently for us and helping me as a non-Marylander
to understand. I can only hope that we never have them on the
New Jersey Coast. So we'll try to help you get rid of them in
Maryland so they don't move further north.
Dr. Taylor-Rogers. Thank you kindly.
Mr. Saxton. OK, well, thank you and some other members may
have some additional questions for you and we may ask you to
respond to some in writing so the hearing record will remain
open.
Now let me introduce our second panel. On Panel two we have
Dr. Edward Soutiere, president and manager of Tudor Farms,
Inc.; Mr. Richard Pierce, director of operations for the Great
Lakes and Atlantic Region office of DU, one of my favorite
organizations; and Mr. James Rapp, director of the Salisbury
Zoological Park.
As you gentlemen are taking your places at the table behind
your sign let me just reiterate that in the interest of our
schedule and time we have allotted each of you 5 minutes for
your opening statement and that your entire statement will be
included in the record should you desire.
And so, sir, Doctor, you may begin at your leisure.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD C. SOUTIERE, PRESIDENT AND MANAGER, TUDOR
FARMS, INC.
Dr. Soutiere. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Gilchrest, my name is Ed Soutiere. I am manager of Tudor Farms.
Tudor Farms is a privately owned wildlife management area and
hunting preserve located on the Transquaking and Chicamacomico
River watersheds upstream of the Blackwater River and Fishing
Bay marsh complexes. I manage the farm's 5,500 acres for a
vari-
ety of wildlife both upland and wetland species, but managing
for waterfowl is our priority.
Our 2,400 acres of tidal marsh and 200 acres of manmade
freshwater wetlands are important habitat to thousands of
ducks, geese and shorebirds. All the tidal marsh upstream and
immediately downstream of Tudor Farms is privately owned, and
all of this marshland is either owned by waterfowl hunt clubs,
leased to waterfowl hunters by the owners, or hunted on by the
owners themselves. Today this Committee is addressing the loss
of valuable wetlands at the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge
caused in part by the nutria. I welcome this opportunity to
remind the Committee that private owners of wetlands in
Dorchester County, Maryland are suffering the same losses and
damage and that we too are interested in finding a solution.
In the 9 years that I have managed Tudor Farms, 500 acres
of vegetated tidal marsh have converted to mudflats and open
water. Marsh loss is greatest, averaging 30 percent to 40
percent in the in the broad marsh expanses adjacent to the
Transquaking and Chicamacomico Rivers, and least in the narrow
headwater marshes of the creeks feeding into these rivers.
Early on my staff and I recognized that nutria were damaging
the marsh with their feeding and traveling activities. In
addition, nutria feed in our crop fields and landscape
plantings, and dig and burrow in our water control dikes and
structures causing thousands of dollars of damage annually. I
might also add that last year our veterinarian bills for our
hunting dogs was $2,000, that is they had confrontations with
nutria and it took that much to put them back together again.
Hoping to control, if not reduce, the population of nutria
on Tudor Farms, I opened the farm to trapping by several local
trappers in 1992. These trappers were of course most interested
in trapping muskrat, raccoon and fox for which there is a good,
strong fur market. There is no market for the fur of nutria in
Maryland, so I gave the trappers the cash incentive of $1.25
for each nutria killed. In 1995 Tudor Farms awarded a research
grant to the University of Maryland Eastern Shore to study the
nutria on Tudor Farms and to determine what if any effect, the
trapping was having on the nutria population. The graduate
student, Lara Ras, who conducted the research will complete her
program of study at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore
this fall and Ms. Ras is also sitting in the audience.
At this time, I can tell you that the number of nutria
trapped or shot each trapping season since 1992 has remained
relatively stable at about 5,000 per year. The estimates of
nutria numbers on Tudor Farms have also remained stable at
17,000 to 24,000, or 7 to 10 nutria per acre of marsh. This
means that at best we have succeeded in removing only 25
percent of the nutria population each year. For nutria, which
reach sexual maturity at 6 months of age and which can have two
or three litters of four or five young per year, this is no
control at all.
I have concluded that traditional trapping during the 4-
month fur-bearer season in Maryland cannot alone control nutria
numbers. Furthermore, the removal of 25 percent of a nutria
population each year is insufficient to arrest the loss of
vegetated marshland.
Eradication, a much more difficult objective than control,
is a desirable goal for Maryland if we are to have any hope of
retaining our valuable tidal marshes. But eradication would
require the dedicated effort of a professional staff working
full-time and year-round for several years and some help from
Mother Nature to achieve. Public support for the eradication
effort will be essential, for as Dr. Gosling noted during his
1994 seminar at Tudor Farms on the subject of the United
Kingdom nutria eradication program, in the eradication program
``the only nutria you are paying for is the last one.''
Tudor Farms will support the pilot project, ``Marsh
Restoration: Nutria Control in Maryland'' with contributions of
cash and in-kind assistance. We have a vested interest in
maintaining a healthy wetland system in the Chesapeake Bay. I
believe our neighbors share our interest. I urge this Committee
to support the funding request for the proposed pilot project.
We clearly need to move quickly to find and develop techniques
to save and restore our fast vanishing marshlands.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Soutiere may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Doctor, thank you very much.
Mr. Pierce.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD B. PIERCE, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS FOR
DUCKS UNLIMITED, INC.S GREAT LAKES/ATLANTIC REGIONAL OFFICE
Mr. Pierce. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Congressman
Gilchrest. My name is Richard Pierce, and I am director of
operations for Ducks Unlimited Great Lakes and Atlantic
Regional Office. My staff and I are responsible for delivering
Ducks Unlimited's conservation programs along with the mid-
Atlantic coast.
Ducks Unlimited is the largest non-government waterfowl and
wetland conservation organization in the world, having more
than a million supporters. Since its founding in 1937, Ducks
Unlimited has raised more than $1 billion to conserve over
eight million acres of critical wildlife habitat in all 50
States, eight Canadian provinces, and key areas in Mexico.
Since 1987, Ducks Unlimited has worked with State, Federal
and private conservation partners to restore, protect and
enhance over 40,000 acres of wetlands and associated habitat
within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In May 1997, we announced
our Chesapeake Bay initiative, a joint partnership with the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other partners, to restore
wildlife habitat on an integrated landscape approach and
improve water quality by reducing sediment and nutria loading
into the Chesapeake Bay. This initiative is an ambitious effort
to restore over 90,000 acres of wildlife habitat and raise some
$20 million to support our conservation efforts and the efforts
of our State and Federal partners. Through this initiative we
have been working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
Interior to implement conservation programs including the
Partners for Wildlife Program, Conservation Reserve Program,
Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive
Program.
The tidal marshes of the Chesapeake Bay provides habitat
for over 1 million wintering waterfowl which accounts for
approximately 35 percent of all waterfowl wintering in the
Atlantic Flyway. Species of continental importance including
the American Black ducks, Canvasback, Leser and Greater Scaup,
and the Atlantic Population of Canada Geese. In addition to
waterfowl, the Bay's ecosystem support over 2,700 species of
fish and wildlife.
As you have heard from previous testimony, nutria, an
introduced exotic species, have caused severe damage to the
tidal marshes of the Chesapeake Bay. Due to the dependence of
large populations of waterfowl and other wildlife on these
affected ecosystem, Ducks Unlimited finds that controlling
nutria populations and restoring tidal wetlands is a priority
for our Chesapeake Bay initiative. Impacts to tidal marshes are
a result of several factors, including sea level rise, land
subsidence, erosion and nutria. Nutria are large herbivore that
feed directly on the vegetation that provides structure to a
marsh. Their impacts result in a change in the vegetative
composition of an emergent marsh, and even the total loss of
the marsh to open water. In either case the vegetative
communities are altered and productive waterfowl and wildlife
habitat is lost.
Nutria feeding habitats create a highly erosive conditions
and leave the marsh pitted with holes and swim channels and
often void of vegetation. The primary food source for nutria is
three square bulrush. That same bulrush is also a favorite and
valuable food for wintering waterfowl. The loss of this
vegetation component leads to a reduction in the vertebrae
populations which migratory waterfowl readily depend upon.
Additionally, increased rates of erosion in concert with
rising sea levels and the increase in the hydroperiod or
flooding regime of the marsh, which limits the ability of three
square bulrush and other plants to regenerate a site. The swim
channels through the marsh also permit the tidal inundation of
many isolated and interior ponds that support submerged aquatic
vegetation. The increase in salinity and turbidity limits the
growing conditions for submerged aquatic vegetation, and has
reduced many interior ponds to barren mud flats. Submerged
aquatic vegetation is an important food source for migrating
and wintering waterfowl, especially the American Black duck, a
species of priority concern in the Atlantic Flyway.
The restoration of tidal wetlands is an important component
of our Chesapeake Bay Initiative. Tidal wetland systems are
some of the most productive ecosystems in the world, supporting
thousands of aquatic and terrestrial species, including many
that are threatened and endangered. Maryland has lost over 73
percent of its original wetlands making the remaining wetlands
vital to maintain the health of the Bay's ecosystem.
Unfortunately, large expanses of Maryland's remaining
marshes have been degraded by nutria. Therefore, Ducks
Unlimited supports this plan and its goal of controlling nutria
populations and restoring marsh habitat. We also support the
plan's efforts to study alternative restoration techniques in
order to minimize cost and in-
crease restoration effectiveness once it begins. Controlling
nutria is just one step in slowing the rate of marsh loss in
Chesapeake Bay. Restoration projects should also be implemented
as soon as possible in order to study restoration techniques
and to establish demonstration projects that educate the public
on the importance of these coastal marshes.
Mr. Chairman, members of this Committee, thank you for your
time and attention. I have provided a copy of my written
testimony and ask that it be included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pierce may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Pierce. That was very
informative and articulate testimony and we appreciate it.
Mr. Rapp.
STATEMENT OF JIM RAPP, DIRECTOR, SALISBURY ZOOLOGICAL PARK
Mr. Rapp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gilchrest.
My name is Jim Rapp and I'm director of the Salisbury
Zoological Park in Salisbury, Maryland. I've worked for the zoo
for 10 years serving in a number of capacities including the
zoo's education director.
The Salisbury Zoo has been a member of the American Zoo and
Aquarium Association, the AZA, since 1972, and has an annual
attendance of about 250,000 visitors including 15,000 local
school children.
The Salisbury Zoo appreciates the opportunity to testify
before the Committee on the pilot program proposal. The zoo
supports this proposal and expects to be an integral partner in
carrying out the educational mission of the proposal.
As I am the last speaker today, my comments will focus on
the educational impacts of introducing exotic species to our
Nation's ecosystems, and the importance of educating the public
to prevent further destruction of Maryland wetlands.
Exotic species introductions, whether intentional or
unintentional, seem to be an inevitable result of human
activities which may result in both economic and ecological
problems. It has been estimated that over 90 percent of all
such introductions have been harmful in some respect. As U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Director Jamie Clark said, ``invasive species
tend to be very adaptive, aggressive and resilient. Once they
are established, we are unlikely to ever completely eradicate
them.'' In fact, Mr. Chairman, this last past Sunday, CNN aired
a new segment from their ``Earth Matters'' program called
``Invader Animals'' that illustrated the devastating effects of
exotic species in the U.S.
The United States has been the unfortunate recipient of
exotic species since colonial times but the problem has grown
to new heights during this century. In the late 1920's the
migration of the sea lamprey into the Great Lakes began its
reign of terror on populations of lake trout. Since that time
our Nation has been in a constant battle to prevent either the
spread of established exotic species or the introduction of new
ones. However, one species in particular, the zebra mussel,
truly heightened the dangers of exotic species to local
ecosystems and what is necessary to prevent fur-
ther damage. The zebra mussel was unintentionally introduced
into the Great Lakes during the 1980's through untreated
ballast of ships and in less than 10 years it has established
itself throughout the Great Lakes to Mississippi River, and
many other of our national waterways. The zebra mussel has
caused tens of millions of dollars in damage through filtration
systems throughout these areas and at the same time has
smothered populations of native clams, mussels and other
aquatic life.
In addition to zebra mussels, exotic species such as the
gypsy moth and pine boring beetle, have caused billions of
dollars in damage to our forests, fields and waterways as well
as our agriculture and timber industries. Other exotic species
affect a number of ecosystems by displacing native species such
as the exotic mute swan, the giant reed known Phragmites, and
the devastating brown tree snake. The brown tree snake was
introduced to Guam in the late 1940's aboard military
equipment. The snake has since then spread throughout the
formerly snake-free island, eating the majority of Guam's
native bird population. The result: there are no more native
birds in the wild on Guam and the forest is eerily silent. The
brown tree snake's devastation is also felt throughout
Micronesia. Two critically endangered species, the Guam Rail
and the Micronesian kingfisher are the focus of a breeding
program and recovery plan involving the Department of the
Interior and 30 institutional members of the American Zoo and
Aquarium Association. Hopefully, these two species can be
returned to their native island habitat someday.
In an effort to preserve native ecosystems and species that
depend on them and to curb the adverse effects of exotic
species introductions, biologists have recommended numerous
methods of population control and sometimes complete
eradication of exotic species.
The State of Maryland, particularly the Eastern Shore of
Maryland, finds itself with a serious nutria problem. Mr.
Chairman, as the Committee is well aware, the Chesapeake Bay
and the wetlands of the Eastern Shore are recognized as some of
the most important ecological areas in the United States and
have received global recognition as wetlands of international
importance under the Ramsar Convention Treaty. Maryland's
wetlands are used for fishing, hunting, trapping, berry and
timber harvesting, and the growing interest in bird-watching
and outdoor photography. The Salisbury Zoo has been an active
partner in developing ecotourism on the Eastern Shore to the
promotion of the Delmarva Birding Weekend, and the creation of
the Delmarva Birding Guide. The Wetlands in this area are home
to hundreds of species of animals and plants and serve as
important or nursery sites for many thin fish and shell fish.
These wetlands are also vitally important to over one million
waterfowl that winter in the Chesapeake Bay or use it as part
of their migration. Resource managers fear that without
intervention the significant ecological, cultural and economic
benefits of wetlands in Maryland will be completely lost within
the next decade.
While it is important to confront the threats of develop,
erosion, and agricultural runoff to Maryland wetlands, dealing
with the exotic nutria can be perhaps an easier task. The goal
of the Nutria Control Program is to develop methods and
strategies to control nutria populations, restore marsh habitat
and promote public understanding of the importance of
preserving Maryland's wetlands. The pilot program for control
and eventual eradication of nutria will also be extremely
beneficial in preventing future species from being added to the
Endangered Species Act, especially if the nutria continues its
conquest of wetlands habitat in the U.S. The primary mission of
the Salisbury Zoo is to increase the public's awareness and
appreciation of wildlife and encourage citizens to become
active in conservation efforts. The zoo would be a natural
partner with Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge and other
members of the public education committee, for sharing
information about the significance of wetlands restoration and
nutria control.
I believe this proposal is a good practical first step in
trying to better understand the scope of nutria problem in the
Blackwater watershed, and how to best take on this destructive
adversary. An ounce of prevention is indeed worth a pound of
cure, and weighing the cost of long-term nutria destruction and
the cost of this pilot program, I believe the answer is clear.
Thank you for allowing me to testify in support of the
proposed pilot program for marsh restoration and nutria
control.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rapp may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Rapp. I'm particularly
pleased that you spoke of other non-indigenous species that
have been either introduced intentionally or unintentionally
throughout not only our country but some other parts of the
world as well. It seems to me that what we're experiencing here
can be a lesson that we should take very seriously. So thank
you for your testimony.
I would also like to make note that Mr. Greg Linscombe who
is the programs manager, Fur and Refuge Division of Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is here with us today and
has submitted some testimony which I ask unanimous consent be
included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Linscombe may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. And I think it's noteworthy, this problem,
along with being an Eastern Shore problem is obviously a
horrendous problem in Louisiana as well. This testimony says in
part that the control of nutria in Louisiana is among the top
priorities for the State of Louisiana, where over 3.3 million
acres of coastal wetlands now exist. Wetland damage in
Louisiana attributable to nutria is now conservatively
estimated to exceed 80,000 acres in the South East portion of
the state.
So this is, indeed, a very serious problem and one that
this member and I know, Mr. Gilchrest, take very seriously.
We've been chatting here during the last hour or so about how
to proceed and I don't know that we have come to any firm
conclusion except to say that we are going to put the finishing
touches to Mr. Gilchrest's bill or he is and then we will
proceed in an expedited fashion to deal with it through this
Committee and on the floor of the House.
Mr. Gilchrest, do you have any questions at this time for
this panel?
Mr. Gilchrest. Just a few, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Soutiere, it's good to see you again. We haven't seen
each other for quite a few years now.
Dr. Soutiere. You again, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Family doing all right?
Dr. Soutiere. They're doing well.
Mr. Gilchrest. I guess the kids are grown up now.
Dr. Soutiere. Well, Shawn, we finally got him out of
college.
Mr. Gilchrest. You did? I have two still in college but
they're about ready to--one more year.
Dr. Soutiere. Thank you for asking.
Mr. Gilchrest. Shawn's doing all right?
Dr. Soutiere. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. That's great. Tell him I said hi. I taught
Shawn in high school.
Dr. Soutiere, this nutria population, has it impacted or
reduced the population of opossum on Tudor Farms, or raccoons
or fox or anything? Have they displaced any of those other
animals?
Dr. Soutiere. It has not displaced any of the uplands
species which you happen to have listed. There's some sense
that the muskrat has declined as the nutria numbers have
increased. Trappers certainly are not catching as many muskrat
on our marshes as they did historically. I can't point that
there's any direct antagonism between the two species but
certainly they're occupying similar habitats and eating the
same kinds of plants. And I would say when nutria eats its
dinner muskrat doesn't get a chance to eat it.
Mr. Gilchrest. You said, did you say that there can
sometimes be pretty violent conflicts, confrontation between
the nutria and hunting dogs?
Dr. Soutiere. I have had both staff injured and my dogs
have been injured. Dogs of course don't know better and will
attack nutria cornered. They're very aggressive. You can see
that the long incisors on that mounted nutria in front of you.
They cut and slash. They're very capable of defending
themselves and I've had one employee who, he boxed in a nutria
so I guess in a way you could say he put the animal on the
defense, tore right through his hip boots and made a pretty bad
gash wound in the upper thigh. They're capable of defending
themselves.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are there any beaver down there at Tudor
Farms?
Dr. Soutiere. There are no beaver on Tudor Farms.
Mr. Gilchrest. You also mentioned, is there a difference
between the hide of muskrat, opossum, raccoon, nutria that
makes nutria not a very profitable hide to sell?
Dr. Soutiere. Very definite differences. Probably the best
to compare is with the muskrat and the nutria. The muskrat has
a thicker fur, it's finer, denser. The fur of the nutria tends
to be quite coarse and has a longer guard hairs and the only
good hair, a good portion of the fur tends to be on the belly
so if there is any market it's only for a small portion of the
actual pelt. In recent years there's been no economic market to
speak of for the nutria. The fur industry and the fur market
for fur coats has been weak in general.
Mr. Gilchrest. Has there ever been any reports of nutria
with rabies?
Dr. Soutiere. Not to my knowledge, no.
Mr. Gilchrest. This is a little off the subject but is
there a phragmite problem in Tudor Farms?
Dr. Soutiere. We don't have a problem per se because we've
aggressively attacked phragmites. We spend about $25,000 a year
controlling phragmites. I guess you could say that's a problem.
But it's certainly not like the Delaware marshes where it's
totally taken over. Ours is limited to smaller pockets and
we're aggressively going after it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are you aware of nutria living--I would
guess Delaware has a similar problem or at least some problem.
Can nutria--and I'm not suggesting this as an alternative----
[Laughter.]
Dr. Soutiere. You're about to ask me if we eat phragmites.
Mr. Gilchrest. No, can nutria live in, within phragmites
given the difference between that and marsh grass and what
Doctor, Mr. Pierce has referred to as----
Dr. Soutiere. Square bulrush. Three-square bulrush.
Mr. Gilchrest. Three-square bulrush.
Dr. Soutiere. Only three square. Three square. Only three
square is the preferred food of both the nutria and the
muskrat. Nutria certainly live in phragmites stands but we see
very little evidence that they do much grazing on the root
tubers of phragmites. Certainly not enough to do any damage to
it unlike the damage they do to the three square marshes.
Mr. Gilchrest. We're in a 3-year, I think we're in the
third year going into the fourth year of a moratorium on Canada
goose hunting based on the population.
Dr. Soutiere. On the migratory----
Mr. Gilchrest. On the migratory Canada goose. Have you seen
any change in the population of Canada goose in and around
Tudor Farms in the last three, 4 years?
Dr. Soutiere. I can read that question two ways: The
migratory----
Mr. Gilchrest. Totally academic. I just want migratories.
I'm not concerned with the----
Dr. Soutiere. The migratories, we saw a very nice increase
in the numbers of migratory birds during the last fall
migration. Now our resident flock of geese are rapidly
approaching nuisance numbers.
Mr. Gilchrest. Really?
Dr. Soutiere. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Another pilot program. We'll get Duncan
Hunter down there, turning the animals. The whole posse.
A couple of other quick questions. Mr. Pierce, what would
be--and I know someone mentioned in their testimony that the
stamp, part of the money from the stamp program would be
contributed to the Nutria Elimination Program. Was I correct
when I heard that?
Mr. Pierce. The comment was from the lady from Maryland and
I believe she was referring to the waterhouse stamp issued by
the State of Maryland.
Mr. Gilchrest. What would be Ducks Unlimited's contribution
to the Nutria Eradication Program?
Mr. Pierce. Our contributions would primarily be in the
restoration field in restoring the marshes and both our
technology and expertise here.
Mr. Gilchrest. So then you would work with Dr. Baldwin from
the University of Maryland in that program that he described?
Mr. Pierce. That's correct.
Mr. Gilchrest. How have you restored--you mentioned
restoring 40,000 acres of wetlands in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. Could you give us some idea how that process went?
How you restored some of those wetlands? Was it through
mitigation system, was it restoring wetlands that had been
drained or filled in the past?
Mr. Pierce. A couple of different approaches. The first
approach would be working with private land owners to restore
impacted wetlands on their property at their wish and their
desire; providing again technical assistance and monetary
assistance; helping the natural resources, conservation service
deliver those programs throughout the Susquehanna River
drainage, through all the States impacted there. And also
working on the public-owned marshes with our Federal and State
partners to do restoration work on those marshes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Has that been a pretty successful operation?
Much resistance? Pretty good working relationship with Federal
and State agencies and private land owners?
Mr. Pierce. Very good, particularly with our partners in
the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Federal and State
partners included so a great number of people are interested in
this area and are working very well.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would suppose then you would agree with
the total elimination policy of the nutria?
Mr. Pierce. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mr. Gilchrest. Have you seen an increase in the laboratory
county goose population in the last few years?
Mr. Pierce. The Atlantic population has recovered, not
fully recovered, but has rebounded very well. Last fall we had
very good fall flights and we're not going to recommend or
we'll not be increasing hunting. But yes, a very good increase
and an explosion in the locals and that created confusions
amongst people living in the area.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you said your recommendation would be
to--now the moratorium was three to 5 years and I think we're
going into our fourth year.
Mr. Pierce. I believe the Fish and Wildlife Service has
said they will continue for one more year with it.
Mr. Gilchrest. So do you agree with that assessment?
Mr. Pierce. We agree with the Fish and Wildlife Service's
recommendations.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Rapp, Salisbury Zoo, do you have any live nutria down
there?
Mr. Rapp. We have in the past and we've discussed it as
part of a South American exhibit but not a native Eastern Shore
exhibit. Don't want to give people that impression.
Mr. Gilchrest. So are you going to have a display of
nutria?
Mr. Rapp. We discussed it. We're doing a master plan right
now for the zoo that we really want to focus. Our collection is
based on north and South American wildlife which is fairly
interesting as to the nutria problem and we've exhibited them
in a South American context before. We'd like to bring them
back in, especially with this program being introduced, it
would be very beneficial for local school children to see what
they look like and create an awareness.
It is a bit of an issue, you know, talking to children
about basically eradicating an animal but conservation and
ecology is what we talk about in zoos. It goes beyond just an
appreciation for living things. Very interested in exhibiting
nutria again but just females.
Mr. Gilchrest. You couldn't put a little display next to
that, you know, cage where the nutria would reside with a
little table there and some kind of a hot sauce, whatever they
use. A sample.
Mr. Rapp. A sample table.
Mr. Gilchrest. A sample table.
Mr. Rapp. We sure could. Could be a good fundraiser for us.
I don't know.
Mr. Gilchrest. They could come in with a little tooth pick.
Mr. Rapp. On a tooth pick?
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have any--would you say that the
pilot program as you understand it is--I guess you would agree
with--would you agree with elimination?
Mr. Rapp. Yes, I would. I go to Blackwater frequently,
birdwatching and wildlife viewing. It's a tremendous growing
industry in our area and just the effects, as has been
demonstrated by most folks up here, of what nutria can do to a
marsh would severely destroy a lot of the opportunities we have
done there for wildlife viewing and that is, we're beginning
that market now.
We've been very pleased with the responses we've had. Not
just the zoo and other partners in promoting, not just
birdwatching, but canoeing, kayaking and the like and you don't
want to canoe through a nutria marsh. What are you going to
look at? But you want to go through a healthy--only you see a
lot of adversity.
Mr. Gilchrest. What do you see are the Salisbury's Zoo's
contribution to this project?
Mr. Rapp. We'd like to develop a program focused toward
school children and adults as well, but a program dealing with
the subject of introduced species. We do that quite a bit as it
is right now. We have a program actually adopted through a
National Wildlife Federation Environmental Education Manual
called ``Invaders in Paradise'' that deals with introduced
species on Hawaii, and it's actually a play that kids do that
takes about 15 minutes.
You start off in the pristine era of Hawaii a couple of
hundred years ago, you bring in the rats and the pigs and the
goats and all these animals don't belong there. And Hawaii is a
great case in point. I believe it's about 50 percent of their
birds are endangered right now and they lost 50 percent,
extinct. Island species is a little bit more sensitive on
occasion than some of our species in the 48 States but
nonetheless it's a very serious problem on the island nation as
well as on the Eastern Shore, but it really gives kids an idea
that this isn't part of what the national system is all about.
You mentioned very well in your earlier statements, about
tying in machinery of nature and nutria just don't fit. Not up
here they don't.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Rapp, Mr. Pierce,
and Dr. Soutiere. We welcome your input and we'll do what we
can on this level to help everybody out down there, Great State
of Maryland plus the Eastern Shore. Thank you gentlemen, very
much.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest. Let me just pause to
discuss one other issue that has been raised here on a couple
of occasions and that is the local Canada goose issue. I guess
I learned a while back that in as much as this is a sub-
species, it wasn't necessarily indigenous to the Eastern part
of the country. Is that what you understand, Mr. Pierce?
Mr. Pierce. That's correct. The giant Canada geese were
reintroduced by Fish and Wildlife agencies throughout the upper
midwest and the east coast.
Mr. Saxton. They were indigenous to the upper midwest?
Mr. Pierce. Yes.
Mr. Saxton. But not to the east coast?
Mr. Pierce. Mr. Chairman, I can't answer that. I don't
think so but that's a guess.
Mr. Saxton. In my lifetime I've seen different patterns
seemingly exist. One pattern is the one that you've mentioned
about the, what do you call them, an epidemic of local geese or
something like that. In addition to that, I've always been
curious. When I was a young adult, I think we almost had to go
to the Eastern Shore if we wanted to see or hunt Canada geese
and then over a decade or two all of a sudden I guess
determined short stop in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, that
seems to me to be a different pattern even with regard to the
migratory species. Is that correct?
Mr. Pierce. The Giant Canadas basically don't migrate.
Mr. Saxton. The Giant Canadas are what we refer to as
local?
Mr. Pierce. As local, yes, and the migratory birds, their
pattern has been impacted by these resident geese who stay
there, who attract and hold the migratory birds also by changes
in agriculture that's opened up the landscape and made good
wintering areas in the upper midwest and in further northern
areas with farm ponds and large reservoirs constructed by man
and also in part by the refuge systems.
Mr. Saxton. So the introduction of a non-indigenous
species, or what we believe is probably a non-indigenous
species, the Giants, had an effect on the life patterns of the
migratory birds? You surmise?
Mr. Pierce. I'm not sure I could say that but probably. The
Canadas colonized this area on their own. I'm not sure they
were even brought into this area. They were introduced in the
upper midwest and I think have expanded to these areas.
Mr. Saxton. I see.
Mr. Gilchrest. Jim, if I could give you an unscientific
perspective. I think Mr. Pierce is right when he said the
changes in agriculture when they went from growing tomatoes on
the Eastern Shore to growing wheat, they had inefficient
combines, they left a lot of corn on the ground and things like
that. So that the migratory birds, instead of going to North
Carolina, they begin to stop more often on the Eastern Shore
and then since then, you know change in climate and patterns
and, I remember, and then the change of some of these Canada
migratory birds stopping in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New
York, mild winters and the whole thing.
But I think it was the change of agriculture that really
began the migratory birds from stopping, or started them
stopping on the Eastern Shore.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. I'd like to thank you for
your insights and also Mr. Gilchrest for his great effort on
this nutria problems. Members of the Subcommittee may have some
additional questions for the witnesses and we will ask you to
respond to them in writing. The hearing record will be kept
open for 30 days for your responses. If there is no further
business, the chairman again thanks the members and the
Subcommittee, and our witnesses as well.
The Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Glenn A. Carowan, Jr, Refuge Manager, Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge, Cambridge, Maryland, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to be here
today to discuss the Fish and Wildlife Service' efforts, along
with many other interested parties, to control nutria at
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge and elsewhere. I began my
career with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 28
years ago at Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in
North Carolina, and after many other assignments became manager
at Blackwater NWR in June 1989.
Damage caused by nutria is a major problem at Blackwater
and elsewhere in Maryland and in the southern United States.
Tidal, fresh-to-brackish water marshes along the Eastern Shore
of Maryland are some of the most biologically productive,
ecologically valuable, and economically important habitats in
the United States. Unfortunately, they are disappearing at an
alarming rate. Since 1938, thousands of acres of brackish
tidal-marshland, dominated by Olney three-square bulrush
(Scirpus americanus) and other emergent plants, have been
degraded and converted to open-water habitat along Maryland's
lower Eastern Shore.
Marsh losses may be most severe on and around the
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Dorchester County, which
currently includes approximately 10,000 acres of combined
vegetated marsh and open-water habitat. Refuge biologists
estimate that over 7,000 acres of vegetated marsh have been
lost along the Blackwater River in the past half century, and
that the rate of loss has accelerated substantially during the
past decade (as much as 500 acres a year in recent years).
Resource managers fear that these wetlands, which provide
significant ecological, cultural, and economic benefits, will
continue to disappear at an increasing rate unless prompt
action is taken.
The Olney three-square bulrush that dominates these
habitats on Maryland's Eastern Shore is a vital component of
the brackish tidal-marshes. The rhizomes of these plants form a
dense root mat that retains sediments and stabilizes the marsh.
The structural integrity provided by these root mats promotes
habitat diversity and determines the functional qualities of
the marsh. These coastal marshes provide extraordinarily
valuable ecological services and human benefits. For example,
decomposing marsh plants provide detritus that supports the
food-web of the Chesapeake Bay estuary. Commercial and non-
commercial fish and shellfish depend upon the efficient
transfer of primary to secondary production that occurs in
these marshes, and many species depend upon these habitats as
feeding and nursery grounds. Approximately 35 percent of all
migrating waterfowl in the Atlantic Flyway depend on these
marshes as resting and feeding sites. Bald eagles fish and
scavenge the marshes to support the largest nesting population
of this species north of Florida on the Atlantic Coast. A half
billion dollar a year sport fishing industry is directly linked
to the productivity of Maryland's marshes, as is an impressive
commercial blue crabbing, oystering, and fishing industry which
is also valued in the millions of dollars.
Costanza and Farber, in their report on ``The Economic
Value of Wetlands in Terrebone Parish Louisiana'' estimated the
value of the coastal marshes to be $28,200/acre/year for all
types of economic benefits and recreational activities. Based
on the Louisiana estimate, the 10,000 acres of existing and
potentially recoverable marshland on Blackwater Refuge can
therefore be estimated to be worth about $282,000,000 a year
(for all types of economic uses and benefits including, but not
limited to, sport and commercial fishing, hunting, wildlife
observation, and a wide variety of ecotourism activities).
However, such economic assessments, while important to the
economic well-being of Maryland, do not begin to account for
the myriad of other ecological functions provided by these
marshes such as nutrient removal, erosion and flood water
control, improved water quality, and exceptional wildlife
habitat. The health and stability of Chesapeake Bay wetlands
contributes directly to the quality of life for Maryland
residents.
The decline of these tidewater marshlands along Maryland's
lower Eastern Shore and the resultant adverse environmental,
economic, and cultural effects may be due to several factors;
however, recent acceleration in marsh loss appears to be
directly related to increases in populations of nutria
(Myocastor coypus). Nutria are alien, non-indigenous species
that are highly invasive. These semiaquatic rodents are
equipped with long front teeth and powerfully clawed feet that
enable them to excavate the root-mat and devour up to 25
percent of their body weight a day. Nutria often grow up to 3-
feet long, and can weigh up to 30 pounds. They are extremely
prolific animals, reach sexual maturity at four to six months,
breed year-round, and produce average litters of four to five
offspring, two or three times a year. Picture a pack of brown
Pac Men with a taste for precious marshland, and you have a
fairly good concept of nutria.
Nutria are indigenous to South America; their original
range was in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and
Uruguay. Fur-farming introductions extended that range into the
United States between 1899 and 1940 with introductions into
California, Washington, Oregon, Michigan, New Mexico,
Louisiana, Ohio, and Utah. But fur-farming attempts failed due
to high mortality rates and low reproductive success in
captivity. Many of the nutria were freed into the wild when the
businesses failed in the late 1940s. State and Federal agencies
and individuals translocated nutria into Alabama, Arkansas,
Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Louisiana,
and Texas with the intent that nutria would control undesirable
vegetation and enhance trapping opportunities. Nutria were also
sold as ``weed cutters'' to an unsuspecting public throughout
the Southeast, and a hurricane in the late 1940s scattered
nutria over wide areas of coastal Louisiana and Texas.
Accidental and intentional releases have thus led to
widespread and localized feral populations in 22 states and
Ontario, and to reports of sightings in at least 40 states and
three Canadian provinces in North America. The other states
with established populations include Delaware, Florida, Idaho,
Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia. Range expansion of this
highly adaptive rodent seems to be limited only by extreme
cold. All national wildlife refuges and wildlife departments in
the 22 states with established nutria populations are currently
being surveyed to determine nutria abundance, habitat damage,
and management activities.
The first recorded introduction of nutria in Maryland
occurred in 1943, although it is probable that nutria were
first released in Maryland's lower Eastern Shore marshes in the
late 1930s. The Fur Animal Station on the Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge was in operation from 1939 to 1947, and during
that time nutria were reared in captivity for experimental
purposes. In 1943, nutria reportedly escaped from the pens. In
the spring of 1951 and summer of 1952, adjacent landowners
released 5 pair of nutria on Coles Creek marsh and 20 nutria on
Gibbs marsh at Meekins Creek, respectively. In 1956, refuge
personnel were instructed to remove nutria from the refuge by
any means available. During 1957-59, it appeared that the
nutria population on the refuge was under control.
However, during these years, nutria populations on
adjoining private marshlands exploded, and animals eventually
found their way onto the refuge once again. From 1962 through
1968, the population on the refuge was estimated at less than
150 nutria per year. But the population made a giant leap in
1969 to an estimated 2,075. By 1976, the population had
expanded even further, and 2,894 nutria were harvested on the
refuge. The total harvest of Maryland nutria fluctuated between
1,500 and 5,000 from 1971 to 1976. During the 1976-77 trapping
season, the harvest peaked at a record 29,679 (due to increased
market, ideal trapping conditions, and trapper interest.) In
the winter of 1976-77, an estimated 90 percent of the Maryland
population froze to death during a prolonged period of freezing
in January and February of 1977. The population quickly
recovered, and by the late 1980s State-wide estimates were
higher than ever before. From 1990 through 1997, 35,000 nutria
were killed on Blackwater Refuge alone. On Tudor Farms, an
adjoining privately owned tract in Dorchester County, between
4,000-5,000 are harvested annually. The current refuge
population is estimated to range from 35,000-50,000, but there
is the need for more rigorous studies to validate these
numbers.
Alarmingly, nutria numbers and their range appear to be
increasing and expanding, as considerable amounts of marsh
damage is occurring and there are numerous new sightings on the
western shore in the Patuxent and Potomac Rivers.
The story is very similar, but even worse in Louisiana
where thirteen nutria were released in 1937; by the late 1950s
that population was estimated to exceed 20 million animals.
Populations in the United States are most dense along the Gulf
Coast of Louisiana and Texas. In Louisiana, autumn densities of
about 18 animals per acre have been recorded in freshwater
marshes. In Oregon, summer densities in freshwater marshes may
be as high as 56 animals per acre, while on Blackwater Refuge,
population densities range from 1 to 6 animals per acre (with
3.3 animals per acre being the average during the last
population survey in 1995).
Nutria have devastating effects on marsh vegetation because
they forage on rootstalks and excavate entire plants. At
Blackwater, 80 percent of their diet is composed of three-
square bulrush. The result is that they not only denude the
marsh, they also destroy the root mat that is the structural
fabric holding the marsh Together. Furthermore, nutria fragment
the marsh with innumerable swimming canals, which serve to
focus tidal currents and promote erosion, leading to the
lowering of the marsh and conversion of emergent marsh to open
water. Nutria, however, are not limited to causing damage to
the marshlands. In many states, they are also responsible for
damage to forested wetlands, bald cypress restoration efforts,
agricultural crops, and levees. Nationwide, nutria may pose
significant ecological and economic impacts.
While nutria may be the dominant factor contributing to
marsh loss, it is likely that other forces, including increased
salinity (due to land subsidence and sea-level rise), play a
role in determining the ecological structure and function of
these tidal marshes. Resource managers have little power to
control land subsidence, sea-level rise, and salinity changes,
but nutria populations can be controlled for the benefit of the
marsh ecosystem. Therefore, an effective plan to preserve and
restore these fragile brackish tidal-marshes and their
ecological, cultural, and economic values must involve efforts
aimed at eradicating nutria; wetland restoration efforts would
be severely jeopardized if nutria were allowed to continue
foraging.
Accordingly, 17 Federal, state, and private organizations
have joined forces since 1993 to develop a plan to determine
the feasibility of eliminating nutria from Maryland. The
initial phase of this effort, entitled ``Marsh Restoration:
Nutria Control in Maryland,'' is based upon years of
collaboration among the partners; input from private
landowners, trappers, watermen, scientists, marsh ecologists,
and animal control experts; recommendations from private and
agency wetland restoration experts; and recommendations from
Dr. L.M. Gosling, a world renowned nutria expert from Great
Britain. Dr. Gosling planned and supervised Great Britain's
successful 1O-year nutria eradication program, and was invited
to visit the Eastern Shore by the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources in 1994.
His recommendations have helped guide many of our efforts
to date. Based on both his successes and failures in Great
Britain, he recommended that the first strategy should be to
confirm that nutria were the primary cause of the extensive
damage to the marshland ecosystem. To accomplish this, he
recommended that a series of enclosures be randomly erected in
the Blackwater/Fishing Bay marshes to measure the impact of
nutria damage, and to demonstrate the ability of the marsh to
recover. This research activity has been conducted in a joint
effort between the State of Maryland's Department of Natural
Resources and U.S. Geological Survey's Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center. Mr. Michael Haramis will testify to the
details of this study, ``The Effect of Nutria (Myocastor
coypus) on Marsh Loss In The Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland:
An Exclosure Study.'' Preliminary results of the study indicate
that nutria are indeed greatly accelerating marsh loss.
Secondly, Dr. Gosling strongly recommended that a pilot
eradication scheme be designed to help estimate the size of the
trapper force required, and to gain more information on nutria
behavior and movements to help plan trapping tactics in more
extensive marshland areas. Dr. Gosling also recommended that we
test a trapping organization, establish the strategic
deployment of trapping effort based on catch per unit effort,
evaluate trapping techniques on target and non-target species,
determine changes in reproduction as population size changes,
and develop public awareness about the need to control nutria
within Maryland (and other areas of the country). The proposed
pilot program includes all these recommendations, and
additionally includes an experimental wetlands restoration
demonstration project. Several of our partners have agreed to
help in educating the public about the importance of nutria
eradication.
The pilot program, a copy of which I am providing for the
record, has generated high hopes for halting marsh loss. In
answer to the question, ``Is it possible to eradicate nutria in
Maryland?'', Dr. Gosling's assessment is that ``a number of
factors make the prospects of eradication in Maryland even more
likely than they were at a comparable stage in England. These
include a more efficient trapping technique, better mobility
over water, and lower population fecundity. Experience in
England has shown that it is possible to eradicate a
substantial nutria population over a large area of wetland
habitat, and given the successful resolution of the issues (in
the pilot eradication scheme discussed above), there is no
impediment to eradication.'' Dr. Gosling concludes by saying,
``On balance, the factors favoring eradication outweigh
potential obstacles, and it could be possible to complete the
task more quickly than in England.''
The National Wildlife Refuge System exists for the
protection and management of plants and animals native to the
United States. The policy of the Service is to prevent further
introduction of exotic species on national wildlife refuges,
and to protect trust resources from the adverse impacts of
competing with exotic species. Therefore, in addition to being
extremely important to the future of Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge, the information gained from the pilot program
will also be applicable to other refuges within the National
Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), to state-managed areas, and to
private marshlands throughout the United States and the world.
The Maryland Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at
University of Maryland Eastern Shore is currently surveying all
state wildlife agencies and other units of the NWRS to
determine the extent of the nutria problem in an effort to work
cooperatively to help address these concerns and educate the
public on the national level.
If successful, this program will certainly help Blackwater
and other national wildlife refuges achieve the mission of the
NWRS and the purposes for which these individual units were
established by Congress. The severity of marsh loss and the
adverse effects of nutria foraging and burrowing on our
forested and emergent wetlands, agricultural areas, dikes and
levees, waterfowl management impoundments, water control
capabilities, moist soil management areas, and wetland
restoration efforts are seriously compromising our ability to
achieve our wildlife management objectives, adversely affect
the function and productivity of our marshes, disrupt or change
cultural activities, significantly harm economic benefits, and
have long-lasting environmental consequences as previously
noted. Accordingly, we believe that this proposed pilot effort
is extremely important to the future welfare of the migratory
birds, anadromous fish, and endangered species which the Fish
and Wildlife Service has been entrusted to manage for the
benefit of the American people.
This concludes my formal statement. I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you, and will be pleased to
respond to any questions you may have.
------
Statement of G. Michael Haramis, Research Wildlife Biologist, U.S.
Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland
The purpose of this testimony is to provide information
that is relevant to the conservation of the nation's natural
resources, and in particular the wetlands of the Blackwater
River Basin and adjacent rivers and specifically those wetlands
now part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Blackwater
National Wildlife Refuge, Dorchester County, Maryland. I have
been familiar with these wetlands and the marsh loss issue
since arriving in Maryland in 1976 when I started my employment
as a Research Wildlife Biologist at the Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center, now part of the Department of the Interior's
U.S. Geological Survey. For the past 3 years, I have been
directly involved with the problem of marsh loss in two
capacities: first, as a research scientist conducting a
cooperative study with the State of Maryland's Department of
Natural Resources and the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge
to investigate the role of exotic nutria (Myocastor coypus) in
the loss of emergent marsh vegetation, and secondly, as a
member of a multi-agency task force, including Federal, state,
local, and private organizations, to develop a pilot nutria
control proposal for Maryland. In reference to these
activities, I offer the following comments.
NUTRIA: A BRIEF HISTORY
As brief background, the South American nutria became a
subject of attention in the fur industry back in the early
1930s when their large size and high reproductive potential
held promise for fur farming businesses in North America. Many
hopeful investors started small captive colonies in many
locations in the United States, Canada, and many European
countries. Many of these farms, however, did not succeed and
the animals either escaped or were released to the wild. In
some locations feral animals died when released into unsuitable
habitat or exposed to severe winter weather. However, nutria
populations did develop and persist in many areas. A survey
conducted in 1983 found viable populations in 15 states and one
Province of Canada; a 1994 survey found nutria in 22 states.
Our multi-agency task force is currently conducting a new
survey to update this information.
In Louisiana and Maryland marshes, escaped nutria found a
suitable natural environment, both a rich food base and
favorable climate, and large populations developed as a
consequence. Maryland's population is relatively small in
comparison to Louisiana where the annual harvest was about 1
million pelts annually in the mid-1980s.
With few natural predators and a decline in fur demand,
nutria populations have at times experienced severe
overpopulation. These periods of overpopulation have brought
severe damage to marshes through the animal's intense feeding
on emergent plants. Over time, resource managers recognized
that these populations could not be controlled or managed by
traditional harvest methods because of (1) lack of harvest
incentive (inferior fur quality, declining fur markets) and (2)
the animal's own high survival (lack of predators) and
remarkable productivity. Nutria may reproduce throughout the
year depending on food availability and climate; they may
produce 3 litters per year and average 5 young per litter.
Nutria also are not popular with trappers: in comparison to
the native muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) they are too large to
carry, hard to skin and only a portion of the fur is of value.
Average-sized nutria are 8-18 pounds (4-8 kilograms) or 5-10
times the size of muskrats. Where the larger, more aggressive
nutria has become abundant, the muskrat has declined through
competitive displacement. Nutria are semi-aquatic surface
feeding herbivores that can be extremely destructive to marsh
vegetation. Their beaver-sized incisors and powerful forefeet
allow them to forage directly on the marsh root mat, leaving
the marsh pitted with holes and deep swim canals. No other
marsh herbivore as large and destructive to wetland vegetation
as nutria has ever existed in the Blackwater Basin during the
entire development of these marsh ecosystems in the post-
glacial period.
ROLE IN MARSH LOSS
At the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Olney three-
square bulrush (Scirpus americanus) is the food plant of choice
for nutria. Results of a recent study on the refuge found a
loss of 3,500 acres of mostly Olney marsh to open water since
1938; 53 percent of remaining marsh was considered in unhealthy
condition and likely to be lost in the near future. Why is this
marsh disappearing and what role do nutria play in this event
and in the continuing process of marsh loss?
It is my view that while other factors may also be
contributing to marsh loss, nutria are the primary force that
has accelerated the rate of marsh loss in this basin by
attacking the very structure that holds the marsh together, the
vegetative root mat. The root mat has been especially critical
because much of the marsh in the Blackwater Basin is a type of
floating marsh above a layer of fluid mud. Once the nutria chew
through the mat and expose the mud to erosional forces of tidal
current and wave action, the marsh surface sinks and the
vegetation is lost to inundation. The particular vulnerability
of the interior marsh to nutria damage is likely the reason why
marsh loss did not occur near the mouth of the Blackwater River
(source of rising water), but in the interior basin many miles
up-river where this delicate Olney marsh was under attack by
foraging nutria.
It is likely that stress from marsh inundation reduces
plant vigor by inhibiting plant germination, growth, ability to
recolonize denuded areas, or recovery from nutria grazing.
Clearly, plants that are stressed from too much water from
flooding are unable to recover from damage by nutria. It is
impossible to accurately reconstruct past events and there are
many other subtle factors continuing to operate that affect the
health of the marsh. Nonetheless, it is my opinion that nutria
foraging activity likely initiated and certainly greatly
accelerated the rate of marsh loss in the Blackwater Basin. I
conclude that an overabundance of nutria is the major factor in
the observed rapid conversion of emergent marsh to open water
along the Blackwater River.
THE NUTRIA EXCLOSURE STUDY
In 1995 I became directly involved with the marsh loss
issue when I began a cooperative study with the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources and the Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge to investigate the role of nutria in the loss
of emergent marsh on the Refuge. My study proposed using fenced
enclosures to eliminate nutria herbivory and measure the
subsequent vegetative response. Specifically, this experimental
approach would determine whether in the absence of nutria the
marsh vegetation could stabilize and recover from nutria
damage. Conducting this enclosure study was the first of
several recommendations made by the British researcher Dr. L.M.
Gosling, who assessed Maryland's nutria/marsh loss issue at the
request of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources in
1994. Dr. Gosling had successfully removed nutria from a marsh
in England in a 10-year trapping campaign that is well
documented (see Literature Cited at the end of this report).
In my study, large 100 x 100 ft plots were selected to
maintain the ecological integrity of fenced plots and minimize
physical effects of enclosure. The size of these enclosures,
requiring over 1.4 miles of fencing, make this one of the
largest enclosure studies of its kind. Nineteen randomly
selected control plots and 19 paired plots (adjacent to fenced
enclosures) were also included in the study to test for
possible differences in nutria densities. I wanted to be
reassured that densities at random control and random treatment
(fenced sites) were similar. This is important because if by
chance densities were different at the fenced and unfenced
sites, it could bias the results of the study. Vegetative
coverage was measured through spring and fall measurements of
346 fixed subplots and helicopter photography of whole plots.
Preliminary results following one growing season indicate
that the vegetative response is as predicted, i.e. moderate
expansion of vegetation within enclosures, and a measured
reduction outside. Although the magnitude of this response
within enclosures was not great, it is positive evidence that
(1) nutria activity is contributing to marsh loss and (2) the
marsh is showing some capability of recovering in the absence
of nutria foraging activity. However, vegetative recovery is
likely limited because of elevation differences between the
vegetative surface and the adjacent denuded marsh surface. It
is clear that the cumulative sediment transport processes are
negative on the marsh surface (erosional) and without the
vegetation to stabilize the marsh, the mostly organic debris
torn up by nutria simply washes away.
The sensitivity of the marsh surface to erosion is
significant because it indicates that in the absence of nutria,
only partial recovery of vegetation can be expected unless
restoration is done to fill in eroded areas or otherwise
augment the elevation of the marsh surface to a level conducive
to vegetative growth.
Damage from nutria occurs along a gradient from light to
heavy. Plots that have lost more than 70 percent of vegetation,
and exhibit only scattered tufts of remaining vegetation are
essentially unrestorable without invasive procedures. Sites
where damage has been light and little erosion has occurred,
seem to have a good chance of recovery if protected from
nutria. Unfortunately a large percentage of the marsh exhibits
cumulative damage from nutria over the past several decades and
seems to have little restoration potential because the damage
has progressed too far. As a matter of fact, two of my plots
completely eroded away in the early phase of the study and had
to be relocated; 3 other plots are now on the edge of large
areas completely denuded of vegetation. A number of growing
seasons is required before making more definitive statements
about recovery potential. I note that in the current year I
have also included in my study an investigation of the effects
of elevation change on plant recolonization. This study is
scheduled to continue through 1999.
NUTRIA ERADICATION
I have been a member of the nutria eradication proposal
task force since its inception and wish to make some comments
about the pilot control initiative. First, much of the plan was
originally derived from recommendations from Dr. Gosling, who
forwarded a very well formulated eradication plan to the State
of Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Dr. Gosling is the
only person who has experience with a large-scale, long-term
nutria eradication program, and I might add, a successful one.
Dr. Gosling's success is remarkable because he was constrained
to use live traps for capturing nutria in Great Britain, and
not the more effective traps available in the United States.
Dr. Gosling is a research scientist and conducted his
experiment in eradication in a systematic and well documented
way. It is a consensus of our task force that our plan must
also incorporate the research needed to document the process
and especially the population effects related to removal of
nutria. This is essential if the work is to be properly
evaluated and documented. Also, the research component is
essential to fill in information gaps in our knowledge, for
instance, in determining the most effective trapping procedures
or the best marsh restoration methods.
I wish to mention the diverse partnership involved with
this initiative. At last count at least 17 different partners,
including several from the private sector, are actively
involved in the proposal's design and in contributing time,
equipment, facilities, and dollars. Their commitment helped to
create a diverse base of support for the proposal.
Lastly, the task force reached a noteworthy consensus
during its deliberations. All members are well aware that
although nutria have been a management problem for many years,
no program has ever been adopted at a proper scale to address
the issue. Thousands of acres of marsh have been lost in
Maryland. The task force believes that marsh loss can be
mediated by controlling and eventually eliminating nutria from
Maryland. This concludes my statement, and I will be pleased to
respond to any questions.
LITERATURE CITED
Gosling, L.M. 1989. Extinction to order. New Scientist, 4
March 1989:44-49.
Gosling, L.M. 1994. Towards an eradication plan for nutria
in Maryland, a report to the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources. 14 April 1994. 14pp.
Gosling, L.M., and Baker, S.J. 1987. Planning and
monitoring an attempt to eradicate coypus from Britain. Symp.
Zool. Soc. Lon. 58:99-113.
Gosling, L.M., Baker, S.J., and Clarke, C.N. 1988. An
attempt to remove coypus (Myocastor coypus) from a wetland
habitat in East Anglia. J. Appl. Ecol. 25:49-62.
------
Statement of Dr. Sarah J. Taylor-Rogers, Ph.D., for the Maryland
Department Of Natural Resources
Mr. Chairman, my name is Dr. Sarah J. Taylor-Rogers. I am
the Assistant Secretary of Resource Management for the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources. On behalf of the State of
Maryland, I appreciate the opportunity to address this
Subcommittee on initiatives relating to control of expanding
nutria populations within our State.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Nutria are an invasive, semi-aquatic South American rodent.
This non-native species was first introduced into Dorchester
County, Maryland in 1943. Nutria are a foreign addition to
Maryland's wetland ecosystems, therefore no inherent
biofeedback mechanisms exist to naturally control their
populations. Consequently, succeeding population increases and
range expansion has now resulted in established populations in
at least 8 counties. Population estimates on the 10,000 acres
of Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge have grown from less
than 150 animals in 1968 to between 35,000 to 50,000 currently.
Loss or degradation of Maryland's coastal marshes has
reached alarming proportions. It is estimated that up to 65
percent of our wetlands have been lost since the 1700's. Nutria
feeding behavior damages or destroys the root mat that cements
the marsh together. When this fibrous network is compromised,
emergent marsh is quickly reduced to unconsolidated mudflats.
These areas in turn are highly susceptible to erosional
processes and are eventually converted to open water. While
nutria are not the sole reason for marsh loss, they have been
implicated as the catalyst that has greatly accelerated losses
during the last decade. Annual loss rates at Blackwater
National Wildlife Refuge are now approximately 5 percent of
total vegetated acreage.
Although this project focuses primarily on Blackwater NWR,
the 10,000 acres of the refuge only represents a small portion
of the nutria's occupied range in Maryland. Maryland's problems
encompasses a much larger scale and scope than those described
in this proposal. However, the accompanying scientific
investigations are the first logical step in addressing our
problems.
Current efforts have evolved to the inclusive, systematic
strategies now presented to Congress (see attached proposal). A
brief synopsis of the labors that led to this hearing is as
follows:
CHRONOLOGY OF APPROACH
1989
During the mid-1980's Maryland's non-native nutria
population exhibited seemingly exponential growth rates.
Likewise, resident population densities, occupied range and
accompanying marshland degradation paralleled these increases.
This prompted the Maryland Department Of Natural Resources
(DNR) to initiate the CUE (catch per unit effort) project in
1989 to assess nutria population characteristics. The study
generally supported qualitative field assessments of rapidly
increasing populations.
1993
DNR formed the first multi-agency nutria task force. The
group was charged with the overwhelming responsibility of
development or a workable approach to control of non-native
nutria populations. Efforts of the task force resulted in
completion of the first draft eradication plan. The concept of
nutria eradication also received legislative support in 1993
with the passage of Senate Bill 27. This legislation mandated
that 50 percent of the proceeds from the sale of State duck
stamps be designated for nutria control.
During preparation of the 1993 plan, literature searches
revealed that successful nutria eradication efforts had been
completed in East Anglia, Great Britain. Under the direction of
Dr. Morris Gosling, the Coypu (nutria) Research Laboratory, and
the Coypu Control Organization reversed decades of futile
efforts and eradicated the entire resident nutria population
during the 1980's. This victorious endeavor resulted from the
marriage of systematic applied research and field control
activities (see attached ``Extinction to Order,'' M. Gosling).
These successes led DNR to solicit critical review of our
initial plan from Dr. Gosling.
1994
Communications with Dr. Gosling highlighted the
complexities of a large scale eradication program. Upon
realization of the enormity of the task before us, DNR entered
into a contractual agreement with Dr. Gosling to provide
technical expertise in development of a revised eradication
plan.
Dr. Gosling completed field assessments of Maryland's
nutria population and occupied range, and submitted his
recommendations to DNR. He felt that eradication in Maryland
was an achievable goal, however basic natural history and
control strategy information had to be obtained prior to the
implementation of control efforts.
Dr. Goslings expertise and comments were then synthesized
with the initial eradication plan. Project descriptions were
developed, and resulted in production of the initial working
concepts of our current proposal entitled ``Marsh Restoration:
Nutria Control in Maryland.'' All of our ensuing efforts have
closely paralleled the recommendations offered by Dr. Gosling.
1995
Quantifiable data documenting the deleterious consequences
of established nutria populations is critical to enlisting
public understanding and support. Accordingly, in 1995 DNR
entered a joint research endeavor with the U.S. Geological
Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center designed to assess
the impacts of nutria grazing on marshland vegetative
communities. This study entitled ``The Effect of Nutria
(Myocaster coypus) on Marsh Loss in the Lower Eastern Shore of
Maryland: An Exclosure Study'' has proven to be the largest
investigation of it's kind ever initiated in a marshland
ecosystem. Mike Haramis, the project's principle investigator
will provide accompanying testimony on preliminary findings of
this study.
1997
The DNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have continually
solicited critical input of the draft eradication plan. These
requests led to convening of a ``Nutria Control Summit''
meeting in 1997. Representatives of various agencies,
organizations, and disciplines contributed valuable insights
and perspectives to augment the existing plan.
As a result of this meeting, 17 governmental agencies and
private organizations formed partnerships and appointed two
complimentary task groups. The first was an expanded technical
committee which was charged with refinement the draft plan's
experimental design, and development of the three year pilot
project. The second committee was charged with development of a
public education campaign to cultivate support for the program.
1998
Both of these committees have worked in unison to produce
the proposal with which you are now presented. The attached
document entitled ``Marsh Restoration: Nutria Control in
Maryland'' details the specific approaches necessary to
ultimately address control of nutria populations.
THE PLAN
History has demonstrated that normal commercial harvest of
nutria is not adequate to substantially reduce population
levels. Prolific reproductive rates and adaptability in
response to high mortality rates have allowed nutria
populations to expand through time. Detailed records kept on a
7,000 acre landholding adjacent to Blackwater National Wildlife
Refuge document this phenomena. Nutria population densities and
associated ecological damage on this parcel continue to
increase in spite of sustained annual harvests of approximately
25 percent to 35 percent of the total population.
As demonstrated by Dr. Gosling, the key to successfully
eradicating nutria is to modify existing harvest equipment and
strategies. The information necessary to capitalize on critical
behavioral traits and characteristics can only be obtained
through the systematic, and quantitative investigations
included in the attached proposal. Accurate home range,
movement, reproductive and control equipment evaluation data is
essential to the development of efficient harvest strategies.
Key components of the proposal and brief descriptions are
as follows:
1. Impacts of nutria on marsh ecosystems (enclosure study).
This cooperative research endeavor will quantitatively document
the impacts on plant species composition and densities in
marshland vegetative communities. This data will be employed by
public education personnel to garner the public support
necessary for an eradication project.
2. Nutria natural history characteristics.
(a) Temporal, spatial and gender specific home range
characteristics.
A variety of techniques including radio-telemetry, mark
recapture, and Forward Looking Infra-red Radar will be
utilized by researchers to assess these behavioral
manifestations. A basic understanding of when, where,
why and how animals occur and travel is necessary for
control personnel to develop efficient harvest schemes.
(b) Reproductive characteristics.
Reproductive dynamics including age of sexual
maturation and failure, compensatory reproductive
rates, litter size, and average number of litters per
year are essential to predicting control personnel
force size and control in-
tensity levels. Researchers will obtain this
information by performing necropsies on animals
supplied by the control unit.
3. Pilot Control Project.
(a) Develop and evaluate control equipment and strategies.
Eradication based harvest schemes will require
evaluation and modification of existing control
equipment, as well as development of new and innovative
apparatus. Likewise, current sustained yield harvest
strategies will require systematic alterations.
Information supplied by project researchers will enable
control personnel to investigate and modify all of
these parameters.
(b) Age and gender specific harvest characteristics.
When population densities are reduced to a critical
level, harvest efficiency may dictate targeting
specific age classes or gender for maximum reduction
values. Research and control personnel will work
cooperatively to obtain this mutually beneficial
information.
4. Marsh restoration.
(a) Investigate recuperative capabilities of degraded marshland
ecosystems.
Researchers will determine the gradient of recovery for
untreated marsh vegetative communities when nutria are
removed.
(b) Investigate mechanical techniques for restoration of
severely degraded marshland ecosystems.
Researchers will evaluate if changing elevational
levels of degraded marsh through the application of
sediments will facilitate recovery of severely degraded
areas. The treatments will be applied in areas with and
without nutria present.
5. Public education and support.
Information supplied by both research and control personnel
will be crafted by education specialist into a media campaign
that conveys the urgency and inherent value of the eradication
project to the general public.
This body of work is the culmination of over nine years of labor by
recognized experts in the biological science. It represents the best
available, systematic and scientifically based approach to resolution
of an extremely urgent problem. Thank you for your consideration.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.038
Statement of Dr. Edward C. Soutiere, President and Manager, Tudor Farms
Inc.
Tudor Farms is a privately-owned wildlife management area
and hunting preserve located on the Transquaking and
Chicamacomico River watersheds upstream of the Blackwater River
and Fishing Bay marsh complexes. I manage the Farms' 5,500
acres for a variety of wildlife, both upland and wetland
species, but managing for waterfowl is our priority. Our 2,400
acres of tidal marsh and 200 acres of man-made freshwater
wetlands are important habitat to thousands of ducks, geese and
shorebirds. All the tidal marsh upstream and immediately
downstream of Tudor Farms is privately owned, and all of this
marsh land is either owned by waterfowl hunt clubs, leased to
waterfowl hunters by the owners, or hunted on by the owners
themselves. Today this Committee is addressing the loss of
valuable wetlands at the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge
caused, in part, by the nutria. I welcome this opportunity to
remind the Committee that the private owners of wetlands in
Dorchester County, Maryland are suffering the same losses and
damage, and that we too are interested in finding a solution.
In the nine years that I have managed Tudor Farms, 500
acres of vegetated tidal marsh has converted to mudflats and
open water. Marsh loss is greatest, averaging 30 percent to 40
percent, in the broad marsh expanses adjacent to the
Transquaking and Chicamacomico Rivers, and less in the narrow
headwater marshes of the creeks feeding into the rivers. Early
on, my staff and I recognized that nutria were damaging the
marsh with their feeding and traveling activities. In addition,
nutria feed in our crop fields and landscape plantings, and dig
and burrow in our water-control dikes and structures, causing
thousands of dollars of damage annually.
Hoping to control, if not reduce, the population of nutria
on Tudor Farms, I opened the Farms to trapping by several local
fur-trappers in 1992. These trappers were of course most
interested in trapping muskrat, raccoon and fox for which there
is a fur-market. There is no market for the fur of nutria in
Maryland so I gave the trappers a cash incentive of $1.25 for
each nutria killed. In 1995, Tudor Farms awarded a research
grant to the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore (UMES) to
study the nutria on Tudor Farms and to determine what if any
effect the trapping was having on the nutria population. The
graduate student, Lara Ras, who conducted the research will
complete her program of study at UMES this fall.
At this time, I can tell you that the number of nutria
trapped or shot each trapping season has remained relatively
stable at about 5,000, ranging from 4,000 to 5,000. The
estimates of nutria numbers on Tudor Farms have also remained
stable at 17,000 to 24,000, or 7 to 10 nutria per acre of
marsh. This means that, at best, we have succeeded in removing
only 25 percent of the population each year. For nutria, which
reach sexual maturity at 6 months of age and can have two or
three litters of 4 to 5 young per year, this is no control at
all.
I conclude that traditional trapping during the 4 month
fur-bearer season in Maryland cannot alone control nutria
numbers. Furthermore, the removal of 25 percent of a nutria
population each year is insufficient to arrest the loss of
vegetated marshland.
Eradication, a much more difficult objective than control,
is a desirable goal for Maryland if we are to have any hope of
retaining our valuable tidal marshes. But eradication will
require the dedicated effort of a professional staff working
full-time and year around for several years, and some help from
Mother Nature, to achieve. Public support of the eradication
effort will be essential for, as Dr. L. M. Gosling noted during
his 1994 seminar at Tudor Farms on the subject of the United
Kingdom nutria eradication program, in an eradication program
``the only nutria you are paying for is the last one.''
Tudor Farms will support the pilot project, ``Marsh
Restoration: Nutria Control in Maryland.'' We have a vested
interest in maintaining a healthy wetland system in the
Chesapeake Bay. I believe our neighbors share our interest. I
urge this Committee to support the funding request for the
proposed pilot project. We clearly need to move quickly to find
and develop techniques to save and restore our fast vanishing
marshlands.
------
Statement of Richard B. Pierce, Director of Operations. Ducks
Unlimited, Inc.'s Great Lakes/Atlantic Regional Office
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Richard Pierce, I am the Director of
Operations for Ducks Unlimited's Great Lakes/Atlantic Regional
Office. My staff and I are responsible for delivering Ducks
Unlimited's conservation programs along the Mid-Atlantic Coast.
Ducks Unlimited is the largest non-government waterfowl and
wetlands conservation organization in the world, having more
than a million supporters. Since its founding in 1937, Ducks
Unlimited has raised more than $1 billion to conserve over 8
million acres of critical wildlife habitat in all 50 states,
each Canadian province, and in key areas in Mexico.
Since 1987, Ducks Unlimited has worked with state, Federal
and private conservation partners to restore, protect, and
enhance over 40,000 acres of wetlands and associated habitat
within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In May of 1997, we
announced our Chesapeake Bay Initiative, a joint partnership
with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other partners to
restore wildlife habitat on an integrated, landscape approach,
and improve water quality by reducing sediment and nutrient
loading within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This Initiative is
an ambitious effort to restore over 90,000 acres of wildlife
habitat and raise over 20 million dollars to support our
conservation efforts, and the efforts of our state and Federal
partners. Through this Initiative we have been working with the
U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Interior to implement
conservation programs, including the Partners for Wildlife
Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Wetland
Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, to
improve wildlife habitat and water quality across the
Chesapeake Bay watershed.
The tidal marshes of the Chesapeake Bay provide habitat for
over 1 million wintering waterfowl, which accounts for
approximately 35 percent of all waterfowl wintering in the
Atlantic Flyway. Species of continental importance include
American Black ducks (Anus rubripes), Canvasback (Aytha
valisineria), Lesser and Greater Scaup (Aytha affinis, Aytha
marila) and the Atlantic Population of Canada Geese, (Branta
canadensis). In addition to waterfowl, the Bay's ecosystem
supports over 2,700 species of fish and wildlife.
As you have heard from previous testimony, nutria
(Myocastor coypus), an introduced exotic species have caused
severe damage to the tidal marshes of the Chesapeake Bay. Due
to the dependence of large populations of waterfowl and other
wildlife on these affected ecosystems, Ducks Unlimited finds
that controlling nutria populations and restoring tidal
wetlands is a priority for our Chesapeake Bay Initiative.
Impacts to tidal marshes are a result of several factors
including sea level rise, land subsidence, erosion, and nutria.
Nutria are large herbivores that feed directly on the
vegetation that provides structure to a marsh. Their impacts
result in changes in the vegetative composition of an emergent
marsh, and even the total loss of the marsh to open water. In
either case, the vegetative communities are altered and
productive waterfowl and wildlife habitat is lost.
Nutria feeding habits create highly erosive conditions and
leave the marsh pitted with holes and swim channels, and often
void of vegetation. The primary food source for nutria is three
square bulrush, (Scirpus onleyi). Three square bulrush is also
a valuable food resource for wintering waterfowl. The loss of
this vegetation component not only effects wintering waterfowl
populations, but also leads to a reduction in invertebrate
populations, which migrating waterfowl readily depend on.
Additionally, increased rates of erosion in concert with rising
sea levels increase the hydroperiod, or flooding regime, of the
marsh, which limits the ability of three square bulrush and
other plants to revegetate a site. The swim channels through
the marsh also permit the tidal inundation of many isolated,
interior ponds that support submerged aquatic vegetation. The
increase in salinity and turbidity limits the growing
conditions for submerged aquatic vegetation, and has reduced
many interior ponds to barren mud flats. Submerged aquatic
vegetation is an important food source for migrating and
wintering waterfowl, especially American Black ducks, a species
of priority concern in the Atlantic Flyway.
The restoration of tidal wetlands or marshes is an
important component of our Chesapeake Bay Initiative. Tidal
wetland systems are some of the most productive ecosystems in
the world, supporting thousands of aquatic and terrestrial
species, including many that are threatened and endangered.
Maryland has lost over 73 percent of its original wetlands,
making the remaining wetlands vital to maintaining the health
of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and the over 2 million
waterfowl that migrate through or winter in the Chesapeake Bay
each year. Unfortunately, large expanses of Maryland's
remaining marshes have been degraded by nutria. Therefore,
Ducks Unlimited supports this plan and its goal of controlling
nutria populations and restoring marsh habitat. We also support
the plan's efforts to study alternative restoration techniques
in order to minimize cost and increase effectiveness once
restoration efforts begin. Controlling nutria is just one step
in slowing the rate of marsh loss in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Restoration projects should also be implemented as
soon as possible in order to study restoration techniques and
to establish demonstration projects to educate the public on
the importance of the restoration of coastal marshes.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
your time and attention.
------
Statement of Jim Rapp, Director, Salisbury Zoological Park
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gilchrest, and Members of the
Committee:
My name is Jim Rapp. I am the Director of the Salisbury
Zoological Park in Salisbury, Maryland. I have worked for the
Salisbury Zoo for ten years serving in a number of capacities,
including the Zoo's Education Director.
The Salisbury Zoo is a twelve-acre facility that displays
over 100 different species, over 350 specimens, and specializes
in exhibiting North and South American species. The Zoo has
been a Member of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association
(AZA) since 1972, and has an annual attendance of 250,000
visitors, including 15,000 local school children. The Zoo is
also involved in a number of education programs with a sister
zoo in Belize and a nature reserve in Mexico.
The Salisbury Zoo appreciates the opportunity to testify
before the Committee on the pilot program proposal entitled
``Marsh Restoration: Nutria Control in Maryland.'' The Zoo
supports the proposal and expects to be an integral partner in
executing its educational mission.
As I am the last speaker today, my comments will focus on
the overall impact of introducing nonindigenous species to our
Nation's ecosystems, and the importance of educating the public
to prevent further destruction of the Eastern Shore Wetlands.
Species introductions, whether intentional or
unintentional, seem to be an inevitable result of human
activities. They may result in both economic and ecological
problems; it has been estimated that over 90 percent of all
such introductions have been harmful in some respect. As U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Director Jamie Clark said, ``Invasive
species tend be very adaptive, aggressive, and resilient. Once
they are established, we are unlikely to ever completely
eradicate them.'' In fact, Mr. Chairman, this past Sunday, the
Cable News Network (CNN) aired a new segment from its Earth
Matters series called ``Invader Animals'' that illustrated the
devastating effects of introduced species on local ecosystems
and the high cost associated with controlling or eradicating
them.
The United States has been invaded by nonindigenous exotic
species since the colonial period. However, in the late 1920s
when the United States became home to the sea lamprey and
witnessed its reign of terror on lake trout in the Great Lakes,
we truly came to realize the destruction these species could
cause to local ecosystems and our native species. Since then,
it seems our nation has been in a constant state of war to
prevent either the spread of established exotic species or the
introduction of others. One species in particular, the zebra
mussel, illustrates well the economic and ecological dangers of
nonindigenous exotic species. The zebra mussel was
unintentionally introduced into the Great Lakes ecosystem in
the 1980s through the untreated ballast tanks of vessels, and
in less than ten years, it has established itself throughout
the Great Lakes region, portions of the Mississippi River, the
Arkansas River, and Lake Champlain in New York. The zebra
mussel has caused millions of dollars in damage to filtration
systems throughout these areas, and has smothered populations
of native clams, mussels, and crayfish.
In 1990, Congress responded by passing the Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act. The Act created the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force to coordinate Federal and state
agencies combating the expanding problems associated with the
zebra mussel, as well as other introduced aquatic species. The
Task Force is charged with developing and implementing a
program to prevent the introduction and dispersal of aquatic
nuisance species in U.S. waters, and to monitor, control and
study such species.
In addition to the devastation caused by the zebra mussel,
other introduced exotic species such as the gypsy moth, pine
boring beetle, Phragmites reed, and brown tree snake have
inflicted damage on various ecosystems and displaced a number
of native species. The brown tree snake is a particularly good
example of the effects of exotic species on native wildlife.
The brown tree snake was accidentally introduced to Guam in
the late 1940s with a shipment of military equipment. In the
absence of natural predators, the snake population spread
quickly throughout the island. Animals native to Guam,
especially birds, lacked the natural adaptations to protect
themselves since snakes had never before existed on the island.
The result: there are no more native birds in the wild on Guam,
including the once-common Guam rail and Micronesian kingfisher.
Although brown tree snakes are nocturnal and are rarely seen by
people, they have been known to enter people's homes and farms,
killing small pets and farm animals, and even attacking
children. Guam's forest is eerily silent.
Now Hawaii, home to more endangered plants and birds than
any other U.S. state, may be the brown tree snake's next
victim. Without the diligence of the Department of Interior and
the state of Hawaii and their extensive inspection program at
airports and other transport centers, the brown tree snake
might already be established on Hawaii, and Hawaiians would
eventually hear the same eerie silence experienced by Guam. The
cost associated with this inspection program is understandably
high--in the millions--but the alternative is the extinction of
hundreds of species.
The AZA has also been active in conserving the endangered
species of these islands. Through its Species Survival
Plan<Register> (SSP), AZA coordinates a breeding and recovery
plan for the Guam rail involving sixteen institutional members,
and a plan for the Micronesian kingfisher involving fourteen
institutional members. The goal is to someday return these
species back to their native habitats. Although there is a
tremendous cost associated with these programs, AZA zoos know
their involvement is critical because they are the last hope
these species have from becoming extinct.
Biologists are familiar with numerous methods to curb the
adverse effects of introduced animals and to preserve native
ecosystems and species. Complete elimination of the exotic
species is sometimes advocated, but it can be a prohibitively
expensive technique. Controlling populations at low levels has
also been proposed. Ways to carry out these solutions have
ranged from live capture of animals to shooting and poisoning.
As the other speakers today have discussed, the State of
Maryland, particularly the Eastem Shore, has a serious nutria
problem. It also has a growing problem with the mute swan,
another introduced species. Currently, Maryland has a mute swan
population of 3,000, the largest concentration of any state.
The population of the entire eastern seaboard is 10,000 birds.
These birds are very aggressive and have displaced a number of
local bird populations, especially the threatened black
skimmer. Mr. Chairman, as the Committee is well aware, the
wetlands of the Chesapeake Bay are some of the most important
wetland areas in the United States, and have received global
recognition as ``Wetlands of International Importance'' under
the Ramsar Convention Treaty.
Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems in the
world, yet over half of this country's original wetlands have
already been destroyed, either by development, erosion,
subsidence, or nonindigenous exotic species.
Maryland's wetlands are of tremendous importance to the
state's residents. They serve as a place for fishing, hunting,
trapping, bird-watching, berry and timber harvesting,
agriculture and livestock production, and the growing hobby of
wildlife viewing and photography. The Zoo has been an active
partner in promoting ecotourism on the Eastern Shore,
especially bird-watching, through the Delmarva Birding Weekend
and the creation of the Delmarva Birding Guide. The Eastern
Shore's wetlands are home to hundreds of species of birds,
mammals, fish, and insects, and serve as important spawning or
nursery sites for many finfish and shellfish. Moreover, these
wetlands are vitally important to over one million waterfowl
that either winter on the Bay or use it during their migration.
Resource managers fear that, without intervention, Maryland's
wetlands, which provide significant ecological, cultural, and
economic benefits to the state, may completely disappear within
the next one or two decades.
While it is important to continue confronting the threats
to Eastern Shore wetlands of development, erosion, and
agricultural runoff, dealing with the nutria is perhaps an
easier task. As you have already heard from the other
witnesses, nutria are prolific, highly invasive, face no
natural predators to control their numbers, and threaten the
native muskrat. Most importantly, these powerful animals forage
directly on the vegetative root mat, leaving the marsh pitted
with digging sites and deep canals.
Consequently, several Federal, state, and private
organizations--many represented before you--have joined forces
to develop a plan for controlling nutria. The goal of the
proposal is to develop methods and strategies to eradicate the
nutria population, restore marsh habitats, and promote public
understanding of the importance of preserving Maryland's
wetlands. I believe the Salisbury Zoo is the perfect partner to
help execute the latter part of this proposal, because our
primary mission is to increase the public's awareness and
appreciation of wildlife and its habitat, and to encourage
people to become participants in conservation.
The proposed budget to develop a public awareness program
is absolutely crucial if the state's residents are to fully
understand and thus become active partners in controlling
nutria in Maryland. The program will help minimize the
controversy that will most likely surround nutria removal
activities. It is important that Eastern Shore citizens realize
the significance of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge
proposal, and understand the potential benefits it can have for
Maryland and other states, such as Louisiana. The Salisbury Zoo
would be a natural collaborator for the Refuge in disseminating
information to the public, and would offer an excellent venue
for education programs that target school children. The Zoo
sees itself as that bridge, necessary for the program to work,
between Federal and state agencies and the public.
This proposed pilot program for eradicating nutria will be
extremely beneficial in preventing future species from being
added to the Endangered Species Act, especially if the nutria
continues its conquest of wetlands habitat. Maryland is
fortunate; the current nutria population is still small enough
for this program to be successful. We can eradicate the nutria
now. However, if we wait much longer, we may only hope to
control the nutria's numbers. To use that famous saying, an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, even at the cost
of $2.3 million. Weighing the long-term cost of destruction
from nutria against the benefits of this pilot program, I
believe the answer is clear.
This proposal is a good, practical first step to better
understand the scope of the nutria problem in the Blackwater
Wildlife Refuge and the entire Eastern Shore, and the best way
to eradicate this destructive adversary.
Thank you for allowing me to testify in support of the
Proposed Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge Marsh Restoration
Program to Control Nutria.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0341.061