Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States - Aquatic ...

Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in theUnited StatesSeptember 1993OTA-F-565NTIS order #PB94-107679GPO stock #052-003-01347-9

Recommended Citation:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Harmful Non-Indigenous Speciesin the United States, OTA-F-565 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, September 1993).iiFor Sale by the U.S. Government Printing OfficeSuperintendent of Documents, Mail Stop, SSOP. Washington, DC 20402-9328ISBN O-1 6-042075-X

ForewordNon-indigenous species (NIS)-----those species found beyond their naturalranges—are part and parcel of the U.S. landscape. Many are highlybeneficial. Almost all U.S. crops and domesticated animals, many sportfish and aquiculture species, numerous horticultural plants, and mostbiological control organisms have origins outside the country. A large numberof NIS, however, cause significant economic, environmental, and healthdamage. These harmful species are the focus of this study.The total number of harmful NIS and their cumulative impacts are creatinga growing burden for the country. We cannot completely stop the tide of newharmful introductions. Perfect screening, detection, and control are technicallyimpossible and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, theFederal and State policies designed to protect us from the worst species are notsafeguarding our national interests in important areas.These conclusions have a number of policy implications. First, the Nationhas no real national policy on harmful introductions; the current system ispiecemeal, lacking adequate rigor and comprehensiveness. Second, manyFederal and State statutes, regulations, and programs are not keeping pace withnew and spreading non-indigenous pests. Third, better environmental educationand greater accountability for actions that cause harm could prevent someproblems. Finally, faster response and more adequate funding could limit theimpact of those that slip through.This study was requested by the House Merchant Marine and FisheriesCommittee; its Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and theEnvironment and the Subcommittee on Oceanography and Great Lakes; theSubcommittee on Water Resources of the House Committee on Public Worksand Transportation, and by Representative John Dingell. In addition,Representatives Amo Houghton and H. James Saxton endorsed the study.We greatly appreciate the contributions of the Advisory Panel, authors ofcommissioned papers, workshop participants, survey respondents, and the manyadditional people who reviewed material. Their timely and indepth assistanceenabled us to do the extensive study our requesters envisioned. As with all OTAstudies, the content of the report is the sole responsibility of OTA.Roger C. Herdman, Directoriii

Advisory PanelMarion CoxChairResource AssociatesBethesda, MDJ. Baird CallicottUniversity of Wisconsin-Stevens PointStevens Point, WIFait h Thompson CampbellNatural Resources DefensecouncilWashington, DCJames CarltonWilliams College-Mystic SeaportMystic, CTAlfred CrosbyUniversity of TexasAustin, TXLester E. EhlerUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, CAWilliam Flemer, IllWm. Flemer’s Sons, Inc.t/a Princeton NurseriesPrinceton, NJJohn GrandyHumane Society of the U.S.Gaithersburg, MDLynn GreenwaltNational Wildlife FederationWashington, DCRobert P. KahnConsultantRockville, MDWilliam B. KovalakDetroit Edison Co.Detroit, MIJohn D. LattinOregon State UniversityCorvallis, ORJoseph P. McCrarenNational Aquiculture AssociationShepherdstown, WVMarshall MeyersPet Industry Joint AdvisorycouncilWashington, DCRobert E. MorrisNorthcoast MortgageEureka, CAPhilip J. RegalUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, MNRudolph A. Rosen 1Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartmentAustin, TXDon C. SchmitzFlorida Department of NaturalResourcesTallahassee, FLJerry D. ScribnerAttorney-at-LawSacramento, CAHoward M. Singletary, Jr.North Carolina Department ofAgricultureRaleigh, NCClifford W. SmithUniversity of Hawaii at ManoaHonolulu, HIReggie WyckoffNational Association of WheatGrowers’ AssociationsGenoa, CO1Affiliatiion provided for identification only.iv

EXECUTIVE BRANCH LIAISONSGary H. Johnston Robert Peoples William S. WallaceU.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services U.S. Department of AgricultureWashington, DC Arlington, VA Washington, DCKenneth Knauer 2 Katherine H. Reichelderfer 3 Melvyn J. Weiss 4U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of AgricultureWashington, DC Washington, DC Washington, DCNOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and though&d critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The paneldoes not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy ofits contents.2Until January 1992.3Panel member August, 1991; liaison thereafter.4After January 1992.

Preject StaffWalter E. ParhamProgram ManagerFood and Renewable ResourcesProgramPhyllis N. WindleProject DirectorANALYTICAL STAFFElizabeth ChorneskyAnalystPeter T. JenkinsAnalystSteven FondriestResearch Assistant lKathleen E. BannonResearch Assistant 2Christine MlotEditorADMINISTRATIVE STAFFNathaniel LewisOffice AdministratorNellie HammondAdministrative SecretaryCarolyn SwarmPersonal Computer Specialist1Until January 8, 1993.‘After April 12, 1993.vi

c ontents1 Summary, Issues and Options 1Summary of Findings 1Policy Issues and Options 15Chapter Review 502 The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 51What’s In and What’s Out: Focus and Definitions 51Do We Know Enough To Assess the Situation? 54Benefits of Introductions 56When Non-Indigenous Species Cause Problems 57Economic Costs 63Health Costs 69Environmental Costs 70Relationship to Biological Diversity 74Chapter Review 763 The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates ofIntroductions 77Pathways: Humans Increase the Movement of Species 77How Many Non-Indigenous Species Are There? 91Factors Affecting Pathways and Rates 96How Many Is Too Many? 97Chapter Review 1004 The Application of Decisionmaking Methods 107Which Species Are Imported and Released? 108Which Species Are Controlled or Eradicated? 110Common Decisionmaking Approaches 111Decisionmaking Protocols 125Values in Decisionmaking 129New Syntheses of Diverse Approaches 131Chapter Review 1365 Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems 137Technologies for Preventing Unintentional and Illegal Introductions 137Technologies for Managing Established HarmfulNon-Indigenous Species 143Related Issues 157Chapter Review 162vii

6 A Primer on Federal Policy 163Lessons From the Primer 163Current National Policy 166Policies and Programs of Federal Agencies 170Chapter Review 2007 State and Local Approaches From a NationalPerspective 201The Relationship Between the Federal Government and the States 201Relationships Among States 207State Laws Regulating Fish and Wildlife Importation and Release 208State Laws on Non-Indigenous Plants, Insects, and OtherInvertebrate Animals 221Proposed Model State Laws 227Local Approaches 229Chapter Review 2318 Two Case Studies: Non-Indigenous Species in Hawaiiand Florida 233Non-Indigenous Species in Hawaii 234Non-Indigenous Species in Florida 254Chapter Review 2669 Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case 267Sources of Controveny 268Federal Regulation of GEO Releases 272Ecological Risk Assessment 279Chapter Review 28510 The Context of the Future: International Lawand Global Change 287Increasing Global Trade and Other Socioeconomic Trends 287Technological Changes 293Treaties and the Movement of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 294From Trends to Predictions 298Wrap-up: The Choices Before Us 306APPENDIXESA List of Boxes, Figures, and Tables 307B Authors, Workshop Participants, Reviewers, and SurveyRespondents 311C References 319SPECIES INDEX 371INDEX 380Vlli

Issues,andOptions 1The movement of plants, animals, and microbes beyondtheir natural range is much like a game of biologicalroulette. Once in a new environment, an organism maysimply die. Or it may take hold and reproduce, but withlittle noticeable effect on its surroundings. But sometimes a newspecies spreads unimpeded, with devastating ecological oreconomic results. This latter category-including species likethe zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) and the gypsy moth(Lymantria dispar)-is largely the focus of, and the reason for,this assessment. This opening chapter both summarizes theassessment and spells out the policy issues and options forCongress that emerged from the analysis.SUMMARY OF FINDINGSThe summary portion of this chapter compiles the moredetailed findings from the individual chapters that follow (box1-A). It is organized to reflect the three focal points of the report:. an overview of the status of harmful non-indigenous species(MS) in the United States (chs. 2, 3);o an analysis of the technological issues involved in dealingwith harmful NIS (chs. 4, 5, 9); and● an examination of the institutional organization in place(chs. 6, 7).Two chapters cut across these areas. Chapter 8 presents detailedcase studies for two States with particularly severe NIS-relatedproblem-Hawaii and Florida. Chapter 10 discusses the futureand the international context in which NIS issues will evolve.In each case, the pertinent chapter provides additional documentation.00000000 “0 000001

2 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox l-A—A Road Map to the Full AssessmentThis assessment has three focal points: the status of harmful non-indigenous species (NIS) in the UnitedStates; technological issues regarding decisionmaking and species management; and institutional and policyframeworks. Each chapter elaborates on the findings summarized here and contains additional examples ofproblem species and their locations.Chapter12345678910Summary, Issues, and Optionschapter findings; 8 major issues; policy options; New Zealand’s approachThe Consequences of Harmful Non-indigenous Speciesdefinitions and scope; benefits; economic, health, and environmental costs;extinctions and biologicaldiversityThe Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of introductionspathways into and within the country; numbers per taxonomic group, state, decade; new detectionssince 1980The Application of Decisionmaking Methodsuncertainty; ‘dean’ and ‘dirty’ lists; risk analysis; environmental impact assessment; benefit/costanalysis; protocols; values; new approaches; Siberian timberTechnologies for Preventing and Managing Problemsinspection and detection; databases; quarantine and containment; control methods; eradication;environmental education; ecological restoration; FIFRA reregistrationA Primer on Federal Policysummary lessons; President Carter’s Executive Order; Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force; activitiesof 21 agencies by type of activity and organisms affectedState and Local Approaches from a National PerspectiveFederal/State relations; States’ legal approaches, standards, gaps, and statutes on fish and wildlife;survey results; State laws on plants, insects, and other invertebrates; model State laws; enforcement;exemplary approachesTwo Case Studies: Non-indigenous Species In Hawaii and Floridathe States’ uniqueness; introduction rates; critical species; affected sectors; newprograms; fruit flies andbrown tree snakes in Hawaii; melaleuca and Hurricane Andrew in FloridaGenetically Engineered Organisms As a Special Casetechnical and Policy controversies; Federal regulation since 1984; ecological rlsk assessment; scale-upof releases; transgenic fish and squash; NIS vs. GEOs;The Context of the Future: international Law and Global Changetreaties and trade agreements; CITES as a model; technological change; impacts of current trends;future pests; climate change; worst and best case scenariosAppendixeslist of boxes, figures, and tables; authors, workshop participants, reviewers, and survey respondents;referencesindexescommon and scientific names of species; general index

l-Summary, Issues, and Options 3Table l-l—Estimated Numbers of Non-Indigenous Species in the United States aSpecies with origins outside of the United StatesPercentage of total species inCategory Number the United States in categoryPlants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >2,000 bTerrestrial vertebrates . . . . . . . . . 142 5=60/0Insects and arachnids ... , . . . . . >2,000 =2%Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 =8%Mollusks (non-marine) . . . . . . . . . 91 =4%Plant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 bTotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,542Species of U.S. origin introduced beyond their natural rangesPercentage of total species inCategory Number the United States in categoryPlants ., . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b bTerrestrial vertebrates . . . . . . . . . 51 =2%Insects and arachnids . . . . . . . . . b bFish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 =17YOCMollusks (non-marine) . . . . . . . . . b bPlant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . b ba Numbers should be considered minimum estimates. Experts believe many more NIS are established in the country,but have not yet been detected.b Number or proportion unknown.C Percentage for fish is the calculated average percentage for several regions, Percentages for all other categories arecalculated as the percent of the total US. flora or fauna in that category.SOURCES: Summarized by the Office of Technology Assessment from: J.C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequencesof the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Freshwater, Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in the United States,” contractorreport prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991; W,R. Courtenay, Jr., “Pathways andConsequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes in the United States,” contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, September 1991; K.C. Kim and A.G. Wheeler, “Pathways and Consequences ofthe Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and Arachnids in the United States,” contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, December 1991; R.N. Mack, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction ofNon-Indigenous Plants in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,September 1991; C.L. Schoulties, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous PlantPathogens in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991;S. A. Temple and D.M. Carroll, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Vertebrates in theUnited States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991.Non-Indigenous Species Today:Numbers, Pathways, Rates, andConsequencesMany more NIS—those plants, animals, andmicrobes found beyond their natural geographicalranges—are in the United States today than therewere 100 years ago. At least 4,500 species offoreign origin have established free-living populationsin this country. These include severalthousand plant and insect species and severalhundred non-indigenous vertebrate, mollusk, fish,and plant pathogen species (table l-l). Approximately2 to 8 percent of each group of organismsis non-indigenous to the United States.Some NIS are clearly beneficial. Nonindigenouscrops and livestock-like soybeans(Glycine roux), wheat (Triticum spp.), and cattle(Bos taurus)-form the foundation of U.S. agriculture,and other NIS play key roles in the petand nursery industries, fish and wildlife management,and biological control efforts. These andother positive contributions of NIS are largelybeyond the scope of this study, however. OTA’swork takes a comprehensive look at the damaging

4 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesFigure l-l-State by State Distribution of Some High Impact Non-Indigenous SpeciesPurple Kiisestrufe (Lythrurm salicaria) 1985 1 Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) 1986 2 European Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar) 1990 3.2Russian Wheat Aphid (Diuraphis noxia) 1989 4L -i O.% -oZebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) 19937.Y../F’”’*OSalt Cedar (Tamarix pendantra and T. gallica) 1965 5y“-+ ... %.-./ uKudzu (Pueraria lobata) 1990 8 ./Imported Fire Ants (Solenopsis invicia and S .richter) 1992 6.,’)’-~ ‘0 “@DSOURCES:1. D.Q. Thompson, R.L. Stuckey, E.B. Thompson, “Spread, Impact, and Control of Purple Loosesttife (Lythrum salicaria) in North AmericanWetlands” (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987).2. Clement L. Counts, Ill, ‘The Zoogeography and History of the Invasion of the United States by Corbicula Fluminea (Bivalvia: Corbiculidae),”American MalacologicalBulletin, Special Edition No. 2, 1986, pp. 7-39.3. P.W. Schaefer and R.W. Fuester, “Gypsy Moths: Thwarting Their Wandering Ways,” Agricultural Research, vol. 39, No. 5, May 1991, pp. 4-11;M.L. McManus and T. McIntyre, “Introduction,” The Gypsy Moth: Research Toward Integrated Pest Management, C.C. Deane and M.L. McManus(eds.) Technical Bulletin No. 1584 (Washington, DC: U.S. Forest Service, 1981), pp. 1-8; T. Eiber, “Enhancement of Gypsy Moth Management,Detection, and Delay Strategies,” Gypsy Moth News, No. 26, June 1991, pp. 2-5.4. S.D. Kindler and T.L. Springer, “Alternative Hosts of Russian Wheat Aphid” (Homoptera: Aphididae), Journal of Economical Entomology, vol. 82,No. 5, 1989, pp. 1358-1362.5. T.W. Robinson, “Introduction, Spread and Areal Extent of Saltcedar (Tamarix) in the Western States,” Studies of Evapotranspiration, GeologicalSurvey Professional Paper 491-A (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965).6. V.R. Lewis et al., “Imported Fire Ants: Potential Risk to California,” California Agriculture, vol. 46, No. 1, January-February 1992, pp. 29-31; D’VeraCohn, “insect Aside: Beware of the Fire Down Below, Stinging Ants From Farther South Have Begun to Make Inroads in Virginia, Maryland,”Washington Post, June 2, 1992, p. B3.7. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, briefing delivered to the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, May 21, 1993.8. Anonymous, National Geographic Magazine, ‘Scourge of the South Maybe Heading North,” vol. 178, No. 1, July 1990.9. M.L. Winston, “Honey, They’re Here! Leaning to Cope with Africanized Bees,” The Sciences, vol. 32, No. 2, March/April 1992, pp. 22-28.

l-Summary, Issues, and Options 5Table 1-2—Estimated Cumulative Losses to the United States From Selected HarmfulNon-Indigenous Species, 1906-1991Species analyzed Cumulative loss estimates Species not anaiyzed aCategory (number) (millions of dollars, 1991) (number)Plants b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 603 —Terrestrial vertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 225 >39insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 92,658 >330Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 467 >30Aquatic invertebrates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1,207 >35Plant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 867 >44Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . 4 917 —Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 96,944 >478a Based on estimated numbers of known harmful species per category (figure 2-4).b Excludes most agricultural weeds; these are covered in box 2-D.NOTES: The estimates omit many harmful NIS for which data were unavailable. Figures for the species represented here generally cover only oneyear or a few years. Numerous accounting judgments were necessary to allow consistent comparison of the 96 different reports relied on; informationwas incomplete, inconsistent, or had other shortcomings for most of the 79 species.SOURCE: M. Cochran, “Non-Indigenous Species in the United States: Ecmnomic Consequences,” contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, March 1992.species: how they get here, their impacts, andwhat can be done about them.Distinguishing between “good” and “bad”NIS is not easy. Some species produce bothpositive and negative consequences, dependingon the location and the perceptions of theobservers. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria),for example, is an attractive nursery plant but amajor wetland weed. Approximately 15 percentof the NIS in the United States cause severe harm,High-impact species—such as the zebra mussel,gypsy moth, or leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) (aweed)----occur throughout the country (figurel-l). Almost every part of the United Statesconfronts at least one highly damaging NIS today.They affect many national interests: agriculture,industry, human health, and the protection ofnatural areas.The number and impact of harmful NIS arechronically underestimated, especially for speciesthat do not damage agriculture, industry, orhuman health. Harmful NIS cost millions toperhaps billions of dollars annually. From 1906 to1991, just 79 NIS caused documented losses of$97 billion in harmful effects, for example (table1-2). A worst-case scenario for 15 potentialhigh-impact NIS puts forth another $134 billionin future economic losses (table 1-3). The figuresrepresent only a part of the total documented andpossible costs—that is, they do not include a largenumber of species known to be costly but forwhich little or no economic data were available,e.g., non-indigenous agricultural weeds. Nor dothey account for intangible, nonmarket impacts.Harmful NIS also have had profound environmentalconsequences, exacting a significant tollon U.S. ecosystems. These range from wholesaleecosystem changes and extinction of indigenousspecies (especially on islands) to more subtleecological changes and increased biological sameness.The melaleuca tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia)is rapidly degrading the Florida Evergladeswetlands system by outcompeting indigenousplants and altering topography and soils. InHawaii, some NIS have led to the extinction ofindigenous species, and the brown tree snake(Boiga irregularisis) may further this process.Naturally occurring movements of species intothe United States are uncommon. Most new NISarrive in association with human activity, transport,or habitat modification that provides newopportunities for species’ establishment. Numerousharmful species arrived as unintended byproductsof cultivation, commerce, tourism, or travel.

6 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 1-3-Worst Case Scenarios: Potential Economic Losses From 15 Selected Non-Indigenous Species aCumulative loss estimatesGroup Species studied (in millions, $1991) bPlants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . melaleuca, purple Ioosestrife, witchweed 4,588Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . African honey bee, Asian gypsy moth, boll weevil, 73,739Mediterranean fruit fly, nun moth, spruce bark beetlesAquatic invertebrates.. . . . . . . . . zebra mussel 3,372Plant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . annosus root disease, larch canker, soybean rust fungus 26,924Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . foot and mouth disease, pine wood nematodes 25,617Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 species 134,240a see index for scientific names.b Estimates are net present values of economic loss projections obtained from various studies and report selected potentially harmful NIS. Manyof the economic projections are not weighted by the probability that the invasions would actually occur. Thus, the figures represent worst casescenarios. The periods of the projections range from 1 to 50 years.SOURCE: M. Cochran, “Non-Indigenous Species in the United States: Economic Consequences,” contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, March 1992.For example, they arrived as contaminants of bulkcommodities, packing materials, shipping containers,or ships’ ballast. Weeds continue to enterthe country as contaminants in seed shipments;both plant and fish pathogens have arrived withdiseased stocks. Some NIS stow away on cars andother conveyances, including military equipment.Other harmful NIS were intentionally importedas crops, ornamental plants, livestock, pets, oraquiculture species-and later escaped. Of the300 weed species of the western United States, atleast 36 escaped from horticulture or agriculture.A number of NIS were imported and released forsoil conservation, fishing and hunting, or biologicalcontrol and later turned out to be harmful. Afew illegal introductions also occur.Different groups of organisms arrive by differentpathways. Some fish are imported intentionallyto enhance sport fisheries; others are illegallyreleased by aquarium dealers or owners or escapefrom aquiculture facilities. Most foreign terrestrialvertebrates are intentional introductions.Insects (except for biological control organisms)and aquatic and terrestrial mollusks usuallyhitchhike with plants, commercial shipments,baggage, household goods, ships’ ballast water,or aquarium and aquiculture shipments.Far more unintentional introductions of insectsand plant pathogens have had harmful effects thanhave intentional introductions. For terrestrialvertebrates, fish, and mollusks, however, intentionalintroductions have caused harm approximatelyas often as have unintentional ones,suggesting a history of poor species choices andcomplacency regarding their potential harm.Far more is known about pathways of foreignNIS into the United States than the routes bywhich NIS have spread beyond their naturalranges within the country. Once here, NIS spreadboth with and without human assistance. A few ofthese pathways have no international counterpart,e.g., the release of bait animals like the sheepsheadminnow (Cyprinodon variegates). Knownor potentially harmful NIS that are commerciallydistributed or officially recommended for variousapplications can spread especially quickly.OTA found no clear evidence that the rate ofharmful NIS imports has climbed consistentlyover the past 50 years. The ways and rates atwhich species are added from abroad fluctuatewidely because of social, political, and technologicalfactors, e.g., new trade patterns and innovationsin transportation. Such factors have hadmajor significance in the past and will continue tooperate. For example, State and Federal plantquarantine laws slowed rates of introduction ofinsect pests and plant pathogens after 1912.However, rates rarely reach zero and they havebeen higher throughout the 20th century than inthe preceding one.

l-Summary, Issues, and Options 7More than 205 NIS from foreign countries werefirst introduced or detected in the Unites Statessince 1980, and 59 of these are expected to causeeconomic or environmental harm. There may belimits to the acceptable total burden of harmfulNIS in the country. This consideration has yet tobe incorporated into policy decisions such assetting tolerable annual levels of species entry.OTA has carefully examined the best availableevidence on the numbers, rates, pathways, andimpacts of NIS. Six scientists prepared backgroundpapers on the pathways and consequencesof NIS within their area of expertise. Another 36experts from industry, academia, and governmentreviewed their work. OTA supplemented thiswork with its own analysis of the science andpolicy literature.Based on this extensive review of the statusof NIS, OTA concludes that the total numberof harmful NIS and their cumulative impactsare creating a growing economic and environmentalburden for the country. This conclusionleads to certain policy issues discussed later inthis chapter. These address:●●the merits of prompt congressional action tocreate a more stringent national policy (pp.15-19), andways to provide funding for new or expandedefforts and to increase accountabilityfor actions that lead to damage (pp. 40-45).Technological Issues: Decisionmaking AboutNIS, Pest Management, and the Special Caseof Genetically Engineered OrganismsSome of the most harmful NIS-like kudzu(Pueraria lobata), water hyacinth (Eichhorniacrassipes), and feral goats (Capra hircus)---wereimported and released intentionally, with theirnegative effects unanticipated or underestimated.The central issues for MS and genetically engineeredorganisms (a special subset) are the same:deciding which to keep out, which to release, andhow to control those that have unexpected harmfuleffects. Consequently, part of OTA’s studyFederal laws helped decrease the number of harmfulnon-indigenous insect pests, plant pathogens, andweeds imported with crop seeds and plants.focused on the kinds of decisionmaking toolsavailable.Uncertainty in predicting risks and impacts ofNIS remains a problem. Generally, the impact ofnew species cannot be predicted confidently orquantitatively. Risk can be reduced, or at leastmade explicit, using methods such as risk analysis,benefit/cost analysis, environmental impactassessment, and decisionmaking protocols. Expertjudgment, however, is most broadly feasible.By and large, three interrelated problems remainlargely unsolved:1. determining levels of acceptable risk;2. setting thresholds of risk or other variablesabove which more formal and costly decisionmakingapproaches are invoked; and

8 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 1-4-Lag Times Between Identification of Species’ Pathway andimplementation of Prevention Program.Date pathway Date preventionSpecies Pathway identified program implemented Remaining gapsMediterranean fruit fly Fruit shipped through first- mid 1930s 1990, mail traveling from First-class mail from(Ceratitis capitata) class “domestic-mailHawaii to Californiaelsewhere or otherfrom Hawaiiinspectedpotential pathways (e.g.,Puerto Rico to California)Aquatic vertebrates,invertebrates, andalgaeAsian tiger mosquito(Aedes albopictus)Forest pestsShip ballast water 1981Imported used tires 1986Unprocessed wood 1985(including dunnage,logs, wood chips, etc.)1992, Coast Guardproposes guidelines fortreating ballast water intothe Great Lakes1988, protocolsestablished for importedused tires1991, first restrictionsimposed on log importsfrom SiberiaInternational shipping intoother U.S. ports; shipballast water fromdomestic portsInterstate used tire transportWood imports other than fromSiberiaSOURCES: Bio-environmental Services Ltd., The Presence and Implication of Foreign Organisms in Ship Ballast Waters Discharged into the GreatLakes, vol 1, March 1981; C.G. Moore, D.B. Francy, D.A. Eliason, and T.P. Monath, “Aedes albopictus in the United States: Rapid Spread of aPotential Disease Vector,” Journal of theAmerican Mosquito Control Association, vol. 4, No. 3, September 1988, pp. 356-361; I.A. Siddiqui, AssistantDirector, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA, testimony at hearings before the Senate Committee on GovernmentalAffairs, Subcommittee on Federal Services, Post Offices, and Civil Services, Postal Implementation of the Agriculturall Quarantine Enforcement Act,June 5, 1991; United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Wood and Wood Product Risk Assessment,”draft, 1985.3. identifying tradeoffs when deciding in theface of uncertainty.Federal methods and programs to identify risksof potentially harmful NIS have many shortcomings-includinglong response times (table 1-4).Procedures vary in stringency throughout theAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS) in the Department of Agriculture(USDA), risks to nonagricultural areas are oftenignored, and generally, new imports are presumedsafe unless proven otherwise. Even with theseflaws, APHIS’s risk assessments are more rigorousthan those conducted by the Fish and WildlifeService (FWS) in the Department of the Interior.Most regulatory approaches to MS importationand release use variations of ‘clean’ (allowed) or“dirty” (prohibited) lists of species or groups.Combining both kinds of lists, with a ‘‘gray” listof prohibited-until-analyzed species would reducerisks.Nevertheless, preventing new introductions ofharmful species is the first line of defense.Various methods can help decisionmakers avertunintentional and poorly planned intentionalintroductions that are likely to cause harm. Portinspection and quarantine are imperfect tools,though, so prevention is only part of the solution.Some organisms are more easily controlled thanintercepted. Aiming for a standard of ‘‘zeroentry” has limited returns, especially when preventionefforts come at the expense of rapidresponse or essential long-term control.When prevention fails-for technical or politicalreasons—rapid response is essential. Thenmanagers can choose among a variety of methodsfor eradication, containment, or suppression (table1-5); these choices are not necessarily easy orobvious. For example, the choice may be not tocontrol already widespread organisms, or thosefor which control is likely to be too expensiveand/or ineffective. For any management program,

l-Summary, Issues, and Options 9Table 1-5-Examples of Control Technologies for Non-indigenous SpeciesPhysical control Chemical control Biological controlAquatic plantsTerrestrial plantsFishTerrestrial vertebratesAquatic invertebratesInsects/mitesCutting or harvesting fortemporary control ofEurasian watermilfoil(Myriophylllum spicatum) inwatersFire and cutting to managepopulations of garlicmustard (Alliaria petiolata)in natural areasFencing used as a barrier alongwith electroshock to controlnon-indigenous fish instreamsFencing and hunting to controlferal pigs (Sus scrofa) innatural areasWashing boats with hot wateror soap to control thespread of zebra mussels(Dreissena polymorpha) frominfested watersVarious agricultural practices,including crop rotation,alternation of planting dates,and field sanitationpracticesSOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.Various glyphosate herbicides(Rodeo is one brandregistered for use in aquaticsites) for controlling purpleIoosestrife (Lythrumsalicaria)Paraquat for the control ofwitchweed (Striga asiatica)in corn fieldsApplication of the naturalchemical rotenone tocontrol various nonindigenousfishBaiting with diphacinone tocontrol the Indianmongoose (Herpestesauropunctatus)In industrial settings,chlorinated watertreatments to kill attachedzebra musselsMathathion bait-sprays forcontrol of theMediterranean fruit fly(Ceratitis capitatis)Imported Klamathweed beetle(Agasicles hygrophila) anda moth (Vogtia ma//o/) tocontrol alligator weed(Alternantheraphiloxeroides) insoutheastern United StatesIntroduction of a seed headweevil (Rhinocyllusconicus) to control muskthistle (Carduus nutans)Stocking predatory fish suchas northern pike (Esoxlucius) and walleye(Stizostedion vitreum) tocontrol populations of theruffe (Gymnocephaluscernuus)Vaccinating female feralhorses (Equuscallus) withthe contraceptive PZP (porcinezona pellucida) to limitpopulation growthNo known examples ofsuccessful biologicalcontrol of non-indigenousaquatic invertebrates(Target specificity is a majorconcern)A parasitic wasp (Encarsiapartenopea) and a beetle(Clitostethus arcuatus) tocontrol ash whitefly(Siphoninus phillyreae)accurate and timely species identification isessential but sometimes not available.Eradication of harmful NIS is often technicallyfeasible but complicated, costly, and subject topublic opposition (box l-B). Chemical pesticidesplay the largest role now in management. Theywill remain important for fast, effective, andinexpensive control. In the future, an increasednumber of biologically based technologies willprobably be available. Genetic engineering willincrease the efficacy of some. Development ofbiological and chemical pesticides entail the samedifficulties, however-ensuring species specificity,slowing the buildup of pest resistance to thepesticide, and preventing harm to nontargetorganisms. So there are no ‘‘silver bullets’ forNIS control and some troublesome gaps mayappear in the next 10 years. Pests have alreadydeveloped resistance to some microbial pesticides,one alternative to chemical methods. Anumber of chemical pesticides are being phasedout for regulatory or environmental reasons. Andnew alternatives are slow to come online. Ecologicalrestoration, by changing the conditions

10 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesImported Fire Ant Eradication:Box l-B—Failure and Success: Lessons From the Fire Ant andBoll Weevil Eradication ProgramsTwo species of imported fire ants are assumed to have entered at Mobile, Alabama, in dry ship ballast:Solenopsis richteri in 1918, and, around 1940, Solenopsis invicta The ants became a public health problem andhad significant negative effects on commerce, recreation, and agriculture in the States where they were found.in late 1957, a cooperative Federal-State eradication program began. It exemplifies what can go wrong with aneradication program.Funding was provided to study the fire ants, but information on the biology of the species was lacking, andthe ant populations increased and spread. Various chemicals (heptachlor and mirex) were used to control anderadicate the ants over a 30-year period. Although they did kill the ants, the chemicals caused more ecologicalharm than good. Their widespread application, often by airplane, destroyed many non-target organisms, includingfire ants’ predators and competitors, leaving habitats suitable for recolonization by the ants.The chemicals eventually lost registration by the Environmental Protection Agency, leaving few alternativesavaliable. in the 5 years after 1957, fire ant infestations increased from 90 million to 120 million acres.Boll Weevil Eradication:The bolli weevil, Anthonomus grands, a pest of cotton, naturally spread into Texas, near Brownsville, fromMexico, in the early 1890s and crossed the Mississippi River in 1907. By 1922, it infested the remainder of thesoutheastern cotton area. Unlike t he imported fire ant eradication program, boll weevil eradication does not relysolely on chemicals.The eradication program centers around the weevil’s life cycle and uses many different techniques. Part ofthe boll weevil population spends the winter in cotton fields. insecticides are used to suppress this late seasonpopulation. in spring and early summer, pheromone bait traps and chemical pesticides reduce populations beforethey have a chance to reproduce. Still other control technologies (e.g., sterile male release or insect growthregulators) limit the development of a new generation of boll weevils.Boll weevil eradication trials were conducted from 1971=1973 (in southern Mississippi, Alabama, andLouisiana) and from 1978-1980 (in North Carolinaand Virginia). Although results of the trials were mixed, cottonproducers in the Carolinas voted in 1983 to support the boll weevil eradication program in their areaand to provide70 percent of the funding. The USDA Animal and Plant Health inspection Service was charged with overallmanagement of the program.By the mid-1980s, the boll weevil was eradicated from North Carolina and Virginia. This 1978-1987eradication program achieved a very high rate of return, mainly from increased cotton yields and lower chemicalpesticide spending and use. in 1986, pesticide cost savings, additions to land value, and yield increases amountedto a benefit of $76.65 per acre. The benefit was $78.32 per acre for the expansion area in southern North Carolinaand South Carolina.SOURCES: G.A. Carlson, G. Sappie, and M. Hamming, “Economic Returns to Boll Weevil Eradication,” U.S. Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Service, September 19S9, p. 31; W. Klassen, “Eradication of Introduced Arthropod Pests: Theory and HistoricalPractice,” Entomological Society of America, Miscellaneous Publications, No. 73, November 19S9; E.P. Uoyd, “The Boll Weevil: RecentResearch Developments and Progress Towards Eradication in the USA,” Management and Contro/ of hwar?ebrateCrop Pests, G.E.Russell (cd.) (Andover, England: Intercept, 19S9), pp. 1-19; and C.S. kfgran, WA. Banks, and B.M. Glancey, “Biology and Control ofImported Fire Ants,” Annual Retiew of Enforno/ogy vol. 30, pp. 1-30,1975,

l--Summary, Issues, and Options 11that may make a habitat suitable for NIS, showspromise for preventing or limiting the establishmentor spread of some harmful NIS. Continuedresearch and development on new ways to manageharmful NIS remain essential.OTA commissioned 3 papers on decisionmakingmethods for this study, submitted those papersto peer review by 20 experts, held a workshop forthe papers’ authors and several additional specialists,and added a staff review of control methodsand biotechnology policy, along with anotherexpert paper on genetic engineering-each withextensive informal input from technical andpolicy specialists.Based on this work regarding technicalaspects, OTA concludes that some continuedunintentional introductions are inevitable, asare illegal ones, and ones with unexpectedeffects. Perfect screening, detection, and controlare technically impossible and will remainso for the foreseeable future. These results leadto certain of the congressional policy issuesdiscussed later in this chapter. These include theneed for:●●●more effective screening for fish, wildlife,and their diseases (pp. 22-24);more stringent evaluations of new plantintroductions for their potential as weeds(PP. 28-30); andmore rapid response to emergencies andbetter means for setting priorities (pp. 36-40).Continued intentional introductions of certainspecies are, of course, desirable. None of thepolicy options are intended to stop them.Institutional Issues: the Federal and StatePolicy PatchworkThe current Federal effort is largely a patchworkof laws, regulations, policies, and programs.Many only peripherally address NIS, while othersaddress the more narrowly drawn problems of thepast, not the broader emerging issues.The need for a more restrictive national policyon introductions and use is widely acknowledged.Development of such a policy is impeded byhistorical divisions among agencies, user groups,and constituencies. Technical barriers also obstructaccurate and consistent Federal policy. Forexample, terms and definitions differ greatlyamong NIS-related statutes, regulations, policies,and publications.At least 20 Federal agencies work at researching,using, preventing, or controlling desirableand harmful NIS (table 1-6), with APHIS playingthe largest role. Federal agencies manage about30 percent of the Nation’s lands, some of whichhave severe problems with NIS. Yet managementpolicies regarding harmful NIS range from beingnearly nonexistent to stringent. The National ParkService has fairly strict policies. However, removalor control of unwanted NIS is not keepingpace with invasions, and concerns are growingthat NIS threaten the very characteristics forwhich the Parks were established.Federal agencies do not uniformly evaluate theeffects of NIS before using them for federallyfunded activities. However, a Federal interagencygroup is planning to coordinate work on noxiousweeds. Another interagency task force is developinga major program on aquatic nuisance species.Federal laws leave both obvious and subtlegaps in the regulation of harmful MS. Most Statelaws have similar shortcomings. Significant gapsin Federal and State regulation exist for nonindigenousfish, wildlife, animal diseases, weeds,species that affect nonagricultural areas, biologicalcontrol agents, and vectors of human diseases.Many of these gaps also apply to geneticallyengineered organisms (GEOs), which are commonlyregulated under the same laws. Commercialdevelopment is imminent for several suchcategories of GEOs.Pre-release evaluations for certain GEOs havebeen more stringent than for NIS-reflecting pastunderestimates of NIS risks. Some of thesestricter GEO-related methods might be used forNIS. So far, APHIS has only evaluated proposals

Table 1-6—Areas of Federal Agency Activity Related to NISFederalland management Fund or do researchRegulate ControlInterstateproduct or Fund Prevent Introduce PreventionMovement into U.S. movement within U.S.content or eradication or do eradication or control uses of Aquiculture BiocontrolAgency a Restrict Enhance Restrict Enhance labeling programs introductions or control maintain eradication species development developmentAPHIS . . . . . .AMS . . . . . . .FAS . . . . . . . .USFS . . . . . .JbJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJARS . . . . . . .SCS . . . . . . .ASCS . . . . . .J JJJJJJJJJJ JJJJ J J JJ JJ JJJJJ J J J4J J JJCSRS . . . . . .FWS . . . . . . .NPS . . . . . . .. . . . . . .BIA . . . . . . . .BOR . . . . . . .NOAA . . . . . .DOD . . . . . . .EPA . . . . . . . .PHS . . . . . . .Customs . . . .USCG . . . . . .DOE . . . . . . .DEA . . . . . . .aJJJJJJJJJJJJJAcronyms of Frederal Agencies : Department of Agriculture-Animal and plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS); Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS); Foreign Agricultural Service(FAS); Forest Service (USFS); Agricultural Research Service (ARS); Soil Conservation Service (SCS); Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS); Cooperative StateResearch Service (CSRS). Department of the Interior—Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); National Park Sevice (NPS); Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA);Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).”Department of Commerce-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Department of Defense (DOD): Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). Department of Health h and Human Services-Public Health Service (PHS). Department of the Treasury-Customs Service (Customs). Department of Transportation-CoastGuard (USCG). Department of Energy (DOE). Department of Justice-Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).Monitors animal diseases abroad.Monitors spread of human disease vectors within the United States.Regulates experimental releases of microbial pesticides.DOE lacks policies on NIS.bcdeSOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.JJJJeeJJJJ../JJdJJJ-.3

1-Summary, Issues, and Options 13for releasing low risk GEOs. Setting acceptablerisk levels for higher risk GEOs will be moredifficult, a problem the agency has not solved forNIS. Experience with NIS shows overwhelminglythat organisms’ effects and ecological rolescan change in new environments. Thus, caution iswarranted when extrapolating from small tolarge-scale GEO releases and when exportingGEO’s to other countries.State laws on NIS vary from lax to exacting anduse a variety of basic legal approaches (table 1-7).They are relatively comprehensive for agriculturalpests but only spotty for invertebrate andplant pests of nonagricultural areas.States play a larger role than the FederalGovernment in the importation and release of fishand wildlife. Several States present exemplaryapproaches. Yet many State laws are weak andtheir implementation inadequate. For example,most State fish and wildlife agencies rate theirown resources for implementing and enforcingtheir own NIS laws as “less” or ‘‘much less”than adequate; they would need, on average, a50-percent increase in resources to match theirresponsibilities. States’ evaluations of new releasesare not stringent: no States require the useof scientific protocols for evaluating proposedintroductions, and about one-third do not evenrequire a general determination of potential negativeimpacts. States prohibit a median of onlyeight potentially harmful fish and wildlife speciesor groups; about one-third of the agency officialsOTA surveyed believe their own lists of prohibitedspecies are too short. About one-fourth of theStates lack legal authority over the importation orrelease of at least one major vertebrate group.About 40 percent of the agency officials wouldlike additional regulatory authority from theirState legislatures.Federal and State agencies cooperate on manyprograms related to agricultural pests, but theirpolicies can also conflict, e.g., when agenciesmanage adjacent lands for different purposes.Sometimes Federal law preempts State law, moreoften regarding agriculture than fish and wildlife.Conflicts between States also occur, often withoutforums for resolving the disputes. Regionalapproaches —used mostly to evaluate aquaticreleases-provide means for States to affect theirneighboring States’ actions. Such approaches arepromising but limited by the fact that participationis not mandatory.For the section on institutional issues, OTAcommissioned 3 background papers, on the Departmentof Interior, USDA generally, and APHISin particular; 20 people took part in the papers’external peer review. Also, OTA did extensiveinternal research on the missions and activities ofFederal agencies. In addition, OTA compiledState laws and regulations relating to NIS, withassistance from an expert group, and surveyed theheads of State fish and wildlife agencies.Based on this institutional analysis, OTAconcludes that Federal and State efforts arenot protecting national interests in certainimportant areas. Thus, OTA highlights congressionalpolicy issues on:● needed changes to the Lacey Act for fish andwildlife (pp. 19-24);● new roles for the States in fish and wildlifemanagement (pp. 24-25);● needed changes to the Federal NoxiousWeed Act (pp. 25-28); and● improved weed management on Federallands (pp. 30-31);● other gaps in legislation and regulation (pp.45-50).The Special Cases of Hawaii and FloridaVirtually all parts of the country face problemsrelated to harmful NIS, but Hawaii and Floridahave been particularly hard hit because of theirdistinctive geography, climate, history, and economy.In both States, natural areas and agriculturebear the brunt of harm and certain NIS threatenthe State’s uniqueness. As a set of islands, Hawaiiis particularly vulnerable to sometimes devastatingecological impacts. More than one-half ofHawaii’s free-living species are non-indigenous.

14 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 1-7—Basic Legal Approaches Used by States for Fish and Wildlife Importation and ReleaseImportation a bBasic approach Number States Number StatesAll species are prohibited unless onallowed (“clean”) list(s).All species may be allowed exceptthose on prohibited (“dirty”) list(s).Prohibited list(s) have 5 or moreidentified species or groups.Prohibited list(s) have fewer than 5identified species or groups.All species may be allowed; there is noprohibited list.2 + 1 pt c Hl, IDpt, VT d20 + 3pt AL, AR, CO, CT, FL, IL, KS,KY, Ml, MN, MTpt, NC, NE,NY, OH, PA, SCpt, SD, TN,TXpt, UT WA, WY11 + 3pt AK, DE, IN, LApt, MD, ME,MS, NH, NV, NJ, ORpt, RI,VA, WVpt11 + 7pt AZ, CA, GA, IDpt, 1A, LApt,MA, MO, MTpt, ND, NH,NM, OK, ORpt, SCpt, TXpt,Wl, WvptRelease1 + 5pt AKpt, FLpt, GApt, Hl, IDpt,KYpt14+ 6pt AL, AR, CO, CT, FLpt, GApt,IL, KS, KYpt, MN, NE, NY,OHpt, PA, SCpt, TN, TXpt,UT WA, WY11 + 6pt AKpt, IN, LApt, NC, NDpt,NJ, MD, MN, MS, NH, NV,OR, Rlpt, SD, VA, VTpt,Wvpt12+ 9pt AZ, CA, DE, IDpt, 1A, LApt,MA, ME, Ml, MO, MT, NDptNM, OHpt, OK, Rlpt, SCpt,TXpt, VTpt, Wl, WVptaState regulation of “possession” of a group or groups is considered here as regulation of both “importation” and “release,” since neither act canbe done without having possession. For the few States that specifically regulate “importation with intention to release (or introduce),” it is not treatedhere as comprehensive regulation of “release” because it covers only acts of importation done with a specific intent.b Many states that regulate importation of particular groups exempt mere transportation through the State. These are not distinguished here.CSome States treat different groups of vertebrates differently, This is designated, where applicable, by using the abbreviation “pt” after the Stateinitial to indicate the entry covers only “part” of the vertebrates regulated. They are totaled separately.d The summary classifications are general; in many states there are limited exemptions, such as for scientific research, and other minor provisionswhich are not covered here. The extensive State regulation of falconry is excluded.SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993 and Center for Wildlife Law, University of New Mexico Law School, “Selected Research andAnalysis of State Lawson Vertebrate Animal Importation and Introduction,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,Washington, DC, April 1992.New species played a significant role in pastextinctions of indigenous species and continue todo so. In Florida, several non-indigenous aquaticweeds and invasive trees seriously threaten theEverglades wetlands system.Hawaii’s isolation makes it most in need of acomprehensive policy to address NIS. DifferingFederal and State priorities have made thisdifficult to achieve, however. Cooperative effortshave sprung up in both States among State andFederal agencies, nongovernmental organizations,agricultural interests, and universities. Increasingly,these groups see harmful NIS as a unifyingthreat and public education as an important tool toaddress it. The situation in Hawaii and Florida,while unusual in some ways, nevertheless heraldswhat other States face as additional harmful NISenter and spread throughout the United States andpeople become more aware of their damage.For this chapter, OTA commissioned a backgroundpaper on each State and 12 expertsreviewed this work. Two contractors conductedextensive interviews and site visits in Hawaii andOTA staff did the same in Florida. Also, OTAcommissioned a survey and assessment of U.S.environmental education programs.Based on this work, OTA concludes that thesituation in Hawaii and Florida, while unusualin some ways, nevertheless heralds what otherStates face as additional harmful NIS enterand spread throughout the United States andpeople become more aware of their damage.These results lead to the policy options discussedlater in this chapter on:

I-Summary, Issues, and Options 15●●better protection for National Parks andother natural areas throughout the country(pp. 31-34), andthe role of information and environmentaleducation in preventing future problems inthese States and elsewhere (pp. 34-36).The Look of the FutureIncreasing international trade, including commercein biological commodities, will open newpathways for NIS. International regulation of NIShas a poor track record and is not likely to stemthis flow. Technology is likely to open additionalpathways as well as provide better ways to detect,eradicate, and manage harmful NIS. Many observersexpect increasingly negative impactsfrom NIS introductions-a world of increasingbiological sameness. Climate change is the wildcard: it would require re-thinking definitions ofindigeneity and could drastically change patternsof species movement. These are forecasts, basedon analyzable and nearly irreversible trendsalready underway. Visions, however, are aboutthe desirable and imagined. OTA’s AdvisoryPanelists envisioned a future in which beneficialNIS contributed a great deal to human well-beingand indigenous species were preserved (box 1-C).Deciding this vision’s worthiness is not a questionfor science. Which species to import andrelease and which to exclude are ultimatelycultural and political choices-choices about thekind of world in which we want to live.POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONSIn this section, OTA sets out the major policyissues that emerged from its analysis. Relatedcongressional options seem straightforward insome cases, e.g., changes to the Lacey Act l or theFederal Noxious Weed Act (FNWA). 2 In othercases, policy actions are not so apparent. Therefore,the policy options that follow vary in theirspecificity and the degree to which OTA hasevaluated their implications and alternatives. Fewprior reports on NIS have addressed policychanges. OTA’s work is, in effect, exploratory-afrost step in highlighting policy needs and a few ofthe means to fill them. The discussion is organizedaround these eight policy issues:Issue 1:Issue 2:Issue 3:Issue 4:Issue 5:Issue 6:Issue 7:Issue 8:Congress and a More StringentNational PolicyManaging Non-Indigenous Fish,Wildlife, and Their DiseasesThe Growing Problem ofNon-Indigenous WeedsDamage to Natural AreasEnvironmental Education asPreventionEmergencies and Other PrioritiesFunding and AccountabilityOther Gaps In Legislation andRegulationIssue 1: Congress and a More StringentNational PolicyThe most fundamental issue is whether theUnited States needs a more stringent and comprehensivenational policy on the introduction andmanagement of harmful NIS. General agreementexists that the United States has no such policynow. The United States has, through variousFederal and State laws and President Carter’sExecutive Order 11987, attempted to prevent andmanage the impacts of harmful NIS. However,applicable legislation has significant gaps and theExecutive Order has not been implemented fully(55,70) (ch. 6). Invasive NIS continue to enter,spread, and cause economic and environmentalharm, despite governments’ collective efforts(chs. 2, 3). In one of the most extensive Statestudies to date, the Minnesota Interagency ExoticSpecies Task Force noted:1 Lacey Act (1900), as amended (16 U. S.C.A, 667 et seq., 18 U. S.C.A. 42 et seq.)z Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended, (7 U. S.C.A. 2801 et seq.)

16 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 1-C-OTA’s Advisory Panel Envisions the FutureOTA’s Advisory Panelists (p. iv) have been dealing with NIS for much of their professional Iives andare moreexpert than most in assessing what the future might hold. Following are some of the fears and hopes they Identifiedwhen asked to ponder the best and worst that might be ahead.Life Out of Bounds . . .“The future will bring more reaction to zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and inaction to the massivealteration of natural habitats and natural flora and fauna . . . By the mid-21st Century, biological invasions becomeone of the most prominent ecological issues on Earth . . . A few small isolated ecosystems have escaped the handof [humans] and in turn NIS. . . One place Iooks like the next and no one cares . . . The homogeneity may notbe aesthetically or practically displeasing, but inherently it diminishes the capacity of the biotic world to respondto changing environments such as those imposed by global warming . . . The Australian melaleuca tree(Melaleuca-quinquenervia) continues its invasive spread and increases from occupying half a million acres in thelate 1980s to more than 90 percent of the Everglades conservation areas.”. . . Or Life In Balance“An appropriate respect for preserving indigenous species becomes national goal by consensus . . . Allunwanted invasions are treated with species-specific chemicals or by vast releases of 100 percent sterile triploids(created quickly) that depress the exotic populations. Invasions slow to a trickle and fade away like smallpox . . .Jobs for invasion biologists fade away . . . There is] an effective communication network, an accessibleknowledge base, a planned system of review of introductions, and an interactive, informed public . . . Native[species] are still there in protected reserves . . . The contribution of well-mannered NIS-for abuse-tolerant urbanlandscaping, for ornamental in gardens, for biological control of pests, for added interest for increasedbiodiversity, for new food and medicine-is appreciated. The overarching criterion for judging the value of aspecies is its contribution to the health of its host ecosystem.”SOURCE: Advisory Panel Meeting, Office of Technology Assessment July 2930,1092, Washington, DC.Needed is a plan to address all [non-indigenousspecies], changes in the laws that provide closermonitoring of new introductions, and coordinationamong all State and Federal agencies thatcontrol [non-indigenous] species. (70)Gaps in the Federal, regional, and State systemarise from several sources. First, Federal andmany State agencies lack broad authority overNIS as a whole, e.g., to protect against NIS’negative effects on biological diversity, or toensure that environmental impact assessmentstake potentially harmful NIS into account (boxl-D). In turn, the agencies have been reluctant toexert authority where statutes are not clear.Consequently, MS issues often receive governmentalattention on a piecemeal basis after majorinfestations, such as that of the zebra mussel.Attention wanes between harmful episodes.Second, the lack of information on the origins,numbers, distribution, and potential impacts ofmany NIS hampers the design of appropriateresponses (chs. 2, 4). Distinguishing indigenousspecies from NIS and beneficial NIS from harmfulones is difficult in some cases yet these arecrucial distinctions for regulatory and controlefforts. Some NIS escape detection at ports-ofentryand ordinary quarantines cannot containthem because of inadequate scientific knowledgeand detection technologies.Third, the U.S. system for dealing with harmfulNIS involves a complex interplay of Federal andState authorities, with numerous Federal, State,and regional coordinating bodies attempting toenhance consistency and resolve conflicts. Sometimesthe respective Federal and State roles are

l-Summary, Issues, and Options I 17not adequately defined (l), especially for problemsthat cross State boundaries.Certain trends specific to NIS are likely tocontinue-trends that shape public policy. Thesepoint to increased public and scientific awarenessof the damage some NIS cause and a concomitantcaution toward importing new ones (46). The U.S.press is giving more attention to NIS-relatedproblems caused by single species, e.g., zebramussels, African honey bees (Apis melliferascutellata), or cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum).At the same time, many forces are elevating thevisibility of harmful NIS on a broader, ecosystembasis. Some Federal and State agencies-e. g., theNational Park Service, the Bureau of LandManagement, the Minnesota Department of NaturalResources, and the Illinois Department ofConservation—are considering and in some casesadopting, more stringent policies (chs. 6, 7). Inaddition, the use of indigenous (native) plants andanimals is increasingly popular in public andprivate landscaping, reforestation, fisheries management,wildlife enhancement, and other projects(96,130). These trends suggest that managementof at least some harmful NIS is likely toimprove even without congressional action.On the other hand, the current situation providesconsiderable cause for concern (ch, 2). Astatus quo approach comes with certain, sizablerisks-for example, that important resources suchas the Everglades and Haleakala National Parkswill lose their uniqueness (ch. 8); that westernU.S. forests will be threatened by a more virulentgypsy moth (ch. 4); and that, in the absence ofunifying Federal action, private firms importingor shipping live organisms will face increasinglyinconsistent State and local regulations (ch. 7).Environmental groups, professional organizationsof scientists, and individual biologists areamong those urging far stronger efforts to restrictthe entry and spread of NIS. Participants in aconference sponsored by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) recommended that theUnited States aim for no new introductions ofnon-indigenous aquatic nuisances (132). One ofthe Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Preventionand Control Act’s several goals is similar: “toprevent unintentional introduction and dispersalof nonindigenous species into waters of theUnited States through ballast water managementand other requirements. ’ The North AmericanNative Fishes Association recommends banningall introductions of non-native fish (79). Somecredible scientific sources--specially those withfirst-hand knowledge of the worst U.S. problems—have recommended bans on biological controlintroductions in natural areas or against indigenouspests; on the release of non-indigenous biggame animals into public natural areas; onparticularly risky types of imports such as unprocessedwood; or on all further intentional introductionsfor whatever purposes (25,61,69,100).Usually, though, suggestions fall short of a banon all new NIS introductions because broad-brushbans risk handicapping entry of desirable NIS thatcause no harm. The International Union for theConservation of Nature and Natural Resources(44) formulated a model national law on NIS andsuggested that:●●●●release of NIS be considered only if clear andwell-defined benefits to humans or naturalcommunities can be foreseen;release be considered only if no indigenousspecies is suitable;no NIS be deliberately released into anynatural area and releases into seminaturalareas not occur without exceptional reasons;andplanned releases, including those for biologicalcontrol, include rigorous assessment ofdesirability, controlled experimental releases,then careful post-release monitoring andpre-arrangement for control or eradication, ifnecessary.3Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended (16 U. S.C.A. 4701 et seq., 18 U, S.C.A. 42)

18 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox l-D—The National Environmental Policy Act and Non-Indigenous SpeciesThe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which mandates environmental impact assessment hasrarely been applied to decisions about introductions of non-indigenous species (NIS) (ch. 7). NEPA makes noexplicit mention of NIS. Many potentially significant actions, such as allowing wood imports from risky new sources,have not been considered sufficient to trigger NEPA review. A recent exception, however, is the environmentalimpact statement prepared regarding the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife’s proposal to introducechinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytasha) from the Pacific coast into the Delaware Bay. A number ofNIS-related Federal activities are categorically excluded from NEPA review, including:. low-impact range management activities, such as . . . seeding (U.S. Forest Service).. all activities of the Plant Materials Centers, such as comparative field plantings, release of cooperativelyimproved conservation plants, production of limited amounts of foundation seed and plants, and assistingnurseries in plant production (Soil Conservation Service).● the reintroduction (stocking) of native or established species into suitable habitat within their historic orestablished range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).. highway landscaping (Federal Highway Administration)Full NEPA application to problems of NIS is unlikely without explicit~direction from Congress. Variousmeasures are available. In the most rigorous application, Congress could declare that new, unanalyzed releasesof NIS are, per se, potentially significant environmental impacts that require analysis. Or Congress could requirethat NIS concerns be specified in the checklists used for preliminary environmental assessments and for makingdecisions regarding the need for further evaluation. Or Congress could limit related exclusions (see also ch. 7.)Recently, a Federal court ruled that NEPA applied to the North American Free Trade Agreement-for whichno environmental impact statement had been prepared. That decision has been appealed so NEPA’s applicationremains legally unclear (ch. 10). Any eventual application of NEPA is likely to highlight concerns regarding NIS.International trade is a major pathway for the movement of potentially harmful NIS yet related issues have receivedlittle consideration in free trade discussions so far.A comprehensive environmental impact assessment would address, among other possible impacts, theextent to which risks from harmful NIS would increase with any introduction and the capability of U.S. agenciesto respond to any such increase. In the past, these agencies often have lacked the institutional and financialflexibility to anticipate and respond quickly to new risks (chs. 4, 6).SOURCES: J. KurdlltL “The Introcbctbn of Exotk Species Into the United States: There Goes the Neighborhood” ErMomnerrtslMaks,vet. 16,1988, pp. 85-1 1S; U.S. Departrnentofthe Interior, Fish and WiktIife Servbe, Adrrh?&trative ManuaL: Gwkonnwnt, hER4 Handbook,Part 516, April 30, 19S4; Veraar, Inc., “lntroduetion of Pacific Salmonida into the Delaware River Watershed,” draft environmental impactstatement prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New Jersey DMsion of Fish, Game and Wildlife, July 25, 1891; 23 CFR771.1 17(7), as amended (Aug. 2S, 19S7) (Federal Highway Administration); 56 Fe&a/Re@ster 19718 (U.S. Forest Service); 7 CFR 613,650.6 (Soil Conservation Servke).The nursery, pet, aquiculture, and agricultureindustries have traditionally been strong advocatesfor further introductions of desirable NISand have noted the burdens of more timeconsumingand complex evaluations of theirpotential risks. These groups can be expected tobe cautious about any congressional action thatwould make U.S. policy more stringent. Forexample, those in the nursery industry fear thatbanning NIS and requiring the use of indigenousplants would create complex definitional problemsregarding which species are indigenous;outlaw the hardy non-indigenous plants mostsuitable for urban landscapes; require usingindigenous plants that are less resistant to diseasesand pests than their close foreign relatives;and eliminate highly ornamental plants that manypeople prefer to less showy indigenous ones (52).

l-Summary, Issues, and Options I 19However, pressures on Congress and Federaland State agencies to enact some partial measuresare likely to increase as NM-related issues receivemore attention. Florida has prohibited any releasesof non-indigenous marine plants or animalsinto State waters. 4 The New Mexico State Legislaturerecently considered a bill that would haveled to the eradication of several “exotic” nonindigenousgame animals and required the Departmentof Game and Fish to ban further gameintroductions (101). (State game officials consideredthe legislation extreme and opposed it,whereas hunting and environmental groups weredivided.) Several local ordinances require landscapearchitects, designers, and contractors to usea percentage of indigenous plants in their projects(52).Bans are intended to slow the intentionalintroduction of organisms into and within theUnited States. Even the strictest ban could notstop unintentional introductions. Nor could itlimit damage caused by the continuing spread ofharmful NIS already in the country. Therefore,even the most restrictive policies regarding newintroductions would not solve all problems associatedwith harmful MS.New Zealand, a small island nation with MSproblems as severe as Hawaii’s, is often cited asthe country that addresses MS most effectively(77). Its approach merits consideration here (boxl-E). New Zealand’s recent policy changes illustratean attempt to be comprehensive, forwardlooking, fair to importers, and responsible, However,New Zealand is much smaller and lessdiverse than the United States. In this country,States play an important role in setting andimplementing U.S. national priorities. Thereforeonly some of New Zealand’s approaches wouldbe feasible here.Attempts to formulate a similarly comprehensiveand more stringent national policy on harmfulNIS would need to account for the followingseven issues. In most of these areas, OTAsuggests possible statutory changes. These shouldbe approached with one caution. The release ofMS and GEOs is regulated by many of the samestatutes. legislative changes intended to affectharmful NIS could inadvertently apply to GEOsif definitions are not crafted with care.Issue 2: Managing Non-Indigenous Fish,Wildlife, and Their DiseasesFederal and State governments presently divideresponsibilities for introductions of fish,wildlife, and their diseases. The Lacey Act is theprimary Federal vehicle for excluding harmfulimports. Under the Lacey Act, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (FWS) restricts importation intothe country of fish or wildlife that pose a threat‘‘to humans, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, orto wildlife or the wildlife resources of the UnitedStates.’ Current regulations restrict only 2taxonomic families of fish (1 to prevent entry of2 fish pathogens), 13 genera of mamm als andshellfish, and 6 species of mammals, birds, andreptiles. 6 The USDA’s APHIS and the PublicHealth Service prohibit entry of a several additionalwildlife species (reptiles, birds, and mammals)to prevent entry of pathogens affectingpoultry or livestock or because they pose humanhealth threats. 7The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Preventionand Control Act of 1990 authorized FWS andthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) to issue regulations related to theprevention of unintentional introductions of aquaticnuisance species, like the zebra mussel. 8 Al-428 Fla. Stat. Annot, sec. 370.081(4)518 U, S.C.A. 42(a)(1)650 CFR 16 (Jan. 4, 1974)79 CFR 92, as amended (Aug. 2, 1990)g 6 U. S,C.A. 4722

20 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox I-E-How New Zealand Addresses Non-lndigenous SpeciesNew Zealand’s Iegal and institutional framework and the nature of its programs are key to its currentsuccesses managing harmful non-indigenous species (NIS). As in the United States, however, protectingagriculture has received higher priority than safeguarding the indigenous flora and fauna. Sores aspects of NewZealand’s approach that are absent or rare in the United States are given here:Legal and Institutional Aspects:● Agency performance standards implemented through agency “contracts” to provide specified governnentalservices and through detailed annual reports.● Detailed national standards for animal imports and strong authority to require bonds for potential costs ofescape and to impose other conditions.. A “user pays” approach to cover most costs of inspection, surveillance, scientific analysis, andenforcement against violators.Programmatic Aspects:● Intensive inspection of arriving passengers, baggage, and goods with random checks to evaluateinterception rates.. 100 percent treatment of arriving aircraft with insecticide.. Computerized tracking of imports, from arrival to unloading.● Detailed surveillance of and contingency planning for forest pests.. Extensive enlistment of public support for pest surveys and monitoring.Recently, New Zealand determined that its more than a dozen major acts and several hundred subsidiaryregulations pertaining to agriculture needed consolidation and revamping. The new approach will regulate ailpotentially harmful imports through an appointed Hazards Control Commission.An independent professional staff will advise the Commission, with input from expert advisory committees.Proposals for imported and genetically engineered organisms will be advocated by private or governmentalproponents. Countervailing arguments will be presented by the Department of Conservation.The Iaw provides forfull economic and ecological consideration, public hearings, and opportunities for appeal. Known low-riskorganisms will receive less scrutiny. Decisions must balance “the benefits which may be obtained from . . . neworganisms against the risks and damage to the environment and to the health, safety and economic, social andcultural well being of people and communities.” If this new approach succeeds, it could provide a broad model forthe United States.SOURCES: Anonymous, “Biosecutity Bill: Update,” SantlneJ, New Zealand Ministry of Agrloulture and Flshedes, VWngton, No. 19, Feb.1,1932, p. 3; Director of the Law Commission, “VIII. Pubtic Welfare Emergenofes,” l%all?qortm Ehww?&M, Law Wnndedon ReportNo. 22, Wellington, New Zealand, December 1991, pp. 230-24S; OffIoe of the MlnisterofAgrloulture, MkdstryofAgrioutture and Ftsheries,Wellington, New Zealand, memorandum regarding Agricultural Regulation Reform, to Chairman, Cab&ret Strategy Committee, undate@A. Moeed, Chairperson, Interim Assessment Group, Minbtry for the Environment Wdkgton, New Zealand letter to P.T Jenkins, Offioeof TArwlogy Assessment Feb. 10,1992; D. Towns, IUCN Regional Member, Department of Oonservatkm, Auldand Conservancy Office,Aukland, New Zealand, letter to P.T. Jenkins, Office of Ttinology Assessment, Oot. 29,1031.though none have been issued to date, eventual Tens of thousands of different species (most ofregulations under the Act could impose additional the world’s fauna, excluding insects) potentiallyrestrictions on the importation of harmful aquatic could be legally imported into the United StatesMS (30).(81). Well over 300 non-indigenous fish andIn practice, then, the Federal Government wildlife species of foreign origin have establishedplaces only a few piecemeal constraints on the here already, approximately 122 of which areimportation of fish, wildlife, and their diseases. known to cause harm (ch. 2) (8,23,104).

l--Summary, Issues, and Options 21The Federal Government currently plays asmall role in restricting interstate transfers ofnon-indigenous fish and wildlife (ch, 6). FWSdoes not impose regulations or quarantines toprevent interstate transfers of harmful fish, wildlife,or fish diseases, since neither are authorizedunder the Lacey Act. APHIS sometimes quarantineswildlife to prevent the spread of pathogens,but only for those causing significant diseases ofpoultry or livestock. Amendments to the LaceyAct in 1981 authorized the FWS to enforce Statelaws prohibiting transport of species into a State, 9but FWS enforcement is understaffed, underfunded,and has numerous other pressing responsibilities(74, 121). Future implementation of theNonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention andControl Act could impose domestic regulations orquarantines for aquatic species (30).States play the prominent role in many areasrelated to fish and wildlife. They vary in howrigorously they guard their own borders orprevent releases of harmful species. States prohibitrelatively few injurious species; their standardsof review for predicting harm are low; andenforcement is weak (55) (ch. 7). The sameconditions apply to the States’ roles in releasingfish and wildlife within their borders.Taken together, these Federal and State gapsconstitute a serious threat to the Nation’s abilityto exclude, limit, and rapidly control harmful fishand wildlife. For example, importation and transferof zebra mussels within much of the UnitedStates remained legal for approximately 2 yearsafter they had inadvertently entered the UnitedStates and demonstrated their devastating potential.An opportunity to slow their spread was lost.The potential for spread of pathogens of fish andaquatic invertebrates is another example. Federalregulations under the Lacey Act require accuratelabeling of shipping containers for species identityand numbers. Screening for contamination bypathogens is not required. There is no Federalquarantine of diseased fish stocks and in manyThe Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention andControl Act of 1990 authorized new regulations andprograms for aquatic species like the costly zebramussel (Dreissenna polymorpha).States diseased fish and invertebrates can belegally imported and released.Some observers have called for an increasedFederal presence to fill gaps like those above.Julianne Kurdila (55), for example, suggestedeither implementing President Carter’s 1977 ExecutiveOrder 11987 (box 6-B) or the passage ofnew legislation to correct the Lacey Act’s deficiencies,recommendations passed along by theMinnesota Interagency Exotic Species Task Force(70). USDA officials see the need to screen fishfor diseases, like they do for livestock (56).Proposals to expand the Federal role haveengendered considerable controversy in the past.However, OTA’s survey of State fish and wildlifeagencies asked whether they would like to see theFederal role “increase,” ‘‘decrease, ’ or “stayabout the same in the regulation of nonindigenousfish and wildlife (ch. 7). A clearmajority-63 percent—favored an increased Federalrole; 23 percent favored keeping the roleabout the same; only one State (Wisconsin)preferred to see the Federal role decreased (3percent were not sure and 8 percent did notanswer). Peter Schuyler conducted a separatesurvey of 271 resource managers and others916 U. S.C.A. 3372

22 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesinvolved with issues related to non-indigenousanimals. Of the 265 U.S. respondents, 65 percentperceived the problem’s biological aspects tohave international significance (92, 93)-clearlybeyond local or State scope.Two areas in which the Federal Governmentmight strengthen its role are in:1.2.increasing the rigor of screening beforeimportation and release of fish and wildlife;anddefining new State roles.The frost area arises from widespread criticismthat the Lacey Act is failing to protect the UnitedStates from entry of harmful new MS; also, manydecisions to introduce NIS are made withoutthorough risk assessment (ch. 4). The second arearegarding State roles emerges from OTA’s analysisof State laws and regulations regarding fishand wildlife (ch. 7).TIGHTENING FISH AND WILDLIFE SCREENINGOption: Congress could amend the Lacey Act tolengthen its list of excluded injurious wildlifeand to speed the process by which new listingsare added.Option: Congress could require that Federalagencies and others using Federal funds tointroduce non-indigenous fish and wildlifedevelop and adopt specific, rigorousdecisionmaking methods for screening speciesprior to release.A number of problems have been documentedwith the Lacey Act and its implementation byFWS (55,83). The most commonly acknowledgedproblem is that regulation and enforcementhinge on a short and noncomprehensive list of‘‘injurious wildlife and adding new species tothe list is time-consuming (1 16). The Lacey Actis also criticized for not providing comprehensiveregulation of interstate transport of federallylisted species and for not being clear regarding itsapplication to hybrid and feral animals. FWSenforcement of the Act’s sparse interstate transportprovisions is limited and programs to controlor eradicate non-indigenous fish and wildlife arepiecemeal, lack emergency measures, and haveno proactive components to catch problems early.Only five new species or taxonomic groupswere added over the 7-year period from 1966 to1973, with one more addition over the next 15years. Several potentially injurious species areunder consideration in 1993 for listing, on aspecies by species basis. Efforts to list the mittencrab (Eriocheir spp.) took at least 2 years, withsome evidence that they were successfully introducedduring this time (83). This means thatorganisms are unregulated when they are mostamenable to control and eradication, i.e., shortlyafter entry when their populations are small.The greatest potential for the Lacey Act is toreduce problems related to NIS used in the pet andaquarium trades, “exotic’ non-indigenous gameranching, and aquiculture.l” The potential risksof species in these groups are relatively wellknown and most of these NIS can be readilyidentified and detected at ports of entry. However,greater use of the Lacey Act would requireaggressive efforts to expand the Act’s list ofinjurious species (6). This has not been tried since1977. The current FWS approach remains largelyreactive, with little outside pressure to change orincrease the list of species (83).Congressional action to amend the Lacey Act(box l-F) could address some concerns withoutchanging the basic, Federal “dirty list’ regulatoryapproach. The dirty list approach prohibitscertain unacceptable species and allows unlistedspecies to be imported. This puts the burden on10 me Feder~ hte~ency Aquatic Nuisance Task Force has concluded that the escape, accidental release, or improper disposal ofintentionally introduced organisms is “virtually inevitable’ and that these should not be considered unintentional (122). By this interpretatio~non-indigenous aquiculture species could be listed under the Lacey Act. The newer Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and ControlAct of 1990 would not apply, because it covers only unintentional introductions.

l-Summary, Issues, and Options 23Box l-F–How To Improve the Lacey ActThe following changes to the Lacey Act would provide more comprehensive protection and management ofthe Nation’s resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) would need additional staff and other resourcesto make these changes. The FWS currently spends approximately $3 million annually for port inspections for fishand wildlife. In contrast, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)spends approximately $80 million for agricultural port inspections. The two agencies do not need comparablebudgets but clearly an amended Lacey Act would require budgetary changes for the FWS.Lengthen the list of injurious wildlife. Congress could provide the FWS with increased guidance on thepurpose of this list and the specific criteria for adding species to it. Proposed amended criteria would be discussedwith outside experts and be as comprehensive as possible. One possibility would be to include harmful speciesindigenous tot he United States, but established outside their range, as injurious. A quite different alternative wouldbe to supplement this current approach with a “clean list” approach (ch. 4).Speed the listing process. Congress could add provisions to: 1) eliminate, reduce, or expedite the mosttime-consuming parts of the listing process (public notice and comment, etc.), 2) use emergency listing proceduresmore often, or 3) give FWS authorit y to impose emergency control, with monitoring, while the usual listing processtakes place. Eliminating requirements for public notice and comment could have unintended negative effects:decreasing officials’ accountability, limiting access by stakeholders, and excluding broad expert participation froman already-limited group of decisionmakers. If Congress gave FWS emergency authority, reasonable time limitscould be set for study and reaching decisions on final listings. FWS and APHIS might together streamline theirlisting processes to ensure procedural consistency between the Lacey Act and the Federal Noxious Weed Act.Consider whether FWS should assist with enforcement of State injurious wildlife lists and provideFWS with authority for emergency quarantine and emergency actions. First, the respective Federal and Stateresponsibilities would need to be clarified. Then, Congress could take any of several steps: direct FWS tostrengthen its role; provide additional resources to States for enforcement; and/or amend t he Lacey Act to providefor Federal quarantines on interstate movement of injurious wildlife.SOURCES: M.J. Bean, “The Role of the U.S. Department of the Interior in Nonindigenous Spec4es Issues,” contractor report prepared forthe Off ice of Technology Assessment, November 1991; J. Kurdila, “The Introduction of Exotic Species into the United States: There Goesthe Neighborhood” Erwiromnenta/ Affaiis, vol. 16, 1988, pp. 95-1 18; R.A. Peoples, Jr., J.A. McCann, and L.B. Starnes, “IntroducedOrganisms: Policies and Activities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,” Dispersal of tiving Organisms Into Aquatic Ecosystems, A.Rosenfield and R. Mann (eds.) (College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992), pp. 325-352; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish andWildlife Service, internal memorandum, 1987.regulators to determine whether a species isharmful. Commonly cited alternatives to dirtylists are ‘‘clean lists” or combinations of cleanand dirty list approaches (ch. 4). The clean listapproach prohibits all species unless they aredetermined to be acceptable, that is, unless theymerit being on the clean list, This puts the burdenon the importer to prove a species is not harmful.States, such as Hawaii, that are most concernedabout NIS are moving from simple dirty listregulatory approaches toward using both cleanand dirty lists.Clean lists can only be used for certain kinds oforganisms. Many pathogens and invertebrates aretoo little known to classify their impacts asacceptable or not. Generally, though, clean listsrepresent a more stringent, proactive policy,especially when dirty lists are short and noncomprehensive.What is “clean’ in one part of theUnited States is not necessarily so elsewhere,however. Therefore, any new policy using cleanlists would need regional flexibility.Some contend that any Federal clean list isinfeasible because of lingering opposition fromFWS’s earlier attempts to adopt this approach

24 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States(83) (box 4-A). The pet industry, along withportions of the zoological and scientfic communities,spearheaded opposition in the 1970s (55).Marshall Meyers, general counsel for the PetIndustry Joint Advisory Council, articulates theindustry’s continuing opposition to regulationsviewed as overly restrictive, vague, or poorlyjustified (14), as they found previous clean listproposals. On the other hand, the pet industryrecently joined environmental groups in supportingtighter regulation of importation of wildcaughtbirds.11Both clean and dirty lists require determiningwhether species pose acceptable risks. Formaldecisionmaking protocols, risk analysis, costbenefitanalysis, and other techniques attempt toaccomplish this goal (ch. 4). Each has advantagesand disadvantages. For example, protocols likethe American Fisheries Society’s for the releaseof fish (51) represent a high level of decisionmakingrigor and best suit the most potentially riskytypes of introductions. Typically, these methodsrequire large amounts of highly technical informationand are therefore demanding in financialand scientific terms. Also, these methods arecontroversial because their usefulness has notbeen established clearly.No single method is ideal for assessing allFederal and federally funded introductions ofnon-indigenous fish and wildlife. However, formaldecisionmaking methods designed to morecarefully assess and decrease risks are consideredto be prudent alternatives to banning all potentiallyrisky introductions (83). Congress couldrequire that agencies develop and adopt either arecognized decisionmaking protocol or anotherformal and rigorous method suited to theirsituations. This was the approach taken in theproposed Species Introduction and Control Act of1991 regarding non-indigenous fish and wildlife.12DEFINING NEW STATE ROLES IN FISH ANDWILDLIFE INTRODUCTIONOption: Congress could address weaknesses insome States’ fish and wildlife laws byimplementing national minimum standards.These standards would provide legal authorityto regulate harmful NIS and be linked tofunding for States to implement them.Option: Alternately, Congress could encouragewider adoption of a federally developed modelState law to make legal authority among Statesmore comprehensive.The strength of the U.S. Federal system is thatthe 50 States provide a testing ground for newideas. Such new ideas turn up in the exemplaryapproaches discussed in chapter 7. On the otherhand, federalism leads to duplication of effortsand highly variable, and sometimes conflicting,regulations (72). This has been the case fornon-indigenous fish and wildlife.States’ standards vary considerably regardingwhich species and groups are regulated and howcarefully they are regulated; many State efforts toregulate importation, possession, introduction,and release are inadequate (ch. 7) (55). In somecases, the weaknesses of State programs stemfrom incomplete legal authority.The Lacey Act leaves decisions on almost allintentional introductions of fish and wildlife tothe States; only the relatively few organisms onthe list of injurious wildlife are prohibited. Thus,correcting problems would entail full exercise ofState prerogatives (83). However, Federal programssupport many State-sponsored introductions,so the Federal Government has a stronginterest in this area.A variety of approaches could be used toencourage improved State performance. Federalpre-emption of State NIS laws is unlikely to bejustifiable or politically feasible. Two more11 me wild Bl~d Comenation Act of 1992, ~blic ~WJ 102-440, Tifle 1, Smtion 102, Oct. 23, 1992; 106 stN. 2224.1’2 H.R. 5852, introduced by Rep. H. James Saxton.

l-Summary, Issues, and Options 25tenable and often-suggested methods are nationalminimum standards and wider use of model Statelaws. Either method could ensure that State fishand wildlife laws provide adequate authority formore comprehensive regulation.Box 1-G illustrates a national minimum standardsapproach. Three elements would be needed:1.2.3.a process to determine whether State lawsare consistent with the new national minimumstandards,a program of incentives for States to adoptor retain laws meeting the national minimumstandards and to provide sanctionsagainst States that do not, anda means to provide reliable sources ofrevenue to fund these efforts.Also, careful individual State review is neededin several other areas: quarantine requirements;containment specifications; responsibility for controlof escapees; and regulation of live bait fishand invertebrates affecting nonagricultural areas.Incentives could include Federal grants ormatching funds to States for initial reviews oftheir fish and wildlife laws. Also, Federal fundscould be made available for NIS control oreradication for States whose NIS laws meet thenational minimum standard. Sanctions wouldmost reasonably include denial of Federal fundsfor fish and wildlife restoration and/or other Federalaid-to-States programs. Sanctions could bephased in over a suitable period, such as 5 years.A national minimum standards program couldbe administered by FWS, another existing agency,or a new Federal office or commission. Its dutieswould include: monitoring and reporting on Statecompliance; processing requests for State funding;and maintaining up-to-date, publicly availablecompilations of States’ fish and wildlifestatutes, regulations, quarantines, and other importantinformation.An alternate approach would be to provideincentives for States to adopt a federally developed,comprehensive model State law. Voluntaryexamples already have been used to some extentfor fish and wildlife.The Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Center’smodel law combined laws on endangered species,injurious wildlife, disease control, public health,wildlife management, humane care, and interstatecontrol. The model was reviewed by all States andparts of it used by a few. Missouri used part of themodel, while Utah considered it but adopted theirown approach (ch. 7). This specific model Statelaw, however, received substantial criticism forbeing overly broad and creating excessive administrativerules and paperwork (67).Generally, voluntary approaches for environmentalcompliance are receiving increased attentionfor a number of problems. Industry groupsoften support such initiatives, claiming that voluntaryprograms are more effective and cut costs(99). Few environmental groups have endorsedvoluntary programs, however (88).Issue 3: The Growing Problem of Non-Indigenous WeedsThe continuing entry and spread of nonindigenousweeds in the United States raisesserious concerns in many quarters. State agricultureand natural resource officials, Federal landmanagers, members of conservation organizations,and scientists have expressed their concernthat existing Federal weed laws are flawed, theirimplementation incomplete, and too few resourceshave been directed toward weed problems(chs. 2, 3, 6). In some cases, listingprohibited weeds under State noxious weed andseed acts may reduce the interstate spread ofnon-indigenous weeds otherwise allowed by Federallaws and regulations. However, the States canonly partially compensate for insufficient Federalpresence.Three areas seem to call for a strengthenedFederal role:1. improving the Federal Noxious Weed Act(FNWA), by broadening its coverage andsimplifying its procedures;

26 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox l-G–National Minimum Standards for State Fish and Wildlife LawsOTA finds in chapter 7 that States need the following types of legal authority and decisionmaking proceduresto ensure comprehensive treatment of non-indigenous fish and wildlife:1. Each State needs statutory or regulatory provisions that allow the State to regulate the importation,possession, and release of all classes of non-indigenous animals (including ferals and non-indigenoushybrids). This authority could allow for appropriate exemptions. The authority over importation would applyto NIS originating in foreign countries and to that from other parts of the United States. The authority overintroduction would apply to both public and private property.2. State laws need to provide authority to regulate intrastate stocking of species where hybridization withindigenous species or other harmful impacts may occur.3. All States need legal authority to list potentially harmful NIS in all taxonomic groups as prohibited fromimportation, possession, and/or release. Their lists would supplement the Lacey Act list. In this and otherlisting processes, States would actively solicit expert technical advice and public comment. However,under extraordinary circumstances States would also have emergency authority to prohibit specieswithout administrative delays.4. States’ decisions regarding importation, possession, and release of NIS would be based on defined andrigorous standards of review that comprehensively consider the new releases’ environmental impacts.Detailed studies, equivalent to an environmental impact statement would be required in cases ofpotentially significant impacts.5. All decisions to approve new releases would be conditioned onthefollowing: a)notification and commentgiven to other potentially affected States, the Federal Government, and Canada and Mexico if they arepotentially affected; b) stipulations for follow-up monitoring and review; and c) provisions governing publicand/or private responsibility for the costs of control or eradication and for damages if unanticipatednegative impacts occur.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.2. increasing weed management on publiclands; and3. tightening screening before the release ofnew, potentially weedy non-indigenousplants.The first area arises from concerns that FNWAis an inadequate tool for preventing the problemsnow facing resource managers. The second areaarises from existing massive and spreading weedproblems, especially on western public lands, andthe view that the Federal Government has notfully met its responsibility here. Finally, thoseresponsible for introducing new plants for horticultureand soil conservation have been reluctantto recognize the importance of rigorous screeningfor weediness before a plant’s release.THE FEDERAL NOXIOUS WEED ACT ANDFEDERAL SEED ACTOption: Congress could amend and expand theFederal Noxious Weed Act to rectify severalwidely acknowledged problems regardingdefinitions, interpretation, and its relationshipto the Federal Seed Act.The Federal Noxious Weed Act and the FederalSeed Act 13 provide the main authority for APHISto restrict entry and spread of noxious weeds. TheFNWA prohibits importation of listed noxiousweeds and provides authority to quarantine speciesalready in the country. The Act has beencriticized by the Weed Science Society of America,environmental groups, State and some industryrepresentatives, and scientific experts (60,13 Feder~ seed Act (1939), as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 1551 et se9.)

l-Summary, Issues, and Options I 27112, 113). Commonly cited shortcomings include:problems with the definition of a “noxiousweed; confusion between this Act and theFederal Seed Act; the inadequacy of the list ofprohibited species and the cumbersome nature ofthe listing process; and APHIS’ interpretationlimiting the restriction of interstate weed transferto only those species under quarantine (36,60,70,98).A major shortcoming is that the Act is appliedto too few species. APHIS took 8 years to place93 species on the current list of Federal noxiousweeds, yet at least 750 weeds meeting the Act’sdefinition remain unlisted (98). Unlisted weedscan continue to be legally imported, althoughtheir potential for causing damage is known.APHIS’ narrow interpretation of the definition ofa Federal noxious weed has kept it from regulatingclearly harmful NIS with wider distributions,including those meriting restriction to preventfurther spread (86). Purple loosestrife, Brazilianpepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), and Eurasianwatermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) are prominentunlisted weeds. Moreover, the requirementthat a noxious weed be of foreign origin meansFNWA does not cover plants like the westernwetland invader smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora),which originated in the eastern UnitedStates. Difficulties make the listing process slow(36,98), yet FNWA has no emergency mechanismto allow rapid action on unlisted species causingincipient problems.APHIS has barely implemented FNWA’s Section4, which requires a permit for moving listedspecies between States. Under APHIS interpretationof the Act’s legislative history, this restrictiononly applies when the agency has imposed aspecific quarantine under Section 5, Yet in 18years, APHIS has imposed only one quarantinefor a noxious weed. As a result, at least nineFederal noxious weeds were sold in interstatecommerce as of 1990 (98), APHIS has maintainedthis interpretation in the face of steady pressurefrom some State officials to change it (49).APHIS has traditionally emphasized insect anddisease problems and lacked professional weedPurple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is among theprominant weeds not listed by the Federal NoxiousWeed Act.scientists in key positions (128), contributing tothe low priority of weed management among itsvarious responsibilities (ch. 7). Then AdministratorGlosser contended, however, that lack offinding-not priority setting-limits APHIS’weed control programs (36).Some gaps in FIWVA might eventually be filledunder the recently enacted Nonindigenous AquaticNuisance Prevention and Control Act. NOAA andthe FWS could eventually move to regulateimportations or impose quarantines of aquatic orwetland weeds, although no such regulations areeither in place or planned.The Federal Seed Act provides for accuratelabeling and purity standards for seeds in commerce.Only 12 species have been listed under theFederal Seed Act, with “tolerances” set forcontamination by small amounts of their seed.

28 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesJust one of these species is listed among the 93prohibited entry under FNWA (62). It has notbeen clear whether species prohibited underFNWA could be legally imported and transportedwithin the country as part of seed shipments. In1988, APHIS initially allowed importation ofgrass seed contaminated by serrated tussock(Nassella trichotoma)—a weed listed under theFederal Noxious Weed but not the Federal SeedAct. In 1992, a Federal district court judge ruledthat the Federal Noxious Weed Act applied toseed shipments; however, the case is on appeal atthis writing. 14A second limitation of the Federal Seed Act isit only applies to agricultural and vegetable seed.The Act’s requirements for truth in advertising donot cover horticultural seeds, including “wildflower”and ‘‘native grass’ mixtures. Suchcommercial mixtures are increasingly popular,especially for use in suburban and seminaturalareas. The use of ‘‘wildflower’ and ‘‘native’may be misleading, because the mixtures frequentlycontain plants that do not grow naturallyin the wild, either in the United States or in theregion for which they are promoted (62). Someeven contain Federal or State listed noxiousweeds. State laws on consumer protection andaccurate weights and measures could provideStates with general authority to address horticulturalseed mixtures, but little indication exists thatthey have done so (50).Commonly suggested changes to improve FNWAinclude those in box 1-H. Some of these areincluded in amendments that Senator ByronDorgan anticipates introducing in fall, 1993.In 1990, APHIS attempted to consolidate itsplant protection statutes into one piece of legislation.While that attempt failed, the Agencyexpects to try again. Any such consolidationcould address the concerns raised here, withoutamending FNWA and the Federal Seed Act. Itcould also address the need for emergency andproactive measures discussed in a later section.Congress would need to ensure that no importantfunctions were dropped in the consolidationprocess, however. Consolidated legislation wouldinclude many additional complex and potentiallycontroversial issues. Its passage is not likely to bestraightforward or rapid.TIGHTENING PLANT SCREENINGOption: Congress could require that all entitiesintroducing non-indigenous plant materialconduct pre-release evaluations of itspotential for invasiveness.Option: Congress could require that APHISconduct periodic evaluations of its port andseed inspection systems to test their adequacyand provide feedback for improvements.At a minimum, Congress could ensure thatcurrent laws and regulations are adequately enforced.This requires that APHIS report on theeffectiveness of its inspection system and regularlyseek improvements. Also, a minimal approachwould ensure that all new, potentiallydamaging introductions be screened for invasiveness.Past experiences show that releasing unscreenedintroductions is asking for trouble.Specifying methods to use for such screening,including review under NEPA (box l-D), wouldrequire congressional intervention.Intentional introductions of plants are almostentirely unregulated, unlike certain other categoriesof potentially harmful NIS that requirepermits or receive some Federal scrutiny. Yetsome of the worst U.S. weeds were intentionallyintroduced by people who thought that theywould be beneficial: kudzu, water hyacinth, andmultiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) (60), and expertsexpress concern about the possible invasivenessof some contemporary releases (ch. 6).14 Memo~nd~ option in l’en~~~gr~~ Enterpt-ise.r, Inc. v. United States, Civil Action No. 90-1067 (U.S. District COUfi, District ofColumbia), on appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 92-5179.

l-Summary, Issues, and Options 29Box l-H-How to Improve the Federal Noxious Weed ActChange the definition of a “noxious weed.” Redefine so that plant pests of nonagricultural areas andweeds of U.S. origin-but outside their natural ranges-are clearly included. (These definitional weaknessescommonly apply to State noxious weed laws, too.) The 1990 FNWA amendments directed Federal agencies toundertake several actions against “undesirable plant species” on Federal lands. These were defined to includenoxious, harmful, exotic, injurious, or poisonous plants pursuant to Federal or State law but not including plants“indigenous to an area where control measures are to be taken.” Thus, a precedent exists for basing definitionson U.S. ranges of plants.Address weeds widespread within the United States. The lack of an approach to deal with widespreadweeds is serious enough t hat APHIS should be asked to prepare a strategic plan for dealing with pests of this type.Then, other policy questions could be addressed, including whether to change the number of States that determinewhen APHIS ends its involvement. (APHIS presently interprets the Act to mean found in no more than two States).Address the inconsistency between the Federal Noxious Weed Act and the Federal Seed Act. Thiscould be done by deleting the provision in Section 12 that prohibits the application of FNWA to seed shipmentsregulated under the Seed Act; or by amending the Seed Act to make its list of excluded species identical to thatof FNWA, whichever is more extensive.Provide for emergency listing of weeds. Streamline the listing process or grant APHIS emergency authorityto exclude those plants that meet the definition of a Federal noxious weed but have not yet been listed as such,As in the Lacey Act, current requirements for public notice and comment are important. However, they can createinordinate delay when time is essential. Therefore, strengthening t he agency’s authority to take emergency actionbefore listing might be more desirable. APHIS and the Fish and Wildlife Service might develop emergency listingprocesses together to ensure their procedural consistency.Clarify APHIS’ role in regulating the interstate transport of weeds. This may require an amendment;Congress has conducted oversight in this area in the past and problems remain. One possibility would be to: Makeplanting, distributing, and possessing noxious weeds with intent to distribute them illegal under almostall circumstances. This would make interstate distribution of Federally listed weeds clearly illegal regardless ofthe existence of an APHIS quarantine. Minnesota recently took a stricter approach by prohibiting most instancesof transport, possession, sale, purchase, import propagation, or release of approximately 30 species of plants andanimals.Increase resources for control programs, including those on Federal lands. APHIS allocates fewresources tot he control and eradication of noxious weeds and other Federal agencies face similar shortfalls. (Seeissue 7 for means to increase resources.)SOURCES: D.H. Kludy, “Federal Policy on Non-indigenous Species: The Role of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service,” contractor report prepared for the Offke of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, December 1991;R.N. Mack, Professm and Chair, Department of Botany, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, letter to P. Wlndle, OTA, Aug. 4, 1992;Minnesota Rules Chapter 6216, “Ecologically Harmful Exotic Species,” St. Paul, MN, effective Aug. 12, 1993; D.C. Schmitz, FloridaDepartment of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, FL statement submitted at hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on AgriculturalResearch and General Legislation, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, “Preparation forthe 1990 Farm Bill: Noxious Weeds,”Mar. 28, 1990, pp. 357-360; H.M. Singletary, Dirdor, Plant Industry Division, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Statementsubmitted before the Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, andForestry, Mar. 28,1990, pp. 354-356; Weed Science Society of America, “WSSA Position Statement on Changes In the Federal NoxiousWeed Act,” Davis, CA, May 8, 1990.Current Federal restrictions on importation andinterstate transport of plants (other than noxiousweeds listed under FNWA) relate to preventingtransfers of plant pests and pathogens—not evaluatingthe plant itself for harmful qualities. TheUSDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS)annually imports large quantities of foreign plantmaterial to develop new species or varieties forhorticulture, soil conservation, or agriculture.Neither the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) nor

30 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesARS specifically evaluates plants for invasivenessbefore their release for soil conservation orhorticulture. These plants undergo little or nosystematic evaluation for weediness and risk tononagricultural systems (ch. 3). Evaluation ofhorticultural varieties developed abroad and importedfor commercial sale is similarly lax.More careful and consistent pre-release screeningis needed. Some screening methods arealready in place. Usually these methods areapplied only to agricultural threats, however.APHIS initially used an expert panel, the TechnicalCommittee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds(TCENW), to designate species for the Federallist of noxious weeds. 15 These or similar screeningmethods could serve as models for the ARSGermplasm Resources Laboratory to evaluateplant material. Possibilities include the use of riskanalysis, benefit/cost analysis, safe minimumstandards, and review under NEPA (ch. 4).Harmful NIS commonly present insidious,long-term, low-probability, but high-risk problems.Under these circumstances, many standarddecisionmaking methods fit only partially. Forexample, eventual costs may be impossible topredict, making economic projections of littleuse. Any new screening methods should beadopted on a test basis and evaluated beforebroader implementation. Certain additional decisionmakingsteps are fairly clear now, however:●●●increasing the role of technical advisorygroups (98);expanding the scope of scientific and otherexpertise available to these advisory groupsto include evolutionary and conservationbiologists and ecologists (46);ensuring that decisionmaking processes aredocumented, clear, open to public scrutiny,and periodically evaluated;●●guaranteeing input from industries, States,other Federal agencies, and special interestgroups that may be affected by the decision(49); andensuring that the final decision is implementedeffectively (61).WEED MANAGEMENT ON PUBLIC LANDSOption: Congress could monitor and evaluateclosely the weed control efforts undertaken byFederal agencies as a result of FNWAamendments to the 1990 Farm Bill.Management of non-indigenous weeds is agrowing problem involving local, State, andFederal agencies (1 13). Most land managementagencies now acknowledge the problems ofnoxious weeds and are beginning to attemptcontrol. However, these programs generally aresmall, underfunded, and need additional support(chs. 6, 7). The Bureau of Land Management(BLM), for example, identified seven majordeficiencies in its programs: funds and staff;policy guidance and awareness of the problem;basic information on expansion of weed populations;attention to nonrangelands; active andpreventive programs; training beyond pesticideapplication; and coordination with other Federal,State, and county agencies (1 15). Many areaswith severe non-indigenous weed problems areamong the most protected categories of federallymanaged lands. Their problems are distinct enoughto be discussed separately in the next section.Congress gave weed control on Federal landsan important stimulus in 1990. Amendments tothe Federal Noxious Weed Act 16 included in the1990 Farm Bi11 17 require that each Federal landmanagement agency establish and fund an undesirableplant management program for landsunder its jurisdiction (6). Sustained congressionalIS me co~~ee was disb~ded in 1983 after suggesting an additional 750 Federal noxious weeds and developing 261 statements Of hfor the Federal Register. Its recommendations were not followed.167 USC-A. 281417 me Food, /@c~~e, conservatio~ and Trade Act of 1990, Public biw 101-624

l--Summary, Issues, and Options I 31interest is needed now, along with preparationsfor a thorough evaluation of these amendments’effectiveness within the next few years. Such anevaluation might assess the degree to which eachprogram met its goals; the speed with whichagencies responded to new weed problems; theextent and adequacy of interagency Federal-Statecooperation, and so on.Many Federal lands with serious nonindigenousweed problems are vast, remote, andhave low economic value. These features makechemical control costly and difficult and biologicalcontrol an attractive alternative. Biologicalcontrol organisms are non-indigenous and alsocapable of harm if not properly screened. Of theFederal land management agencies, only BLMhas clearly defined policies for evaluating thesafety of non-indigenous biological control agentsbefore their release onto public lands. Comparablepolicies are needed by other agencies (seebiological control section below).Managers complain that suitable biologicalcontrol agents are difficult to obtain. Similarly,indigenous germplasm and products are in shortsupply. The agencies or Congress could ease suchtechnical bottlenecks.The use of non-indigenous plants for applicationssuch as landscaping and erosion controlsometimes comes about because of the high costor unavailability of indigenous species. For example,farmers cut planting costs per acre by 17percent when they chose non-indigenous ratherthan indigenous grasses for acreage enrolled inthe Federal Conservation Reserve Program (20).However, a cooperative State-Federal program inIllinois demonstrated that propagation of indigenousplants for large-scale uses is economicallyand technically feasible (39) (box 7-E).An indigenous perennial clover (Trifoliumcarolinianum) has been found to be a better andless expensive ground cover than many newlydeveloped non-indigenous varieties (2). However,lack of commercial sources is a barrier to itsuse in the Federal Conservation Reserve Program,Managers of national parks similarly find thatindigenous plants are not readily available fromnurseries (33). Such problems stimulated a successfulcollaboration in which SCS propagatesindigenous plants for park restoration (1 18).Wider availability of indigenous plants atcomparable costs, along with public education,could go far towards increasing their use––especially if combined with new requirements fortruthful reporting of plant origins for commerciallysold seeds and plants. The Federal Governmentcould play a significant role in encouragingthe use of indigenous plants. Current USDAprograms of ARS (the National Plant GermplasmSystem) and SCS (Plant Materials for ConservationProgram) collect plant germplasm and makeit widely available for use by plant breeders andproducers (ch. 7). Congress could require anincreased emphasis on the collection, development,and distribution of indigenous germplasmby these programs.Issue 4: Damage to Natural AreasOption: Congress could assign broad andexplicit responsibility for the control of nonindigenousspecies that damage natural areasto APHIS, the Forest Service, or anotheragency and provide resources for itsimplementation.Option: Congress could require that the NationalPark Service commit, in measurable ways, toelevating the priority of natural resourcemanagement.Option: Congress could appropriate additionalfunds for the Park Service to implementlarge-scale control and eradication programsfor those natural areas most damaged by NIS.Alternately, Congress could provide morefunds for these purposes by changing theamount or structure of park entrance or userfees.A variety of Federal (and State and local)agencies manage protected areas. Among the

32 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesmost ‘‘natural’ of federally owned lands are theNational Parks and other areas managed by theNational Park Service (NPS). These represent asmall fraction (approximately 3 percent) of U.S.land, but their significance in preserving andprotecting natural and cultural resources goes farbeyond their relatively small acreage. The U.S.Forest Service, BLM, and FWS manage moremodified, yet largely undeveloped, lands-asmuch as 23 percent of U.S. land.These areas are significant for maintainingindigenous animals and plants—the biologicaldiversity of the United States. Also, these landscan harbor troublesome NIS that degrade resourcesand move to private land.No Federal agency clearly sees its mission asprotecting natural areas from harmful NIS. Althoughsome protection incidentally arises fromFederal coverage of other areas, it is noncomprehensiveand misses many harmful species. Statecoverage varies and is similarly incomplete. Theharmful effects of NIS in natural areas tends to bepoorly documented-a cause and a consequenceof the lack of focused Federal and State attention.For example, the significance of harmful nonindigenousinsects in natural areas can only beguessed, since the U.S. fauna is so poorly known.The effects of at least one-third of the nonindigenousinsects in the country are undocumented(ch. 3) (48). Nevertheless, harmful NISclearly threaten nonagricultural areas like theNational Parks (chs. 2, 8).State efforts do not compensate for the lack ofFederal attention (ch. 7). State regulation of fishand wildlife is patchy. State coverage of invertebratesoutside of agriculture varies from spotty tononexistent.The Federal Government historically has had asmall and erratic role in assisting the States withcontrol programs. The recent NonindigenousAquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Actsought to remedy this with a program for Federalfunding of State programs to eradicate or controlharmful aquatic species that were unintentionallyintroduced. In the 3 years since its authorization,no funds have yet been appropriated. Moreover,the rocky start of its Federal interagency AquaticNuisance Species Task Force makes its futurepotential uncertain.Responsibility for studying, regulating, andcontrolling harmful NIS in nonagricultural areassuch as parks and protected areas is a largeenough problem that it needs to be assignedexplicitly to some agency or institution. Thiscould be APHIS, although it lacks expertise inthis area. Such responsibility would entail asubstantial expansion of duties, which couldconflict with APHIS’ traditional mission to protectagriculture. APHIS, at least, should considerthe impact of NIS on natural areas when listingweeds under FNWA (49), when restricting otherNIS, and if the agency begins to screen fish forpathogens.Alternately, the Forest Service might be able toassume responsibility for non-indigenous weedcontrol in nonagricultural areas, with its approachto forest pests serving as a model for nonforestorganisms. This would require developing authorityfor interagency cooperative programs toact outside National Forest System lands.Others have suggested that control of NIS onnonagricultural lands be assigned to an agencyoutside USDA, perhaps to BLM, EPA, or a new

I-Summary, Issues, and Options 33institution that would take over a majority ofNIS-related functions. The efficiency, costsavings,effectiveness of government reorganizationsis far from clear (105). Undoubtedly,NIS control on nonagricultural lands shouldbe the responsibility of an organization with aninterest in protecting biological diversity andecological expertise.Of all Federal land management agencies, theNational Park Service (NPS) has the most restrictiveand elaborate policies regarding NIS (ch. 6).Despite these policies, harmful NIS are causingfundamental changes inside and nearby someNational Parks. As early as 1980, a NPS report toCongress cited encroachment of NIS as one of thethreats to the Parks (1 17). The changes promptedby NIS are large enough now to jeopardize someParks’ abilities to meet the goals for which theParks were established (41,60). In a survey donein 1986 and 1987, respondents rated nonindigenousplants as the most common threat topark natural resources while non-indigenous animalsranked fourth (41).Threats to Hawaii’s National Parks are probablyworst, although many other Parks are damagedby MS, such as wild hogs (Sus scrofa) inGreat Smoky Mountains National Park, a nonindigenousthistle (Cirsium vulgare) in YosemiteNational Park, and gypsy moths in ShenandoahNational Park (6); feral rabbits (Oryctolaguscuniculus) in Channel Islands National Park, saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in Canyonlands and BigBend National Parks, and non-indigenous vineson Theodore Roosevelt Island (59) (table 2-4).Although the Parks face many threats, harmfulNIS are considered more pervasive, subtle, andharder to rectify than other disturbances thatthreaten biological diversity (27).A growing recognition exists that NPS’ fundingpriorities will have to shift if it is to addressdegradation of the Parks’ natural resources, includingfunding related to NIS (76, 102). Naturalresource management generally has low priority.The Park Service allocates no more than 2 percentof its annual budget to research, management, andcontrol of NIS and the backlog of unmet needs isgrowing (6,45).Ambiguity in the NPS Organic Act 18 is partlyresponsible for the lack of focus in NPS management;neither the 1970 nor 1978 amendmentsdefined or set priorities for use, versus preservation,of the Parks (94). Further amendments couldclarify these sometimes conflicting goals, butdisagreement exists as to their necessity. A majorrecent report—prepared by an independent steeringcommittee for the NPS Director drawing on a700-participant symposium-recommended thatprotection of Park resources from internal andexternal impairment be NPS primary responsibility.The authors saw this choice as within thecurrent authority of NPS leaders (102).Park Service officials seem less willing tomake such a choice without legislative change.An internal NPS workshop on protecting biologicaldiversity in the Parks, for example, recommendednew legislation to make such protectionan explicit statutory responsibility and to securea mandate for restoration of extirpated or degradedecosystems (27). Specifically, this groupcalled for reducing the densities of harmful NISwithin and around Parks to levels where theirinfluence is minimized or eliminated.New NIS control and eradication efforts, alongwith other priority resource management tasks,would require additional funds. The steeringcommittee, in their 1992 report, suggested avariety of funding mechanisms in addition toregular congressional appropriations: funding theLand and Water Conservation Fund Act to the fullextent authorized; a ‘‘modest” gasoline tax;returns from concessions and extractive operations;small levies on activities and equipment;voluntary income tax check-offs; sale of tokensand passes for admission; and returning 50percent of visitor fees to Park units (102).IS Natjo~ Pmk Service Organic Act of 1916, as amended (16 U, S.C.A. 1 et seq.)

34 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesThe Park Service alone cannot solve its pressingresource management problems. Up to 70percent of the external threats to Parks result fromactions by other Federal agencies or by State orlocal governments (75). This suggests NPS mustwork closely with adjacent land managers. Specifically,Congress could require that NPS initiateagreements for managing those NIS that threatenpark lands from outside their boundaries. Thoseprojects that serve multiple goals, e.g., NISremoval and recovery of endangered species, arethe best candidates for top priority (6).A Keystone Center Policy Dialogue on biologicaldiversity (47) suggested an agency-byagencyapproach to NIS on public lands. Participantsrecommended that each agency: prohibitpotentially harmful new releases of NIS, includingany intended to control indigenous species;identify, control, or replace already establishedNIS; eliminate any newly discovered NIS; andmaintain those beneficial NIS that do not interferewith biological diversity.Congress’ 1990 amendments to the FNWAtook a similar approach, requiring each agency todevelop plans for weed control on lands under itsjurisdiction. The FNWA could further protectnatural areas if this function were more explicit(98). The definition of a Federal noxious weedincludes species affecting ‘‘fish and wildliferesources. Nevertheless, critics complain thatAPHIS has been slow or failed to act on weeds ofnatural areas such as melaleuca and Australianpine (Casuarina equisetfolia) (ch. 8). At leastone State—Washington-has recently providedmore complete protection for natural areas fromweeds (box 7-D) (124).Improved implementation of the Lacey Act andfuture implementation of the NonindigenousAquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Actmight go far towards protecting natural areasfrom harmful, non-indigenous fish and wildlife(including aquatic invertebrates). Today, however,protection of natural areas from these NIS isalmost nonexistent. For example, mollusks thatharm natural areas continue to arrive in thecountry (ch. 3) (8). APHIS may screen out somemollusks during inspection of plant imports, butonly if they are potential agricultural pests. Justone species would be stopped due to a prohibitionunder the Lacey Act—the well-known zebramussel, which was listed far too late to stop itsspread across the country.Congress might delay further legislation onharmful aquatic NIS until the 1990 NonindigenousAquatic Nuisance Prevention and ControlAct is fully implemented, although the Federalinteragency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Forcehas been slow to fulfill its required assignments(table 6-l). Instead, Congress might evaluate theTask Force program to date, urge faster implementation,and ensure that funds are provided forState control in a timely manner.Issue 5: Environmental Educationas PreventionOption: Congress could require that the 20-someFederal agencies involved with NIS developbroadly based environmental educationprograms to increase public awareness ofproblems caused by damaging orunpredictable NIS.Option: Alternately, Congress could develop asmaller scale initiative to take greateradvantage of current programs andinformation.Option: Congress could require that airlines,port authorities, and importers intensify theirpublic educational efforts regarding harmfulNIS.Although public appreciation of U.S. biologicaldiversity is increasing (ch. 4), the differencebetween indigenous and NIS in natural surroundingsis not commonly perceived—thus the neglectof a coherent public policy regardingharmful NIS.Lack of awareness on the part of the public andpolicymakers is mutually reinforcing. Many,

l-Summary, Issues, and Options 35including OTA’s expert contractors and its AdvisoryPanelists, believe this cycle of ignorancemust be broken (22,46,49,60,104). Also, thistheme surfaces frequently in recommendations bynongovernmental groups (46) and scientists andmanagers (83,93),Education on NIS ranks low in priority in mostState and Federal agencies and private organizationsthat are involved with natural resources,receiving an estimated less than 1 percent of mostorganizations’ budgets (96). Numerous activitiesare under way, but efforts are fragmented, uncoordinated,with little formal institutional backup.In 1989, a coalition of at least 100 environmentalgroups recommended a sweeping approachto environmental education, including1.2.3.re-establishing an Office of EnvironmentalEducation in the U.S. Department of Education,appointing a National Advisory Council onEnvironmental Education within that Department,andrequiring that USDA, the Department of theInterior, and EPA develop and distributeenvironmental programs and materials (15).The first two activities were estimated at anadditional $20 million annually. In part, they wereseen as fulfilling unmet goals of the 1970Environmental Education Act, which expired in1982.The North American Association for EnvironmentalEducation (NAAEE) suggested a lesssweeping strategy, based on its survey for OTA ofcurrent NIS-related programs. Previous educationcampaigns have not been systematically evaluated,which made recommending definitive changesdifficult (96). NAAEE’s suggestions included:cooperative government-private programs forgroups working on similar NIS; improved exchangeof already-developed educational materials;designation of specialized “centers of excellence’for particular species or approaches;teacher training; and improved links between, .+-Agricultural items that can harbor foreign pests areprohibited from entry but these banned items arrivedwith international travelers on just one fight.scientists (who often are charged with designingeducation campaigns) and educators (who havemore expertise in programs’ effectiveness) (96).Regardless of approach, program evaluationsshould be incorporated from their beginning.The public has the greatest need for educationrelated to non-indigenous animals, according tosurvey responses of 271 U.S. resource managersand others involved with these issues (93).However, few environmental education campaignsare initiated for the general public forlogistical reasons; efforts are more realisticallyfocused on particular groups of people (96).Education regarding harmful NIS will be moreeffective if focused on people whose incentivesfor harmful introductions or other actions areweak and for whom the information is likely to tip

36 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesthe balance of their behavior. Little research hasbeen done on why people bring plants andanimals into the United States illegally or whythey dump NIS outside their property. Also,careful quantitative analysis of the pathways bywhich NIS reach the United States and the rate atwhich these pathways lead to serious problemshas not been linked to educational efforts for thepeople using these pathways. Such an analysiscould be a highly effective way to set priorities foreducational programs.Few NIS are introduced intentionally andillegally (smuggled), with the exception of sportfish (ch. 3). For smugglers, steep frees may bemore appropriate than education. On the otherhand, Ralph Elston, from the Battelle MarineSciences Laboratory in Sequim, WA, suggeststhat commercial groups transporting aquatic NIScan be expected to respond to education andself-enforcement (31). For other vertebrates, peoplemay intentionally release animals believingthey are doing the right thing, or at least notunderstanding the possible harmful effects oftheir actions. Educational efforts aimed at buyersat the point of import or sale might effectivelychange this behavior. Warnings on packages orspecial forms describing dangers might alertimporters. Horticulturist Gary Keller (52) of theArnold Arboretum, for example, suggests thatplants like running bamboo species, 19 which areknown to be highly invasive, be sold withindividual warning labels so that gardeners recognizetheir danger and prevent their spread.International travelers’ baggage is often citedas an important source of unintentional (butillegal) introductions (1 1). This suggests thatairline crews, immigrants, and departing or returningresidents should receive intensified education.Also, foreign travel might automaticallytrigger certain steps: handouts from travel agents,enclosures with airline tickets, visas or passports(77), or videos on aircraft that graphically portraythe potential damage from NIS. Similar attemptssometimes failed in the past because too little carewas taken in developing a clear message; thesupport of the Advertising Council was notsecured for media saturation; travel agents and aircarriers were reluctant to distribute information;and APHIS usually did not include other inspectionagencies (64). These lessons need to beheeded in the future.Issue 6: Emergencies and Other PrioritiesOption: Congress could ensure that all Federalagencies conducting NIS control on publiclands have adequate authority-via existing ornew legislation-and funding to handleemergency infestations of damaging NIS.Option: Congress could set deadlines for APHIS’completion and implementation ofcomprehensive regulations for the importationof unprocessed wood.Option: Congress could specify that APHIS andFWS conduct high-level, strategic reviews ofhow the agencies balance resources directedto excluding, detecting, and managing harmfulNIS.For agricultural pests, Federal and State statutesare relatively comprehensive. Many problemsin this area are due to slow or incompleteimplementation, difficulties coordinating Federaland State roles, or a tendency to inadequatelyaddress larger strategic questions.In 1991 and 1992, APHIS allowed entry ofseveral shipments of timber or wood chips fromChile, New Zealand, and Honduras withoutcareful analysis (57). Critics complained thatAPHIS was ill-prepared and slow to recognize therisks that such shipments could carry significantnew pests to U.S. forests (see ch. 4, box 4-B).Moreover, when APHIS moved to regulate ‘logs,19 Keller’s reference to running bamboo species includes plants in 15 different genera. The most invasive in northern North America areArundinaria spp., Phyllostachys spp., Pleioblastus spp., and Sasa spp. (53).

1-Summary, Issues, and Options 37lumber, and certain other wood products” in1992, 20 these proposed regulations were incomplete,failing to address not only crates, pallets, orpacking material made from unprocessed woodbut also the control of ships and containerscoming to the United States from high-risk areas.Also, an unwillingness by APHIS to seelocalized problems as potential national concernshas been a source of continuing tension betweenthe agency and State departments of agriculture(chs. 7, 8). APHIS has several times failed to acton significant pests because they were consideredlocal problems. For example, the agency ignoredFlorida’s 1987 problems with infestations ofvarroa mites (Varroa jacobsoni) in honey bee(Apis mellifera) colonies (l)--only to see the pestspread to at least 30 States by 1991 (73). Similarsituations have arisen regarding plant pests andproviding APHIS with emergency powers underthe Federal Noxious Weed Act could clarifyAPHIS’ role and speed responses (86).EMERGENCY RESPONSESRapid response requires: careful monitoringfor invasive or potentially invasive species toascertain incipient problems; quickly decidingwhether to attempt eradication, and, if so, beingwilling to eliminate more species than mighteventually prove hazardous; and having theresources to implement that or other controldecisions quickly.The current situation contrasts sharply with theideal (ch. 6). APHIS systematically monitors fora number of agricultural pests in various parts ofthe country, e.g., African honey bees, Mediterraneanfruit flies (Ceratifis capitata), cotton bollweevils (Anthonomus grandis), and gypsy moths(49). However, improvements to the U.S. detectionsystem are recommended by many scientistsfor plant pathogens (89), additional insects (48),weeds (60), and mollusks and other aquaticinvertebrates (8). No centralized list of recentlydetected or potential new pests exists (ch. 3, 10).And databases that might provide such informationhave received sporadic support (ch. 5).In contrast, New Zealand’s forest industriesconducted a detailed benefit/cost analysis ofdifferent levels of pest detection surveys. Maximumbenefits were achieved by aiming to detect95 percent, not 100 percent, of new introductions(13) (figure 4-3). Relatively few detailed economicstudies of this kind are available to guideU.S. NIS programs (ch. 4).Federal and State agencies are capable of rapidresponse after eradication decisions are made. Acooperative Federal-State program to eradicatechrysanthemum rust (Puccinia chrysanthemi) inthe early 1990s was rapid and successful (90).Joint action in 1992 by APHIS and the ForestService with the Oregon and Washington Departmentsof Agriculture eradicated infestations ofthe Asian gypsy moth. Forest Service expendituresfor European gypsy moth suppression anderadication on Federal, State, and private lands inthe eastern United States averaged $10,322,000annually from 1987 to 1991 (126). Entomologistsare concerned that the Asian gypsy moth, ifestablished, could require a similar scale of effort.On the other hand, Donald Kludy, a formerofficial of the Virginia Department of Agriculture,cites three cases where regulatory changes toquarantines were delayed, sometimes repeatedly:Mexican citrus (Citrus spp.), fruit from Bermuda,and the Federal gypsy moth quarantine (49). S.A.Alfieri ( 1), a Florida agricultural official, also wasless sanguine about the Federal-State partnershipand its effectiveness in responding quickly tosmall infestations. He recommended that funds beset aside for emergency pest problems and thataction plans be developed and continuouslyupdated for each serious potential pest anddisease, accompanied by cost-benefit analyses.For fast response and eradication, safe andeffective chemical pesticides are needed. Classicalbiological control cannot take their place,although it can be feasible for long-term control2057 Federa[ Register 43628-43631 (Sept. 22, 1992)

38 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesof widespread infestations, e.g., noxious weedson western rangelands. By design, however,classical biological control allows pest populationsto persist at tolerable levels. This is counterproductivein a rapid response program aimed atcompletely eradicating incipient pest populations.Major concerns exist whether chemicals thatare considered safe and effective now are likely toremain available because of regulatory changes(ch. 5). Many registered chemical pesticides aredue for renewal under the Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 21 Mostherbicides for agricultural use are expected to bere-registered. Manufacturers are not expected toseek reregistration for many of the minor useinsecticides, rodenticides, avicides, and fungicides.Reregistration is time-consuming and expensive,especially for chemicals with smallmarkets. Chemicals used to control nonagriculturalpests, including aquatic plants and largevertebrates, fall into this group. Manufacturers’decisions, as well as government policy, will haveimportant implications. For example, costs ofaquatic weed control could jump from $10 to atleast $100 per hectare if 2,4-D amine is notreregistered; because many weed control budgetsare capped, higher herbicide costs will translateinto fewer areas controlled (34).Section 18 of FIFRA does, however, providefor emergency use of unregistered pesticides.According to the General Accounting Office,Section 18 exemptions were intended for severalsituations, including the quarantine of pests notpreviously known in the United States.Two Federal programs might prove instructiveregarding policies on NIS-related minor usepesticides. The Interregional Research ProgramNumber 4 (IR- 4), in USDA’s Cooperative StateResearch Service, develops and synthesizes datato clear existing pesticides for minor uses on foodand feed crops. However, it is heavily burdenedAlthough officials anticipated that the Asian gypsymoth (Lymantria dispar) could accompany timberimports, grain ships brought an early infestation andState and Federal agencies cooperated to quicklyeradicate it,and unlikely to meet reregistration deadlines (ch.5) (110). Nor does it address problems of newpesticide development. Congress used the OrphanDrug Act 22 to address similar problems withdeveloping limited-use pharmaceutical products.This Act provides pharmaceutical companieswith 7 years’ exclusive marketing rights and taxcredits for developing drugs for rare diseases. TheAct has successfully prompted new drug development(3), although controversy regarding severaldrugs’ high profitability has prompted Congressto consider modifications.SETTlNG PRIORITIESDecisions about which organisms to prevent,eradicate, or control are not always made systematicallyor strategically, despite the large amountsof money involved. This risks wasting money,given the biology of invasions. The APHISline-item budget directs most NIS-related fundsto particular species and different programscompete against each other for priority. Highlyvisible programs with strong support of industry,States, or the public receive highest priority. As a21 Feder~ Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (1947) as amended, (7 U. S.C.A. 1s6, et seq.)22 ow~ Dmg ~t of 1983, as amended Public Law 97-414, public hw 100-290.

l-Summary, Issues, and Options I 39result, potential new diseases and pests often lackattention, although money could be well investedat an early stage (49). State officials expressconfusion as to how APHIS decides whether andwhen to begin and end its programs,James Glosser, former APHIS Administrator,stated that: “Probably the greatest problem confrontingus in noxious weed control is identifyingwhat constitutes a noxious weed and how toestablish priorities for control efforts” (36).Managers tend to set priorities based on eitherspecies’ impact or the likelihood of successfulcontrol. USDA’s Noxious Weed Technical AdvisoryGroup suggested criteria based on potentialeconomic damage, size of infestation, and supportfor a control or eradication program (80).Ranking current and potential plant pests wasa major task of the Minnesota Interagency ExoticSpecies Task Force (70). Florida’s Exotic PlantPest Council is also developing an extensive,prioritized list of harmful non-indigenous plants(26). The McGregor Report (64) was among theFederal Government’s frost attempts to rankagricultural pests and diseases, although it hadlimited impact. The seven western States participatingin BLM’s research plan for restoringdiversity on degraded rangelands listed four highpriority non-indigenous weeds 23 (1 14).Others would give highest priority to harmfulNIS in their earliest stages of invasion. Plantinvasions are typical of many NIS in that theirpopulations do not spread at steady rates. Weedsare easiest to control or eradicate immediatelyafter detection, before their population growthaccelerates (71). Richard Mack, Professor ofBotany at Washington State University, suggeststhat eradication aimed at already wellestablished,widespread weeds is likely to produceonly temporary gains unless control ispermanently maintained. This is costly and difficult.The most aggressive plant pest controlprogram ever conducted in the United Statessucceeded in restricting, but not eradicating,barberry (Berberis vulgaris) (62). Nor, accordingto Mack, could all possible weeds be preventedfrom entering the United States at a tolerable cost:society would not accept the expense and delaysinvolved in inspecting all arriving cargo, luggage,and passengers. For these reasons, he wouldincrease resources for detecting newly establishedweeds, add species to the Federal NoxiousWeed Act, but keep quarantine, port inspection,and control of widespread weeds near currentlevels (62).Richard Mack’s recommendations are a clearstrategic statement that could guide policy. However,those advocating higher priority for controlof widespread weeds would sharply disagree withhis approach and they can also make a strong case(see preceding section on non-indigenous weeds).A large proportion (39 percent) of those involvedin issues related to non-indigenous animals feelthat the length of time a population has existedshould bear little influence on the decision toremove or control it (93). However, significantlymore administrators than other types of workerssupported using length of time in making decisionsabout non-indigenous animals (93). Suchfundamental disagreements on priorities highlightthe lack of information, dialogue, andconsensus on managing harmful NIS.Approaches to setting priorities may vary,depending on the type of organisms involved andthe state of scientific knowledge. Containment ofnon-indigenous fish and other aquatic species isdifficult. Once released, large aquatic invertebratesand fish spread easily within river systems,and their larval, sub-adult and adult forms mayeach be disruptive (44). Attempts to eradicate fishafter they have developed a substantial range areoften a waste of time and resources (22). Thus,groups like the American Fisheries Society haveoften focused on the need for stricter preintroductionscreening.23 Medusa head (Tuenniatherum asperum), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), diffuse knapweed (Centaurea difisa), and spotted knapweed(Centuurea maculo,fa) (1 14).

40 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesFor plant pathogens, overseas screening bycommodity, along with inspection at ports of exit,might be most effective (91). USDA has focusedon identifying foreign pathogens likely to bedamaging in the United States (89). With a list ofpotential pathogens running to 1,000 pages andlimited detection methods for micro-analysis,complete exclusion at ports of entry is impossible.Pathogens tend to be insidious-they may becomeapparent only after populations are beyondwhat would amount to ‘‘early detection’ forlarger and less mobile NIS. Pathogen hosts mustbe eradicated to eliminate diseases, but manyhosts are valuable commodities, and their destructioncan be costly and controversial.Others have recommended alternative criteriafor setting priorities. For example, Walter Westman,of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory inBerkeley, CA, suggested that priorities might bebased on severity of impact on indigenous biota,with wilderness areas receiving higher prioritythan urban recreation areas. Also, control mightbe emphasized for more easily contained NIS(e.g., those with slow rates of spread, localizedoccurrence, and susceptibility to available methods)and/or those that threaten endangered species.Those NIS that play a role in ecosystemfunction (e.g., controlling soil erosion control orsupporting wildlife) and cannot be readily replacedcould be given lower priority (129).Stanley Temple, a zoologist at the University ofWisconsin, likewise suggests NIS that threatenendemic species on remote islands deserve special,high-priority treatment (103). The InternationalUnion for the Conservation of Nature andNatural Resources (IUCN) took a similar approach.Its Species Survival Commission counseledthat special efforts should be made toeradicate harmful NIS in: islands with a highpercentage of endemic plants and animals, centersof biological uniqueness, areas with high speciesor ecological diversity, and in places where a NISjeopardizes a unique and threatened plant (44).In the long-term, strategic decisionmaking, likebetter detection and more rapid response, requiressolid databases (with information from foreignsources) and substantial taxonomic expertise. Theinadequacy of the former and the dwindling of thelatter are common concerns in the scientificcommunity (ch. 5) (24,60,63).Issue 7: Funding and AccountabilityOption: Congress could increase user fees thatrelate directly to the evaluation, use, andmanagement of potentially or actually harmfulNIS. Also, Congress could require thatrecreational fees collected by Federal landmanagement agencies be made available formanagement of harmful NIS on public lands.Option: Congress could examine the adequacy ofFederal and State fines related to illegal andpoorly planned introductions. If necessary,Congress could develop additionalmechanisms to recoup an increasedproportion of the costs for preventing andminimizing damage from NIS that becomepublic nuisances.Option: Congress could change the Aid-to-Statesprogram to encourage projects that limitdamage from non-indigenous fish and wildlife.Many small-scale efforts related to NIS couldbe improved without large funding increases.Some of the options suggested for issues abovefall into that category. However, some initiativesare large enough to require additional money.These needs are likely to grow as the number andimpact of harmful NIS also grows.Options that give additional responsibilities toFederal or State agencies-e. g., for more complexrisk assessment or earlier pest detection—need to be matched with increased funding if theyare to be effective. The problems faced by theFederal interagency Aquatic Nuisance SpeciesTask Force-delays in reporting to Congress,lack of funding and staff-illustrate what happenswhen new obligations are assigned without theresources to implement them. Some Federal

I-Summary, Issues, and Options 41officials find that funding is the primary factor inagencies’ ability to proactively deal with harmfulNIS (17). In a survey of those working with issuesrelated to non-indigenous animals, for example,respondents listed funding problems as the singlelargest contributing factor to the lack of successin control programs (93).This problem is not confined to MS. BothFederal and State environmental legislation hasmultiplied during the 1980s and early 1990s(32,84). At the same time, the funding availableto States and localities has been decreasing(32,95). Clearly, questions of funding will becrucial for new or improved efforts to succeed.To date, the total costs of harmful NIS to thenational interest have not been tabulated. Quarantinecontainment can fail; a newly importedspecies can become unexpectedly invasive; apreviously innocuous pathway can become aconduit for a major new pest. However, littleexplicit accountability exists for the damagecaused in such cases, especially as compared withother areas of potential environmental harm.Federal, State, and local governments have bornesignificant costs that could be more appropriatelyassigned to individuals and industries, e.g., for theAsian gypsy moth and the zebra mussel.Expensive and time-consuming lawsuits providevirtually the only avenue for assigningliability and recovering control or eradicationcosts. In part, this may be because many damagingNIS have been associated with agriculture andagriculture has engendered less Federal interventionwith respect to its environmental consequencesthan other industries (84).Long lag times between the action of theresponsible party (if that party can be determined)and the impacts of NIS are typical. For example,witchweed (Striga asiatica) probably arrived inNorth Carolina with military equipment fromAfrica after World War II; it was detected some20 years later. The APHIS eradication program inNorth and South Carolina cost $5.2 million infiscal year 1991 (90). Often the effects, as well asorigin, of a given NIS will be uncertain andundocumentable. And one area or economicsector could be severely harmed by a NIS whileanother might benefit. Relying solely on U.S.courts to assign damages and to recoup costs is anineffective policy under these circumstances.FEES AND OTHER FUNDINGFees are a prevalent means of raising funds formatters directly and indirectly related to NIS andFederal and State governments are expandinguser fees. Typically, fees are structured to raiserevenue, not to recoup damages or to changepeople’s behavior (85). As of the late- 1980s,Evelyn Shields, in a report for the NationalGovernors’ Association, (95) found that 43 Statesused fees to fund local, State, and Federalenvironmental programs, generating roughly $240million. In fiscal year 1991, State parks andsimilar areas alone produced approximately $433million from entrance and user fees (1 19).However, the more public organizations relyon funding that is independent of the appropriationsprocess, the more independent they are ofcongressional control (105). This has been acommon issue in the continuing debate in Congressregarding fees.Relating user or other fees 24 directly to harmfulNIS or services associated with them has anadvantage since management of harmful NISotherwise suffers when finding drops and populationsoutstrip control. For example, 1993 fundingcuts to the South Florida Water ManagementDistrict mean reduced melaleuca control in theEverglades conservation areas; Donald Schmitz(87), an aquatic weed specialist with the FloridaDepartment of Natural Resources, anticipatessome past gains in melaleuca control will be lostM me definition of ~ < ‘user fee” v~es, depend~g on the author. Doyle (28) describes 4 general types of fees: impact fins, user fees! andfees for services and discharges. The agencies discussed here distinguish user and entranee fees for reporting to Congress. GAO ( 109) appearsto have grouped all FWS fees as “user fees.

42 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesSome funding for melaleuca (Melaleucaquinquenervia) control is dropping while associatedproblems are increasing-the type of situation thatuser fees are intended to prevent.and future efforts made more difficult as a result.Ideally, NIS funding would be predictable andincrease if NIS-related problems do. User fees canbe tailored so that this occurs.In 1991 and 1992, APHIS published regulationsimplementing the user fees for internationalinspection services authorized in the 1990 FarmBill; 25 these range from $2.00 for air passengersand commercial trucks, $7 for loaded commercialrailroad cars, to $544 for commercial vessels of atleast 100 tons (49). User fees for agriculturalinspection, issuance of plant health certificates,animal quarantines and disease tests, and exporthealth certificates were also authorized and areexpected to be in place by the beg inning of fiscalyear 1994. 26 In contrast, Congress struck downAPHIS’ attempt to institute a domestic quarantineuser fee between Hawaii and the mainland (ch. 8).In fiscal year 1992, user fees provided 80.7percent of program funding for APHIS’ AgriculturalQuarantine Inspection program; this wasestimated at 78.6 percent for fiscal year 1993 (78).Additional opportunities exist to more closelymatch fees to MS use and the prevention andminimization of NIS damage. For example,private parties in New Zealand pay all costsassociated with risk analysis and port inspectionfor imported NIS. In contrast, those commercialinterests advocating Siberian timber imports tothe United States spent about $200,000 to developRussian contacts and promote imports. The U.S.Government spent approximately $500,000 moreto analyze associated risks. These were notadditional appropriations but came from U.S.Forest Service contingency funds.Seven Federal land management agencies 27 areauthorized by Congress to charge entrance or userfees under the Land and Water ConservationFund Act of 1965 (LWCFA), as amended. 28 Feesgenerated by the LWCFA account for amountsranging from 1 percent (BLM) to 85 percent(NPS) of the agencies’ total receipts from sale anduse of land and resources (4).Congress has considered numerous amendmentsto the LWCFA since 1965 to prohibit,authorize, or re-establish various agencies’ abilityto charge fees, to change the amount of differentfees, and to change the purposes to which fees canbe put (9,108). legislative changes generallyhave expanded and increased fees to meet theagencies’ growing needs for operating and maintenancefunds. Making entrance or user feesavailable for NIS-related programs would likelyrequire further changes in this legislation.Changes to the LWCFA have been controversial,in part because of the tradition of free publicaccess to Federal recreational lands (9). Otherspecific user fees, e.g., grazing permits on Federal2356 Federal Register 14844 (Apr. 12, 1991); 57 Federal Register 769, 770 (Jan. 9, 1992); 57 Federal Register 62472, 0$73 @eC. 31,1992)26 ~OpOSed rew]ations are in 56 Federal Register 37481-37493 (Aug. 7, 1991)2.7 B~eau of Land ~~gement, BUeau of RWlamation, Army Corps of Engineers, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National PwkService, and Tennesee Valley Authoriw.2816 U. S.C.A. 4601-6.

1-Summary, Issues, and Options 43lands, also have been highly controversial, as isthe general issue of charging full market value forFederal services. However, sizable amounts ofpotential revenue are involved. For five Federalland management agencies, 80 to 99 percent ofrecreational visits are to sites for which no fees arecharged; the National Park Service, on the otherhand, charges fees for about 65 percent of visits(1 19). In some cases, agencies consider sites toodispersed for ready fee collection; in other cases,Congress or the agency has designated particularunits as nonfee areas. Internal audits estimatedthat approximately $24 million could be collectedannually with new or increased fees by NPS,BLM, FWS, and the Minerals and ManagementService (120). The Forest Service estimates thatcharging full value for its recreational serviceswould generate $5 billion annually (85).A variety of additional means—besides increasesin fees-could fund various MS-relatedactivities. For up-front funding, Congress couldlevy taxes on those who use the pathways bywhich harmful NIS enter the United States andmove within the country. Such users includeimporters, retailers, and consumers of foreignseeds, nursery stock, and timber, exotic pets andwildlife, and non-indigenous aquiculture andaquarium stock. Similarly, a tax could appropriatelybe applied to international airline and traintickets, docking fees, and gasoline. The MinnesotaExotic Species Task Force (70), focusing onNIS pathways, suggested these sources of newrevenue:establish a surcharge on boat trailer licenses;establish a tax on the sale of non-indigenousnursery products such as trees, shrubs, andflowers;establish a ballast tax on foreign ships;require licenses and license fees for importers;and. continue and expand the surcharge on boatlicenses.State and Federal Governments use taxpolicy—excise taxes, 29 exclusions and other modificationsto income taxes, and tax credits—to meet avariety of environmental goals and provide fundingfor targeted programs (1 11). Most tax policieshave little relationship to NIS. However, salestaxes are collected on pets and nursery plants andexcise taxes are imposed on airline tickets for theAirport and Airway Trust Fund (67).Also, the Federal Government collects a 10 to11 percent manufacturers’ excise tax on firearmsand hunting and fishing supplies (1 11). Thesefunds are returned, in the next fiscal year, to Statesfor fish and wildlife management projects (ch. 6;fig. 6-l). In fiscal year 1991, payments to Statestotaled more than $320 million (107).These funds are intended for projects thatbenefit wildlife. They have been used to introduceMS and for projects that indirectly affect wildlife,e.g., restoration of wetlands. States could beencouraged to fund projects that repair damagefrom past introductions of harmful nonindigenousfish and wildlife. Alternately, Congresscould amend the program to set aside fundsfor eradication and control of harmful MS orrestoration of indigenous species’ habitats. Suchprojects are already eligible for funding. Aset-aside, however, could further encourageStates to undertake such efforts without removingState control of the program’s money. Attemptsto do so could provoke considerable State resistance.Currently, only State agencies qualify forthese funds. Some observers have suggested thatthe program be changed so Federal projects mightbe eligible for a portion of these funds.INCREASING ACCOUNTABILITYResponsibility for the costs of harmful introductionscould be shifted to those who benefit

44 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesfrom the relatively open U.S. system of importation.At the same time, the benefits of introductionscould be preserved without unduly burdeningprivate individuals or groups. Those engagedin intentional introductions are most easily assignedcertain costs—for example, fees for prereleaserisk assessments and fines for illegalreleases. For unintentional introductions, all usersof high-risk pathways (e.g., shippers using ballastwater) could be charged for their pooled risk withfunds paid into a trust fund.The Species Survival Commission of IUCNrecommended that each nation have legislation toensure that persons or organizations introducingharmful NIS, not the public, bear costs for theircontrol. Further, the Commission stated thatparties responsible for illegal or negligent introductionsshould be legally liable for damages,including costs of eradication and habitat restoration,if needed. F.C. Craighead, Jr. and R,F.Dasmann, two wildlife biologists, made a similarrecommendation regarding non-indigenous biggame animals that spread onto public lands (25).A number of States have programs to hold gamebreeders, private owners, or importers liable forcontrolling escapees and for damages (ch. 7).A host of mechanisms is available to increaseaccountability. Bonding and insurance, for example,could be required of importers, but have beenlittle used. Permits and frees are most commonlyused now.The Federal Government imposes fines forbringing foreign material into the United Statesillegally, e.g., international, interstate, and intrastateviolations of the Plant Pest Act, 30 the PlantQuarantine Act, 31 and the Lacey Act. 32 Both civiland criminal sanctions are involved. The 1981Lacey Act amendments increased maximum penaltiesand jail sentences for violations ($20,000,imprisonment for up to 5 years) and provided forforfeiture of wildlife; 33 frees were further increasedby the 1987 Omnibus Crime ControlAct 34 (55). Hawaii’s recently amended lawsprovide some of the largest frees for violating itsimportation permit laws—up to $10,000 for a firstoffense and up to $25,000 for subsequent offenseswithin 5 years of a prior offense (ch. 7).Agricultural inspectors (APHIS) can fine violatorsup to $10,000 but most civil penalties areunder $1,000. Officials estimate about 30,000actions per year, with almost all settled for lessthan $100 immediately (40). In fiscal year 1990,APHIS found 1,303,000 baggage violations andassessed $723,345 in penalties for 23,676 of these(37), for an average of approximately $30.Release of organisms into National Parks is acitable offense. 35 The BLM has a policy to holdpeople responsible for damages and control costsfor unauthorized introductions of “exotic wildlife;’however, no law or regulation specifiessuch liability beyond the common law, so thepolicy’s implications are not clear (6).For frees to be effective deterrents, enforcementmust be a priority. A recent advisorycommission found that FWS law enforcementdivision was seriously understaffed and underfunded,lacked clear priorities, provided inadequatestaff supervision, and had insufficienttechnical expertise to identify species (121). TheU.S. General Accounting Office (109) concurred,so Feder~ plant Pest Act (1957), as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 147a et seq.),31 N~se~ Stock Quarantine Act (1912), as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 151 et seq..; 46 U. S.C.A. 10S et ~eg.32 me ~cey kt’s 19s1 ~endments atlow FWS agents to use the Act when enforcing any Federat law, treaty, refutation, or ttibal law.It provides for warrantless search and seizure and allows prosecution regardless of whether offenders crossed State lines. These provisionscompensate for wealmesses in the authority of other Federal wildlife laws. FWS agents prefer the Lacey Act for these reasons and because itsallows larger fines (109).3316 U. S.C.A< 3373, 3374.34 Omnibus crime Control Act (1987), as amended (18 U. S.C.A. 3571).3536 CFR Part 2. l(a)(2) (June 30, 1983).

1-Summary, Issues, and options 45The Fish and Wildlife Service confiscated thesecockatoos under a treaty banning their import. Theagency’s efforts to enforce both international anddomestic laws may be inadequate to deter violators.finding that the number of investigations is toolow to minimally deter crime, that FWS isincreasingly unable to assist States with investigations,and that FWS has no reliable directmeasures of their law enforcement’s effectiveness.Many States also lack adequate law enforcementresources (ch. 7). Thus, frees could only bea larger source of revenue and a greater disincentivefor illegal behavior if enforcement is improved.However, frees are just one means ofcreating disincentives for wrong doing-and theycarry with them the potential for ‘‘fund raisingthrough harassment” (67). Generally, prosecutionsfor environmental crimes are climbing (54)but critics charge that their deterrent potential isfar from clear (12).Taxes, fees, frees, and other tools are designedto achieve one of several aims, i.e., to increase thebenefits or decrease the costs of doing right, toincrease the costs or decrease the benefits ofdoing wrong, or to increase the probability thatsuch benefits and costs will occur (72). Theoverall trend in U.S. public policy is towardgreater use of incentives for doing right, accordingto Stuart Nagel, a political scientist at theUniversity of Illinois.However, little attention has been directedtoward creating positive incentives regardingharmful NIS, e.g., for encouraging adequatecontainment of aquiculture species. In somecases, bounties are paid for removing harmfulNIS, rewards are provided for tips leading tosuccessful prosecutions, and the Lacey Act’s1981 amendments included provisions 36 for rewardingthose who provide information leadingto enforcement against or conviction of violators(55). Increasing other types of incentives mayrequire new statutes and/or regulations.Issue 8: Other Gaps in Legislationand RegulationAs a result of the Federal and State patchworkof laws, regulations, and programs, importanttypes of non-indigenous organisms remain potentialsources of damaging introductions. The mostserious gaps are discussed above. Additionalorganisms are not adequately covered by Federaland/or State laws, however, and are the basis fora second tier of possible options. In priority order,these gaps pertain to:1.2.3.4.5.6.vectors of human diseases;sale and release of biological control organisms;live organisms moved by first-class mail,shipping services, and catalog sales;hybrid and feral animals;NIS used in research; andnew strains of already established harmfulNIS.Some of these gaps require legislative changeto fill; others need more adequate implementationby Federal agencies.SC 16 u, S.C.A. 1531-1543.

46 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesVECTORS OF HUMAN DISEASESOption: Congress could lay groundwork byinvestigating the adequacy of the Nation’sresponse to NIS that pose significant threats tohuman health. This might begin with a GeneralAccounting Office investigation of APHIS andthe Public Health Service’s respective roles.Non-indigenous human health threats are largelybeyond the scope of this study. Two cases,however, illustrate continuing, significant problemswith Federal management.The Centers for Disease Control and Preventionof the Public Health Service (PHS) respondedslowly to the threat posed by the Asiantiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus), a potentialvector for several serious viral diseases. Thesenon-indigenous mosquitoes apparently enteredthe United States in 1985 in used automobile tiresand have now spread to 22 States (ch. 3; box 3-A).The Centers’ lack of action to stop the insects’spread raises questions regarding its effectivenessin dealing with MS new to the United States.The African honey bee poses a public healththreat and a threat to U.S. agriculture. Because ofthe latter, APHIS is responsible for developingresponses to control the bee’s spread from Mexico.However, APHIS cannot fully address thehuman health issues.Researching and preventing acute infectiousdiseases, many of which have non-indigenousmammal or insect vectors, have received areduced national commitment since the 1950s,according to a recent report by the Institute ofMedicine (58). This report, on emerging microbialthreats, recommends increased surveillancefor infectious diseases and their vectors. It alsocalls for enhancing information data bases andimproving the structure of PHS and inter-agencycooperation.These seem to be matters of improving Federalimplementation, The frost step might be congressionaloversight designed to provide increasedpublic scrutiny.THE SALE AND RELEASE OF BIOLOGICALCONTROL ORGANISMSOption: Congress could either create newlegislation or amend existing law to morecomprehensively regulate biological controlagents.Option: Congress could increase the level ofenvironmental review required forimportations of biological control agents bymaking them subject to NEPA.Biological control agents used in the UnitedStates include non-indigenous microbes, insects,and other animals that damage, or eat, undesirableplants or insects. Congress has never directlyaddressed biological control. No single Federalstatute requires that biological control agents bereviewed before introduction (69) or regulatesimportation, movement, and release of biologicalcontrol agents (19). Instead, potential risks aredealt with by existing regulations, supplementedwith a complex system of voluntary protocols orguidelines (19).Federal regulation of biological control agents—like genetically engineered organisms-uses severallaws designed for other purposes, e.g., lawson quarantine, product registration, and environmentalprotection. EPA regulates the commercialsale and release of pesticidal microbes underFIFRA. Biological control agents that are notmicrobes are exempt from FIFRA and fall underAPHIS’s jurisdiction, although the agency hasnot yet promulgated regulations specifically forsuch biological control agents. Instead, APHISrequires researchers and producers to followprocedures and permitting requirements developedfor plant pests under authority of the FederalPlant Pest Act and the Plant Quarantine Act (10).NEPA, along with the Endangered Species Act,also affects importation and research on biologicalcontrol organisms (19), although NEPA’sapplication has been uneven and poorly defined.Several aspects of commercial distribution andsale of biological control agents are among the

1-Summary, Issues, and Options 47topics not addressed by current statutes or regulations.No requirements exist for clear and accuratelabeling of insects or other animals (e.g., nematodes)used for biological control. No law specificallygives APHIS authority to regulate thelabeling, purity, or disease status of these insectsand animals. Nor are those who release improperlyscreened or tested agents accountable for anyresultant damage. It is unclear whether currentstatutory authority covers all the categories ofbiological control agents APHIS is seeking toregulate. Specifically, it is questionable whetherbeneficial insects that prey on insect pests fitunder the Federal Plant Pest Act’s definition of“plant pest. ’Opinion is divided regarding the suitability ofthe current system and how its weaknesses shouldbe corrected. Peter Kareiva, an ecologist at theUniversity of Washington, expressed a particularconcern about APHIS lack of formal criteria forapproving releases of biological control agents(46). Francis Howarth and Arthur Medeiros, fromthe Bishop Museum in Honolulu and HaleakalaNational Park, in Makawao, HI, respectively,suggested requiring formal environmental impactstatements or environmental assessments to ensurethe widest possible public review (42).Ecologist Gregory Aplet and attorney MarcMiller (69) contend that current laws do not—andcannot be amended to-fill critical gaps. Theypropose a Federal Biological Control Act thatwould ensure public participation in decisionmakingand correct what they see as seriousshortcomings in the current review process:. harm to noneconomic species and ecosystemsis ignored;. repeated introductions are allowed when agiven organism is approved, even into newecological settings with different, potentiallydamaging consequences;●●transfers of biological controls within theUnited State or within States are disregarded;andno formal, enforceable requirements arerequired for research and follow-up to determinewhether detrimental impacts have occurred(69).The Species Survival Commission of IUCN(44) recommended that biological control organismsshould be subject to the same care andprocedures as other NIS.On the other hand, USDA biological controlexperts such as J.R. Coulson and Richard Soperprefer the current voluntary system for assessingrisks of new introductions, updated by biologicalcontrol and quarantine specialists (19). U.S.biological control programs have excellent safetyand environmental records, they maintain, andhave accommodated needs to consider impacts onnontarget species. Therefore, environmental impactstatements are not only unnecessary but alsowould demand superfluous or frivolous studies,slowing or halting the use of many biologicalcontrol agents. Coulson and Soper hope thatfurther development of informal guidelines canlimit adverse effects on existing biological controlprograms and preempt stricter legislation orregulations developed by nonspecialists. Miller,Aplet, Coulson, Soper, and Howarth all agree thatmore post-release evaluations are needed.Federal and State protocols for introductionsprotect only a limited part of the United States buteventually need to address all of North America(19). Miller and Aplet describe laws in sevenStates that encourage the development and applicationof biological control. 37 They considerWisconsin’s provisions the most protective. Anearlier survey found just three States with particularlaws addressing biological control species andonly one—North Carolina-addressed issues relatedto commercial sales (66).37 fizom, c~~omia, COmecticU~ Flofi@ MfieSo~, New York, and was~gtcm enco~ge bi~ontro] generally, for speclflc Pt3sts, Oras part of integrated pest management (69).

48 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesEventually, specific biological control legislationmay be the vehicle to extend needed protectionthroughout the country. States could potentiallydeal with problems related to productlabeling and performance through their weightsand measures or consumer protection statutes,although a complaint would be necessary totrigger action (50). For example, the PennsylvaniaState Bureau of Consumer Protection recentlybrought a lawsuit against the manufacturer of abiological control product when it was discoveredthat the product contained no trace of the activepesticidal microbe (16).Regardless of the approach Congress takes,issues associated with biological control arelikely to be increasingly visible and controversialas public interest grows. Biological control’spopularity increases the risk of unwise introductionsby amateurs (19). The potential danger ofbiological control releases has been scrutinizedmore closely in conjunction with proposals forreleases of genetically engineered organisms.DwxGLIVE ORGANISMS MOVED BY FIRST CLASS MAIL,SHIPPING SERVICES, AND CATALOGUE SALESSince the time when Benjamin Franklin livedin Europe, Americans have sent attractive orpromising NIS home (125). In the early part ofthis century, the Commissioner of Patents usedcongressional franking privileges to distributeforeign seeds to farmers (125). Domestic andinternational mail is also a known pathway for thespread of harmful non-indigenous plants and prohibitedagricultural pests however (49,61) (ch. 3).Some introductions of Mediterranean fruit flies inCalifornia are thought to have originated in tropicalproduce mailed first-class from Hawaii (97).The Constitution and Federal laws protectdomestic first class private and commercial mailagainst unreasonable searches. On the other hand,most international mail is subject to unrestrictedsearches, but finding and personnel to do this arescarce.Many live organisms are shipped via international anddomestic mail; only limited searches are allowed fordomestic first-class mail.In 1990, APHIS and the U.S. Postal Servicebegan a trial program in Hawaii using traineddogs to identify outgoing packages containingagricultural products. This evidence is then usedto obtain warrants to open the package to determinewhether the products are illegal. The programreportedly has been quite successful (106).It is cumbersome, however, which may justifyeasing the warrant requirements.Congress recently passed a law specific toHawaii, the Alien Species Prevention and EnforcementAct, 38 which is to allow the same sortof inspection for mail coming into Hawaii as foroutgoing mail (ch. 8). The Federal and Stateagencies involved have fallen behind schedule in38 Men Spwies ~evention and Enforcement Act (1992), Public hW 102-383, section 631.

1-Summary, Issues, and Options 49setting up a cooperative agreement for the inspection,however, because of the agencies’ differingregulatory authorities regarding inspections andtypes of organisms.Similar programs do not exist for other areaswhere first-class mail poses pest risks, e.g., fromPuerto Rico into California (97). Donald Kludy(49), a former official with the Virginia Departmentof Agriculture, suggests that mail shipmentsare a serious enough problem to extend theHawaii U.S. Postal Service pilot program to itemsmailed from Puerto Rico and other U.S. territoriesor to pass new legislation for all mail originatingoutside the contiguous 48 States. Congress mightevaluate the Hawaii inspection program and,based on this information, consider whether its applicationto other areas is warranted and feasible.Many live organisms now are availablethrough catalogue sales, including insects andother animals for biological control, as well as awide variety of plants and seeds. Adherence toFederal or State laws that limit areas to whichspecies may be shipped is largely voluntary.Catalogue sales do not present the same inspectionand regulatory opportunities that are availablein the case of ordinary retail outlets. Nurseriesand aquatic plant dealers sell several federallylisted noxious weeds through the mail, such as therooted water hyacinth (Eichhornia asurea), whichcan clog waterways and cause a navigation hazard(127). Packages sent via private delivery servicesare not protected from inspection as is first-classmail. However, they are unlikely to be inspectedunless the package is broken or leaking.This opens the possibility that commercialdistribution may provide a pathway for spread ofpotentially harmful NIS, including pathogens andparasites. The wasp parasite (Perilitus coccinel-/ae) of the indigenous convergent lady beetle(Hippodamia convergent), for example, alreadyhas been spread in this manner (43). The 16-member expert Working Group on Non-ApisBees expressed similar concerns regarding themovement of bumble bee (Bombus spp. ) coloniesbetween eastern and western North America.Rental and sale of bee colonies has increased inthe past 5 years, along with the potential spread ofaccompanying non-indigenous nematodes, mites,diseases, and parasites (131).HYBRID AND FERAL ANIMALSOption: Congress could amend the Lacey Act sothat it clearly applies to harmful hybrid andferal animals and they could be includedin anynew Federal initiatives for States’ roles.Non-naturally occurring hybridization withNIS can present a serious threat to indigenousspecies by diluting gene pools (59) and causingother genetic harm (38). Most Federal and Statelaws that protect indigenous species, or prohibitharmful NIS, lack clarity in their application tohybrids. This can lead to controversy, such as thedispute over a policy adopted by FWS, thatnarrowly interpreted the protection of hybridsoffered by the Endangered Species Act (82).Unclear or disputed taxonomy, particularly in thedelineation of subspecies, can contribute to theambiguity (35).Non-indigenous hybrids require flexible policies,adaptable to each case. Hybrids can representimportant genetic diversity to be preserved—this applies to economically and ecologicallyimportant species such as the endangered Floridapanther (Felis concolor coryi) (ch. 2). In contrast,hybrids between dogs (Canis familiars) (nonindigenous)and wolves (Canis lupus) (indigenous),which are popular as pets, are not onlydangerous to humans, they also obstruct recoveryof endangered wolves in the wild (5,7). Theyoften escape or are released by owners unable tomanage them. An international group of wolfexperts has called for governments to prohibit ortightly restrict wolf-dog hybrid ownership andbreeding (65).Most Federal laws are silent in their treatmentof feral animals-wild populations of formerlydomestic animals. Few State laws covering the accidentalor intentional introduction of such animalsor responsibility for damage they may cause.

50 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesYet feral animals continue to cause significantdamage. In a recent survey, managers of nationalparks and other reserves named feral cats (Feliscattus) and feral dogs to be two of the three mostcommon subjects of wildlife control efforts. Theother was wild pigs (Sus scrofa), many populationsof which are feral (29). Feral cats kill largenumbers of small mammals and birds, dogs attacklivestock and indigenous wildlife, and pigs destroyindigenous plants and do other damage (123).Federal or State laws could be amended to moreclearly apply to hybrid and feral animals.NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES USED IN RESEARCHScientific researchers initially introduced severalvery harmful NIS, including gypsy moths,African honey bees (in South America), and peanutstripe virus (48,89). The rapid spread of theAsian clam (Corbicula fluminea), a serious foulerof power plant pipes, is thought to have beenassisted by inadvertent research releases (21).Research organisms are not generally subjectto the same scrutiny as those for other applications.The Lacey Act allows certain organisms tobe imported or moved interstate for research andmany State laws allow research imports ofotherwise prohibited species. Microbes can befreely imported for research if they do not pose arisk to agriculture or human health.Some Federal and federally funded research onNIS is evaluated for the risk of species escape orpotential effects. ARS has extensive protocolsgoverning its research on biological controlagents (19). The Federal interagency AquaticNuisance Species Task Force recently issuedprotocols for research on harmful aquatic NIS.These protocols will be mandatory for anyresearch funded under the Nonindigenous AquaticNuisance Species Prevention and Control Act andhave been voluntarily adopted by agencies on theTask Force (18,122). However, most of theresearch protocols developed by Federal agenciesdo not apply to research funded by outsidesources (ch. 6).NEW STRAINS OF ALREADY ESTABLISHEDHARMFUL NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIESAPHIS does not consistently prevent repeatedimportation of pest species that are alreadyestablished here. New, different strains of somespecies potentially may be imported, worseneffects, and spread into areas where the pest is notyet well-established. Regulating strains wouldpose significant technical difficulties; rapid identificationwould be difficult, for example. Nevertheless,some pest experts express concerns thatnew strains of widespread pests like the Russianwheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia) and bromegrasses(Bromus spp.) are allowed continuedentry (48,60,68).CHAPTER REVIEWThis chapter summarized what we know aboutharmful NIS in the United States: their growingnumbers and impacts, their routes of entry andmovement, the methods by which they areevaluated and managed, and related State andFederal policies.This chapter also presented policy options on 8issues—those most in need of attention, accordingto OTA. Each issue allows for a range ofoptions, demanding greater or fewer resources. Ifeach area is not addressed in some form problemsare likely to worsen, with no assurance that thebiological resources of the United States will beprotected. Only Congress can decide how stringentnational policy should be. Everyday managementof non-indigenous fish, wildlife, andweeds, though, falls to many Federal and Stateagencies and they need better guidance andsupport. Also, natural areas must be better safeguardedif they are to retain their unique character.Emergencies must be handled more quickly tokeep problems from snowballing. And the publicneeds better education so their actions prevent,rather than cause, problems.To reach these conclusions, OTA gathered anarray of data. The next chapter lays out OTA’smethods, then begins to present results.

The Consequencesof HarmfulNon-IndigenousSpecies 2Ichapters 2 and 3 examine basic aspects of non-indigenousspecies (NIS )----their effects, how many there are, andhow they get here. Technologies to deal with harmfulNIS, including decisionmaking methods and techniquesfor preventing and managing problem species, are covered inchapters 4 and 5. Chapters 6, 7, and 8 assess what variousinstitutions at the Federal, State, and local levels do, or fail to do,about NIS. Finally, chapters 9 and 10 place NIS in a broadercontext by examiningtheir relationships to genetically engineeredorganisms, to international relations, to other prominentenvironmental issues, and to choices regarding the future of thenation’s biological resources.WHAT’S IN AND WHAT’S OUT:FOCUS AND DEFINITIONSAlthough considerable benefits accrue from the presence ofmany NIS in the United States, others have caused significantharm. This report’s goal is to identify where and how suchproblems arise, and how these problems can be avoided orminimized. This “problem-oriented” approach requires thatbeneficial introductions get limited attention throughout theassessment. They are summarized only briefly in this chapter.The emphasis is on harmful NIS, encompassing terrestrial andaquatic ecosystems and also most types of organisms (figure2-l). An important consideration is whether a species canestablish free-living populations beyond human cultivation andcontrol. Non-indigenous species within this category-thoseliving beyond human management--cause most harmful effects.51

52 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesFigure 2-l-Scope of StudySpecies Central to the Assessment(to be given full consideration)Potentially or already harmful non-indigenous species:• not yet in the United States (e.g., certain weedybromegrasses)• in the United States, but in a captive or managedstate (e.g., some tilapia in aquiculture)Potentially or already harmful non-indigenous speciesestablished as free-living populations in the United States:• of non-U.S. origin (e.g., zebra mussel)• originating in one area of the United States, but nonindigenousin another (e.g., certain salt marsh grasseson the West Coast)● feral species (e.g., wild hogs)Species Not Central to the Assessment(to be considered only when they raiseimportant ecologlcal or economic issues)Beneficial non-indigenous species:• of non-U.S. origin not yet in the United States(e.g., new crops)■ of non-U. S. origin presently in the United States in a captive(e.g., elephants), managed (e.g. alfalfa), or free-living state(e.g., several earthworms)■ originating in one area of the United States, but nonindigenousin another (e.g., Pacific salmon in the Great Lakes)■ except those also having the potential to escapeand/or cause harmIndigenous species, including those:naturally expanding their ranges into the United States(e.g., Old World blackheaded gull)previously extirpated, but presently being reintroduced(e.g., Californian condors)stocked or planted within their natural ranges(e.g., southern-pine plantations) naturally occurring hybirdsbetween indigenous species (e.g., grey wolf/coyote hybrids)Species of unknown origin (e.g., dogwood anthracnose)Bioengineered orgnisms (e.g., transgenic fish) --but central in chapter 9Structural pests (e.g., cockroaches)Human diseases (e.g., swine flu)NOTE: When the word “species” occurs above, “subspecies” and “recognized variants” may be substituted. Our emphasisis species-level issues first, then subspecies and variants in decreasing priority. See index for species’ scientific names.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.DefinitionsFinding:Terms and definitions pertaining to NISdiffer greatly among various laws, regulations,policies, and publications, making directcomparisons misleading. A need exists foruniform definitions to ensure accurate assessmentsof problems and consistent applicationsof policies.Movements of people and cargo across theEarth provide routes by which species spread tonew locales. ‘‘Exotic, ’ ‘‘alien,” ‘‘introduced, ”“immigrant, “ ‘‘non-native,’ and “non-indigenous’have all been used to refer to these species.No universally accepted or standard terminologyexists.OTA has chosen “non-indigenous” as themost neutral, inclusive, and unambiguous term.OTA’s definition of non-indigenous (box 2-A)avoids some common sources of confusion. It setsspatial limits based on a species’ ecology ratherthan on national or State boundaries. Otherdefinitions of non-indigenous and related terms,like exotic, vary greatly as to whether theyinclude only species foreign to the United States,or additionally incorporate species of U.S. origin

Chapter 2—The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 153Box 2-A–Terms Used by OTA● Non-indigenous-The condition of a species being beyond its natural range or natural zone of potentialdispersal; includes all domesticated and feral species and all hybrids except for naturally occurring crossesbetween indigenous species.• lndgigenous-The condition of a species being within its natural range or natural zone of potential dispersal;excludes species descended from domesticated ancestors.● Feral-Used to describe free-living plants or animals, living under natural selection pressures, descended fromdomesticated ancestors.• Natural range-The geographic area a species inhabits or would inhabit in the absence of significant humaninfluence.. •Natural zone of potential dispersal-The area a species would disperse to in the absence of significant humaninfluence.● Introduction-All or part of the process by which a non-indigenous species is imported to a new locale and isreleased or escapes into a free-living state.ŽEstablished-The condition of a species that has formed a self-sustaining, free-living population at a givenlocation.OTA’s definitions of “indigenous” and “non-indigenous” are based on species’ ecology rather than onnational, State, or local political boundaries. Thus, if a species’ natural range is only in west Texas, it would benon-indigenous when imported to east Texas. A species is indigenous to its entire natural range, even to areasit previously but no longer occupies due to human influence.The definition of “natural range” incorporates the idea of a “significant human influence.” This acknowledgesthat species can have natural ranges even when affected by humans so long as humans are not a majordeterminant oft he range. The concept of “natural zone of potential dispersal” incorporates naturally occurringexpansions and contractions of species ranges. For example, a shore bird that shifts naturally overtime from beingan “accidental” visitor to the United States to being a breeding resident would be indigenous.Domesticated and feral species and their variants are all non-indigenous. They are products of humanselection and lack natural ranges. For similar reasons, all hybrids except for naturally occurring crosses betweenindigenous species are also non-indigenous.OTA will explicitly indicate where this report’s discussion is limited to species non-indigenous to the UnitedStates rather than to all non-indigenous species. Similarly, the terms “indigenous” and “non-indigenous” also canapply to subspecies, recognized variants, and other biological subdivisions beneath the level of species. Uses inthese contexts also will be clearly identified.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.Several important categories of organisms arecomprised wholly or in part of NIS. Expertsestimate that at least half of U.S. weeds arenon-indigenous to the country (19). A similarlylarge proportion of economically significant in-sect pests of agriculture and forestry is nonindigenous:39 percent (67). Federal laws restrictor prohibit importation of plants and animalsliving beyond their natural ranges (48,92). OTA’sdefinition also does not include arbitrary timelimits. Some definitions classify as native orindigenous all species established in the UnitedStates by a certain date, commonly before Europeansettlement (53). Under other definitions,NIS eventually become ‘ ‘naturalized’ after acertain period has elapsed (97).

54 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesconsidered to be “noxious weeds’ and “injuriouswildlife’ ‘2—species that are all nonindigenous.Other Efforts Under WaySeveral efforts related to this assessment areunder way or were recently completed. 3 Passageof the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Preventionand Control Act of 199@ created theinteragency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.This task force is required to develop a programto prevent, monitor, and control unintentionalintroductions of non-indigenous aquatic nuisancespecies and to provide for related public educationand research. A draft of the program wasreleased for public comment November 12, 1992,and is expected to be presented to Congress in1993 (14). The task force also is conducting areview of policies related to the intentionalintroduction of aquatic species. The task force’sactivities parallel, to some extent, portions ofOTA’s study.DO WE KNOW ENOUGH TO ASSESSTHE SITUATION?Finding:The information on NIS is widely scatteredand often anecdotal. It emphasizes specieshaving negative effects on agriculture, industry,or human health. The numbers and impactsof harmful NIS in the United States arechronically underestimated, especially for organismslacking such economic or healtheffects.Information GapsAlthough much information on NIS exists,overall it is widely scattered, sometimes obscure,and highly variable in quality and scientific rigor.No governmental or private agency keeps track ofnew NIS that enter or become established in thecountry, unless they also are considered a potentialpest to agriculture or forestry or a humanhealth threat, and even these databases are notcomprehensive. Summary lists of NIS do notexist for most types of organisms (7,33,43,72,79).This gap is especially large for non-indigenousinsect and plant species, which number in thethousands in the United States (ch. 3) (33,43). Italso plagues attempts to quantify the numbers andeffects of plant pathogens, since the origin ofmost is unknown (72). Even for known NIS, theeffects of many have never been studied, especiallythose without clear economic or humanhealth impacts. Information on effects is similarlylacking for the numerous as-yet-undetected NISthat many of OTA’s contractors and advisorypanelists believe are already established in thecountry.Because of the poor documentation, presentlyavailable information provides an incompletepicture of NIS in the United States. Consequently,whatever we do know about harmful NIS surely1 ~ ~Nofious weeds” ~e defined under @e F~er~ Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 2801-2814) ~ “anY living s~ge(including but not limited to, seeds and reproductive parts) of any parasitic or other plant of a kind, or subdivision of a kind, which is of foreignorigin+ is new to or not widely prevalent in the United States, and can directly or indirectly injure crops, other useful plants, livestock or poultryor other interests of agriculture, including irrigation or navigation or the fish or wildlife resources of the United States or the public health. ”z ~ ~~.~ous J ~dlife~~ is &f~c(j un& the ~cey Act (1900), as amended (16 U, S.C.A, 667 ef seq.) x several named species ‘‘ad Suchother species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacean), amphibians, reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any of theforegoing which the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe by regulation to be injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture,horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States. ”3 The &wfi Office of tie Name conse~~cy in collaboration with the Natural Resources Defense Council released The A/ien Pest SpeciesInvasion in Hawaii: Background Study and Recommendations for Interagency Planning in July 1992 (60). This report examines the causes,consequences, and solutions to harmful NIS in Hawaii, A report on NM in Minnesota was issued by the Minnesota Interagency Exotic SpeciesTask Force in April 1991 (53). In additio~ the National Research Council (NRC) approved the concept for a broad study of science and policyissues related to marine NIS in 1991. The study was not undertaken, however, because of inadequate funding.d Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended (16 U. S,C.A. 4701-475 1).

Chapter 2—The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 55Table 2-l—Groups of Organisms Covered by OTA’s Contractors aPercent of total known U.S.Number of species analyzed for NIS analyzed per categoryCategory examined by contractor summary of NIS consequences by OTA’s contractorsPlants-free-living plants and algae dwelling on land — c —cand in fresh water; excludes those under humancultivationTerrestrial/ vertebrates-free-living vertebrate 125 NIS of foreign or U.S. originanimals dwelling on land (birds, reptiles,amphibians, mammals); excludes strictlydomesticated speciesInsects-insects and arachnids (ticks, mites, spiders)Fish-free-living finfish that dwell for all or part of theirlives in fresh waterMollusks-snails, bivalves, and slugs living on land, infresh water, and in estuariesPlant pathogens-viruses, bacteria, fungi,nematodes, and parasitic plants that causediseases of plants1,059 NIS of foreign origin from149 taxonomic families111 NIS of foreign or U.S. origin88 NIS of foreign origin54 NIS of foreign origin fromselected host plants (potato,rhododendron, citrus, wheat,Douglas fir, kudzu, five-needledpines, chestnut)aMajor categories not covered include: exclusively marine plants and animals; organisms causing animal diseases (viruses, bacteria, etc.); worms;crustaceans (crayfish, water fleas); free-living bacteria and fungi,bSee figures 2-2, 2-4, and 2-5.Ccontractor could not quantitatively analyze effects of non-indigenous plants because of the large numbers of species (>2,000)” and lack of previoussummary material.SOURCES: Summarized by OTA from: J.C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fresh Water, Terrest nal,and Estuarine Mollusks in the United States, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991; W.R. Courtenay,Jr., “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-indigenous Fishes in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, September 1991; K.C. Kim and A.G. Wheeler, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-IndigenousInsects and Arachnids in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991; C.L. Schoulties,“Pat hwaysand Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant Pathogens in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Off iceof Technology Assessment, December 1991; S.A. Temple and D.M. Carroll, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-IndigenousVertebrates in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991.65%53%88%97%23%underestimates their numbers and the magnitudeof their effects. Even from this baseline estimate,however, a picture emerges of current and impendingproblems that require action. OTA’sapproach is to provide such a baseline estimate.OTA’s Approach for Chapters 2 and 3To attempt a quantitative analysis, OTA askedexperts to assess the numbers of known NIS in thecountry, what their effects have been, and howthey entered or spread within the nation. The OTAcontractors categorized impacts of establishedNIS by type (harmful, beneficial, neutral, orunknown); nature of effect (economic, ecological,and other); and magnitude (high, medium, low).Six reports were prepared, one each for plants,terrestrial vertebrates, insects, fish, mollusks, andplant pathogens (table 2-l). This selection, whilecovering most important terrestrial and freshwaterorganisms, is not all-inclusive. It reflects abalance between comprehensiveness and feasibility.For example, no identifiable expert couldsummarize information on all aquatic invertebrateanimals (e.g., mollusks, worms, crustaceans,etc.), in part because many groups are onlypoorly known.In preparing background reports, the contractorsreviewed available publications, surveyed or

56 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesinterviewed numerous other experts, and incorporatedtheir own judgments. Their resulting summariesare the most complete and up-to-dateavailable. Chapters 2 and 3 draw on thesebackground summaries, additional published information,and additional expert opinions todevelop a broad overview of harmful NIS in theUnited States. The effects of NIS-both beneficialand harmful are covered in this chapter.Chapter 3 examines the pathways by which NISenter and spread in the United States, their ratesof arrival, and current numbers in the country.BENEFITS OF INTRODUCTIONSFinding:Cultivation of non-indigenous crops andlivestock is the foundation of U.S. agriculture.NIS also play a key role in other industries andenterprises, many of which are based on theU.S. market for biological novelty, e.g., ornamentalplants and pets.NIS are essential to many U.S. industries andenterprises. Their benefits are great, and includeeconomic, recreational, and social effects.Almost all economically important crops 5 andlivestock in the United States are of foreign origin(43). Non-indigenous plants have a similarlyimportant role in horticulture and include suchfamiliar horticultural mainstays as iris (Iris spp.),forsythia (Forsythia spp.), and weeping willow(Salix spp.) (26). Many plants used to preventerosion are also non-indigenous, such as Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and lespedeza (Lespedezaspp.) (93). Importation of new speciesand strains continues for the development of newvarieties for agriculture, horticulture, and soilconservation (65).Non-indigenous insects also have importantfunctions in agriculture. The European honey bee(Apis mellifera) forms the basis for the U.S.apiculture industry, providing bees to pollinateorchards and many other agricultural crops.Non-indigenous organisms of many types havebeneficial uses as biological control agents,frequently for control of non-indigenous pests.Insects and pathogens of plants and animals aremost commonly used for control of weeds andinsect pests. For example, a rust fungus (Pucciniachondrillina) was successfully introduced intoCalifornia to control skeletonweed (Chondrillajuncea) in 1975 (72). Fish have been introducedin some places to control aquatic weeds, mosquitoes,gnats, and midges (23). Some consider theintroduction of barn owls (Tyto alba) to Hawaii tocontrol mice and rats a success, although the useof land-dwelling vertebrates for biological controlhas generally caused great environmentaldamage (79).A number of fish and shellfish cultured in thegrowing aquiculture industry are non-indigenous.Virtually the entire West Coast oysterindustry is based on the Pacific oyster (Crassostreagigas), originally from Japan. Fish species ofTilapia, from Africa and the Middle East, are nowcommonly grown throughout the United States(10), and shrimp farmers in southeastern andother regions of the country commonly raisePacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei), ashrimp originally from Asia.Sport fishing often means fishing for nonindigenousfish. The rainbow trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), andvarieties of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),although indigenous to the UnitedStates, have been widely introduced beyond theirnatural ranges for fisheries enhancement (10). Afrequently stocked sport fish, the brown trout(Salmo trutta), originated in Europe. The GreatLakes salmon fishery is based on species indigenousto the Pacific coast of North America.Additional fish have been introduced to provideforage for game fish. Sport fishing not onlyprovides recreational opportunities, but also stimulatesthe development of related businesses,5Crops originating in the United States include cranbeny (Vaccinium macroca~on), peean (Carya ilfinoensis), tobacco (Nicon”anarabucum), and sunflower (Heliumhus amuafs).

Chapter 2—The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species I 57such as boat rentals, charter fishing, and sales offishing equipment and supplies (10).Some of the most widely hunted game species,such as the chukar partridge (Alecloris chuckar)and ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchieus),originated outside of the United States (95).Sizable businesses exist to provide supplies andservices for recreational hunting (79). Somenon-indigenous big-game animals, like Sika deer(Cervus nippon) from Asia and South Africanoryx (Oryx gazella gazella), are grown on privateranches for hunting, and also to satisfy thegrowing market for “exotic” game meats (81).Non-indigenous fur-bearing animals support boththe trapping industry and fur-bearer farms (79).Most pet and aquarium industries are based ondomesticated and other NIS, including cats, dogs,hamsters, goldfish, snakes, turtles, and chameleons.These animals are valued by owners forcompanionship, protection, and recreation. Anumber of non-indigenous animals, such as theAfrican clawed frog (Xenopus laevis), are used inbiomedical fields for experimental work ortesting (79).Restoration of habitats degraded by pollution,mining, and other human disruptions sometimesincludes planting stress-tolerant NIS. Severaltrees, like the ginkgo from China (Ginkgo biloba),are common in urban landscaping, where fewindigenous species can grow. Some nonindigenoussport fish serve a similar role inreservoirs and other artificial habitats less hospitableto indigenous species. Efforts to remedyenvironmental contamination from oil or othersubstances sometimes involve the release ofnon-indigenous microbes that accelerate contaminantdegradation (88). Certain microbes helpmake nutrients available to plants through nitrogenfixation. These microbes also have beenwidely transferred and released around the world.Paradoxically, introductions of NIS are increasinglyseen by some conservationists as ameans to preserve certain endangered and threatenedspecies that cannot be saved in their nativehabitats (79). Some conservationists have evensuggested that introduction of large ungulatesfrom Africa onto the American plains may besome species’ best chance at survival (74).WHEN NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIESCAUSE PROBLEMSDespite the clear benefits of many NIS, numerousothers continue to cause great harm in theUnited States. Many are familiar. They rangefrom nuisances like crabgrass (Digitaria spp.),dandelions (Taraxacum officinale), and Germancockroaches (Blattella germanica), to speciesannually costing millions of dollars to agricultureand forestry, such as the Mediterranean fruitfly, ormedfly (Ceratitis capitata), and the Europeangypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). Some posehuman health risks, such as the African honeybee(Apis mellifera scutellata) and the imported fireant (Solenopsis invicta, S. richteri). Still others,like the paper bark tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia)and zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha),threaten widespread disruption of U.S. ecosystemsand the displacement or loss of indigenousplants and animals.A Major Consideration: High NegativeImpacts Are InfrequentFinding:A minority of the total NIS cause severeharm. However, such high-impact NIS occurin almost all regions of the country. Individuallyand cumulatively, they have had extensivenegative impacts in the United States.Relatively few NIS cause great harm. Estimatesrange from 4 to 19 percent of the NISanalyzed by OTA’s contractors, depending on thetype of organism (figure 2-2). Included here areNIS that are significant and difficult-to-controlpests of agriculture, rangelands, or forests; seriouslyfoul waterways, irrigation systems, andpower plants; cause wide-scale disruption ofindigenous ecosystems; or threaten indigenousspecies with extinction. At least 200 well-known,high-impact NIS presently occur in the United

58 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States30 rFigure 2-2—How Frequent Are High-Impact Non-Indigenous Species? a22/1 2515188-r4/1 116/54——-1$Ir-l L--uTerrestrialvertebratesInsectsFishesMollusksPlant pathogensaSpecies judged by OTA’s contractors as causing severe economic or environmental harm. Numbers Of severely harmful and total species are listedabove each bar.SOURCES: Summarized by OTA from: J.C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Freshwater, Terrestrial, and EstuarineMollusks in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991; W.R, Courtenay, Jr., “Pathwaysand Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, September 1991; K.C. Kim and A.G. Wheeler, “Pathways and Consequences of the introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects andArachnids in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991; C.L. Schouities, “Pathwaysand Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant Pathogens in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, December 1991; S.A. Temple and D.M. Carroll, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-IndigenousVertebrates in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991.States (7,10,33,72). Even though relatively fewNIS are highly damaging, they occur in almost allregions of the country (figure 2-3). Moreover, thesummed impacts of even one disastrous speciescan be substantial. Estimated U.S. losses from1987 to 1989 attributable to the Russian wheataphid (Diuraphis noxia) alone exceeded $600million (1991 dollars) (8).Time Lags and Unknown EffectsAre CommonEffects of many NIS remain undetected forextended periods following their establishment.Such time lags can reflect an initial period duringwhich a species’ population is too small to causenoticeable impacts. Over time, changing environmentalconditions cause some previously rareNIS to become abundant and cause harmfuleffects. Other previously benign NIS becomeproblems after additional NIS enter the country.For example, an Asian fig plant (Ficus microcarpa)widely planted as an ornamental in Floridaonly became a pest about 45 years after introduction,when its natural pollinator-a fig wasp(Parapristina verticillata)-was introduced (50).Similarly, at least a decade elapsed betweenestablishment of the Asian clam (Corbiculafluminea) and appearance of its harmful effects;12 years for chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica)(see ‘Forestry’ below); and 4 years for thecereal leaf beetle (Oulema melanopus) (7,33,72).Some harmful species are mistakenly thoughtto have neutral consequences until other effectsare detected. Thus, in many cases, ‘‘neutral’ NISare better characterized as having unknown effects.Unknown effects and time lags are commonfor NIS affecting non-agricultural areas, sincethese tend to be poorly studied. OTA’s contractorsfound between 6 and 53 percent of the NISexamined had neutral or unknown effects (figure2-4). Given that time delays are common, some ofthese eventually will cause harmful impacts.

Chapter 2–The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 59Non-Indigenous SpeciesFigure 2-3—State by State Distribution of Some High-ImpactRussian Wheat Aphd (Diuraphis noxia) 1989 4 Salt Cedar ( Tamarix pendantra and T. gallica) 1965 5Asian Clam (Corbicu/a Numinea) 1986 2European Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispan 1990 3Imported Fire Ants (.Solenopsis invicta and S. richteri 1992 6‘:>.+ “’.../ ~African Honey Bee (Apis mellifera scutellata) 1992 9y-i “-../ ~.-~1. D.Q. Thompson, R.L. Stuckey, E.B. Thompson, “Spread, Impact, and Control of Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria in North AmericanWetlands” (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987).2. Clement L. Counts, Ill, ‘The Zoogeography and History of the Invasion of the United States by Corbicula Fluminea (Bivalvia: Corbiculidae),”American Malacological Bulletin, Special Edition No. 2, 1986, pp. 7-39.3. P.W. Schaefer and R.W. Fuester, “Gypsy Moths: Thwarting Their Wandering Ways,” Agricultural Research, vol. 39, No. 5, May 1991, pp. 4-11;M.L. McManus and T. Mclntyre, “Introduction,” The Gypsy Moth.’ Research Toward Integrated Pest Management, C.C. Deane and M.L, McManus(eds.) Technical Bulletin No. 1584 (Washington, DC: U.S. Forest Service, 1981), pp. 1-8; T. Eiber, “Enhancement of Gypsy Moth Management,Detection, and Delay Strategies,” Gypsy Moth News, No. 26, June 1991, pp. 2-5.4. S.D. Kindler and T.L. Springer, “Alternative Hosts of Russian Wheat Aphid” (Homoptera: Aphididae), Journal of Economical Entomology, vol. 82,No. 5, 1989, pp. 1358-1362.5. T.W. Robinson, “Introduction, Spread and Area! Extent of Saltcedar (Tamarix) in the Western States,” Studies of Evapotranspiration, GeologicalSurvey Professional Paper 491-A (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965).6. V.R. Lewis et al., “Imported Fire Ants: Potential Risk to California,” California Agriculture, vol. 46, No. 1, January-February 1992, pp. 29-31; D’VeraCohn, “Insect Aside: Beware of the Fire Down Below, Stinging Ants From Farther South Have Begun to Make Inroads in Virginia, Maryland,”Washington Post, June 2, 1992, p. B3,7. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, briefing delivered to the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, May 21, 1993.8. Anonymous, National Geographic Magazine, ‘Scourge of the South May be Heading North,” vol. 178, No. 1, July 1990.9. M.L. Winston, “Honey, They’re Herel Leaning to Cope with Africanized Bees,” The Sciences, vol. 32, No. 2, March/April 1992, pp. 22-28.

60 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesFigure 2-4-Reported Effects of Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTerrestrial vertebrates (n=125)8%Insects (n=l,059)24%)360/o35%1%Fishes (n=111)Mollusks (n=88)\43%53%/“30%3%Plant pathogens (n=54)60/0 4%Percentage a of species analyzed causing_ Benefitsn Harmful effects~ Both benefits and harmful effectsNeutral or unknown effectsapercentages do not always total 100% due to rounding!SOURCES: Summarized by OTA from: J.C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Freshwater, Terrestrial, and EstuarineMollusks in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the office of Technology Assessment, October 1991; W.R. Courtenay, Jr., “Pathwaysand Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, September 1991; K.C. Kim and A.G. Wheeler, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects andArachnids in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991; C.L. Schoulties, “Pathwaysand Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant Pathogens In the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, December 1991; S.A. Temple and D.M. Carroll, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-IndigenousVertebrates in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991.

Chapter 2—The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species I 61How Problems AriseNIS problems have several origins. Some NISintroduced for beneficial purposes unexpectedlyproduce harmful consequences. Many other harmfulspecies arrived or spread within the countryunintentionally. A complicating factor is thatnumerous NIS cause both beneficial and harmfuleffects.POOR CHOICES: INTENTIONAL INTRODUCTIONSTHAT GO AWRYMany harmful introductions probably wouldnot have occurred had the damage they causedbeen anticipated in advance. But little advanceevaluation of potential harmful effects was performedfor many NIS intentionally released in thepast. Even when advance evaluations have beenperformed, however, they often have done a poorjob of anticipating effects. Scientists generallyagree that predicting the role and effects of aspecies in a new environment is extremelydifficult (56). Each introduction creates a novelcombination of organism and environment. Detailedinformation about both is necessary toanticipate the result, and such information usuallyis lacking.Nevertheless, some continue to use a simplisticapproach to evaluating introductions. An erroneousconcept still widely applied by fisheriesmanagers is the ‘‘vacant niche. ’ This conceptholds that some ecological roles may not be filledin a community, and species can be selectivelyintroduced to fill these voids. Application of thisapproach to natural communities is inappropriateboth because few species can fit the narrow ecologicalvacancies identified by managers, and becauseit is virtually impossible to predeterminethe role a species will assume after it has beenreleased (28). Numerous examples exist where aspecies’ ecological role was mistakenly understoodbefore its release. For example, many insectparasites and predators introduced to Hawaiifor biological control of pests unexpectedlyexpanded their diets to include indigenousspecies (29).Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) was initially promoted by theU.S. Department of Agriculture for erosion controland forage, but it has overgrown other vegetationthroughout the southeastern United States.Problems also arise when a species moves intonew habitats beyond the intended area of introduction.A recent example is the cactus moth(Cactoblastis cactorum). Introduced to the WestIndies to control prickly pear cactus (Opuntiaspp.), the moth has since spread northward intoFlorida. Conservationists fear it may eventuallythreaten indigenous prickly pear cacti throughoutthe United States, 16 species of which are rare andunder review for listing under the EndangeredSpecies Act (31). The seven-spotted ladybeetle(Coccineila septempunctata), an aphid predator,has dispersed throughout much of the UnitedStates. It appears to be outcompeting the nativenine-spotted ladybeetle (C. novemnotata) and hasdisplaced that species in alfalfa fields (33).Species that escape from human cultivation, ina sense, also move beyond their anticipateddistributions. Feral populations of domesticatedmammals, such as goats (Capra hircus) and pigs(Sus scrofa), cause great ecological damage anderosion in natural areas by trampling, uprooting,and consuming plants. Many weeds, such ascrabgrass, originally were cultivated for agriculture(26). Some ornamental plants also causeharm when they escape and form free-livingpopulations. English ivy (Hedera helix) and

62 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesFigure 2-5-How Often Do Intentional Versus Unintentional Introductions Have Harmful Effects?100 49/50—%!S m intentionally introduced species%sD Unintentionally introduced species.-? 80- ““”nI. . .368/83735/76.. . .oL3/21 OL0/4:—Terrestrial vertebrates Insects Fishes Mollusks Plant pathogensalncludes species reported by OTA’s contractors as causing any economic or environmental harm. Some species may also have beneficial effects.Analysis excludes species that have been introduced both intentionally and unintentionally or for which the mode of introduction is unknown.Numbers of harmful and total species are listed above each bar.SOURCES: Summarized by OTA from: J. C.Brltton, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Freshwater, Terrestrial, and EstuarineMollusks in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991; W.R. Courtenay, Jr., “Pathwaysand Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of TtinologyAssessment, September 1991; K.C. Kim and A.G. Wheeler, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects andArachnids in the United states,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991; C.L. %houlties, “Pathwaysand Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant Pathogens in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, December 1991; S.A. Tempfe and D.M. Carroll, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-IndigenousVertebrates in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991.Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) overgrowand eventually kill trees and understoryplants and have fundamentally altered the characterand structure of some eastern forests (82).Among the 300 non-indigenous weeds of thewestern United States, at least 8 were formerlycultivated as crops and 28 escaped from horticulture(100).THE SURPRISE OF UNINTENTIONALINTRODUCTIONSMany NIS currently in the United Statesarrived and spread as unintended stowaways onhuman transport. For example, in the past, manyweeds moved as contaminants of agriculturalseed, and many plant pathogens arrived in the soilof potted plants (43,72) (see also ch. 3).In contrast to most intentional introductions,unintentionally introduced species have not beenchosen for any beneficial characteristics. Thus, alogical expectation might be that unintentionallyintroduced species are more likely to causeharmful effects than intentionally introducedspecies. Evaluation of the 1,483 NIS examined byOTA’s contractors would seem to support this,since only 12 percent of the intentionally introducedspecies had harmful effects compared to 44percent of the unintentionally introduced species(10,33,72,79). However, when specific groups oforganisms are examined separately, clear differencesappear (figure 2-5). Far more unintentionalintroductions of insects and plant pathogens havehad harmful effects than have intentional introductionsof these organisms. For terrestrial vertebrates,fish, and mollusks, however, intentionalintroductions have caused harm approximately asoften as have unintentional introductions, suggestinga history of poor choices of species for

Chapter 2–The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 63introduction and complacency regarding theirpotential harm.MANY SPECIES HAVE BOTH BENEFITS ANDHARMFUL EFFECTSFinding:Certain NIS have both positive and negativeconsequences, especially species occurring acrossseveral regions or States. In addition, perceivedeffects of NIS can vary in relation to theobserver’s perspective. Different constituenciescan hold widely divergent and deep-seatedviews of the potential effects and desirability ofeven a single species.Many NIS simultaneously have benefits aswell as harmful effects (figure 2-4). Even someNIS known for their harmful effects can also havesome benefits. For example, imported fire ants,which sting people and damage crops, alsosuppress populations of agricultural pests andenhance available soil nutrients (73). Some nonindigenous(’‘exotic’ game animals grown onranches have potential economic benefits. Ranchingmay also help preserve animals endangered intheir native ranges. Ranched non-indigenousgame, however, sometimes hybridize with anddilute the gene pools of related indigenousspecies, or carry and spread new animal diseases(77).The effects of some species also change as theyenter new environments—a factor making predictionof harm difficult. Predators, competitors,parasites, and pathogens that keep a species’population small in one locale may be absent inanother. Also, new environments may affect ratesof reproduction, susceptibility to disease, andother features that affect a species’ success,Consequently, a NIS that causes little damage toagriculture or natural ecosystems in one area maycause significant problems in another. Melaleuca,the paper bark tree, is a harmless ornamental inCalifornia, but causes great ecological harm in theFlorida Everglades. Non-indigenous cheatgrass(Bromus tectorum) occurs in all 50 States, but isonly a serious weed in the Midwest and West (44).Even garden flowers like baby’s breath (Gypsophilapaniculata) can be difficult-to-control weedsin some areas (100).The perceived effects of a species can also varywith the eye of the beholder (85). While manyState fish and wildlife managers firmly supportcontinued stocking with certain non-indigenousfish, some experts consider the practice to bedetrimental (box 2-B). Similarly, managers ofnatural areas view purple loosestrife (Lythrumsalicaria), originally from Eurasia, as a highlydamaging plant because it grows prolifically inwetlands, displacing indigenous plants and providinglower quality habitat and food for wildanimals. In contrast, some horticulturists in thenursery trade see purple loosestrife as a desirableplant. It also is a source of nectar for honeyproduction.The perceived desirability of certain NIS haschanged over time, as human values and popularviews have changed. The intentional introductionof songbirds, like the English sparrow (Passerdomestics) in the mid-1800s probably would notbe allowed today, because a higher value is placedon indigenous birds. Kudzu (Pueraria lobata)was widely promoted for erosion control in the1940s (89); yet the very characteristics consideredbeneficial then-rapid growth, ease of propagation,and wide adaptability--cause it to beconsidered a pernicious weed today.ECONOMIC COSTSFinding:Harmful NIS annually cost the Nation hundredsof millions to perhaps billions of dollars.Economically significant species occur in allgroups of organisms examined by OTA andaffect numerous economic sectors. Availableaccountings tend to underestimate losses attributableto NIS, since they omit many harmfulspecies and inadequately account for intangible,nonmarket impacts.A conservative estimate is harmful NIScause annual losses of hundreds of millions of

64 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesIn Favor . . .Box 2-B–The Case of the Brown Trout: Opposing Views of Fish Introductionsby Bruce Schmidt, Chief of FisheriesUtah Department of Natural ResourcesSalt Lake City, UtahThe introduction of non-indigenous fishes is neither ail good nor all bad; judgments must be made individually.Introductions can affect pristine ecosystems, but sport fish management frequently must deal with far-from-pristineenvironments. Given the human species’ penchant for modifying the environment it is unrealistic to set a standardthat demands no alteration of indigenous fauna. in Utah, most fish habitats are artificial reservoirs or tail waters,or are altered by water diversion, siltation, agriculture run-off, unstable banks or pollution, conditions outside thecontrol of fisheries managers. Only four sport fish are indigenous to Utah, and none are adapted to most of thesealtered systems, so providing sport fishing requires introductions.The benefits are widespread. Many spades have produced excellent sport fishing when introduced into newwaters in nearly all States. Sport fishing is a multibillion dollar industry, directly through input to local economies($2.8 billion expended nationwide in 1985; $154 million by resident anglers in Utah alone in 1991) and indirectlythrough mental and physical benefits to people. Introductions play a significant role in this success.Brown trout (Salmo trutta) are one example. They grow large, are aggressive, and are among the most prizedsport fish in North America, supporting a massive recreational fishery. Brown trout have significant advantagesover indigenous trout species in some situations. They can tolerate somewhat degraded environments withwarmer temperatures and decreased water quality and are more resistant to intense angling pressure. Thus, theyare better suited to many of the actual conditions existing today. Although brown trout would be inappropriatewhere they affect rare indigenous fishes, they play a major role in satisfying public demand for quality fishingopportunities.and Against . . .by Walter Courtenay, Professor of BiologyFlorida Atlantic UniversityBoca Raton, FloridaThe brown trout is widely regarded as a successful introduction of a non-indigenous fish, first made in 1888.Since then, the introduction of numerous other fishes, both of foreign and U.S. origin, has become a standardmanagement tool. Negative impacts have rarely been considered before the introductions. Overall, very fewintroductions can be considered successful from both human and biological standpoints. As a management toot,introductions have shown minor to major negative biological impacts, including extinctions of indigenous species.Management agencies are mostly constituent -oriented and thus are political pawns. Although agency namesoften contained the words “conservation” and, more recently, “natural resources” agendas are largely blind toconserving natural resources. Agency biologists often are not practicing biology, but are forced into managing, andthe two are not synonymous.Fortunately, the brown trout mostly occupies waters not preferred by indigenous trouts. in many waters,however, it is rarely as popular as transplanted rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) or indigenous trouts. Thepositives can be counterbalanced, in part, by negatives. California, in concert with the U.S. Forest and NationalPark Services, has spent almost $1 million since 1985 to eradicate brown trout from the Little Kern River to savethe golden trout (Oncorhynchus aquabonita), California’s “state fish;” from almost certain extermination there.Despite at least a century of fishery experience with introductions, managers seem intent on improving on naturewithout understanding it.

Chapter 2—The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species I 65dollars to U.S. agriculture, forests, rangelands,and fisheries. Losses could reach as high asseveral billion dollars, especially in high-impactyears. Massive expenditures on pesticides andother control and prevention technologies preventpotential additional losses of millions to billionsmore. Rough estimates are that the United Statesannually expends about $7.4 billion for pesticideapplications (box 2-C), a significant proportion ofwhich goes to control non-indigenous pests.Weeds and insects are the most costly groups,corresponding to their high numbers when comparedwith other MS groups (see ch. 3).Types of Economic ImpactsHarmful NIS affect numerous economic sectors.These include agriculture, forestry, fisheriesand water use, utilities, buildings, and naturalareas.AGRICULTURENon-indigenous weeds, insects, mollusks, birds,and pathogens reduce crop and livestock production,increase production costs, and cause postharvestcrop losses. Managing the array ofagricultural pests requires costly research, development,and application of control technologies.Weeds can outcompete or contaminate crops.They have other effects as well. Johnson grass(Sorghum halepense) hybridizes with cultivatedsorghum (Sorghum bicolor), producing worthless‘‘shattercane’ (43). Some weeds are either poisonousor rejected as forage by livestock (100).They reduce the value of rangelands (100); muchpublic land has been lost for grazing because ofweed infestations (43). For example, unpalatableleafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) has spread to 1.5million acres of rangeland in the northern GreatPlains. Direct livestock production losses togetherwith indirect economic effects due to thisspecies alone approached $110 million in 1990(2). Annual U.S. losses because of weeds amountto billions of dollars (box 2-C).The cotton boll weevil (Anthonomis grandis) causedestimated cumulative losses of at least $50 billion for1909-1949.Some weeds do not directly harm agriculture,but instead are hosts for agricultural pests. Barberry(Berberis vulgaris) harbors the wheat rustfungus (Puccinia recondite), and large losses ofwheat production can occur where the plant ispresent (43). Wheat rust has caused approximately$100 million worth of crop losses annuallyover the last 20 years (37), and it caused evenmore significant losses before barberry waslargely eradicated earlier in this century. Tumbleweed(Salsola spp.) similarly is a host for thecurly top virus, a pathogen of crops such as sugarbeets and tomatoes (102). Crested wheatgrass(Agropyron desertorum), widely planted for soilconservation, harbors the Russian wheat aphid(Diuraphis noxia), itself a significant wheat pest.Scores of non-indigenous insect species poseserious threats to agriculture. The boll weevil(Anthonomus grandis), a pest of cotton, historicallyhas the highest documented impacts-atleast $50 billion (in 1991 dollars) of cumulativelosses estimated for the years 1909-1949 (8).Repeated outbreaks of the medfly in Californianecessitate costly control programs to avert projectedannual losses of up to $897 million indamaged produce, control, and reduced exportrevenues (34). Some other estimates of annual

66 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 2-C-Economic Losses Caused by Non-Indigenous WeedsThe Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) recently published the report Crop Losses Due toWeeds-1992, covering all States but Alaska. The report relies on crop loss estimates for 46 major crops (includingfield crops, fruits, nuts, and vegetables) obtained through survey responses by cooperating weed seientists. Thescientists estimated the cumulative value of average losses to be $4.1 billion annually, undercurrent appropriateherbicide control strategies. They also estimated that if no herbicides were available the crop losses would total$19.6 billion.The WSSA figures have several limitations for OTA’s purposes: they only characterize a 3-year period(1969-1991); they do not cover weeds of forestry, grazing lands, horticulture, and other agricultural sectors; andthey include indigenous weeds. However, indigenous weeds are less important economically than NIS, which areknown to comprise the majority of weeds for most crops. For example, 23 of 37 major soybean weeds, or 62percent, are NIS. Experts estimate that 50 percent to 75 percent of major crop weeds overall are NIS. Based onthese percentages, the portion of the$4.1 billion of annual crop losses attributable to non-indigenous weeds wouldbe approximately $2 billion to $3 billion. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. farm expenditureson pesticides amount to about $5.1 billion annually, 60 percent of which is for herbicides. Thus, roughly $1.5 billionto $2.3 billion spent annually for herbicides would be attributable to NIS.A ballpark range for total direct non-indigenous weed costs is $3.6 billion to $5.4 billion annually. Theenvironmental, human health, regulatory, and other indirect costs of using herbicides on non-indigenous weedshave not been adequately calculated, but rough estimates exceed an additional $1 billion annually.SOURCES: D.C. Bridges (cd.), CmpLosses Due fo YWa&irr the UMed$tatas — 1992 (Champaign, IL: VI&M! Sdence Sodety of America,1992); D.T. Patterson, “Research on Exotic Weeds,” in Exotic P/ant Pasts and AkWrAndcarr A@xf/ture, C.L. Wilson and C,L. Graham(eds.) (NewYorlG NY: Aoademic Press, 19S!3), pp. SS1-93; D. Pimentel etal., ‘Environmental and Economic Effects of Redudng PesticideUse,” Biosderm, vol. 41, No. 6, June 1991, pp. 402-9; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EFM’s Pestidde Programs,” PublicationNo. 21 T-1OO5, Washington, DC, May 1991; T.D. Whitson et al., WeedJ of the Wsst(Jac-kson, WY: Pioneer of Jackson Hofe, 1991).losses from insect pests compiled for OTA by theAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service ofUSDA include: $500 million (in 1990) for thealfalfa weevil (Hypera postica); $172.8 million(in 1988) for the Russian wheat aphid; and $16.6million (annual average for 1960-1988) for thepink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) inCalifornia (17).The honey bee industry currently faces twonew pests, the tracheal mite (Acarapis woodi) andthe varroa mite (Varroa jacobsoni), which parasitizeand kill honey bees. The National Associationof State Departments of Agriculture estimatespotential annual losses of $160 million—due to lost honey production, lost pollination fees,and costs of replacing bees—should each pesthave nationwide effects similar to those reportedin Michigan (1990) and Washington (1989) (59).FORESTRYIn the early 1900s, the chestnut blight, broughtin on diseased horticultural stock from China, allbut eliminated the American chestnut (Castaneadentata), killing as many as a billion trees.American chestnut had been the most economicallyimportant hardwood species in easternforests (91). It was widely used in urban plantingsand had been a significant food source for wildanimals (72). Dutch elm disease (Ceratocystisulmi) also devastated vast numbers of shade treesfollowing its U.S. discovery in 1930-an aestheticloss for many U.S. cities as well as anexpense to replace the 40 million elms estimatedto have died (91).Several other NIS currently threaten U.S.forests, including insects like the balsam woolyadelgid (Adelges piceae) and pathogens such aswhite pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola). Pear

Chapter 2–The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 67thrips (Taeniothrips inconsequens) damaged 189,0(X)hectares of Vermont sugar maple in 1988 and isexpected to spread throughout the Appalachians(35). The European gypsy moth exacts thegreatest measurable losses and expenditures forresearch, control, and eradication. The USDAestimated losses of $764 million from the Europeangypsy moth in 1981 alone, although thatfigure so far has been the all-time high (17). TheAsian strain of the moth recently necessitated a$14 to $20 million eradication program in thePacific Northwest (see ch. 4, box 4-B).FISHERIES AND WATERWAY USEBoth wild fisheries and aquiculture have beendamaged by harmful NIS. Some fisheries havebeen decimated. In the mid-1900s, the eel-like,parasitic sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) migratedvia the newly constructed Welland Canalfrom Lake Ontario to other Great Lakes. It causedtremendous economic losses to commercial andrecreational Great Lakes fisheries. Today, about$10 million is spent annually on control andresearch to reduce its predation, plus roughly anequal amount annually on fish stocking (86). Ifcontrol were terminated and populations of thelamprey expanded again, the total value of the lostfishing opportunities plus indirect economic impactscould exceed $500 million annually (75).The European ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus),a fish that entered the Great Lakes via expelledballast water in the early 1980s, poses a newthreat. Based on experience in Scotland andRussia, and preliminary assessment of NorthAmerican impacts, experts predict the ruffe willcause populations of commercially valuable fishto decline, The Great Lakes Fishery Commissionestimates that annual losses of more than $90million could occur if it is not controlled (24).Several non-indigenous aquatic weed speciesclog waterways. An estimated $100 million isspent nationally each year to control aquaticweeds, a majority of which are non-indigenous(20). Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) in the Southeastblocks irrigation and drainage canals, enhancessedimentation in flood control reservoirs,interferes with public water supplies, impedesnavigation, and generally restricts public wateruses (32). At high densities, it also reducesproductivity of recreational fisheries (32).UTILITIESFouling of water pipes by zebra mussels hasimposed large expenses on the electric powerindustry and its customers. Costs have beenincurred for the development and implementationof antifouling technologies, application of controltechniques to remove zebra mussels alreadypresent, and plant shut-downs. Another mollusk,the Asian clam, has had similar effects (box 2-D).Zebra mussels and the Asian clam also clog waterpipes for municipal and irrigation water supplies.BUILDING STRUCTURESNon-indigenous pests damage commercial andresidential structures, threaten the health of occupants,and reduce property values. The full effectsof structural pests-cockroaches, rats, and othersthat are non-indigenous-are beyond the scope ofthis report. However, they contribute significantlyto the national market for pest controlinside buildings, which totals roughly $6 billiondollars in annual sales of extermination services,retail products, and associated items (63).NATURAL AREASMillions of dollars are spent annually toaddress the harmful effects of NIS on naturalecosystems, mostly by public agencies (see ch. 6).Expenditures are required for the developmentand application of control and eradication measures,as well as for ecological restoration. Indirecteconomic effects result from reduced recreationalopportunities in areas invaded by harmful MS,and the loss of indigenous species. Because of theabsence of clear financial incentives, such as existin agriculture, many NIS problems in naturalareas remain unaddressed. The cost of backloggedcontrol or eradication projects is difficultto estimate, but is very likely higher than for any

68 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 2-D-Case Study of an Affected Industry: The “One-Two Punch” of Asian Clams andZebra Mussels on the Power IndustryTwo harmful non-indigenous species-the Asian clam, Corbicula fluminea, and the zebra mussel, Dreissenapolymorpha-have and will continue to have significant and lasting effects on the U.S. power industry andelectricity consumers.The Asian clam entered North America some time before 1924. This small dam grows and reproducesrapidly, producing massive numbers of shells shortly after entering new waterways. Its harmful effects receivedlittle attention until the 1950s, when it was found dogging California irrigation systems as well as condensers ofthe Shawnee Steam Electric Power Station at Paducah, Kentucky. Populations of Corbicula grew explosivelyduring the 1960s and 1970s. During that period it disrupted the operations of numerous steam and at least threenuclear electric generating stations, with down-time, corrective actions, and maintenance costing millions ofdollars. In 1980, the Arkansas Nuclear One power plant was forced to shut down because of waterline cloggingby Asian dams, prompting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a directive requiring the nuclear electricindustry to determine whether Corbicula fouling was a hazard at each nuclear facility in the nation. The estimatedcost of compliance with this directive was $4.5 million. One estimate put total losses at $1 billion annually in theearly 1980s. More recently, populations of the Asian clam have begun to decline for unknown reasons.Nevertheless, it remains a serious fouling pest.The industry was dealt a second blow by entry of another mollusk. The zebra mussel entered the Great Lakesby way of discharged ballast water during the mid-1980s and has since spread as far as the Hudson,Susquehann, Mississippi, and Illinois river basins. Like Asian dams, zebra mussels are highly fertile, enablingpopulations to quickly reach large sizes. Zebra mussels adhere to water pipes by tough threads, dogging waterflow and increasing sedimentation and corrosion. One expert from the New York Sea Grant Extension Serviceestimated costs for the power industry of up to $800 million for plant redesign and $60 million for annualmaintenance. Fouling by zebra mussels of cooling or other critical water systems in power plants can requireshut-down, costing as much as $5,000 per hour for a 200-megawatt system. Some experts expect total costs tothe power industry from zebra mussels to match those for the Asian dam, perhaps reaching $3.1 billion (1991dollars) over a 10-year period.SOURCES: J.C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Freshwater, Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in the UnitedStates,” oontraotor report prepared for the Offioe of Teohndogy Assessment, October 1991; M. Cochran, “Non-Indigenous Spedes in theUnites States-Economic Consequences,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessm ent, March 1992; B.G. Isom,“Historical Review of Asiatic Clam (Cob/cu/a) Invasions and Biofouling of Waters and Industries in the Amerkas,” Arnerkm Ma/acuhg/ca/f3u//etin, spedal edition No. 2, pp. 1-5,1986.other sector. For example, removal of all of thedamaging salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) infestationsbordering the lower Colorado River, and restorationof the indigenous vegetation, would cost anestimated $45 million to $450 million (94).Cumulative LossesOTA summarized some of the estimated economiclosses to the United States from introductionsof 79 harmful NIS between 1906 and 1991(table 2-2). The species range from the brown treesnake (Boiga irregulars) (the costs of keeping itout) to hog cholera virus. The estimated total of$97 billion (1991 dollars) provides a minimumbenchmark for true losses during the 85 years.This total is likely a fraction of the total costsduring the period. Only about 14 percent of NISknown to be harmful are included, becausecomparable estimates of economic effects for theremaining 86 percent were unavailable; one of themost costly groups-non-indigenous agriculturalweeds (see box 2-C)--is omitted.Under-Counted EffectsThe economic data on NIS are heavily weightedtoward direct market effects and government

Chapter 2—The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 69Table 2-2—Estimated Cumulative Losses to the United States From Selected HarmfulNon-Indigenous Species, 1906-1991Species analyzed Cumulative loss estimates Species not analyzed aCategory (number) (millions of dollars, 1991) (number)Plants b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 603 —Terrestrial vertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 225 >39Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 92,658 >330Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 467 >30Aquatic invertebrates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1,207 >35Plant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 867 >44Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 917 —Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 96,944 >478aBased on estimated numbers of known harmful species per category (figure 2-4).bExcludes most agricultural weeds; these are covered in box 2-D.NOTES: The estimates omit many harmful NIS for which data were unavailable. Figures for the species represented here generally cover only oneyear or a few years. Numerous accounting judgments were necessary to allow consistent comparison of the 96 different reports relied on; informationwas incomplete, inconsistent, or had other shortcomings for most of the 79 species.SOURCE: M. Cochran, “Non-Indigenous Species in the United States: Economic Consequences,” contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, March 1992.control costs. Past accountings generally incorporatedlittle information on several other importanteffects, such as research and private control costs(8). The latter are especially significant in agriculture,where farmers bear much of the cost ofcontrol, Even outside of farming, control costscan be substantial; North Carolina homeownersspent an estimated $11 million annually to protectresidential trees from the European gypsy moth(12). Accounting for nonmarket effects may bethe only way to capture the fill economic impactsof NIS affecting natural areas. Chapter 4 discussessuch accounting difficulties and the disputedrole of economics in NIS decisionmaking.Harmful NIS have numerous other health andenvironmental costs that are difficult to count indollars.HEALTH COSTSNon-indigenous diseases of humans are beyondthe scope of this assessment (figure 2-l). Anumber of other NIS directly affect human health,however. African honey bees and imported fireants sting, and can also cause severe allergicreactions in sensitive people (78,90). Africanhoney bees have in addition a propensity to stingwith little provocation and repeatedly, The Brazilianpepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius), currentlyspreading throughout Florida, producesallergens that cause respiratory difficulty in manypeople and contact dermatitis in many more (43).Approximately half of the poisonous plants foundin non-agricultural areas of eastern North Americaare non-indigenous (98), including foxglove(Digitalis purpurea) and tansy (Tanacetum vulgare)(101). Hybrids (Canis lupus x C. familiars)between dogs (Canis familiars) (non-indigenous)and wolves (Canis lupus) (indigenous),although popular as pets, are dangerous to humans(5).Human health may also be indirectly influencedby some NIS. For example, non-indigenousaquatic weeds growing en masse provide asheltered habitat for mosquito larvae, whichspread human diseases when they mature (21).Several NIS currently in the United States arevectors for human diseases, although some of thediseases are not yet present in this country. Forexample, the snail Biomphalaria, presently inFlorida and Texas, can carry the blood fluke(Schistosoma spp.) that causes schistosomiasis,although the populations in the United States donot yet harbor the flukes (7). The Asian tigermosquito (Aedes albopictus) entered the United

70 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesImported fire ants (Solenopsis spp.) probably reached the United States in dry ship ballast; they have negativehealth as-well as economic eflects.States in 1985 and is now established in 21 States(see ch. 3; box 3-A) (55). This insect can transmitseveral human diseases not yet present in theUnited States, including dengue and yellow fever,as well as a virulent form of encephalitis alreadypresent (55).ENVIRONMENTAL COSTSFinding:Harmful NIS threaten indigenous speciesand exact a significant toll on U.S. ecosystems.Numerous declines in populations of indigenousspecies have been attributed to NIS, asignal of their diverse and growing impactsacross the country. The worst NIS have causedspecies extinctions and wholesale transformationsof ecosystems.Populations of many NIS expand rapidlyupon reaching new habitats where the competitors,predators, pathogens, and parasites thatformerly kept them in check are no longer present.Some of these NIS become harmful by competingwith, preying upon, parasitizing, killing, or transmittingdiseases to indigenous species. They mayalso alter the physical environment, modifying ordestroying habitats of indigenous species. Inplaces, NIS that outcompete indigenous specieshave, to some extent, replaced them. Abundantevidence shows declines in indigenous speciesresulting from NIS introductions, in some casescausing or contributing to a species’ endangermentor extinction. At the worst, such processeshave caused fundamental-and perhaps irreversible-changesin the functioning of U.S. ecosystems(1 1).The popular press and environmentalists frequentlystress the role of NIS in species extinctions(1,16,40,46). However, much of the supportingevidence is anecdotal or equivocal, in partbecause demonstrating the cause of an extinctionafter the fact is difficult. Also, NIS introductionsin many cases may be just one of several factorscontributing to a species’ demise, and the exactrole of NIS is therefore hard to evaluate (42).Overemphasizing the significance of extinctionas a consequence of MS tends to divertattention from their other very significant andunambiguous environmental effects. Species extinctionsdo not have to occur for biologicalcommunities to be radically and permanentlyaltered. Nor are extinctions necessary for theUnited States to experience a significant declinein the abundance, diversity, and aesthetic value ofits biological resources as populations of indigenousspecies shrink and numbers of NIS increase.

Chapter 2–The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 71Decline of Indigenous SpeciesMany examples exist of declines in populationsof indigenous species resulting from NISintroductions. Such declines occur across abroadarray of ecosystems and as a result of diverse MS.Some NIS displace indigenous species byout-competing them. Throughout the AmericanWest, several non-indigenous grasses, includingthe widely planted crested wheatgrass, have beenshown to suppress the of seedlings of oaks, pines,and other indigenous plants by reducing light,water, and nutrients (1 1). At least 10 indigenousplant species are less common in parts of Arizonawhere African lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana)occurs (1 1).Competition from the introduced house sparrowand European starling (Sturnus vulgaris)caused dramatic declines in the numbers ofeastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis) and other indigenousbirds (79). Presence of the mosquitofish(Gambusia affinis) has been associated withlocalized declines in populations of at least 15indigenous fishes found in desert rivers andsprings (71), The non-indigenous crayfish Orconectesrusticus competes with the indigenousO. virilis and caused its local disappearance fromseveral Wisconsin lakes during the 1980s (38).Introduction of a periwinkle (the snail Littorinalittorea) to U.S. shores in the late 1800s pushedthe mud snail (Ilyanassa obsoleta) out of manynear shore habitats (6).Non-indigenous diseases, parasites, and predatorshave driven down populations of someindigenous species. The brown-headed cowbird(Molo/hrus ater), a bird indigenous to the easternUnited States, parasitizes other birds by placingits eggs in their nests, where young cowbirdscompete aggressively for food. Its range expansionfollowing the growth of U.S. agriculturecontributed to a drop in populations of migratorysongbirds such as Kirtland’s warbler (Dendroicakirtlandia) (80). Predation by non-indigenousfishes on young razorback suckers (Xyrauchentexanus) has contributed to its decline in theColorado River basin (45). Introduced predatoryrosy snails (Euglandina rosea) have been observeddecimating populations of indigenous treesnails in Hawaii (25). The balsam woolly adelgidhas killed almost all of the adult fir trees in GreatSmoky Mountains National Park, formerly therepository of about 74 percent of all spruce-froforest in the southern United States (35).Some introduced NIS are not harmful themselves,but carry diseases or other organisms thatharm indigenous species. Widespread concernsexist among State wildlife biologists that nonindigenousgame raised on ranches can be asource of diseases affecting indigenous wildanimals (36). Sika deer, for example, can harbormeningeal worms (Pare laphostrongylos tenuis)and numerous other parasites and pathogens thatcan infect wild animals and livestock. The Asiantapeworm (Bothriocephalus opsarichthydis) wasinadvertently released in the United States viainfected grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)from China and now infects indigenous fishes inNorth America (22).Some NIS are closely enough related to indigenousspecies to hybridize with them. Hybridizationresults in a loss of successful reproductionwhen the offspring are less viable. It can alsogenetically “swamp” and eliminate an indigenousspecies when successive generations ofoffspring become increasingly genetically similarto the NIS, as has occurred with certain indigenoustrout in western locales (13). Hybridizationwith NIS can impair recovery of endangeredspecies. An international group of experts hascalled for governments to prohibit or tightlyrestrict ownership and breeding of wolf/doghybrids because they can interbreed with endangeredwolves (52).Species ExtinctionThe introduction of NIS has been closelycorrelated with the disappearance of indigenousspecies in Hawaii and other islands (29,79). Someobservers consider competition by non-indige-

72 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 2-3-Contribution of Non-Indigenous Species to Threatened and Endangered Species Listingsby t he U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service aCategory of impact on threatened and endangered speciesSpecies where NIS Species where NISTotal threatened and Species where NIS are a major are the majorendangered species contributed to listing cause of listing cause of listing(number) (number, percent) (number, percent) (number, percent)Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 39(1 6%) — 14 (6°/0)Terrestrial vertebrates. . . . . 182 47(26%) 3(2%) 19(10%)Insects b ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7(28%) — 2 (8%)Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 44(51 %) 8(9%) 5 (6%)Invertebrates c , ... , . . . . . . 70 23(33%) 1 (l%) 1 (l%)Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613 160 12 41c Includes spedes listed through June 1991.bIncludes arachnids.C Includes mollusks and crustaceans.SOURCE: M. Bean, ‘The Role of the U.S. Department of the Interior in Non-Indigenous Species Issues,” contractor report prepared for the Officeof Technology Assessment, November 1991.nous weeds and predation by non-indigenousanimal pests to be the single greatest threat toHawaii’s indigenous species (60). There, introducedbiological control agents have been implicatedin the extinction of 15 indigenous mothspecies (29). Similarly, scientists believe predationby the introduced brown tree snake in Guamhas caused the extinction of 5 species or subspeciesof birds and the decline of numerous others(15,68).The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considersNIS to have been a contributing factor in thelisting of 160 species as threatened or endangeredunder the Endangered Species Act! (3). Of these,approximately one-third are from island ecosystemsin Hawaii or Puerto Rico. Non-indigenousspecies are considered to have been the majorcause of listing for 41 species, of which 23 arefrom Hawaii or Puerto Rico (table 2-3).Direct evidence that a NIS has caused theextinction of an indigenous species in the continentalUnited States is lacking. However, even inthe continental United States, patchy environmentslike forest remnants, lakes, hot springs, andartesian springs form habitat “islands.” Specieswhose distributions are limited to such islandstend to have small localized populations andnarrow ecological requirements. Consequently,they are more vulnerable to extinction than arewidespread species. Effects of introductions undersuch conditions can mirror those on true islands.For example, the snail Elimia comalensis livesonly in several springs and spring-fed rivers inTexas. Introduction of two non-indigenous snailspecies in the late 1960s has caused populationsof E. comalensis to reach precariously low levelsseveral times (7).NIS clearly have caused population declines ofindigenous species in mainland habitats. Whenother stresses such as pollution and habitatdestruction adversely affect a population in concertwith NIS, populations may be pushed todangerously low levels (57). The combination ofwater projects and introductions of species betteradapted to altered habitats is considered to be themajor cause of declines in California’s indigenousfishes, 76 percent of which are now declining,threatened, endangered, or extinct (58).6 En&ngered Spmie5 Act of 1973, as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 136, 16 U. S.C.A. WI-9 e~. ~eq.).

Chapter 2—The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 73Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), one of themost costly recent accidental imports, clog intakepipes, coat equipment, and are expected tosignificantly after aquatic ecosystems.Transformation of EcologicalCommunities and EcosystemsSome NIS transform ecosystems by modifyingbasic physical and chemical features of theenvironment. These NIS “don’t merely competewith or consume native species, they change therules of the game by altering environmentalconditions or resource availability’ (1 1). Zebramussels, for example, rapidly filter water, decreasingthe food available for other aquaticanimals and increasing light penetration. This,coupled with the zebra mussel’s dense, bottomdwellingpopulations, is expected to cause majorchanges in the biological communities foundwithin U.S. lakes, rivers, and streams-includingthe possible extinction of part of the rich indigenousmussel fauna in the United States (7).The Australian melaleuca tree is rapidly modifyinglarge areas of the Florida Everglades bychanging soil characteristics and topography,Dense, pure stands of melaleuca displace indigenousvegetation and provide poorer habitat andforage for wildlife (70). Salt cedar, now abundantalong the lower Colorado River, was originallyintroduced as an ornamental and for erosioncontrol (61 ). It forms thickets along waterways,crowding out indigenous plants, banking upsediments, and altering water flow (39). Certainnon-indigenous plants, like cheatgrass in northwesternStates and bunchgrass (Schizachyriumcondensatum) and molasses grass (Melinis minu -tiflora) in Hawaii, burn easily and recover rapidlyfrom fires, unlike indigenous plants of theseareas. Where abundant, they increase the frequencyof brush fires, seriously offsetting thenormal ecological processes by which indigenousplant communities become established. Bunchgrassand molasses grass now comprise 80percent of the plant cover in parts of HawaiiVolcanoes National Park (11),Wild hogs, descended from animals that escapedfrom hunting enclosures in 1912, in GreatSmoky Mountains National Park now eat, uproot,or trample at least 50 species of herbaceous plantsand can reduce the cover of understory plants inforests by 95 percent (64). Their rooting displacesanimals like voles and shrews, which depend onundisturbed leaf litter for habitat. It also increasessoil erosion and the resulting turbidity of smallstreams. Hogs consume small animals, includingpotentially threatened salamanders and snails,and compete with several indigenous species forfood. Aquatic equivalents of hogs are the grass(Ctenopharyngodon idella) and common carps(Cyprinus carpio), widely introduced to controlaquatic weeds. These fishes indiscriminatelyconsume aquatic vegetation, destroying habitatsfor young fish and increasing water turbidity (57).Some NIS have major effects on ecosystemsbecause they affect indigenous species that playa pivotal ecological role, Initial effects of the NISon one species then cascade throughout thesystem, like a line of falling dominoes. Recentintroduction of the opossum shrimp (Mysis relicta)into the Flathead River-Lake ecosystem ofGlacier National Park caused populations ofmany other animals to drop. Because of feedingby the shrimp, zooplankton became less numerous.This decline, in turn, contributed to a drop inforage fish, ultimately driving away the area’sfish predators—including eagles, otters, coyotesand bears (76).

74 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesDeclines in indigenous plants can have importantrepercussions because they change the physicalstructure of the environment and reduceavailable habitat for the insects, birds, or otherorganisms that normally dwell in the vegetation.Chestnut blight virtually eliminated stands of theAmerican chestnut in about 91 million hectares ofeastern U.S. forests, where, in places, it previouslyconstituted up to 25 percent of the trees(96). Loss of the American chestnut is thought tohave caused at least five indigenous insect speciesto disappear and also to have contributed to anincrease in oak wilt disease (Ceratocystis fagacearum)because of subsequent changes in thedensity and distribution of red oak (Quercusrubra) (41). Several vines, including kudzu andOriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), overgrowand eventually pull down trees, and havechanged parts of some eastern forests from opencanopies to dense thickets (51, 82). The spread ofpurple loosestrife to wetlands in 41 States hasbeen called an “ecological disaster” (83). Insome areas, it has displaced half of the previousbiomass of indigenous plants—many of whichare important sources of food for other species—and has further contributed to the decline of birdand turtle species by destroying their habitats(83). European leafy spurge, now widespread onU.S. rangelands, attracts few insect grazers, diminishingfood supplies for insect-eating birds (4).Special Consideration of NIS in theNational ParksFinding:Increasing numbers of NIS are causingecological disruption in the U.S. NationalParks. Removal or control of NIS is notkeeping pace with species’ invasions andspread. Concerns are increasing that the ecologicalchanges overtaking the parks may be sosevere that they will eliminate the very characteristicsfor which the parks were originallyestablished.The conservation mandate of the U.S. NationalPark Service has resulted in the development ofrestrictive policies related to introductions ofNIS. Consequently, NIS seen as beneficial insome locales are considered harmful in theNational Parks. For example, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss) and brown trout widelystocked for sport fisheries are being eradicated inthe Great Smoky Mountains National Park becauseof their harmful effects on indigenousbrook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis (10).National Parks in all areas of the United Statesare experiencing problems with NIS in spite of therestrictive policies and eradication efforts (table2-4) (27,41). A backlog of unfunded NIS controlprograms continues to expand (30). Increasingconcern exists among scientists, environmentalists,and others that the threats from NIS in someNational Parks are so severe that park ecosystemswill be permanently altered if large-scale controland eradication efforts are not undertaken (43). Inthe Everglades Conservation Areas near EvergladesNational Park, the spread of melaleuca israpidly changing the wetlands—known as a‘‘river of grass’—into a stand of non-indigenoustrees. Unchecked, such changes eventually willeliminate the National Parks’ role as a caretakerof U.S. ecosystems and indigenous species.These concerns are not confined to NationalParks. NIS threaten many State parks as well. InMissouri’s Cuivre River State Park, one of theState’s largest and most rustic parks, Europeanbuckthorn (Rhamnus cathartic) has spread widely,forming impenetrable thickets throughout theforest understory (54). A 1991 Missouri studyconcluded NIS are among the State’s parks’ 10most serious and widespread threats (54).RELATIONSHIP TO BIOLOGICALDIVERSITYThe preservation of biological diversity isof growing concern among the public, Con-

Chapter 2–The Consequences of Harmful Non-Indigenous Species 75Table 2-4—Examples of Non-lndigeneous Species Problems in the National ParksParkChannel IslandsNational Park,CaliforniaEverglades National Park,FloridaCanyonlandsNational Park,UtahBig BendNational Park,TexasTheodore RooseveltIsland,Washington, DCHawaii VolcanoesNational Park,HawaiiImpactsFeral mammals, like the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), are thought to have causedirreversible loss of topsoil by destroying vegetation and causing erosion. Introduced ice plant(Mesembranthemum crystallinum) accumulates salt, changes soil salt content, and excludesindigenous vegetation.Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) causes development of steeper shorelines therebyimpairing nesting by loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta).Salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) replaces indigenous vegetation, banks up sediments, reduceschannel width, and increases overbank flooding. Non-indigenous grasses largely replaceindigenous grasses and are thought to have increased the frequency of fire on grasslands.Salt cedar lowers the water table and dries up springs, contributing to the decline of desertbighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis).Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and English ivy (Hedera helix) inhibit growth of newtrees and understory plants. They also overgrow and kill adult trees.Non-indigenous plants (fire tree Myrica faya and leucaena Leucaena ieucocephala) elevatenutrient levels on young lava flows, potentially enhancing invasion by other NIS. Nonindigenousgrasses, like crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum), increase the frequencyand intensity of wildfires.SOURCE: I.A.W. MacDonald et ai,, “Wildiife Conservation and the invasion of Nature Reserves by introduced Speeies: Global Perspective,”Elio/ogica/ kasiom: A G/oba/ Perspective, JA. Drake et al. (eds.) (New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., 1989), pp. 215-255.gress, 7 scientists, and conservationists. Biologi- other circumstances, may diminish biologicalcal diversity 8 encompasses the biological varia- diversity. Thus, each situation requires carefultion occurring within and among species as well case-by-case analysis (see ch. 4).as among ecological communities and ecosystems.Processes that reduce this variation at any● Where Indigenous Species Utilize or Dependon NIS--Certain indigenous birdslevel negatively affect biological diversity. Manyharmful MS clearly impair biological diversity appear to reside almost exclusively in eucalyptus(Eucalyptus spp.>introduced to Cal-by causing population declines, species extinctions,or simplification of ecosystems. Moreover, ifornia over 135 years ago (99). Monarchthe very establishment of a NIS diminishes global butterflies (Danaus plexippus) also preferbiological diversity: as NIS like starlings, grass eucalyptus to the native woodlands. Incarp, and crabgrass spread to more places, these Florida, heavy human use of beaches disturbsnesting by the American oystercatcherplaces become more alike biologically.The relationship between NIS and biological (Haematopus palliatus). Some achieve greaterdiversity is not always straightforward, however. nesting success within stands of introducedUnder certain circumstances, such as those listed Australian pine (84).below, NIS may actually enhance biological ● Where Altered Environments Are Inhospitableto Indigenous Species—Non-diversity although negative counter-examplesexist for each category. The same NIS, under indigenous fishes may be the only ones able7For example, U.S. Congress, 102nd Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 585, proposed the National Biological Diversity Conservation andEnvironmental Research Act (1991).S A previous OIA study defiied biological diversity as “the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexesin which they occur” (87).

76 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States●●●to live in the new reservoir habitats createdwhen rivers are dammed (69). Some introducedplants, like red bromegrass (Bromusrubens) in southern California, may prove tobe more suited to heavily polluted areas thanindigenous ones (99). In such cases, ‘ ‘artificialdiversity” may be the only feasibleoption unless the underlying human disturbanceis eliminated or modified.Where NIS Hybridize with Certain EndangeredIndigenous Species-Only 30 to50 individuals remain of the Florida panther(Felis concolor coryi), a critically endangeredsubspecies. Some carry genes from aCentral or South American subspecies, probablyfrom captive animals released into theEverglades decades ago (18). Commentatorshave argued that this should not detract fromthe panther’s protected status under theEndangered Species Act (62). Similarly,some endangered indigenous trout species inthe Southwest have heavily hybridized withintroduced cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki)and rainbow trouts (13). Eradicating thesehybrids could destroy the only remainingvestiges of the indigenous fish.Where the NIS Itself Represents ValuableGenetic Diversity—Feral hogs on OssabawIsland, Georgia (Sus scrofa domesticus) aredescendants of animals introduced by Spanishexplorers in the 16th and 17th centuries.They appear to have evolved certain uniquebiochemical features (47). Eradication of thehogs would mean a loss of this geneticdiversity.Where a Species Must be Introduced atNew Locales to Ensure Its Survival—Thebrown tree snake, now well established inGuam, has driven the Guam rail (Rallusowstoni) near extinction. Introduction of thebird outside its natural range (e.g., in Hawaii)may be better than allowing it tobecome extinct or to survive only in captivity(9).●Where a NIS Removes Harvesting PressureFrom Indigenous Species —The WashingtonState Department of Fisheries activelypromotes the shad (Alosa sapidissima),which was introduced decades ago, toreduce fishing pressure on the low numbersof indigenous salmon (49).Management decisions, under circumstanceslike those listed above, may be controversial,even among experts seeking to maximize biologicaldiversity. They raise legitimate concernsabout whether short-term solutions (e.g., introducingpollution-tolerant plants) are acceptable orcounterproductive over the long term. Althoughcontentious cases are relatively uncommon, theysometimes command the lion’s share of resourcesand attention. For example, “hundreds of otherexotics and naturalized aliens go unattended inCalifornia parks’ while much of the budget forNIS control is devoted to the controversial fightagainst eucalyptus (99).CHAPTER REVIEWThis chapter is the first of two that, takentogether, paint a picture of harmful NIS in theUnited States today, This chapter defined NIS anddescribed the impacts that distinguish beneficialfrom harmful species, e.g., those that cut agriculturalor other productivity, those with high controland eradication costs, and those associated withthe decline of indigenous species or ecosystems.Not all NIS cause damage; nor does each have thesame positive or negative impacts every place itoccurs. Yet harmful NIS generate substantialeconomic, health, and environmental costs for theNation-costs often uncounted in the past. Withhighly damaging species in virtually every State,the sketch that emerges from this chapter isworrisome.Chapter 3 completes the picture. It traces thevarious pathways by which NIS enter the UnitedStates and spread from state to state and estimatesthe numbers of species involved.

Non-indigenous species (NIS) arrive by way of twogeneral types of pathways (figure 3-l). First, specieshaving origins outside of the United States enter thecountry and become established either as free-livingpopulations or under human cultivation—for example, as pets orin agriculture, horticulture, or aquiculture. Some cultivatedspecies subsequently escape or are released and also becomeestablished as free-living populations. Second, species alreadywithin the United States, of U.S. or foreign origin, can spread tonew locales. Pathways of both types include intentional as wellas unintentional species transfers.This chapter first identifies current pathways that either areknown or can be reasonably inferred to have been routes ofintroduction for NIS since 1980. Included are routes for bothharmful and beneficial introductions; effects of NIS can changeover time or as they enter new environments, and someintroductions that appear benign today may eventually causeharm (ch. 2). The chapter goes on to assess the growing numbersof NIS in the United States, their geographical distribution, andthe various factors affecting rates and pathways of speciestransfers.PATHWAYS: HUMANS INCREASE THEMOVEMENT OF SPECIESFinding:Naturally occurring movements of species into the UnitedStates are uncommon. Most arrive in association with humanactivities or transport. Species can be brought into thecountry and released intentionally, or their movement andThe ChangingNumbers,Causes, andRates ofIntroductions 377

78 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesFigure 3-l-Generic Pathways of Species Entry and Spreadm~Outside of the United StatesIInside the United States\\\\\\\\\\\\\B\\R\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\y\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Species from otherU.S. locations/s\~non-indigenousspecies/rCultivatedv / ’z“Free-living 4 “ ,non-indigenous L -speciesXssisxsisi< Intentional pathway< Unintentional pathwaySOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.release can be an unintentional byproduct ofcultivation, commerce, tourism, or travel. Inaddition, human modification of natural habitatscontinues to provide new opportunities forspecies establishment.Geographic distributions of species naturallyexpand or contract. However, over historical timeintervals (tens to hundreds of years), species’ranges rarely expand thousands of miles or acrossphysical barriers like mountains or oceans(12,26,53,63,82). Such large-scale movementshave become commonplace today, driven byhuman transformations of natural environmentsas well as the continual transport of people andcargo around the globe. Resulting rates of speciesmovement dwarf natural rates in comparison.The Role of Habitat ChangeHabitat modification can create conditionsfavorable to the establishment of NIS. Soil disturbedin construction and agriculture is open forcolonization by non-indigenous weeds. Non-indigenousplants, in turn, may provide habitats for thenon-indigenous insects that evolved with them.For example, European viper’s bugloss (Echiumvulgare), a weed common along roads andrailroad tracks, provides a habitat for the Eurasianlace bug (Dictyla echii). Non-indigenous plantsthat would not tolerate dry conditions flourish innewly irrigated parts of arid regions, such as theAmerican Southwest (63). Other human-generatedchanges in fire frequency, grazing intensity,soil stability, and nutrient levels similarly facilitatethe spread and establishment of nonindigenousplants (47).Thermal effluents from power generating stationsand industrial installations create suitableenvironments for tropical non-indigenous fishand snails (12). Gardens as well are commonhabitats for non-indigenous snails and slugs (12).Pollution and habitat degradation have madesome environments inhospitable to certain indigenousspecies. Such changes encourage fisheriesmanagers and others to introduce NIS moretolerant of the degraded conditions (26).When human changes to natural environmentsspan large geographical areas, they effectively

3-The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 79create conduits for species movement betweenpreviously isolated locales. Such modificationshave an important role in facilitating the spread ofNIS within the country. The rapid spread of theRussian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia) to 15States in just 2 years following its 1986 arrival hasbeen attributed, in part, to the prevalence ofalternative host plants that are available whenwheat (Triticum spp. ) is not, Many of these arenon-indigenous grasses recommended for plantingon the 40 million or more acres enrolled in theU.S. Department of Agriculture’s ConservationReserve Program (54) (see also ch. 6), Manynewly introduced weeds followed railway constructionacross the continent to the AmericanWest because they can grow in disturbed landbeside the tracks (63). Roads and backcountrytrails have helped to spread non-indigenousgrasses within Glacier National Park, Montana(98). The 1829 construction of the Welland Canalin the Great Lakes provided a route for the sealamprey (Petromyson marinus), alewife (Alosapseudoharengus), and rainbow smelt (Osmerusmordax) to migrate upstream from Lake Ontario(26). The Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) expandedits range following irrigation and drinkingwater canals in California and Arizona (12). Thegrowth of agriculture, urbanization, pollution,and a host of other human habitat modificationshave enhanced the movement of many speciesacross the country.Present Pathways Into the United StatesMore than 205 NIS were introduced or frostdetected in the United States since 1980. (Seetable 3-1 at the end of this chapter.) Fifty-nine ofthese are expected to cause economic or environmentalharm. These NIS followed many differentpathways into the country.A number of factors confound quantitativeevaluation of the relative importance of variousentry pathways. Time lags often occur betweenNIS establishment and detection, and tracing thepathway for a long-established species is difficult(65). One expert estimates that non-indigenousweeds usually have been in the country for 30years or have spread to 10,000 acres before theyare detected (65). In addition, Federal port inspectionis a major source of information on NISpathways, especially for agricultural pests. However,it provides data only on whether NIS entervia scrutinized routes, not on whether and howmany NIS enter via as-yet-undetected pathways.Finally, some comparisons between pathwaysdefy quantitative analysis-for example, which ismore ‘important’: the entry pathway of one veryharmful NIS or one by which many less harmfulNIS enter the country? For these reasons, OTAhas chosen not to rank the pathways according torelative significance.UNINTENTIONAL PATHWAYSMany species enter the United States each yearas unintentional contaminants of commodities.Agricultural produce, nursery stock, cut flowers,and timber sometimes harbor insects, plant pathogens,slugs, and snails (12,53). Of 23 nonindigenousinsect species that became establishedin California since 1980, 20 arrived on importedplants, 2 on fruit, and 1 on infested wood (35). Atleast 45 percent of the snails and slugs interceptedby agricultural inspectors between 1984 and 1991were found on plants or plant products (12). Bulkcommodities like gravel, iron ore, sand, wool, andcotton (Gossypium hirsutum) can contain hiddenweed seeds (63,106). Commodities were thesingle greatest source (81 percent) of noxiousweed Federal interceptions from October 1987through mid-July 1990 (106).Weeds continue to enter the United States asseed contaminants even though the content ofimported seed is regulated under the Federal SeedAct (63,106 ).1 These weed seeds ultimately canbe widely distributed and then planted in favorableenvironments along with the desired agricul-I Federal Seed Act (1939), as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 1551 et seq.),

80 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statestural or other seed. For example, serrated tussock(Nassella trichotoma)—a noxious weed that degradesrangelands and pastures-was repeatedlyfound in 1988 in seed from Argentina of tallfescue (Festuca arundinacea) a lawn and pasturegrass. Contaminated seed ultimately was distributedto at least five States and sold through suchpopular retailers as K-Mart, Walmart, and AceHardware. Over 58,000 pounds were sold beforethe seed was recalled in 1989 (103).Despite Federal requirements for inspectionand quarantine, plant pathogens sometimes arriveas unintended contaminants of plant materials.Importation of seeds and other plant germ plasmfor propagation and breeding was a pathway forat least three plant pathogens entering the countrybetween 1982 and 1991 (82) (table 3-l).A number of fish and shrimp pathogens andparasites have similarly entered the country ininfected stock for aquiculture or fishery enhancement(42,60). The introduction of the Pacificoyster (Crassostrea gigas) to the West Coast inthe 1920s brought with it a Japanese snail(Ocenebra japonica) that preys on oysters, aflatworm (Pseudostylochus ostreophagus), andpossibly also a copepod parasite (Mytilicolaorientalism) (104). The Asian tapeworm (Bothriocephalusopsarichthydis) was found infectingseveral indigenous fishes in North America duringthe 1970s; it entered the country earlier,probably in infected grass carp (Ctenopharyngodonidella) (42,48).Today, most imported freight is packed intostandardized, boxcar-sized containers for ease ofshipping and handling (70). Containerized freightis difficult to inspect, requiring costly unloadingand reloading of the contents (61). Consequently,inspections tend to occur only when there is goodcause to suspect illegal imports or contaminationby pests. Decreased inspection increases thepossibility that NIS will go undetected (82).Freight containers can sit idle at ports for weeksor longer before loading, during which timeorganisms can board and become hidden (12,63).Also, containers generally are not cleaned betweenshipments (70). Containerized freight isthus thought to be a significant pathway for theentry of insects, weed seed, slugs, and snails intothe country (12,53,63). Containerized shipmentsof used tires were the source for introductions ofthe Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) from1985 to 1988, until new U.S. Public HealthService regulations required tires to be mosquitofree (30) (box 3-A). At least 15 percent of thesnails and slugs intercepted by Federal agricultureinspectors between 1984 and 1991 were in freightcontainers (12). Since containers frequently arenot unloaded until they reach their inland destinations,any species they contain are released withinthe country rather than at a port of entry. Thisreverses the historical pattern wherein speciesgenerally first appeared at ports of entry (53).Crates were the source of at least 11 percent ofthe mollusks intercepted by Federal inspectorsfrom 1984 to mid-1991 (12). The crating andpacking material itself poses additional risks. Athreatening new bark beetle (Tomicus piniperda),discovered near Cleveland, Ohio in 1992, isbelieved to have entered the country in ship’sdunnage (wood packing material) (78). Packingmaterial used to ship dishes from Greece issuspected to have been the pathway for the newweed early millet (Milium vernale) (65). Unprocessedwood and wood products have been asource of forest pests and pathogens in the past(1 1); current concerns center on their potential toconvey pests from Asia to forests in the PacificNorthwest (101) (see also box 4-B). Woodencrates carrying oysters have been suggested,although not proven, as a possible source ofwood-boring aquatic animals as well (19).Some NIS stow away on cars and otherconveyances. This is thought to be a pathway bywhich weed seeds spread, including across nationalborders from Mexico and Canada into theUnited States (63). Noxious weed seeds havebeen intercepted in aircraft, automobiles, railwaycars, ships, tractor trailers, and other vehiclesentering the country (106). The Asian gypsy moth(Lymantria dispar), a new strain of this destruc-

3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions I 81Box 3-A–The Unwelcome Arrival of the Asian Tiger MosquitoOn August 2, 1985, the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) was discovered in Houston, apparentlyimported in containerized shipments of used tires. An aggressive biter and prolific breeder, this species is a vectorof several serious viral diseases such as dengue fever, LaCrosse encephalitis, and eastern equine encephalitis.The last has a 30 percent mortality rate in humans. As of 1991 the mosquito had been found in 22 States. Expertspredict that rapid evolution of cold-tolerant and heat-tolerant strains may eventually allow the mosquito to occupyan even broader range. The mosquito thrives in used tires-it breeds in the small, protected pools of water oftenfound inside. Unfortunately, more than 2 billion scrap tires are now piled up in the country, usually close to largepopulation centers, with 250 million more tires added each year.Official response was slow and inadequate to stop the mosquito. Not until 1988 did the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC) of the Public Health Service impose regulations requiring that used tire imports bedry and free of mosquito eggs or larvae. According to one expert, inspection to ensure compliance with theregulations is minimal. Further, in early 1987, CDC rejected the recommendation of its own expert panel to developa $20 million research and control plan, citing fiscal constraints. The American Mosquito Control Associationofficially censured CDC’s rejection of the control plan.Although CDC has done significant research, formulating responses has been largely left to State and localgovernments. Their uncoordinated, uneven control efforts have been no match for the problem. Meanwhile, at amajor Florida tire dump nine miles from Disney World, scientists recently isolated eastern equine encephalitis fromthe Asian tiger mosquito for the first time since the mosquito was discovered in the country.SOURCES: G. Craig, Professor of Biology, University of Notre Dame, letter to P.T. Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment, March 14,1992; R.B. Craven et al., “Importation of Aedm aboplctus and Other Exotic Mosquito Species Into the United States In Used Tires fromAsia,” Journa/ of the Arner&an Mo.squ/to Contro/Assodation, vol. 4, No. 2, 1966, pp. 136-142; C.J. Mitchell et al., “Isolation of EasternEquine Encephalitis Virus From Aedes dbopictus In Florida,” Science, vol. 257, July 24, 1992, pp. 526-527,tive forest pest, is thought to have recently foundits way to the Pacific northwest on grain ships(31). Cargo in planes and trucks are importantpathways for insects entering the country (53).Military freight enters the United States continuously,periodically in high volume. The geographicorigin depends on the location of recentmilitary action. Equipment and supplies sometimesare covered with dirt or mud from the field(5). These can bean unintended source of insectsand plant pathogens if not properly washed.Military cargo and equipment historically hasresulted in several introductions of harmful species,like the golden nematode (Globodera rostochiensis).This process was vividly demonstratedin the spread of the brown tree snake (Boigairregulars) across islands of the Pacific bymilitary cargo planes after World War II (41) (seealso box 8-B). In 1992, concerns again surfacedthat military transport of equipment might pro-vide a pathway for non-indigenous pests—thistime from Operation Desert Storm in the MiddleEast (5).Establishment of the harmful zebra mussel(Dreissena polymorpha) in the Great Lakesduring the 1980s focused attention on ballastwater as an unintentional pathway by whichaquatic species enter the country. Ballast water istaken on by large cargo ships when they are emptyto provide stability at sea. It is then dumped whenthe ship is loaded at a different port. If environmentsat the two ports are similar, species takenup in the water at one may become established atthe other, Since 1980, at least eight new NISentered U.S. waters by way of dumped ballastwater (71) (table 3-l). These include the potentiallydamaging European ruffe (Gymnocephaluscernuus) and two non-indigenous clams newlyestablished in California bays (Theora lubricaand Potamocorbula amurensis) (12,21). The po -

82 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statestential for species transfers by ballast water isgreat; at least 367 distinctly identifiable taxonomicgroups of plants and animals have beenfound in the ballast water of ships arriving inOregon from Japan (22).INTENTIONAL PATHWAYSLarge amounts of plant germ plasm arriveannually for use in the breeding and developmentof plants for agriculture, horticulture, and soilconservation. Plants for pasture and range improvementand wildlife forage may be directlyplanted in uncultivated areas. Some notable pestshave been introduced in the past for soil conservationincluding kudzu (Pueraria lobata) and multiflorarose (Rosa multiflora). Scotch broom (Cytisusscoparius) was introduced to California as anornamental plant, and also used by the U.S. SoilConservation Service for preventing erosion. Itnow has spread to at least 500,000 acres in theState, where it displaces indigenous flora andfauna and is a serious weed of tree plantations(10). Concerns continue today regarding the pestpotential of new species deliberately released forpreventing erosion (84).Although most plant introductions are legal,some do occur illegally. Often these involvespecies for ornamental horticulture smuggled intoHawaii (63). Some seeds are sent to plant breedersin the United States through international firstclassmail to avoid inspection or quarantine at theport of entry (8). Baggage accompanying individualsvisiting or returning to the United States is acommon pathway for the illegal transport of NIS.At least 82 percent of the plants or seeds ofnoxious weeds intercepted at U.S. ports of entrybetween October 1987 and mid-July 1990 occurredin baggage (106). The ultimate fate oforganisms entering in baggage is unknown, but itis likely some have been grown or otherwisereleased by their owners. For example, Asianwater spinach (Ipomoea aquatica) is a Federalnoxious weed and a prohibited aquatic weedunder Florida State regulations. Yet, from 1979through 1990, Florida State officials recorded 20cases of illegal possession of seeds or deliberateplantings (83).Intentional importation and release for biologicalcontrol of pests has been a source of nonindigenousinsects, snails, fish, plant pathogens,and nematodes (12,26,53,82). Estimates are thata total of 722 non-indigenous insect species havebeen purposely introduced in the United States forbiological control of pests. Of these, 237 havebecome established (44). Since 1980, at least 6insect species have been newly introduced in thecountry for biological control (table 3-l). Insectsalso have been purposely released for plantpollination; researchers from the U.S. AgriculturalResearch Service working in Californiareleased several thousand mason bees (Osrniacornuta) from Spain in experimental tests from1976 to 1984 (96).During the late 1980s, two plant pathogenswere introduced for biological control: a nematode(Subanguina picridis) from Russia to controlRussian knapweed (Centaurea repens) and a rustfungus (Puccinia carduorum) from Turkey tocontrol musk thistle (Carduus nutans) (82). Twoillegal introductions of plant pathogens in 1990were a smut fungus (Ustilago esculenta), which isgrown on Manchuria rice (Zizania latifolia) toproduce edible galls, and the chrysanthemumwhite rust (Puccinia horiana), which is used byhobbyists to produce unusual flowers (82). Inboth cases of illegal introduction the infectedplants were located by authorities and subsequentlydestroyed (82).Although generally less common today than inthe past, State wildlife managers continue toimport and release non-indigenous birds for gamehunting. Between 1985 and 1988 the State ofMichigan imported 3,600 eggs of the Sichuanpheasant from China-a subspecies of the alreadyestablished ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus)(97). Like its predecessor, the bird isexpected to cause few problems; nevertheless, theSichuan’s broad habitat range and ‘‘unbelievableadaptability” (97) suggest its introduction shouldbe carefully evaluated.

3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 183The advent of containerized freight allows directintroduction of harmful non-indigenous speciesthroughout the country-instead of just at U.S.ports of entry.Intentional introductions of fishes from abroadalso are less common today, but continue still.The State of Texas tried unsuccessfully to introducethe Nile perch (Lates niloticus) and bigeyelates (Lates mariae) in 1979 and 1983, respectively(26). North Dakota recently proposed tointroduce the European zander (Stizostedion lucioperca),which critics feared might transmitdiseases to or hybridize with indigenous fish likethe walleye (S. vitreum) (28).Some non-indigenous clams and oysters havebeen intentionally imported and released forcommercial exploitation (12). Among these is thePacific oyster, imported from Japan, which nowis successfully grown and harvested in WestCoast bays from Washington to California (46).Recent proposals to transfer the Pacific oyster tothe East Coast have been controversial, and theintroduction has not occurred thus far (see ch. 7).ESCAPE OR RELEASE FROM CONFINEMENTSpecies imported to be held in captivity sometimessubsequently escape or are released. Often,determining which of the two has occurred isdifficult (i.e., whether the introduction is intentionalor accidental). For example, the source ofbighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobi!is) recentlyestablished in Mississippi is unclear. Somecontend it escaped from aquiculture facilities,while others believe it was illegally released inorder to establish free-living populations (27).Many plants and seeds of foreign origin aredirectly marketed in the United States, especiallyfor ornamental horticulture. Quarantine of importedspecies primarily guards against unintentionalimportation of insects, pathogens, andother pests, rather than the noxious qualities of theplant itself. Thus, specialized nurseries can offer‘‘ivies of the world’ (7), even though English ivy(Hedera helix) is known to cause ecologicaldamage in deciduous forests of the eastern UnitedStates.Significant numbers of non-indigenous plantshave escaped from human cultivation. Among the300 weed species of the western United States, atleast 28 escaped from horticulture and 8 fromagriculture (107). Baby’s breath (Gysophila elegans),foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), and creepingbellflower (Campanula rapunculoides) all arehorticultural species that become weeds outsideof gardens (107). Some 300 established nonindigenousplant species in California are escapeesfrom ornamental horticulture (68). Theseinclude a number of invasive weeds of nativevegetation, such as European gorse (Ulex europaeus),Andean pampas grass (Cortaderiajubata), and Scotch broom (68). A new addition isoleander (Nerium oleander), now well establishedalong the Sacramento River and in thenorthern Central Valley (14). The edible fig(Ficus carica), has recently escaped from agricultureand become established in some riparianwoodlands (14).Several NIS imported for medical diagnostic orresearch purposes have escaped in the past. Therecent spread of African honey bees (Apis melliferascutellata) to the United States was set inmotion by escape of bees from a research facilityin Brazil in 1957 (52). The giant tiger shrimp(Penaeus monodon), originally from the Indo-Pacific, escaped into South Carolina’s coastalwaters from the Waddell Research Facility in

84 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States1988 (19). The African clawed frog (Xenopuslaevis) was originally imported in the 1930s foruse in diagnostic pregnancy tests, but had establishedfree-living populations in California by1969 (69). The Asian Amur maple (Acer ginnala)-a potential weed of Midwestern natural areashasnow become common in woods and fieldssurrounding the Lincoln, Missouri, plant testingcenter of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, fromwhere it apparently escaped (36).A different kind of research introduction involvedpeanut (Arachis hypogaea) germ plasmimported from China in 1978 that was unknowinglycontaminated with the peanut stripe virus(82). In 1983, the virus was found in peanutbreeding lines at university experimental farmsfrom Texas to Virginia to Florida-it had inadvertentlybeen introduced by distribution of thediseased germ plasm to numerous researchers.Throughout a number of States, ranchers haveintroduced non-indigenous, big-game animalsonto private lands for ranching, to enhancehunting opportunities, or for other purposes. Themore than 450 members of the Exotic WildlifeAssociation combined own an estimated 200,000head of some 125 NIS (92). Many of the gameanimals are held in fenced enclosures, but someeventually escape. Indeed, a committee from theState of Wyoming considers such escapes ‘inevitable”(57). Texas has the highest numbers ofnon-indigenous big-game animals; in 1989 theState was home to l64,257 free-ranging animalsof 123 species (94). The State government,however, treats these animals as livestock and notas wildlife (94).About 23 percent of the vertebrate species offoreign origin that currently live in the wild wereoriginally imported as cage birds or other wildlifepets (95). Given the high U.S. rates of petimports-estimated to be hundreds of thousandsto millions of wild birds, aquarium fish, andreptiles annually (33,59)-the potential for petescapes and releases is great. Illegal importsfurther expand the total numbers and types oforganisms brought into the country. In one recentSnails commonly enter the United Statesunintentionally on plants or agricultural producebut the African giant snail (Achatina fulica) wassmuggled into the country and sold in Florida andVirginia pet stores.example, perhaps as many as hundreds of fistsizedAfrican giant snails (Achatina fulica) weresmuggled into the country from Nigeria and soldin Florida and Virginia pet stores (3,4).The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries andWildlife recently summarized the frequent reportsof pet escapes in that State (16), Escaped orrecovered pets in that State from 1988 through1992 included: a 20-pound crocodile (Caimancrocodiles); three Boa constrictors (Boa constrictor);a Nile monitor lizard (Varanus niloticus);several hundred birds (various species of cockatoos,cockatiels, parrots, parakeets, and macaws);three wallabies; a bobcat from Texas (Felisrufus); and nine European fallow deer (Damadama). Escaped monk and black-hooded parakeets(Myiopsitta monachus and Nandayus nen -day) are known to have established free-livingpopulations in the northeast (16). More anecdotalaccounts of escaped pets generally are common inthe popular press (2).Fish and aquatic invertebrates such as shrimpfrequently escape from confinement. The peacockcichlid (Cichla ocellaris) was intentionallystocked in Florida’s warm water canals during themid-1980s. It subsequently escaped (1 10), de-

3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 85spite detailed analysis by the State before stockingthat concluded the fish would remain limitedto the canals (81),The aquarium trade remains a significantpathway by which snails enter the United States.During the past few decades at least three snailspecies entered U.S. waters when they werediscarded by aquarium dealers or their customers(12). Some plants also are distributed for use inaquaria. Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), an aquaticweed that causes a significant navigation hazardand ecological harm, first entered U.S. waterssometime after 1956, it is thought, when it wasreleased by aquarium dealers to create a domesticsource (11 1). Release from aquaria was the sourceof at least 7 non-indigenous fish species that havebecome established since 1980 (27). Some werefound in remote natural areas, like the greenswordtail (Xiphophorus helleri) and zebra danio(Brachydanio rerio), which were discovered inthe 1980s living in warm springs of Grand TetonNational Forest (26). The aquarium fish trade isthought to be the source of at least 27 nonindigenousfish species now established in thecontinental United States (29).Pessimism about the ability to keep aquiculturespecies confined is so great that, according tosome, including the Federal interagency AquaticNuisance Species Task Force, species maintainedfor this purpose are virtually guaranteed ofeventually escaping to the wild (26,89,99). Potentiallyfree-living non-indigenous shrimp are grownin at least four coastal States (79), and thecommonly cultured Pacific white shrimp (Penaeusvannamei) was captured in 1991 off thecoast of South Carolina (1). Escape from aquiculturefacilities is thought to have been a majorsource of the many tropical aquarium species nowfound in Florida’s waters (29).If an NIS imported into confinement harborsany other species, these also may eventuallyescape. Escape from a fish aquiculture facility isthought to have been the source of the freshwatersnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) found in theSnake River in 1987 and now threatening indigenousmollusks in the region (12). Numerous fishpathogens and parasites have accompanied introductionsfor aquiculture and fishery enhancement(42). Five non-indigenous shrimp viruses enteredthe United States in contaminated shrimp stockand have become widely distributed in theaquiculture industry (60). Fish imported into theaquarium trade commonly harbor parasites. One1984 study of hundreds of fish shipped fromsoutheast Asia and South America found infestationrates of from 61 to 98 percent (90). Whetherand how many pathogens and parasites haveescaped from aquiculture facilities or aquaria isunknown.Present Pathways of Spread Within theUnited StatesMany NIS have continued to spread within theUnited States long after they entered and becameestablished, sometimes even after the pathway bywhich they entered the country was closed. Thisis true for European gypsy moth (Lymantriadispar) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria),which continue to spread and cause harmat new locations (figure 3-2). For such species, themeans of transport within the country is moreimportant from a management or regulatoryperspective than how they originally entered.Pathways of species movement within the countryalso are significant for U.S. species that havebeen transported beyond their natural ranges.However, there is relatively little quantitativeinformation about the pathways and rates ofspecies movement within the country. Systematicreporting of regional species transfers is virtuallynon-existent, In part this results from a definitionalinconsistency. Many resource managers donot consider U.S. species moved outside of theirnatural ranges to be non-indigenous. In somecases, particularly in fisheries management, adistinction is made between “exotic’ species(i.e., non-indigenous to the United States) and‘‘transplanted’ ones (i.e., species indigenous tothe United States but moved beyond their natural

I86 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesFigure 3-2-State by State Spread of Four Harmful Non-Indigenous Species40Purple loosestrife (Lythrurm salicaria) 1—Year■ 1900❑ 1940❑ 1985II I I I I1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) 2yYear■ 1939196019831870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990SOURCES:1. D.Q. Thompson, R.L. Stuckey, and E.B. Thompson, “Spread, Impact, and Control of Purple Loosestrife (Lyfhrurn sakada) in North AmericanWetlands (W-hington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and wildlife Service, 1987).2. C.L. Counts, Ill, “The Zoogeogra@y and History of the Invasion of the United States by Corbicu/a Wnhea (Bivalvia: Corbiculidae), AmericanMa/aco/cgica/Bu//efin,Speciai Edition No. 2, 1986, pp. 7-39.

3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions I 87Figure 3-2—State by State Spread of Four Harmful Non-Indigenous Species-Continued40 ,European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) 3 /30 ‘5{18701890 1910 1930 19501970 199040 ,.— t-\Common crupina (Crupina vulgaris) 430 !a> —Iz 15105 ’Year■ 1969% 1991o I1870F---

88 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesranges) (66). Introduction dates are largely unrecordedfor most transplanted fish (26). Systematicreporting also is lacking for continued restockingof NIS already established in an area or of newintroductions of NIS in common use elsewhere inthe United States. Several generalizations can bemade despite these limitations.UNASSISTED SPREADOnce established, some NIS of foreign origindisperse even in the absence of human activities.Few geographic barriers block the transcontinentalexpansion of some NIS, like the African honeybee and Asian tiger mosquito. The American elmbark beetle (Hylurgopinus rufipes) can be a vectorof Dutch elm disease (Ceratocystis ulmi) (56).Plants like the Brazilian pepper tree (Schinusterebinthifolius) in Florida have been spread bywildlife that consume the tree’s seeds (1 11). Therange of certain fish parasites has expanded asinfected fish have migrated within and betweenwatersheds (42).Natural disasters provide new opportunities forthe establishment of certain NIS. The 1992passage of Hurricane Andrew through Floridaknocked down indigenous trees, spurring thegrowth of non-indigenous vines in some naturalareas; State officials fear this ‘‘window of opportunity’may result in permanent domination ofcertain indigenous plant communities by NIS(45). A similar situation exists in Hawaii, whereHurricane Iniki in 1992 cleared the way forexpansion of several harmful plants like bananapoka (Passiflora mollissima) (37). A recentaquatic example is the explosive populationgrowth by an Asian clam (Potamocorbula amurensis)in San Francisco Bay following a major floodthat eliminated other species more vulnerable toreduced salinity (75).UNINTENTIONAL AND INTENTIONAL PATHWAYSIn contrast to these unassisted types of spread,a significant number of NIS expand throughoutthe United States via pathways associated withhuman activities. Some of these are the samepathways that bring new species into the country,like ballast water (71). Others are unique to thedomestic movement of species, such as thereleases of non-indigenous bait animals like thesheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegates) andthe Asian clam (12,26).A number of these domestic pathways arelinked to national distribution systems that enablea NIS to become widely disseminated and introducedmany times throughout the country. Suchmultiple introductions speed NIS dispersal andhave significant consequences for the choice ofappropriate management strategies (see ch. 5).Species that are sold commercially, for example,have great potential to be transported throughouta broad geographic area. Commercial distributionin the 19th century seed trade aided thespread of at least 28 non-indigenous weeds,including several of the nation’s worst weeds, likeJohnson grass (Sorghum halepense), salt cedar(Tamarix africana and T. gallica), water hyacinth(Eichhornia spp.), and kudzu (62,64). Sales ofharmful non-indigenous plants continue today. Atleast six non-indigenous plant species on theFederal noxious weed list-hydrilla, for exampleweresold in interstate commerce in 1990 (105).Of Illinois’s 35 weeds of natural areas, 21 arelegally sold in the nursery trade throughout theState (85). Seed of both federally and State-listednoxious weeds+. g., animated oats (Avena sterilis)and dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria-currentlycan be bought at retail stores in Washington State(65).Species recommended for specific applicationscan become widely distributed. Various agenciesand organizations currently recommend a numberof invasive plants. At least seven cultivars releasedby the U.S. Soil Conservation Servicesince 1980 are potentially invasive, according toone weed expert (65). Other examples of recommendedspecies include: autumn olive (Elaeagnusumbellata), a plant that displaces indigenousvegetation in natural areas of the Midwest, by theArmy Corps of Engineers; sawtooth oak (Quercusserrata), an Asian tree currently invading

3-The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions! 89southeastern forests, by the South Carolina Departmentof Fish and Game; and leuceana (Leucaenaleucocephala), a rapidly growing tree fromCentral America that invades disturbed lowlandsin Hawaii, by the Arbor Day Foundation (77).Current popular interest in “wildflowers” forornamental uses and ‘‘native grasses” for livestockand wildlife forage (86) may inadvertentlybe fueling widespread planting of NIS in naturaland semi-natural areas. In one 1992 “wildflower’seed catalog, only about 60 percent of thelisted species were indigenous, and at least 80percent of the NIS listed have escaped cultivationin the United States—plants like cornflower(Centaurea cyanus), crimson clover (Trifoliumincarnatum), and dame’s rocket (Hesperis matronalis),all originally from Europe ( 109). Plantsmarketed as ‘‘native grasses’ in seed catalogssometimes are non-indigenous and may even beknown to be potentially invasive, like Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), Russian wild rye(Psathyrostachys junceus), and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli var.frumentacea) (65,87,108).Non-indigenous plants, including both thosesold in the horticultural trade and known weeds,find their way into natural areas through variouspathways. Rock Creek National Park in theDistrict of Columbia now has 33 invasive NIS,some of which spread from adjacent gardens orlandscape plantings; rooted from discarded yardrefuse; entered as seed in topsoil, root balls,riprap, and lawn-legume mixtures; or were carriedin by animals (39). Garlic mustard (Alliariapetiolata), a weed of natural areas, was frostrecorded in Illinois in 1918. It has since spreadthroughout 42 counties in the State, carried byflood waters; automobiles; trains; mowers; andthe boots, clothes, and hair of hikers (76).Numerous highly damaging weeds, such ascheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and spottedknapweed (Centauraea maculosa), were spreadas contaminants of agricultural seed before theenactment of seed purity laws early in this century(9). The extent to which contamination of seedcurrently not covered by these laws, such asflower seed, is a pathway for harmful NIS isunknown,Shipments of live plants can also inadvertentlyharbor NIS. A 1989 survey found that cabbage(Brassica oleracea) seedlings transported to NewYork from Georgia, Maryland, and Florida wereinfested with an average of up to eight larvae ofthe diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) perhundred plants (88). A tree frog (Hyla cinerea), ananole (Anolis spp.), and a scarlet kingsnake(Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides) were someof the finds in recent plant shipments to Massachusetts(16). The high volume of traffic innursery stock and landscaping plants is thought toplay an important role in moving non-indigenousinsects throughout the United States (53). Between1989 and 1992, three of the six nonindigenousinsect species from elsewhere in theUnited States that became established in Californiaarrived on plants (35).Inadvertent transfers of animals can occurwhen plants are transplanted for restoration orwildlife enhancement. In 1957, shoal grass (Diplantherawightii) was shipped from Texas to theCalifornia Salton Sea to provide waterfowl forage.The plants carried a number of aquaticinvertebrates (like the crustaceans Gammarusmucronatus and Corophium louisianum), whichsubsequently became established there (19).Agricultural produce shipped interstate sometimesharbors non-indigenous pests. This is thebasis for many of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’sdomestic quarantines. 2 Some of the costlyinfestations of Mediterranean fiuit flies (Ceratitiscapitata) in California might have originated intropical produce sent via frost-class mail fromHawaii (91). A recent cooperative warrant systemfor inspection of first-class mail between Hawaiiand the mainland has reduced such pest transfers,although not in other areas of the country.27 CFR 301.

90 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesStates frequently stock non-indigenous fish to enhancesport fisheries, and this has been an importantpathway for the entry and spread of non-indigenousspecies historically.Various animals are available through the mailfor wildlife enhancement nationwide, includingwater fleas (Daphnia spp.), freshwater shrimp,crayfish, fresh water clams, turtles, and bull frogs(108); whether these species are non-indigenousin some regions where they are marketed isimpossible to determine, since species names arenot always listed. The 1989 “Buyer’s Guide” inAquiculture Magazine lists 82 species of freshwaterand marine fish, invertebrates, and algaeavailable for sale in the United States (20). Salesof the European fish the rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus)for use as bait eventually resulted inits capture in eight States (13).Interstate shipments of fish and wildlife sometimesharbor NIS other than the intended species.Reported incidents include inadvertent introductionsto California of the Texas big-scale logperch(Percina macrolepida) and rainwater killifish(Lucania parva) from New Mexico with shipmentsof largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)(73). The distribution of the sticklebacks(Gasteosteus aculeatus) in regions of SouthernCalifornia where it is non-indigenous maybe dueto its unintended presence in trout stocks used toenhance sport fisheries (73). Fish shipped interstatesometimes carry larvae of freshwater mussels(Anodonta spp.) (93). Containers of thePacific oyster from California to the East Coast in1979 contained numerous stowaway mussels,worms, and crustaceans (19). A fish parasite, theAsian copepod Argulus japonicus, is thought tohave spread throughout the country via theaquarium trade (71).Indigenous and non-indigenous insects, snails,and fish have been transferred within the UnitedStates for biological control (12,53). Since the1970s, the non-indigenous snail Rumina decollatahas been raised, sold, and distributed throughoutan estimated 50,000 acres of citrus groves inCalifornia as a biological control for non-indigenoussnail pests (38). The grass carp, originallyfrom Asia, has been widely propagated and soldfor biological control of aquatic weeds (26).Although largely unmonitored today, interstateshipments of biological control agents are apotential source of insect pathogens and parasites;according to an expert on the species, thewasp Perilitus coccinellae, a parasite of theindigenous convergent lady beetle (Hippodamiaconvergent) already is spread in this reamer (5 1).In international transit, by contrast, such pestswould probably be intercepted through inspectionand quarantine.Interstate transfers of honey bee (Apis mellifera)colonies inadvertently facilitated the rapidspread of honey bee parasites (varroa mites—Varroa jacobsoni—and tracheal mites—Acarapis woodi) (74). According to a 1982survey, about a quarter of all commerciallyoperated colonies (500,000) are moved southeach winter to prevent losses from the cold, andabout 2 million colonies are rented each year forpollination. The result is large-scale movementsof colonies throughout the country that helpedspread the damaging varroa mite to 30 States injust 4 years following its 1987 detection inFlorida and Wisconsin (74). The honey beeindustry has concerns that such interstate transfersmay similarly enable rapid spread of theAfrican honey bee which recently arrived inTexas (74).

3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 91Researchers working on NIS have been thesource of several introductions throughout thecountry. The rapid spread of the Asian clam, aserious fouler of pipes in power plants, is thoughtto have been assisted by inadvertent researchreleases (25). The California sea squirt (Botrlloidesdiegense, a marine animal) was released by ascientist at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, in 1972and is now an abundant fouler of rocks, piers, andboat hulls throughout southern New England(19). Plant breeders regularly trade germ plasmfor breeding purposes-some from potentiallyinvasive species. One reported having acquiredthe salt- and drought-tolerant ruby salt bush(Enchylaeua tomentosa), originally from Australia)“from a nursery in Tucson who got it fromSoil Conservation Service, who decided not toofficially release it since it was such a potentialpest, which it is” (8).Even shipments of inanimate objects andvehicles can harbor NIS. The European gypsymoth can travel long distances clinging to householdarticles, lawn furniture, firewood, lawnmowers, and recreational vehicles such as motorhomes, campers, and boats (32). Since 1984,California border inspectors have interceptedimported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta and S.ritcheri) along State lines, in decreasing order offrequency, in nonagricultural shipments (e.g.,pallets, roofing materials, carpets); empty trucks;agricultural shipments; automobiles; U-Hauls;and nursery stock (58). At least 3,000 Japanesebeetles (Popillia japonica) were found in cargoplanes landing at Ontario, California, from theeastern United States in 1986 (34). The Asiancockroach (Blattella asahinai) has spread inFlorida mainly by hitching rides on cars leavinginfested areas (72). The tiny Argentine ant(Iridomyrmex humilis)--an inadvertent 1906 introductionto New Orleans-has dispersed widelyby way of the dirt on truck mud flaps, among othermeans (23).Dumped ballast water, known to be a significantpathway for harmful introductions fromSeveral harmful non-indigenous species havehitchhiked into the country with returning militaryequipment, e.g., the brown tree snake (Boigairregulars), witchweed (Striga asiatica), and thegolden nematode (Globodera rostochiensis).Similarly, motor homes, automobiles, and boats helpspread harmful NIS within the United States.abroad, has also provided a means for speciesspread within the country. Since 1980, at leastthree NIS entered the Great Lakes from other U.S.locales in ballast water: the four-spine sticklebacksfish (Apeltes quadracus), an aquatic worm (Ripistesparasitic), and a green alga (Nitellopsisobtusa) (71). In the absence of effective control orcontainment, the ruffe-a harmful Eurasian fish(see ch. 2)--is expected to spread via ships’ballast and other means perhaps are far as theOhio, Mississippi, and Missouri River drainagebasins (43).HOW MANY NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIESARE THERE?Finding:Estimated numbers of NIS in the UnitedStates increased over the past 100 years for allgroups of organisms OTA examined. At leastseveral thousand non-indigenous insect andplant species occur in this country, as doseveral hundred non-indigenous vertebrate,mollusk, fish, and plant pathogen species.cu)o >

92 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 3-2-Estimated Numbers of Non-indigenous Species in the United States aSpecies with origins outside of the United StatesPercentage of total species inCategory Number the United States in categoryPlants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >2,000 bTerrestrial vertebrates . . . . . . . . . 142 =6%Insects and arachnids . . . . . . . . . >2,000 =2%Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 =8%Mollusks (non-marine) . . . . . . . . . 91 =40/0Plant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 -PTotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,542Species of U.S. origin introduced beyond their natural rangesPercentage of total species inCategory Number the United States in categoryPlants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b bTerrestrial vertebrates . . . . . . . . . 51 =2%Insects and arachnids . . . . . . . . .bFish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 =17% cMollusks (non-marine) . . . . . . . . . b bPlant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . b baNumbers should be considered minimum estimates, Experts believe many more NIS are established in the country,but have not yet been detected.Number or proportion unknown.percentage for fish is the calculated average percentage for several regions. Percentages for all other categories arecalculated as the percent of the total U.S. flora or fauna in that category.bCSOURCES: Summarized by the Office of Technology Assessment from: J.C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequencesof the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Freshwater, Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in the United States,” contractorreport prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991; W.R. Courtenay, Jr., “Pathways andConsequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes in the United States,” contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, September 1991; K.C. Kim and A.G. Wheeler, “Pathways and Consequences ofthe Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and Arachnids in the United States,” contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, December 1991; R.N. Mack, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction ofNon-indigenous Plants in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,September 1991; C.L. schoulties, ‘(Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous PlantPathogens in the United States, ’’contractor report prepared forthe Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991;S.A. Temple and D.M. Carroll, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Vertebrates in theUnited States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991.Current NumbersAn estimated total of at least 4,500 NIS offoreign origin presently are established in theUnited States (table 3-2). This estimate is basedon analysis of six categories of organisms,omitting several others such as animal pathogensand crustaceans (see ch. 2, table 2-l). It also doesnot capture most marine species, like the majorityof the 96 species of sponges, worms, crustaceans,and other non-indigenous marine invertebratesnow found in San Francisco Bay (17). Also,numbers shown in table 3-2 are minimum estimatesfor each category. For example, about halfof the U.S. insect fauna is unknown, suggestinginformation on a similar proportion of nonindigenousinsects may be lacking (53). Studiesof plant pathogens focus on species of economicimportance; species affecting only natural areasare chronically under-reported (82). Newly establishedspecies that have not yet been detected alsodo not figure in table 3-2.Numbers of NIS vary among the categories.Plants and insects total in the thousands, whileNIS in other categories range from tens to

3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 93hundreds (table 3-2). This is at least in partbecause there simply are more plants and insectsthan fish or terrestrial vertebrates. Despite thesedifferences in absolute numbers, the proportion ofNIS is relatively constant among most categories,ranging from 2 to 8 percent.Origins of most plant pathogens are unknown,making evaluation of the contribution of NIS tothe current U.S. total difficult (82). A survey ofsix potential host plants (potato, rhododendron,citrus, wheat, Douglas fir, kudzu) found that anaverage of at least 13 percent of their pathogensare non-indigenous (82). Non-indigenous pathogensare least common on indigenous or newlyintroduced plant hosts (82).Very little information exists on how manyspecies of U.S. origin have been transplantedwithin the country beyond their natural ranges.Estimates are approximately 2 percent of the U.S.fauna for terrestrial vertebrates and 17 percent forfish (table 3-2).Past NumbersThe number of NIS of foreign origin has grownin the United States over the past 200 years.Figure 3-3 shows how the totals have expandedfor the six categories of organisms. The majorincrease occurred during the past 100 years for allcategories.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTIONFinding:Non-indigenous species are unevenly distributedacross the country. Higher concentrationsoccur around international ports ofentry, in areas of active commerce, and inaltered habitats. Nevertheless, NIS havingsignificant negative impacts can be found inmost regions of the country.Non-indigenous species are more common insome places than others. Differences occur bothamong States (table 3-3), and also among regionswithin individual States. Ports of entry oftenharbor high numbers of NIS. This is especiallytrue for plants, insects, snails, and slugs that arriveundetected in incoming ships and planes (12,53,63).The type of material arriving at a port influencesthe specific NIS that become established nearby.For example, numerous European insects werefrost detected in Rochester, New York, when thecity supported an extensive nursery industry andlarge numbers of plants were routinely unloadedthere (53).Existing patterns of higher densities of NISsurrounding port areas developed over the past200 years during colonization of the UnitedStates. The emergence of containerized freightsince the 1950s may change this pattern, sincefreight containers often are not unloaded untilreaching their destination well away from a port.Areas of frequent commerce away from portsalso tend to have higher numbers of NIS, Forexample, extensive agriculture and related tradeand shipping in the Intermountain West (northernUtah and the Columbia Plateau) over the past 100years have provided abundant opportunities forNIS associated with agriculture to enter andspread within the region (63).Certain NIS tend to cluster around humanpopulation centers. High concentrations of escapednon-indigenous pets occur around LosAngeles and Miami (95). Disproportionately highnumbers of non-indigenous snails and slugssimilarly occur in populous areas, reflecting theirassociation with greenhouses, gardens, and agriculturalcommerce (12). Areas, such as Hawaii,supporting human populations with internationalorigins tend to have larger numbers of NIS,because the species imported and released mirrorthe human population’s diversity of tastes andexperience (63).Urban centers often are an important site for thediscovery of non-indigenous insect pests. Forexample, in California 85 percent of nonindigenousscale insects and whiteflies were firstreported in cities (40). However, in this caseproximity to ports of entry and the enhanceddetection potential may also have been factors.Detection of NIS sometimes may be greater in

94 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesFigure 3-3-Estimates of the Cumulative Numbers of Non-indigenous Species of Foreign Originin the United States a1009010~ Plants pathogens /II Terrestrial vertebrates1790 1840 1890 1940 1990J D Mollusks Io Fish0 I I I I I1790 1840 1890 1940 19902 )0001,800 ■ Plantsu-l❑ Insects: 1,600a)% 1,400z ~ 1,200: 1,0002 800$ 6007 E 4008 200., -0 1 I I I 11790 1840 1890 1940 1990SOURCES: Summarized by the Office of Technology Assessmentfrom: J.C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction ofNon-Indigenous Freshwater, Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in theUnited States,” contractor report prepared forthe Office of TechnologyAssessment, October 1891; W.R. Courtenay, Jr., “Pathways andConsequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes in theUnited States, ’’contractor report prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, September 1991; K.C. Kim and A.G. Wheeler, “Pathwaysand Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects andArachnids in the United States,” contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, December 1991; R.N. Mack,“Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-IndigenousPlants in the United States,” contractor report prepared fortheoffice ofTechnology Assessment, September 1991; Sailer, R. I., “History ofInsect Introductions,” Exotk Plant PesCs and North Amerkm AgdIxJlture,C.L. Wilson and C.L. Graham (eds.) (New York, NY: AcdemicPress, 1983), pp. 15-38; C.L. Schoulties, “Pathways and Consequencesof the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant Pathogens in theUnited States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, December 1991; S.A. Temple and D.M. Carroll, “Pathwaysand Consequences of the Introduction of Non-IndigenousVertebrates in the United States,” contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, October 1991.aFigure only includes data on species with known introduction dates for plant pathogens (n = 188), terrestrial vertebrates (n = 100), mollusks (n =85), and fish (n= 68). Graphs for plants and insects are based on rough estimates.more densely populated areas simply becausecollection and observation intensity is higher(12,63).Regions naturally depauperate in fish and gamehave been the sites of numerous intentionalintroductions. A lack of indigenous game animalsin the arid State of Nevada prompted Statemanagers to introduce numerous species includingthe chukar partridge (Alectoris chukur), ringneckedpheasant, Himalayan snow cock (Tetraogallushimalayensis), and Rocky Mountain goat(Oreamnos americanus) (102). State agencieshave released many non-indigenous fish in theAmerican West for similar reasons, where 28percent of the current fish species are nonindigenousto the region (26).Intrinsic vulnerability to the establishment ofNIS varies among regions in complex ways. The

3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 95Table 3-3—Estimated Numbers of Non-Indigenous Species in Selected States abTerrestrialState Plants vertebrates MollusksAlaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 (12%)California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975 (16%Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =925 (27%)Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814 (28%)Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .cMassachusetts. ., . . . . . . . . .cMinnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .cNew Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 ( 6%)Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .cTexas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 ( 9%)Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580 (23%)Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 (17%)West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 (19%)Great Plains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 (13%)New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821 (29%)c(l%)c(2%)53 (6%)c(2%)c(l%)c(2%)c(2%)c(2%)c(2%)cc(2%)cc(2%)cc0 ( c )31 ( c )46 (19%)12 ( c )15 ( c )27 ( c )2 ( c )5 ( c )7 ( c )28 ( c )2 ( c )17 ( c )2 ( c )caNumbers should be considered minimum estimates. Experts believe many more NIS are established in the country,but have not yet been detected.bData reported as the number with percent of species in the State in parentheses. Includes only speciesnon-indigenous to the United States.c Number not reported in source material.SOURCES: Summarized by the Office of Technology Assessment from: J,C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequencesof the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Freshwater, Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in the United States, ” contractorreport prepared for OTA, October 1991; R.N. Mack, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction ofNon-Indigenous Plants in the United States,” contractor report prepared for OTA, September 1991; M. Rejmanek, C.D.Thomsen, and I.D. Peters, “Invasive Vascular Plants of California,” R.H. Graves and F. DiCastri (eds.), Biogeographyofkfediterrarrean h?vasiorw (Cambridge University Press); pp. 81-1 01; S.A. Temple and D.M. Carroll, “Pathways andConsequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Vertebrates in the United States,” contractor report prepared forOTA, October 1991. See also sources for tables 8-1, 8-5.ctropical and semi-tropical environments of Hawaiiand Florida are favorable to greater numbersof non-indigenous plants than climatically harsherregions experiencing winter frost and freezing(63). Escaped fish from aquiculture are morelikely to establish in the benign environment of“sun-belt” States, where warm temperaturesallow outdoor aquiculture year-round (26).Disturbed areas are particularly likely to havelarge numbers of NIS, as are human modifiedhabitats. For example, livestock increase disturbanceby trampling and grazing. In some rangelands,livestock create conditions unfavorable toindigenous grasses, allowing colonization bynon-indigenous plants (63).Combined effects of several of the abovefactors especially favor NIS. In New England,proximity to ports, extensive agriculture, andremoval of indigenous forests have created aregion where 29 percent of the plant species arenon-indigenous (63).Are Rates of Movement andEstablishment Increasing?Finding:OTA found no clear evidence that the ratesat which NIS are added from abroad to theNation’s flora and fauna have consistentlyincreased over the past 50 years. Instead, rateshave fluctuated widely over time in response toan array of social, political, and technologicalfactors.A common assertion is that rates of speciesmovement into the United States are increasingdramatically. OTA tested this by examining thenumbers of NIS added each decade over the past50 years for terrestrial vertebrates, fish, mollusks,

96 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 3-4-Number of New Species of Foreign Origin Established Per Decade a1940-1950 1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990Terrestrial vertebrates. . 3 11 13 3 bFish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 15 18 5 12Mollusks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 6 10 4Plant pathogens . . . . . . 3 5 4 16 7aNumbers should be considered minimum estimates. Experts believe many more NIS are established in the country, but have not yet been detected.bData unavailable.SOURCES:J.C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Freshwater, Terrestrial, and Estuarfne Mollusks in theUnited States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, October 1991; W.R. Courtenay, Jr., “Pathways andConsequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of T~hnologyAssessment, September 1991; C.L. schoulties, “PathwaysandConsequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant Pathogens in the UnitedStates,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991; S.A. Temple and D.M. Carroll, “Pathways andConsequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Vertebrates in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, October 1991.and plant pathogens. No consistent increaseoccurred for any of the categories (table 3-4).Instead, the rate of NIS addition fluctuated. Thegreatest numbers of terrestrial vertebrates and fishwere added during the 1950s and 1960s. The1970s saw the most mollusks and plant pathogensarrive. A limitation of this analysis is that recentlyestablished species may not yet be detected. Thusnumbers for the period 1980 to 1990 are likelyunderestimates.Suitable data for comparable analyses of plantsand insects are unavailable. However, a previousstudy of agricultural pests (insects and otherinvertebrates) in California showed the numbersof species established each year similarly variedgreatly between 1955 and 1988 from zero to ahigh of 17 (figure 3-4) (34).Even though rates of species addition tend tochange over time, it is important to note that theyrarely reach zero. NIS are continually being addedto the nation’s flora and fauna, and the cumulativenumbers are climbing (figure 3-3). Also, ratesthroughout the 20th century have been consistentlyhigher than those during the precedingcentury.FACTORS AFFECTING PATHWAYS ANDRATESPathways and rates of species entry to theUnited States vary because they are influenced bymany factors (table 3-5). Many pathways thatwere significant sources of NIS in the past haveeither declined in importance or ceased to operate.Such pathways, nevertheless, frequently are mentionedin discussions of NIS and can confuseattempts to identify present-day problems (boxes3-B and 3-C).Some technological innovations enhance introductionrates. For example, the advent of commercialair traffic in the 1930s greatly facilitatedthe transport of small birds and fish that previouslyhad been difficult to keep alive and healthyon longer voyages (67,95). It had a similar effecton the successful number of insect introductionsfor biological control (44).Other new technologies have slowed rates.Many important weeds, such as tumbleweed(Salsola iberica), entered and spread throughoutthe United States as contaminants of agriculturalseed in the 1700s and 1800s (63). Improvementsin threshing and harvesting machinery beginningin the 1800s decreased seed contamination (63).Changing fashions in species preferences candrive importation, especially of organisms valuedfor their aesthetic qualities. Preferences for pottedplants in Hawaii support an active illicit commercein NIS from other tropical and subtropicalareas (112). Rates of introduction of aquaticsnails accelerated during the 1970s, apparentlybecause of expansion of the aquarium trade andrenewed interest in freshwater aquiculture (12).Some preferences relate to patterns of human

3-The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 97Figure 3-4-Numbers of New Insect and Other Invertebrate Species Established in California 1955-19881816- -+- Number new species14-12-10-8-6-A4-Aa2-0 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 w 1 I m I 11955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990SOURCE: R.V. Dowel] and R. Gill, “Exotic Invertebrates and Their Effeots on California,” Pan-Par#f/c fntomcdogis~ vol. 65, No. 2,1989, pp. 132-145.immigration; increased immigration to Californiafrom Asia since the 1970s has led to growingimportation of Asian foods and associated pests(34).Political and economic factors are also significant.The location and size of military actionsdetermine their potential for species transfer.Several agricultural pests returned from Europewith military cargo and supplies following WorldWar II. Several aquatic invertebrates from southeastAsia are thought to have entered lagoons andbays of California during the Vietnam War (18).State and Federal plant quarantine laws slowedrates of introduction of insect pests and plantpathogens after 1912 (80,82). A reversal of thistrend for plant pathogens after 1970 (figure 3-3;table 3-4) may relate to globalization of agricultureand increased plant imports (82). The FederalSeed Act, diminished the flow of weed speciesinto the United States that previously had enteredas seed contaminants.Actions of interested constituencies can havean effect insofar as they influence laws andregulations restricting species flow. Conferences,position statements, and other activities of theAmerican Fisheries Society since 1969 helpedmotivate States to regulate releases of nonindigenousfish (26,55). Conversely, effectivelobbying by the Pet Industry Joint AdvisoryCouncil helped halt Federal efforts to tightenregulation of fish and wildlife imports during the1970s (26) (see also box 4-A).Finally, the “bias of opportunity” (63)-thearbitrary aspect of where pathways happen toappear-always plays a role. For the past 30 yearsor more, the primary pathway for aquatic speciesinto the Great Lakes has been through shipping—corresponding to the opening of the St. LawrenceSeaway in 1959(71). As the shipping industry hasgrown in this region, so too has the number of NISintroductions; shipping was the pathway for 29NIS introduced between 1960 and 1990 (71).Construction of roads into new areas similarlyincreased the opportunity for species movement.Urbanization around Tucson, Arizona, contributedto an increase in the non-indigenous plantsestablished in the area between 1909 and 1983,from 3 to 52 species (63).HOW MANY IS TOO MANY?Finding:In the United States, the total number ofharmful NIS and their cumulative impacts willcontinue to grow. An important question is

98 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesInnovationSwitch from dry to wet ballast in 1800sIncreased rate of transit via steam ships and airplanesImprovements in threshing and harvesting machineryStyrofoam coolersContainerized shipping of freightImportation of used tires for retreadingSocial or political factorNew patterns of immigration and tourismWars and military movementsGlobalization of tradeFree trade agreementsIncreased interest in exotic petsContinued interest in new ornamental plantsSOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.Table 3-5-Factors Affecting Species MovementsIllustrative Technological InnovationsEffectIllustrative Social and Political FactorsChanged from transport of insects, seeds, and plantpathogens to transport of fish and invertebratesIncreased survival of insects, mammals, birds, and fish duringtransfer; increased success of introductionsDecreased contamination of seed lots and entry and spread ofweedsincreased number of fish species amenable to transfer andtheir survivalCreated new mechanism for unintentional transfer of plant,insect, snail, and slug species; direct route to country interior(i.e., away from shipping port)Created new pathway for entry of mosquitoesEffectChange pathways for spread of speciesCreate new pathways for species spreadCreate new pathways for species spreadIncrease opportunity for species entryAffect kind and number of species imported in the pet tradeProvide incentive for continued plant exploration andimportationwhether there are limits to the acceptable totalburden of harmful species in the country. Suchlong-term considerations need to be incorporatedinto shorter term regulatory decisions,for example, in determining the annual level ofspecies entry that will be tolerated.Even at current rates of species introduction,the total number of NIS in the United States willcontinue to grow. More than 205 NIS of foreignorigin have been introduced or first detected in theUnited States since 1980, 59 of which are expectedto cause economic or environmental harm(table 3-l). Past and projected losses attributableto just two of these are great. The Russian wheataphid caused losses of over $600 million (1991dollars) during 1987 through 1989 (24). Projectedlosses from the zebra mussel by the end of thecentury are expected to be from $1.8 billion to$3.4 billion (1991 dollars) (24). Both the zebramussel and the newly arrived snail Potamopyrgusantipodarum from Europe are expected to seriouslythreaten the country’s unique indigenousfauna of freshwater mussels (12).Numbers of species new to the United Statesgive only a partial account of how many new NISa given State or area may need to deal with. Forexample, between 1984 and 1986, an earlydetection program identified 26 plant species newto Idaho; 12 of these were new to the PacificNorthwest, but only one was new to NorthAmerica (1 13). Of 208 invertebrate pests thatbecame established in California between 1955and 1988,47 percent originated somewhere in themainland United States (34).Even some harmful NIS long-established in thecountry continue to spread (figure 3-2), takingseveral decades or more to reach their fullgeographic range and impact. Dutch elm diseaseonly reached Sacramento County, California, in

3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions 99Box 3-B-importations for Fish and Wildlife Management Have DecreasedSpencer Fullerton Baird, the First Commissioner of the U.S. Fish Commission (a predecessor of the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service) strongly supported introductions of non-indigenousspecies to enhance U.S. fishery resources. Numerous species were imported or transferred across the countryand released under his administration. However, introductions of new non-indigenous fish from abroad have lostfavor among fisheries managers over the past two decades.Proposals today are more Iikely to raise controversy than in the past. A recent proposal by the State of NorthDakota to introduce the European zander (Stizostedion lucioperca) engendered considerable controversy amongother States and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the potential for disease transmission and hybridizationwith the indigenous walleye. As introductions of foreign origin decline, transfers of indigenous or establishednon-indigenous fish to new locales within the United States have increased and probably will continue to do so.A similar pattern holds for introductions of terrestrial vertebrates. Wide support existed for introductions ofspecies from abroad in the past. Numerous private organizations purposely imported and released wildlife species.For example, the Brooklyn Institute successfully introduced the house sparrow (Passer domesticus) in the 1850s,and the Cincinnati Acclimatization Society did the same for 20 additional bird species in the 1870s. The U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service’s program in foreign game investigations introduced at least 32 new game species fromabroad between 1948 and 1970.The importation and release of new game species by State managers has declined over the past fewdecades. This has resulted from a decrease in perceived need and greater awareness of potential risks, ratherthan from Federal legislation or regulation and could revert should prevailing attitudes change. At the same time,rates of importation by private individuals and game ranchers have increased. Also, NIS already established inthe United States continue to be propagated and introduced at new locations, and interstate transfers ofindigenous species are on the rise.SOURCES: W.R. Courtenay, Jr. “Pathways and Coneequenoes of the Introduction of Non-indigenous Fishea in the United States,”contractor report prepared for ths Offke of Technology Assessment, September 1991; S.A. Temple and D.M. Carrotl, “Pathways andConeequenc8s of the Introduction of Non-indigenous Vertebrates in the United States,’t contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, October 1991.1990, although it was first detected in the United Summed effects of a single harmful species canStates in 1930 (15). Imported fire ants became be staggering over periods of decades. Theestablished in Alabama between 1918 and 1945, European gypsy moth has been defoliating treesbut only began being intercepted along California in a growing area of the eastern United States forborders in 1984-39 to 66 years later (58). at least 120 years (50). In 1990, despite aMoreover, the harmful impacts of a NIS in a suppression program costing approximately $20given State or region can also grow as its million, it defoliated an estimated 7.4 milliondistribution and abundance increase. The paper acres (100).bark tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia), originally Affected sectors face not just newly introducedintroduced into Florida in 1906, has spread species, but all those which arrived before andexplosively across the State since the 1960s (49). proved impossible to eradicate. American agriculturealone must deal with at least 235 econom-The predicted range expansion of lea.& spurge(Euphorbia esula) in Montana, Wyoming, and the ically significant insect pests that are nonindigenousto the United States (80). Planning forDakotas between 1990 and 1995 is expected tocost an additional $32 million due to diminished the future will require assessing not just howgrazing capacity (6).many new introductions will be tolerated each

100 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 3-C-Dry Ballast Has Ceased to be a PathwayShips arriving in the United States used to carry dry ballast in the form of rocks, soil, and debris. The ballastwas loaded abroad then off-loaded around wharves in the United States to provide cargo space. By one estimate,1,180 tons of ballast were loaded onto ships bound for America at just one English port in 1815.Ballast shipped between England and the United States was one of the most significant sources ofunintentional insect introductions until the 1880s. it also was the pathway for many plants, including purpleIoosestrife (Lythfum salicaria) which now occurs throughout many northern and Midwestern States and causessignificant harm to natural areas. increasing commerce with South America after the Civil War, and consequentballast shipments, led to the introduction of several pests including fire ants (Solenopsis invicta and S. richteri),southern mole crickets (Scapteriscus acletus), and tawny mole crickets (S. vicinus).Large modern ships use water for ballast instead of dry materials like soil and rock Thus, the dry ballastpathway has closed. Fire ants discovered in Mobile, Ala-in 1941 are thought to be the last important pestconveyed by this route. The switch from dry to wet ballast accounts, in part for the current prominence of the latteras an unintentional pathway for aquatic species entry.SOURCES: RJ. Sailer, “History of Ineeot Introductkm,” EkottcP/anfFWsa r?dNorthAmudcan A@cdturu, C.L. Wilson and C.L. Graham(eds.) (New YorlG NY: Academic Press, 1SS3), pp. 15-SS; K.C. Kim and AQ. Wheeler, Wathwaya and Consequence of the Introductionof Non-Indigenous Insecb and Amchnids in the United States:’ ccmtraotw report prepared for the office of T~ology Assessment,Deoember 1991.year, but whether there are limits to the cumulativeburden of harmful NIS as well.CHAPTER REVIEWThis chapter traced the pathways-foreign anddomestic, intentional and unintentional-by whichnon-indigenous species arrive in U.S. locales.Some pathways remain open at all times. Thenature and relative importance of other pathwayschange with time and technology. Combined,they allow sizable numbers of new ham-did NISto flourish here. More than 205 NIS of foreignorigin were introduced or frost detected in theUnited States since 1980, and 59 are expected tocause economic or environmental harm. Thesewill join the more than 4,500 foreign NIS alreadyhere, a number that is certainly an underestimate.Given that the United States faces increasingnumbers and costs of harmful MS, OTA nextturns to the technical questions surrounding theirmanagement and control.

3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions I 101Table 3-l-Some Species of Foreign Origin Introduced or First Detected In the United StatesFrom 1980 to 1993Common name Scientific name Pathway a Harmful bPlants (9)Corn bromeEarly milletFeather-head knapweedForked fernJapanese dodderLepyrodiclisLittle lovegrassPoverty grassSerrated tussockBromus squarrousMilium vernaleCentaurea trichocephalaDicranopteris flexuosaCuscata japonicaLepyrodiclis holosteoidesEragrostis minorSporobolus vaginiglorusNassella trichotomaSeed contaminantStowaway in packingEscaped ornamental or stowaway inpacking materialUnassisted spreadSeed contaminantSeed contaminantSeed contaminant materialStowaway of commerceSeed contaminantYes—Yes—Yes———YesInsects and arachnlds c (158)African honey beeAmbrosia beetleAmbrosia beetleAmbrosia beetleAnobiid beetleAnobiid beetleAntAntAntAphidApple ermine mothApple pith mothApple suckerAsh whiteflyAsian cockroachAsian gypsy mothAsian tiger mosquito (forest daymosquito)Avocado miteBahamian mosquitoBaileyana psyllidBanana mothBark beetleBark beetleBark beetleBark beetleBark beetleBark beetleBark beetleBeach flyBlack parlatoria scaleBlow flyBlue gum psyllidBostrichid beetleBurrower bugCactus mothCactus mothCarabid beetleApis mellifera scutellata dXyleborus pelliculosusXyle/borus atratusAmbrosbdmus IewisiLasioderma haemorrhoidalePriobium carpiniPheidole tenetiffanaTechnomyrmex albipesGnamptogenys aculeaticoxqeGreenidia formosanaYpnomeuta malinellusBlastodacna atraPsylla maliSiphoninus phyllyreaeBlattella asahinaiLymantra dispar d eAedes albopictusOligonychus persaeAedes bahamensisAcizzia acaciae-baileyanaeOpogona sacchariPityogenes bidentatusChramesus variusPseudothysanoes securigerusCoccotrypes robustusCoccotrypes vulgarisTheoborus solitaricepsAraptus dentifronsProcanace dianneaeParlatona ziziphiChrysomya megacephalaCtenarytaina eucalyptiHeterobosfrychus hamatipennisAethus nigritusCactobiastis cactorumOzamia IucidalisTrechus discusEscape from research facility thenspread to U.S.———————Stowaway on plantsStowaway on pIantsStowaway on ship or planeStowaway on shipStowaway in used tiresStowaway on plants—Stowaway on plantsStowaway on plantsNursery stock——Stowaway on plantsIntroduced outside of U.S. thenspread into countryStowaway on plants———Yes—————————YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes—YesYes————————YesYesYes——Yes——(continued on next page)

102 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 3-l-ContinuedCommon name Scientific name Pathway a Harmful bCase-bearer mothCase-bearer mothClick beetleCockroachCockroachCockroachCockroachCockroachCollembolanDelphacid planthopperDelphacid planthopperDermestid beetleDusky cockroachEuropean barberry fruit maggotEuropean violet gall midgeEuropean yellow underwing mothEucalyptus longhorn borerEucalyptus psyllidEugenia psyllidEulophid waspFlea beetleflea beetleflower flyFlower flyForest cockroachFuchsia miteGreen wattle psyllidGround beetleGround beetleGround beetleGround beetleGround beetleGuava fruit flyHairy maggot blow flyHoney bee miteHoney bee varroa miteLady beetleLady beetleLady beetleLady beetleLady beetleLauxaniid flyIeaf beetleLeafhopperLeafhopperLichen mothLonghorn beetleMealybugMediterranean mint aphidColeophora deauratellaColeophora culutellaAnchastus augustilschnoptera bilunatalschnoptera noxEpilampra mayaNeoblattella detersaSymplooe morseiXenylla affiniformisDelphacodes fulvidorsumSogatella kolophonAnthrenus pimpinellaeEctobius IapponicusRhagoletis meigeniiDasineura affinisNoctua pronubaPhoracantha semipunctataCtenarytaina sp.Trioza eugensaeTetrastichus haitiensisLongitarsus IuridusChaetocnema concinnaSyritta flaviventrisEristalinus taeniopsEctobius sylvestrisAculops fuchsiaeAcizzia nr. jucundaHarpalus rubripesTrechus quadristriataNotiophilus biguttatusBembidion properansBembidion bruxellenseBactrocera (=Dacus) correctaChrysomya rufifaclesAcarapis woodiVarroa jaoobsoniDecadiomus bahamicusHarmonia quadripunctataHarmonia axyridisStethorus nigripesScymnus suturalisLyciella roddaChrysolina fastuosaEupteryx atropunctataGrypotes puncticollisLycomorphodes sordidaTetrops praeustaAllococcus SP.Eucarazzia elegansStowaway on plantsStowaway on plants———————Stowaway on plantsStowaway on plants———Stowaway on plantsStowaway on plants into Nova Scotiathen spread to U.S.Stowaway in woodStowaway on plantsStowaway on plants—Stowaway on plantsStowaway on plants———Stowaway on plantsStowaway on plants—————Stowaway in fruitIntroduced outside of U.S. thenspread into country—————————Stowaway on plants———Stowaway on plantsStowaway on plantsYes—————————————Yes—YesYesYes——————YesYes—————YesYesYesYes————————————Yes

3-The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions I 103Common name Scientific name Pathway a Harmful bMegachilid beeMegachilid beeMiteMothMothMothMothNesting whiteflyNoctuid mothNoctuid mothPaper waspPeach fruit flyPepper tree psyllidPine shoot beetlePlant bugPlant bugPlant bugPlant bugPlant bugPlant bugPlant bugPlant bugPlant bugPlant bugPlant bugPlant bugPirate bugPoinsettia whitefly (sweetpotatowhitefly)Potter waspPotter waspPrivet sawflyPyralid mothRed clover seed weevilRhizophagid beetleRove beetleRove beetleRove beetleRove beetleRove beetleRove beetleRove beetleRove beetleRussian wheat aphidSawflySawflyScale predatorSeed bugSeed bugChelostoma campanularumChelostoma fuliginosumMelittiphis alveartusAgonopterix alstroemenanaGrapholita delineanaAthrips mouffetellaAthrips rancidellaParaleurodes mineiNoctua comesRhizedra IutosaPolistes domirrulusBactrocera (= Dacus) zonataCaiophya schiniTomicus piniperdaCeratocapsus nigropiceusPrepops cruciferusJobertus chrysolectrusPsallus IepidusOrthocephalus saltatorHyalopsallus diaphanusStheneridea vulgarisPsallus variabilisPsallus albipennisParacarnus cubanusProba hyalinaRhinocloa pallidipesBrachysteles parvicornisBemisia tabaci d fDelta campaniforme rendalliZeta argillaceumMacrophya punctumalbumHiieithia decostalisTychius stephensiRhizophagus parallelocollisGabrius astutoidesSunius melanocephalusOxypoda opacaHeterota plumbeaCoenonica puncticollisStaphylinus brunnipesStaphylinus similisTachinus rufipesDiuraphis noxiaLiliacina diversipesPristiphora aquilegiaeAnthribus nebulosusPlinthisus brevipennisChilacis typhaeStowaway in transported twigs andwoodStowaway in transported twigs andwoodStowaway on plantsStowaway on plants———Stowaway on plantsStowaway on plants into Canada thenspread to U.S.Stowaway on plants—Stowaway in fruitStowaway on plantsStowaway on dunnage———Nursery stock—Stowaway in tropical fruitStowaway in tropical fruitStowaway on plantsStowaway on plantsStowaway in tropical fruitStowaway in tropical fruit—————————————————Introduced outside of U.S. thenspread into country————————————————YesYesYes—————————————Yes——Yes———————————Yes—Yes———(continued on next page)

104 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 3-l-ContinuedCommon name Scientific name Pathway a Harmful bShore fly Placopsidella grandis Stowaway on ship —Shore fly Brachydeutera Iongipes Stowaway on aquatic plants —Siberian elm aphid Tlnocallis zelkowae Stowaway on plants —Spider Trochosa ruricola — —Spider Lepthyphantes tenuis ——Spider waspAuplopus carbonarius ——Spindletree ermine mothYponomeuta cagnagella Stowaway on plants YesSpruce bark beetle Ips typography Dunnage YesStink bug Pellaea stictica — —Tatarica honeysuckle aphid Hyadaphis tataticae Nursery stock YesThrips Thrips palmi Stowaway on plants YesTortoise beetle Aspidomorpha transparipennis Stowaway on plants —Tortoise beetle Metriona tuberculata Stowaway on plants —Tristania psyllid Ctenarytaina Iongicauda Stowaway on plants YesWeevil Amaurorhinus bewickianus — —Weevil Brachyderes incanus Nursery stock —Weevil Rhinoncus bruchoides — —Wood-boring wasp Xiphydria prolongata — —Wood-boring wasp Urocerus sah Stowaway on wood products —Wheat bulb maggot Delia coarctata — YesWaxflower wasp Aprostocetus sp. Stowaway on plants —Whitefly Tetraleurodes new sp. Stowaway on plants Yes— Rhagio strigosus — —— Rhagio tringarius — —(Numerous additional insects and arachnids have been intentionally introduced since 1980 for biological control of pests. Nonehave yet been shown to have harmful effects.)Fishes (13)Bighead carpHypophthalmichthys nobilisBlue-eyed cichlidCichlasoma spilurumEuropean ruffeGyrnnocephalus cernuusJaguar guapoteCichlasoma manaquenseLong tomStrongylura krefftiMayan cichlidCichlasoma urophthalmusRainbow kribPelviachromis pulcherRedstriped eartheaterGeophagus surinamensisRound gobyNeogobhis melanostomusTubenose gobyProterorhinus marmoratusZebra danioDanio redoYellowbelly cichlidCichlasoma salvini— Ancistrus sp.Illegal biological cmtrol introductionAquarium releaseBallast waterAquarium release—Aquarium releaseAquarium releaseEscape from aquacultureBallast waterBallast waterAquarium releaseAquarium releaseAquarium release——Yes——————————Mollusks (7)ClamClamSnailSnailSnailZebra musselZebra musselPotamocorbula amurensisTheora fragilisAlcadia striataPotamopyrgus antipodanumCernuella virgataDreissena polymorphaDreissena sp. gBallast waterBallast water—Contaminant of aquaculture stock thatsubsequently escaped—Ballast waterBallast waterYes——YesYesYesYesPlant pathogens (9)Blight (on chickpea)Citrus cankerAschochyta rabieiXanthomonas campestris pv. citriStowaway in infected seed—YesYes

3—The Changing Numbers, Causes, and Rates of Introductions I 105Common name Scientific name Pathway a Harmful bCorn cyst nematodeNeedle casteNematodePotato virus y-necrotic strain (n)Rust fungusRust fungus (on chrysanthemum)Smut (on rice)Other (9)Aquatic wormAquatic wormAsIan copepodChinese copepodGiant tiger shrimpJapanese crabJapanese copepodPacific white shrimpSpiny water fleaHeterodtera zeaeMycospaerella IaricinaSubanguina picridisPotyviridae (Potyvirus)Puccinia carduorumPuccinia horianaUstilago esculentaPhallodrilus aquaedulcisTenendrilus mastixPseudodiaptomus inopinusPseudodiaptomus forbesiPenaeus monodonHemigrapsus sanguineousPseudodiaptomus marinusPenaeus vannameiBythotrephes cederstroemi—Stowaway on infested larch (live orwood?)Biocontrol introductionInfected potatoesBiocontrol introductionSmuggled on infectedchrysanthemumSmuggled on infected riceBallast waterBallast waterBallast waterBallast waterEscape from research facilityBallast waterBallast waterEscape from aquicultureBallast wateraListed pathways are according to expert opinions. Often, it is impossible to determine with 100 percent certainty the pathway an NIS followed afterthe species has become established. A dash in this column indicates that the pathway by which the species entered the United States is unknown.Know to cause economic environmental, or other type of ham] (see ch, 2). A dash in this column indicates either there are no known harmfulbeffects or they have not yet been well documented.Where available, common names are those used officially by the Entomological Society of America,Thought t. be a new strain or subspecies of NIS already established in the United States.The exact origin of the Asian Gypsy moth is not yet known; some scientists believe it may be a different species than the established EuropeanCdegypsy moth. The Asian gypsy moth has also been referred to as the “Siberian” gypsy moth in the popular press.fThe pointsettia whitefly that recently caused great crop losses in southern California is considered by many to be a new strain of the sweet potatowhitefly which became established in the region several decades ago. Some, however, believe it is a new species.9 Recent genetic surveys of Great Lakes zebra mussels suggest a second species of Dreissena is also established there; however, its taxonomyremains unclear.SOURCES: Compiled by the Office of Technology Assessment, 1993 from: J.C. Britton, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction ofNon-Indigenous Freshwater, Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, October 1991; J.T. Carlton, “Dispersal of Living Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems as Mediated by Aquiculture and FisheriesActivities,” Dispersa/ofLivfng OrganisrnsirrtoAqua fic EC@ysbrrrs, A. Rosenfieldand R. Mann (eds.) (College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992),pp. 13-46; J.T. Carlton, “Marine Species Introductions by Ship’s Ballast Water: An Overview,” /n@ductions and Transfers ofkfarine Species, M.R.DeVoe (cd.) (Charleston, SC: South Carolina Sea Grant, 1992), pp. 23-29; J.T. Cariton and J.B. Geller, “Ecological Roulette: The Global Transportof Nonindigenous Marine Organisms,” Science, vol. 261, July 2, 1993, pp. 78-82; W.R. Courtenay, Jr. “Pathways and Consequences of theIntroduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, September 1991;W.R. Courtenay, Jr., Professor of Zoology, Florida Atlantic University, FAX to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, Apr. 13, 1993; R.V.Dowell, Entomologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, FAX to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, Apr. 12, 1993; R.V.Dowell, Entomologist, California Department of Food and Agriculture, personal communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment,May 28, 1993; Entomological Society of America, “Common Names of Insects and Related Organisms, 1989;” D.H. Habeck and F.D. Bennett,“Cactobkstis cactorurn Berg (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), a Phycitine New to Florida,” florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services, EntomologyCircular No. 333, August 1990; E.R. Hoebeke and A.G. Wheeler, “Exotic Insects Reported New to Northeastern United States and Eastern CanadaSince 1970,” New York Entomo/ogica/Society, vol. 91, No. 3,1983, pp. 193-222; E.R. Hoebeke, “Referenced List of Recently Detected Insects andArachnids,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, June 22, 1993; E.R. Hoebeke, “Pifyogerres biderrtatus (Herbst),a European Bark Beetle New to North America (Coleoptera: scolytidae),” J. New York Er?b-nobgical Society, vol. 97, No. 3, 1989, pp. 305-308; E.R.Hoebeke and W.T. Johnson, “A European Privet Sawfly, Macrophyapunctum8/bum(L.): North American Distribution, Host Plants, Seasonal Historyand Descriptions of Immature Stages (Hymenopteran: Tenthradinidae),” Proc. Entomo/. Soc. Wash., vol. 87, No. 1, 1985, pp. 25-33; K.C. Kim andYesYes—Yes—YesYes————————Yes(continued on nexfpage)

106 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 3-l-ContinuedA.G. Wheeler, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and Arachnids in the United States,” contractor reportprepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991; K.C. Kim, Professor of Entomology, Penn State University, personalcommunication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, May 17, 1993; R.N. Mack, “Additional Information on Non-Indigenous Plantsin the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, 1992; R.N. Mack, Professor, Oregon State University,FAX to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, May 26, 1993; D.R. Miller, Research Leader, Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, letter to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, July 1, 1993; J. Morrison,“Cockroaches on the Move, ’’Agricultural Research, vol. 35, No. 2, February 1987, pp. 6-9; 6A. Parfume et al., “Discovery of Aedes (howardina)baharnensis in the United States,” Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, vol. 4, No. 3, September 1988, p. 380; M.P. Parrella etal., “Sweet Potato Whitefly: Prospects for Biological Control,” California Agriculture, vol. 46, No. 1, January-February 1992, pp. 25-26; C.L.Schoulties, “Pathways and Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plant Pathogens in the United States,” contractor report preparedfor the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, RuralDevelopment, and Related Agencies, Hearings on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related AgenciesAppropriations for 7993, Part 3, Serial No. 54-8880, Mar. 18-30, 1992a; A.J. Wheeler, Adjunct Professor, Pennsylvania State University, personalcommunication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, May 6, 1993.

TheApplication ofDecisionmakingMethods 4Before the early 1900s, private individuals usually madedecisions about whether to introduce non-indigenousspecies (NIS) with little, if any, government oversight.Even when government was involved, the decisionprocesses were informal and often lenient. Ad hoc judgments anddecisions based on precedent predominated. Since then, a trendtoward more formal methods has emerged, including riskanalysis, legally mandated environmental impact assessment,and economic benefit/cost analysis (table 4-1 ). Still, these formalapproaches rely heavily on judgment and precedent, which inturn are based on the values of the public and its governmentalrepresentatives. Whatever the approach, factual gaps and uncertaintycomplicate the analysis of many existing and potential NISproblems. This chapter examines the prominent decisionmakingmethods in use, the role of uncertainty, and the tradeoffs thatdecisionmakers must face.Decisions about MS are made at various levels in Federal andState governments. The flexibility that agency personnel have inmaking management level decisions depends on their governingstatutes, regulations, or policies. A National Park Service (NPS)manager, for example, has very little discretion when decidingwhether to introduce a new plant species—in most situations itis prohibited outright by current NPS policies, which seek topreserve the indigenous flora. By contrast, most State andFederal legislation gives broad discretion to managers in dealingwith NIS. Agency personnel face two kinds of decisionsregarding NIS: which species to allow to be imported andreleased, and which species to control.107

108 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 4-l—General Approaches to Making Decisions About Non-Indigenous SpeciesApproachesJudgment Precedent Formal analysisFeatures Based on relatively undefined Done according to previous Decisions made according to wellproceduresdecisions defined proceduresOften undocumented Usually documented Contains explicit documentationExamples Judgments by: Legal precedent Risk analysis. General public Status quo Environmental assessment. Policy makers Tradition Economic analysis. Interest groups. ExpertsSOURCE: P. Kareiva et al., “Risk Anatysis as Tool for Making Deeisions About the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Species Into the United States,”contractor report prepared for the office of Technology Assessment, July 1991.WHICH SPECIES ARE IMPORTED ANDRELEASED?Finding:Most government regulatory approaches toimportation and release of NIS use variationsof “clean” (allowed) and “dirty” (prohibited)lists of species or groups, with heavy relianceon the dirty list approach. An effective way toreduce risks of harmful invasions is to employ,where practical, a system of both clean anddirty lists, and a “gray” category of unanalyzedspecies that are prohibited until analyzedand approved.“Clean” and “Dirty” Lists 1The use of ‘clean” and “dirty” lists reveals afundamental dichotomy in government decisionmakingon NIS importation and release. Generally,the clean list approach presumes that allspecies should be prohibited unless they havebeen officially listed as allowed, or ‘clean. ’ Thespecies on the list offer net positive consequences.The dirty list approach presumes that allspecies may be allowed unless they have beenlisted as prohibited. Listed species pose netnegative consequences. The dirty list methoddominates Federal and State decisiomnaking,although several examples of clean lists exist(table 4-2).Numerous variations of the clean and dirtyapproaches are employed. These include using adifferent system for the two phases of introduction,i.e., importation versus release. Also, differentmethods are used for the major taxonomicgroups, e.g., plants, fish, and mammals. Regulatorscan use a variety of listing criteria, permitrequirements, and exemptions; some even adopttotal bans on importation or release of majortaxonomic groups. Neither clean nor dirty listsper se eliminate the need for inspections and otherregulatory compliance measures (25).Three main factors appear to influence theselection and use of a clean or dirty list approach.These are:1.2.technical feasibility, that is, whether thepotentially threatening NIS in a large taxonomicgroup, such as non-indigenousplants, are sufficiently limited in number,scientifically understood, and capable ofdetection so that a comprehensive andaccurate clean list can be constructed withreasonable confidence (table 4-3) (25);requirements for scientific expertise infields such as taxonomy, ecology, and riskanalysis; these needs are greater to imple-1The Federal interagency Aquatic Nuisance Speeies Tlisk Force has abandoned the terms ‘‘clean” and “dirty” due to public objections.Instead, they plan to use the more neutral-sounding “approved,” “restricted,” and “prohibited.” Note that these terms are used by a numberof States as well (34).

Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 109Table 4-2—Examples of Clean and Dirty Lists inStatutes or RegulationsSummaryClean IlstUSDAAllows import of only listed fruitsQuarantine 56and vegetables from specified(7 CFR 319.56) countriesHawaii RevisedAllows import of only animals andStatutesmicroorganisms onsec. 150A.6“conditionally approved” listDirty IlstLacey ActFederal NoxiousWeed ActRestricts import of two taxonomicfamilies, 13 genera, and 6species of fish and wildlifeProhibits import of 93 listed weedsSOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.3.ment a comprehensive clean list approachand not always available; andwillingness to accept risks of unanticipatedinvasions by harmful NIS; a clean listapproach can reduce risks, however, decisionmakersmay be willing to accept thehigher risks of a dirty list approach, especiallyif control or eradication is feasible.Several experts have argued for treating NISunder a clean list approach whenever practical;that is, prohibiting all species that are not on aclean list until they have been satisfactorilyanalyzed and determined to offer net benefits(26,74). This would be comparable to the Foodand Drug Administration’s general regulatorysystem for approving a new drug for human use:prohibited until proven net beneficial.Moving to a clean list approach would requiresubstantial changes in the regulation of importation(that is, the act of bringing an NIS across aborder into the country or a particular State).Allowing importation only of species on a cleanlist would place greater restrictions on internationaltrade.For some groups of organisms, only releaseinto a free-living condition has been this strictlyregulated. However, importation of some NIS islikely to lead eventually to their release, whetherintentional or by their escape. Imported aquariumfish are a good example. Those that have establishedfree-living populations after being discardedby their owners have often had negativeeffects, especially in Florida and in the Southwest(11). For such taxonomic groups composed oforganisms that readily escape, the regulation ofimportation in effect is the regulation of release.The more restrictive clean list approach would bemore effective in preventing harm although thisapproach is more burdensome in the short run.Even for those groups in table 4-3 for whichclean lists appear technically feasible, the politicalfeasibility of such an approach is questionable.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)made three politically unsuccessful attempts inthe mid-1970s to change the Lacey Act 2 processfor regulating importation of ‘injurious’ fish andwildlife from a dirty to a clean list, or tosubstantially lengthen the dirty list (box 4-A). Theavailable information on environmental and economicconsequences of harmful NIS was far lesscomplete than it is today (76,82). whether thepolitical obstacles remain is unclear.The Lacey Act was interpreted by FWS to belegally broad enough to allow for a clean listapproach without amendment (76). No court hasruled on this interpretation. Apart from this legalissue, the question remains of how to best regulatepotentially risky fish and wildlife. One methodbeing considered is a three-part system with anintermediate ‘‘gray” category.“Gray” CategoryIn any given’ jurisdiction (e.g., country, State,or county) the vast majority of potentially introducedNIS belong to a “gray” category. Thisconsists of all species not already listed as cleanor dirty because decisionmakers lack detailedanalyses of the likely consequences should theyz Lacey Act (1900), as amended (16 U. S.C.A. 667, ez seq., 18 U. S.C.A. 42 et seq.)

110 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 4-3-Relative Technical Feasibility of Comprehensive Clean Lists for Regulating importationof Major Groups of Non-indigenous SpeciesGroup Clean list feasibility ReasonsFish and other vertebrate animals High Well known; fewer species; moderate commercial trade; easilydetectedPlants Medium Well known; many species; high commercial trade; easilydetectedInsects Low Poorly known; very many species; low commercial trade; difficultto detectOther invertebrate animals Low Poorly known; very many species; low commercial trade; ease ofdetection variesMicro-organisms Low Poorly known; very many species; low commercial trade; verydifficult to detectNOTE: These are general ratings. Taxonomic subgroups within each major group may justify different ratings. For example, within the major categoryof invertebrate animals it would be more feasible to adopt a dean list for the relatively small sub-group of freshwater mollusks.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993 and R.P. Kahn, letter to P.N. Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, Dec. 2, 1991.become established. Combining this gray categorywith the clean and dirty list approachesforms a classtification scheme that can be adjustedto suit particular regulatory circumstances (26).Hawaii, for example, recently amended its lawson importing animals and micro-organisms, creatingthe most restrictive State laws on the subject(ch. 7). This change responded to the perceivedurgency of Hawaii’s NIS problems (ch. 8). Statelaw now provides for three lists and a graycategory. 3 Species on the conditionally approvedlist require a permit for importation, while thoseon the restricted list require a permit for bothimportation and possession. Those on the prohibitedlist may not be imported or possessed exceptin very limited cases. Species not on any list (thegray category) are prohibited without officialpermission. The State now handles requests forpermission as follows (50):If the request is for a species that is on ananimal or micro-organism list and has receivedprior approval by BOA [Board of Agriculture] oris a plant that has received such approval, PQ[Plant Quarantine Branch] can issue the permit.If, however, an applicant is requesting a permitfor a species that has not received prior BOAapproval, PQ will conduct a three-tiered reviewprocess to bring the request before the board.First, the application is submitted to the BOA’sTechnical Advisory Subcommittees. The fivesubcommittees (Land Vertebrates, Invertebratesand Aquatic Biota, Entomology, Microorganismsand Plants) are composed of researchers,industry representatives and governmentofficials. The subcommittees evaluate the applicationalong technical/scientific lines, particularlyfor the organism’s potential impact. Thesubcommittees then pass their analyses to thePlant and Animals Advisory Committees whichconsiders the application and the subcommitteefindings from a broad perspective, weighing thepotential harmful impacts against the potentialbenefits. BOA then reviews the Advisory Committees’recommendation and issues the finaldecision on the application.Much of the rest of this chapter discussesgeneral methods for making the type of listing andapproval decisions referred to above, such as howto weigh the potential harmful impacts against thepotential benefits.WHICH SPECIES ARE CONTROLLED ORERADICATED?Sometimes greater difficulty can arise in decidingwhich damaging NIS to control or eradicate,3Hawaii Revised Statutes, section 150A-6.

Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 111Box 4-A–History of Fish and Wildlife Service Attempts To Implement Clean Lists Underthe Lacey ActThe Lacey Act of 1900 and 50 CFR, part 16, enable the Secretary of Interior to restrict fish and wildlife importsbeyond those species listed as prohibited in the Act itself. Pursuant to this authority, in December 1973, FWSproposed regulations that concluded all non-indigenous fish and wildlife species had the potential to be injuriousand should be prohibited, except for a list of several hundred species and larger taxonomic groups that werebelieved to pose little risk. FWS prepared this “clean” list after soliciting input from user groups and scientificexperts, and it made provisions for future additions.However, the more than 4,300 comments on the proposal were mostly negative, especially those from peopleinvolved with the pet trade, zoos, game ranches, agriculture, and aquiculture. After preparing an environmentalimpact statement and taking part in a congressional hearing, the agency published a revised proposal to lengthenthe dean list, in February 1975. 2 That also received a negative reception, with nearly 1,200comments. Opponentsclaimed evidence was insufficient that importation of any particular species would cause harm. The pet industryclaimed it would be particularly affected by excluding rare or poorly studied species that were not on the clean list,because they would command the highest prices. After extensive controversy, FWS withdrew the clean listproposal.As a final effort, in 1977, FWS proposed a rule 3 containing a much longer dirty list. This approach failed aswell, with the primary resistance from the hobby fish industry. No major constituency weighed in favoring theconcept and further formal attempts to change the regulations were abandoned.138 Federa/ l?egister34970, (Dec. 20, 1973)!p 40 /+dera/ Register 7935, (Feb. 24, 1975).s 42 Federal Register 12972, (Mar. 7, 1977).SOURCES: R.A. Peoples, Jr., J.A. McCann, and L.B. Starnes, “Introduced Organisms: Polk&s and Activities of the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService,” fXspersa/ of Living Oryaukrns MO Aquatk Ecosyshsrrrs, A. Rosenfield and R. Mann (ede.) (College Pa~ MD: Maryfand SeaGrant, 1992), pp. 325-352; J.G. Stanley, R.A. Peoples, Jr., and J.A. McCann, “Legislation and Responsibilities Related to Importation ofExotic Fishes and Other Aquatk Organisms,” Canadian Journal of Fisheries andAquatk Sdences, vol. 46, SUPPI. 1, 1991, pp. 162-166.and how to do it, than in deciding which speciesto allow to be imported or released. If a managerhas 10 existing problem species and a controlbudget that allows elimination of only 3, whichones should he or she choose? Should the goal becomplete eradication, or control at some pointless than 100 percent eradication? What methodsshould the manager use?To complicate matters, eradicating or controllingNIS with chemical pesticides often arousespublic opposition. So does killing popular nonindigenousanimals, like feral horses (Equuscaballus), by any method. Both cases involveweighing the potential damage caused by the NISagainst other factors. In the pesticide case, thefactors are potential human health and environmentalimpacts; the popular animal case involvesmainly ethical values. For both, costs of theavailable methods may be a major factor. As withdecisions about importation and introduction, theformal approaches discussed below may aid theseweighing processes.COMMON DECISIONMAKINGAPPROACHESDecisionmakers commonly employ three toolsin analyzing NIS: risk analysis, environmentalimpact assessment, and economic analysis.Risk AnalysisFinding:Scientists generally cannot make quantitativepredictions of the invasiveness or impact

112 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesof a new, untested species with high degrees ofconfidence. Nevertheless, useful qualitativepredictions often can be made. Expert judgmentbased on careful research and diverseinput is the most broadly feasible predictiveapproach. Controlled, realistic-setting experimentationreduces uncertainty but requiresmore resources.THE ROLE OF RISK ANALYSISA strictly empirical, or after-the-fact, approachto NIS introductions would be clearly inadequate.Always waiting to see if a species causes harmbefore deciding whether to prohibit it would leadto multiple disasters and huge control costs.Conversely, barming all importation and releaseof NIS would be an effective, but obviouslyimpractical, risk reducer. The most realistic wayto prevent human-caused harmful invasions byNIS is to develop better scientific methods toaccurately predict them and to act based on thesepredictions. The field of risk analysis encompassesthese predictive methods. Risk analysislooks at the chances that an unwanted event willoccur and the consequences if it should occur.Risk analysis can inform decisionmakers oneverything from building nuclear power plants toanticipating oil spills to keeping zebra mussels(Dreissena polymorpha) out of the MissouriRiver. The subfields most relevant here are “pestrisk analysis, ” undertaken to protect agriculture(including forestry) and “ecological risk analysis,’ which looks at threats to non-agriculturalareas and their occupants. The goal is understandingand ordering different degrees of risk, fromthose as obvious as introducing a mammal thathas rabies to those as subtle as introducing aninsect that slightly raises the probability that anindigenous insect will go extinct (26).The ideal risk analysis should specify thelikelihood of possible outcomes from a particularactivity, estimate the risks associated with thevarious outcomes, and identify effective means tomitigate the risks. Although much of this followscommon sense, as a discipline it forces analyticalaccounting for uncertainty, that is, when the datado not permit the ideal analysis. And the processcan make the tradeoffs between competing factorsclear to the observer.Clarity regarding tradeoffs in the face ofuncertainty is important. A hypothetical example:if current scientific knowledge cannot predictwhether a potentially damaging Australian treefungus will invade valuable redwood stands innorthern California, then on what basis can adecision be made to allow Australian logs intonorthern California? How much would the decisionmakerbe willing to spend to reduce thatscientific uncertainty? Given the uncertainty, andthus the chance of deciding mistakenly, how doesone balance being too restrictive against being toolenient? What numerical chance of being wrongis acceptable? Risk analysis alone does notanswer these questions. Nevertheless, a riskanalysis process should display the potentialtradeoffs clearly, that is, it “must not cloak whatshould be societal decisions in the mantle ofscientific objectivity when the determinations arenot purely scientific” (39).Even the best risk analysis methods cannoteliminate all uncertainty. With enough resources,imperfect or incomplete knowledge and humanerrors-two important sources of uncertainty—can be reduced or eliminated. However, theinherent randomness of the world adds uncertaintythat cannot be reduced (71). Also, theability of NIS and their receiving ecosystems toadapt and evolve means that risk analysis done atthe time of introduction maybe rapidly obsolete;this adds another source of uncertainty to predictions(70).In making tradeoffs on the national scale,policymakers must decide the most fundamentalquestion of NIS policy: how much risk of damagewill we accept? No formulaic answer exists.Hundreds of harmful NIS are already in thecountry. Early warnings were available for severalrecent additions: the zebra mussel, the Asiantiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus), and the Asiangypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). In each case, a

Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 113Controlled scientific studies, such as this study of abiological control organism, can boost the reliabilityof risk assessment.fair degree of risk was tolerated. So far, at least,most governmental decisionmakers have not beenhighly risk averse where potentially damagingNIS were concerned.THE PROCESS OF RISK ANALYSISThe frost step in risk analysis for plannedreleases is predicting the likelihood that thespecies to be released will survive and establishone or more self-sustaining populations (27).Then one must assess the probable resultingimpacts on the ecosystems and/or agriculturalsystems involved. The combination of the characteristicsof the new organism and the newenvironment determines the risks associated withthe release.Greater difficulty in prediction arises when oneconsiders unplanned introductions. These areNIS that escape from confinement or are unknowinglyreleased. Risk analysis in these casesrequires initial determination of the probabilitythat a release will, in fact, occur. The samedetermination applies to NIS that are knowingly,but illegally released, though some classify theseas planned releases (see ch. 3). Probability ofrelease must then be factored into the likelihoodof survival, establishment, and environmentalimpact, as determined for planned releases, also.The Federal interagency Aquatic Nuisance SpeciesTask Force, formed to respond to theinvasion of the zebra mussel and other NIS in theGreat Lakes, has adopted a pathways-orientedapproach to risk analysis for unplanned releases(75). The Task Force intends to assess allpotential pathways for harmful, unintentionalreleases, ranging from cargo ships dumping theirballast water to pathogens inadvertently transportedwith fishery stock.Several models have been developed thatgeneralize about the risks of NIS invasions.Current applications of these models are limitedbecause they do not quantitatively predict withhigh degrees of confidence either the likelihoodthat a new species will become established or itsimpacts (26).Useful generalities about risks can be drawn,however, some of these lack clear scientificvalidation. In general, the species most likely tobe successful invaders have large natural ranges,a high intrinsic population growth rate, and alarge founding population in the new environment(12). The environments most likely to beinvaded are those with few species present, a highdegree of habitat disturbance, and an absence ofspecies closely related and morphologically similarto the potential invaders (48).The risk analysis process has relied largely onprofessional judgments based on “impressionisticsyntheses of case studies and anecdotes”(27) rather than rigorous statistical studies orexperimental analyses. Formal risk analysis methodsfor NIS have not been developed or applied(70). This qualitative rather than quantitativeapproach may be satisfactory in most cases,particularly if a diverse panel of scientists andother experts has input into the analysis. Someexpect that more reliable quantitative predictionswill be available as data accumulate and computermodels are refined (24,57).The intense commercial interest in risk analysisfor the controlled release of new geneticallyengineered organisms (GEOs) (ch. 9) has helpedadvance both theoretical and experimental ap-

114 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statespreaches to NIS risks generally (26), as have theresearch and testing of new biological controlagents (ch. 5). The standard paradigm for analyzingrisks of these specialized releases relies muchmore heavily on experimentation, including controlled,small-scale trial releases, than is normallydone for other proposed NIS releases.Recent technological advances have madesome experimental releases safer. For certainspecies, scientists can ensure that released NISare infertile through sterilization, birth control, orother manipulations such that no more than onegeneration will survive (ch. 5). Fisheries biologistshave used these techniques to assess newintroductions of fish and shellfish (51). Someadvocate the use of these reproductive controltechniques as a precondition for all experimentalreleases (67).Experimentation can provide data critical forlinking mathematical models to ecosystem behavior,especially for generalized theories ofecosystem response to stress (39). Experimentationalso informs the optimal design of monitoringsystems and the apportionment of containmentor control efforts according to the risksinvolved. In one facility in England, experimentson invasions are conducted in a large laboratorywith 16 connecting microcosm chambers (38). Itallows the assembly of a wide variety of plant andanimal communities in computer-controlled environments.Still, organisms can behave quitedifferently in the real world than they do inexperimental settings because of untested, oftenunanticipated, influences. The possibility of chaosin ecological systems suggests that making accuratepredictions may be more complex thananticipated (19,60) and not a matter necessarilysolved by accumulating more data for bettermodels.Experimental analyses for NIS (other thanGEOs and biological control agents) are notconsistently done or required by Federal or Statelaws. Despite difficulties in interpreting resultsfrom small-scale trial releases, experts havecalled for more use of these and other experimentalapproaches as providing better predictionsthan the largely anecdotal “paper” studies thatdominate now (40). An experimental approachwould require more personnel, funding, and time.RISK ANALYSIS BY FEDERAL AGENCIESFinding:Within the Animal and Plant Health InspectionService (APHIS) of the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA), there is great variation asfar as the stringency of its risk analysisprocedures for different types of NIS importation.Internal proposals to improve and standardizerisk analysis procedures have not beenbroadly implemented. Two existing policieshamper the agency’s effectiveness at keepingnew, harmful NIS from entering the country:its lack of explicit focus on risks to nonagriculturalareas, and its general operationunder the presumption that unanalyzed importswill be admitted unless risks are proven.Still, APHIS is more analytical than FWS.FWS has implemented very little scientific riskanalysis for potentially harmful fish and wildlife.The primary Federal responsibility for regulatingNIS lies with USDA’s APHIS and theDepartment of Interior’s FWS (see ch. 6). APHIScan regulate both private and governmental actionsthat pose risks of introducing agriculturaland forestry pests, including weeds. FWS isresponsible for “injurious” fish and wildlifeunder the Lacey Act, which, as applied, primarilymeans species that threaten interests outsideagriculture.Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Muchof current APHIS risk analysis consistsof preparing a “decision sheet, ’ which oftenincludes only a paragraph or two on the biologyof a prospective plant pest (80). Great variationexists within APHIS as far as the stringency ofanalysis (26). Comprehensive assessments ofprobabilities and risks are rarely undertaken. Theagency is revising a number of its regulatory

Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 115quarantines and considering adoption of newquarantines, and in the process has sought toimprove and standardize its procedures.The main foundation for this standardizationwith respect to plants and plant products is the“Generic Pest Risk Assessment Process” developedby the Policy and Program Developmentoffice (53). This process has not been finalizedyet 4 or broadly adopted within the agency. Onceadopted, the process can be tailored to decisionsabout particular types of proposed new commodityimportations, such as cut flowers, nurserystock, and logs (figure 4-l). Since a commoditycan carry more than one potential pest, conductingIndividual Pest Risk Assessments on eachpest will be necessary in addition to the analysisof the risk of the commodity itself (e.g., for itspotential weediness). An analyst will make qualitativeratings (low, medium, high) for variousfactors and assign an uncertainty level. Thecombination of these will result in an overallCommodity Risk Potential rating and a recommendationby the analyst. APHIS regulatory andoperational personnel will make the final decision.The Agricultural Research Service assistsAPHIS on risk analysis questions requiring research.ARS conducts experiments on a fewpotentially serious pests like soybean rust (Phakopsorapachyrhizi) (87). This method, in whicha small number of samples are imported undercontrolled conditions and tested in small-scaletrials, would be impractical for analyzing risksfrom all potential pests.While APHIS has kept thousands of potentialagricultural pests from becoming established, ithas done little explicit analysis of risks to naturalareas. Critics have also pointed to insufficientscientific input, especially from the field ofecology, in its analyses (25,26,36). Long-termrisks, such as the potential for pests to evolvemore harmful characteristics, are under-analyzedbecause of lack of input from evolutionarybiologists (26).APHIS lacks sufficient in-house expertise tofully address the questions posed by the regularflow of new potential pests (26). Outside expertsare sometimes consulted, but they often lacktraining or experience in quarantine problems.Further, in the past many risk analyses were notadequately documented to be of use in futuredecisions (26). The agency is considering severalproposals to implement more explicit proceduresthat are sensitive to natural ecosystems, embracemore diverse input, and provide useful data for thefuture.Implementation of these improvements is important.However, a basic policy hampers APHIS'ssuccess at keeping out pests-that is, its Willingnessto allow many types of imports that poseunanalyzed, or incompletely analyzed, risks. Examplesof this include virtually all unprocessedwood and wood products, including packing andshipping materials; 5 and potential pests on or incontainers and ships that have been in high-riskareas. The agency generally treats unregulatedimports under the presumption ‘‘that everythingis enterable until we [APHIS] determine it shouldnot be’ (53). Implicit in this is APHIS’s acceptingthe burden of proving a proposed newimport’s potential for harm, rather than puttingthe burden on the importer to demonstrate itssafety. This policy relies on inspection at ports-ofentryto interdict potentially harmful organismsdespite the fact that many are very difficult todetect or present unknown risks.4The fti version is anticipated in December, 1993.s APHIS recently published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding importation of logs, lumber, and certain other woodproducts, 57 Federal Register, 43628-31 (Sept. 22,1992). At this writing it is unclear whether a rule will be issued, or what it will provide, butthe Notice indicates that the agency may more proactively address risks from logs and wood products in the fiture. The Notice did not coverwooden pacldng or shipping materials.

11116 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesFigure 4-l—Application of the APHIS Generic Pest Risk Assessment ProcessInitiationRequest for new commodityimportation of plant/plantpart/plant productvCreate list of possiblequarantine plant pests4 Collect commodity datavJIndividual pest riskassessments 4Risk assessment+Commodity assessment

Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods 117This “presumption of enterability” is notmandated by the Plant Pest Act 6 or by othercontrolling legislation; it is apparently a policychoice to favor unburdened trade. That choicemay itself be the result of weighing the overallrisks and benefits of a more restrictive presumptionof exclusion. However, OTA has not discoveredany evident national weighing of these risksand benefits. The weighing process appears tooccur in difficult new cases, one at a time, at highlevels of the Department of Agriculture.[I]n controversial trade matters, top managementoutside of APHIS may ‘weigh’ the biologicalposition against the economic or otherpositions, and the short-term decision made bynon-biologists may in some instances prevailregardless of the probability of long-term adverseconsequences. (25)The presumption of enterability has real consequences.In the recently proposed importation ofSiberian timber to West Coast sawmills (box4-B), for example, several critics pointed out thatAPHIS’s starting assumption was that the importationwould occur. The agency initially stressedthe rights of the importers to proceed rather thanthe biological issues (7). Indeed, it allowed themto bring in a small shipment of logs, without aformal pest risk analysis or environmental assessment,that was found later to carry pests. It tookpressure from academic scientists and membersof Congress to stop APHIS from allowingfurther shipments without a comprehensive riskanalysis (14).For a proposed importation of pine (Pinus spp.)wood chips from Honduras into Oregon, APHISdid not require a formal assessment of thepotential risk, despite serious warnings from anOregon State University entomologist (37). Theagency would not delay the imports unless riskwas first proven; expert opinion was insufficientto overcome the presumption of enterability (66).The agency’s willingness to accept unanalyzedrisks is compounded by the low level of effortUSDA devotes to researching where risky speciesare likely to come from and to proactivelyregulate so as to prevent problems before theyarise. The relatively short list of foreign weedsprohibited under the Federal Noxious Weed Actrepresents one example (ch. 6) (41). Another isthe recent Asian gypsy moth infestation in PacificNorthwest ports, which necessitated a $14 millionto $20 million emergency eradication program(box 4-B). The moth arrived via cargo ships onwhich eggs had been laid while in Far East ports.Ships are one of the most obvious pathways fornew pest introductions because of their size andfrequency of arrival. Yet APHIS had not proactivelyanalyzed the Asian gypsy moth risks nortaken steps to prevent the infestations. In thewords of a former California Department ofAgriculture official discussing overall U.S. quarantinepolicy, ‘‘ignorance is viewed as a relativelylow-level risk compared to the benefits ofopen trade and other societal needs” (62).For the items discussed above-unprocessedwood, packing materials, containers from highrisk areas, etc.—APHIS lacks specific regulations.The agency assumes the items are suitablefor import unless agricultural port inspectorsdetect a problem. APHIS treats all plants in asimilar manner, including nursery stock, seeds,and bulbs, under regulations known as Quarantine37. Such foreign plants are enterable with apermit if they are no? listed in these regulations,that is, on the ‘dirty’ list of plants known to carryimportant pests or diseases in their countries oforigin. Quarantine 56, which covers importedfruits and vegetables for consumption, is anexception to APHIS’ overall assumption of enterability(25). Under this quarantine, pest riskassessments have judged listed articles ‘‘clean’and, thus, able to be imported with a permit.6Federal Plant Pest Act (1957), as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 147a et seq.)

118 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 4-B--Siberian Timber Imports: A Potentially High-Risk PathwaySiberia has almost half of the world’s softwood timber supply. Since the late 1980s a few U.S. timber brokersand lumber companies, short on domestic supplies, have been negotiating for the Importation of raw logs fromFar East ports to West Coast sawmills. This may create a pathway for non-indigenous forest pests that are adaptedto many North American climate zones and tree types. In the past 100 years raw wood or nursery stock importshave provided entry for a number of devastating pathogens, such as chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica),Dutch elm disease (Ceratocystis ulml), and white pine blister rust (Cronartium rlblcola).In early 1990, the private importers voluntarily notified APHIS and the California Department of Agriculturethat they would be shipping two containers of logs representing four Siberian tree spades into the northernCalifornia port of Eureka. The logs were fumigated, handled, sawn, and disposed of pursuant to agreed uponguidelines. The California officials had sought more time to develop the guidelines before shipment but wereunable to obtain a voluntary delay and lacked regulatory authority to require a delay. According to the programsupervisor of the Pest Exclusion Branch, APHIS’s California approach to the State’s biological concerns was tostress the importers’ rights to proceed.Dead insects were recovered off three of the tree species; the fourth carried a nematode. The agenciesconcluded that no further shipments should come in until personnel could identify the species and do a pest riskanalysis. APHIS arranged a voluntary embargo with the importers. Two of the species were later identified aspotentially harmful new pests.Participation by APHIS in the early phases (April through September 1990) was criticized as ’’chaotic” by theCalifornia official in charge. The agency’s Preliminary Pest Risk Analysis was completed in September; it wasgenerally regarded as inadequate, failing to list many known Siberian pests and lacking investigation into the manyunresearched potential pest species. Worried California and Oregon officials sought independent scientific advice.several State university professors warned of potentially disastrous consequences from the organisms that wereIikely to be introduced, even if the logs were fumigated.Communication among these academics and the State officials in fall 1990 eventually led to congressionalpressure in the form of a letter from three members of the Oregon delegation to the Secretary of Agricultureinquiring about APHIS’s handling of the matter and requesting a delay pending resolution of the pest issues. Atthe same time, the importers were negotiating with APHIS to allow large-scale shipments to mills in Humboldt Bay,California However, “to honor the congressional request,” the agency suspended the discussions on December13. APHIS announced it had imposed a “temporary prohibition” on future imports. Without the congressionalpressure, it appears the shipments would have gone ahead without comprehensive analysis.A joint U.S. Forest Service/APHIS Task Force was convened and worked for almost a year on adetailed riskassessment focusing on larch (Larix spp.) from Siberia The project cost of approximately $500,000 was paid outof a Forest Service contingency fund. APHIS lacked a flexible fund to pay for the unanticipated, unbudgeted workThe assessment found serious risks posed by several pests. A worst-case scenario examined the economicimpacts should they successfully invade Northwest forests. it produced astoundingly high figures for thecumulative potential losses from the Asian gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) and the nun moth (Lymantria monacha)between 1990 and 204&in the range of $35 billion to $58 billion (net present value in 1991 dollars). Still, theassessment did not resolve all the issues about mitigating the risks. Ultimately, APHIS put the burden back on theimporters to propose new pest treatment methods and protocols with “evidenced complete effectiveness”. someexperts said the logs would need sawing and kiln-drying to exterminate all risky species, which would probablybe prohibitively expensive. The assessment concluded: “if technical efficacy issues can be resolved, APHIS willwork with the timber industry to develop operationally feasible Import procedures.” To date the industry hasidentified no feasible procedures that APHIS has deemed completely effective.(continued next page)

Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 119Box 4-B-ContinuedA recent discovery may render the timber import risk mitigation efforts moot, at least for the Asian gypsy moth.While APHIS and the Forest Service were looking at the chances it would arrive on logs, the Asian gypsy motharrived in the Pacific Northwest clinging to grain ships. The risk of this pathway had been overlooked.A$14 millionto $20 million program of broadcast biopesticide spraying, trapping, and monitoring has been implemented byFederal and State officials to stop what the Deputy Director of the Washington Department of Agriculture said “hasthe potential to be the most serious exotic insect ever to enter the U. S.” An information program was also initiatedto keep shippers that trade in high-risk Far Eastern ports from inadvertently transporting more moths. While officialshave found no more Asian gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest to date, their ultimate success in eradicating thispest remains uncertain.SOURCES: Associated Press, “Forest Bugaboo-Aiarm Over Discovery of Asian Gypsy Moths,” SeatUe T/mewPost /nte//gencw, Nov.24,1991, p. B-S; A. Clam Program Supervisor, Pest Exclusion Branch, California Department of Agriculture, Sacramento, CA personalcommunication to P. Jenidns, office of Technology Assessment, Feb. 14, 1991; P. DeFazio, U.S. House of Representatives et al., letterto C.K. Yeutter, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Dec. 5, 1990; J.D. Lattin, Professor of Entomology, OregonState University, personai communication to P. Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 31, 1991; J.D. Lattin, Professor ofEntomology, Oregon State University, memorandum to B. Wright, Administrator, Piant Division, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem,OR, Nov. 1, 1990; R. Morals, Division Resources Manager, Louisiana-Padfic Corp., Samoa, CA, internal memorandum to B. Phillips, Dec.19, 1990; M. Shannon, Chief Operating Officer for Ptanning and Design, Animal and Plant Heaith Inspection Servias, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Hyattsvllle, MD, personal communications to P. Jenldns, Office of T@noiogy Assessment, Feb. 5,1991 and Mar. 2, 1992;U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animaiand Plant Health Inspection Servioe, Hyattsviile, MD, “USDA Pfaces Temporary Prohibition on Entryof Siberian Logs Because of Pests,” press release, Dec. 20,1990; U.S. Department of Agriculture, “An Efficacy Review of Controi Measuresfor Potential Pests of Imported Soviet Timber,” Miscellaneous Publication No. 1496 (Hyattsvilie, MD: Animai and Plant Health InspectionService, September 1991 ); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Servfce, “PestRiskAssessment of the Importation of Larch From Siberiaand the Soviet Far East” Misoelianeous Publication No. 1495 (Washington, DC, September 1991); D.L. Mod, Professor of Entomology,and F.W. Cobb, Jr., Professor of Pfant Pathoiogy, Univ. of California, Berkeley, ietter to Dean Cromweli, California State Board of Forestryet al., Sacramento, CA, Dec. 11, 1990.area rests with State agencies, many of which lackthe necessary regulatory authority and/or re-sources to adequately address these risks (ch. 7).Fish and Wildlife Service-FWS does far lessthan APHIS in analyzing risks from injurious fishand wildlife (26). The current Lacey Act dirty listis short (prohibiting 2 families, 13 genera, and 6species), and FWS uses no checklist or otherstandardized procedure to analyze risks fromother imported species. While APHIS inspectsincoming agricultural livestock for diseases, FWShas no procedure for refusing entry to theremaining unlisted and non-agricultural fish andwildlife.Service officials acknowledge the need forbetter evaluation of risks from unlisted NIS: “itwould be desirable to improve internal Serviceprocedures for modifying the list of injuriouswildlife . . . by establishing listing criteria andprocedures’ (54). The Intentional IntroductionsPolicy Review conducted by the Federal interagencyAquatic Nuisance Species Task Forcerepresents one attempt to do so for aquatic species(see ch. 6) (17). Much of the responsibility in thisANALYSIS OF CONTROL OR ERADICATIONEFFORTSAlthough risk analysis primarily focuses onpreventing harmful invasions, it also assists insetting priorities for control of established, unwantedNIS. In agricultural applications thistactical decisionmaking is part of Integrated PestManagement programs (ch. 5). Farmers use avariety of systems based on factors like pestpopulation size (determinedly sampling); weather;and crop stage for efficient allocation of pesticides,cultivation practices, and other controlmeasures. Some systems have been developed forarea-wide agriculture and forestry control projects,These systems, in large part computerized,guide responses to important pests such as theEuropean gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar).

120 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesOutside agriculture and forestry almost noformal systems for pest control decisionmakingexisted until recently. Yet, like farmers andforesters, natural area managers must evaluatenew NIS and respond if the risks are high, or theymay face a major infestation. Recently developedmodels and ranking systems can help maximizethe impact of limited NIS control budgets fornatural areas. These models can help a managerdetermine, for example, whether it is better to firstdestroy large concentrated populations of aninvasive plant or the outlying “satellite” populations(usually the latter (47)).Ronald Hiebert, Chief Scientist with the NationalPark Service, Midwest Region, developedsuch a system for ranking control efforts for themore than 250 non-indigenous plant speciesgrowing at Indiana Dunes National Lake Shore(23). The system uses a flexible point scale toweigh the current impact of an introduced plant,its potential for harm, control feasibility, and theconsequences of delay. The goal is to allowtrained ecologists to rank different NIS. New dataand theoretical advances may require continualrevision of the ranking system. It is undergoingfurther testing for broader use and has been usedby the State of Minnesota Exotic Species TaskForce to classify benign, neutral, and threateningplants (46). The Task Force also adapted it to rankanimals.A simpler ranking system using four categorieswas developed in 1989 for management of 221species of non-indigenous plants in and aroundEverglades National Park (85). The National ParkService has also developed a Handbook for theRemoval of Non-Native Animals which lays outcriteria for ranking species for eradication orcontrol projects (15).Environmental Impact AssessmentEnvironmental impact assessment refers to agovernmental decisionmaking process mandatedunder the National Environmental Policy Act 7(NEPA) or under analogous State environmentalpolicy acts (SEPAs), adopted in 18 States (ch. 7).The laws generally require assessments for bothgovernment-initiated actions (including fundingof private actions) and issuing governmentalpermits for private actions. Using a standardizedenvironmental assessment check list, the responsibleagency makes a “threshold decision” as towhether a particular action poses potentiallysignificant environmental impacts, which caninclude impacts on both the natural and thehuman-built environment. If so, the agency mustprepare a detailed environmental impact statement(EIS) analyzing the potential impacts andalternatives to the action before undertaking orpermitting it. The laws also provide opportunitiesfor public comment and for legal appeals on theadequacy of these assessments, including thethreshold decision.NEPA and SEPAs generally do not impose theprecise methods of analysis required either for thethreshold decision or the EIS, but they do providesome standards. 8 Environmental impact assessmentstend to be more qualitative than formal riskanalyses (26), although some EISs include quantitativerisk analysis.NEPA has received broad recognition forcompelling more analytical decisionrnaking (althoughcritics say many ways exist to make theinformation generated more useful (21)). A recentEIS evaluated the introduction of chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) into the DelawareBay. However, few detailed EISs have beenprepared on other decisions related to NIS except7National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C.A. 4321 er SW.)g 42 U. S.C.A. 4332 generally requires Federal agencies to: “(A) utilize a systanatic interdisciplinary approach which will insure theintegrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental dwign arts in planning and in decisionmaking. ..; (B) identify anddevelop methods and procedures. . . whichwill insure that presently unquantifkd environmental amenities and values maybe given appropriateconsideration in decisionrnakm“ g along with economic and technical considerations; . . . [and] (H) initiate and utilize ecological informationin the plarming and development of resource-oriented projects.”

Chapter &The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 121for control programs involving widespread pesticidespraying. For example, APHIS has neverrequired an EIS for any new plant or woodimports (16). Some observers claim that NEPA isan adequate mechanism to analyze these potentialimpacts at the Federal level (65). However,existing regulations lack a clear definition ofwhen NEPA should be triggered for governmentapproval of new imports. Thus, neither APHISnor any other agency has a clear obligation tofollow the NEPA process before allowing theincrease of agricultural, horticultural, or woodimports from potentially risky sources such asMexico, South Africa, and Russia.Various avenues exist to increase considerationof NIS under environmental impact assessmentlaws. These include:Current NEPA regulations do not cover allgovernmental actions likely to contribute toNIS problems, such as approving majortrade agreements like the North AmericanFree Trade Agreement (this is being litigated;see ch. 10).Agencies’ existing ‘‘categorical exclusions’—regulations that excuse NEPA compliancefor certain activities--can result in unanalyzedimportations or releases. An exampleis the categorical exclusion for the landscapingof Federal highway projects, includingthose either federally approved or funded,which have historically involved extensiveuse of non-indigenous plants. 9Detailed questions specific to NIS are notrequired in the standardized check lists usedfor preliminary environmental assessmentsand for making threshold decisions as towhether an EIS is called for (2).Most agency regulations and internal policiesdo not mandate the integration of riskThe potential for wood imports to carry nonindigenouspests has prompted reconsideration of riskand environmental impact assessment procedures.analysis or other formal decisionmakingtools into the NEPA process. 10● The laws vary widely in the 18 States thathave SEPA review processes, and 32 Stateslack them altogether (ch. 7, table 7-5) (18).The most rigorous application of NEPA andSEPAS would be to require an EIS for all newreleases that are not already on a clean list—inother words to declare by law that new, unanalyzedreleases are per se potentially significantenvironmental impacts and require detailed analy -‘gw,1-$’ 23 CFR 771.1 17(7), as amended (Aug. 28, 1987).10 To Some extent MS iS ~ppe~g, h~weve~, ~ @ysis of tie ris~ of noxious weeds on F~~al lands in accordance with the 1990 F-Bill’s amendment to the Federal Noxious Weed Act, 7 U. S.C.A. sec. 28 14; see, Forest Service Manual Interim Directive 208092-1, dated Aug.3, 1992.

122 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statessis. Montana already does this for all new fishreleases. 11 However, biological control advocatesconcerned about potential costs and delays causedby NEPA have argued strongly against a proposalto require an EIS for all releases of new biocontrolagents (10).Some concern exists that NEPA and SEPAScan hinder the responsiveness of NIS regulationand control (63). However, emergency controlmeasures can be excused from environmentalimpact assessment requirements. 12 For less urgent,broader control measures, such as long-termweed management, Federal and State agencieshave already written many EISs. Little support isevident for reducing the role of NEPA and SEPAsin this regard because of the potential health andenvironmental impacts of the pesticides used.Environmental impact assessment laws couldaffect the adoption of new clean and dirty lists forregulating importation and release. FWS preparedthe only known EIS for a new listing approachwhen the agency proposed its clean list regulationunder the Lacey Act, in 1974 (box 4-A). The EISwas fairly basic and general, having been preparedin the early years of NEPA. Because FWSwithdrew the regulation, the adequacy of that EISremains untested.An EIS for adopting a new regulatory clean listof NIS would address the potential impacts ofallowing those listed species into the country, orState. Conversely, an EIS for a new dirty listregulation would need to focus on the potentialimpacts of allowing in the unlisted species. Sucha task would be quite difficult to do because thenumber of unlisted, and mostly unanalyzed,species would presumably be quite large.I Economic AnalysisEconomic analysis of past introductions isfeasible through careful research, although relativelylittle has been done and the studies thatexist are of highly uneven quality (see economicconsequences section of ch. 2). Even less has beendone in the way of future projections that attemptto predict economic scenarios with and without aparticular introduction. To date no “standardaccounting practice’ exists for NIS benefits andcosts, whether past or projected.Projecting future economic effects necessarilyfollows detailed scientific analysis, such as a pestrisk analysis or EIS. That is, economists are datahungry-they cannot assess likely effects of aparticular NIS until they understand biologicalbaselines and the likely outcomes of an introduction.Projections of future economic effects areavailable for about a dozen prominent damagingNIS (ch. 10, table 10-2). In these projectionsuncertainty about biological outcomes compoundsthe uncertainty about economic outcomes.Some question the validity of economic analysisas an aid to public policy decisionmakingbecause of its heavy reliance on market effects—based on things bought and sold in markets-andlesser emphasis on hard-to-quantify non-marketeffects. Since the mid-1970s, natural resourceeconomists have made major advances in both thetheory and methods of valuing non-market effects(56). (Shadow pricing and contingent valuationare the economic terms for this.) Still, a livelydebate continues as to whether these methodsadequately account for the way people developand hold different attitudes toward the value ofthe natural world or its components (58), aspectsof which do not seem amenable to quantification(figure 4-2).Economic projections do not account well forthose future events that have a low probability ofoccurring but will cause high impact if they dooccur (9,56). Unfortunately, many potential NISproblems fit this description. Scientific ignorance,long time lags, and cumulative, sometimesirreversible, effects confound the accounting. Forexample, highly questionable analyses would11 Mon~ Code Annotated 87-5-71 1(2).1240 CFR 1506.11, as amended (Nov. 28, 1978).

Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods 123Figure 4-2—Relative Extents to Which Effects of Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Species areAmenable to Economic Quantification-—Biological—Raw materials Services Recreationalr--i:IHarvested Biological Ecologicalresources i- diversity processesIConsumptiveNon-consumptivePsychologicalScientificAestheticArtisticCulturalReligiousSymbolicAmenabletoquantification1 . —. —. –~–—.SOURCE: C. Prescmtt-Allen and R. Prescott-Allen, The First Hesour~HO/d ~edes in the North American Ecortomy(New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.Press, 1986).derive from estimating the benefits and costs ofreleasing a sport fish that could, but might not,drive an indigenous, non-harvested fish species toextinction several decades later. Some economistspropose assigning rights or entitlements tofuture generations as an additional way of valuinguncertain future effects (52). However, this ‘‘intergenerationalequity” has not received wideacceptance in economic accounting to date (56).Despite these limitations, economic analysisprovides a useful rigorous structure to guidedecisionmakers who might not otherwise considerall the relevant factors. If the analyticalprocess is accessible to the public and outsideexperts, it can highlight the areas of debate anduncertainty, making decisionmakers more accountable.This positive effect of economic analysismust be weighed against its costs: personnel,funding, and time. Incurring these costs may onlybe justified for cases above a certain threshold ofrisk that cannot be resolved using other acceptedmethods.Economics has utility for broader aspects ofNIS decisionmaking than whether a particularNIS should be imported, introduced, or controlled(box 4-C). Well-documented economic analysiscan help in designing the most efficient regulatoryapproaches as well as appropriate incentives (e.g.,rewards, bounties) and disincentives (e.g., taxes)to respond to existing problems (56). It candetermine effective levels of frees and penaltiesfor violations, that is, disincentives that will keepimporters and purchasers of potentially harmfulNIS from imposing externalized costs on society.Economics also serves to ensure that bothprivate and government resources are expended

124 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 4-C-Macroeconomics and Non-indigenous SpeciesMacroeconomics is the study of whale systems and the relationships among different economic sectors.Examination of the increasingly linked global economic system, in which relationships are largely expressedthrough international trade, illuminates the larger forces behind NIS problems. Some important trends:. As developing countries pursue export markets for cash crops, traditional agroecosystems are increasinglyconverted to large monoculture. Global homogenization of crops can reduce biological diversity andincrease the crops’ vulnerability to pests.. in the last several years, economic and political changes have resulted in several new significant U.S.trading partners, from Chile to China These shifts in NIS pathways could lead to new pest problems.. The North American Free Trade Agreement if implemented, will increase certain imports from Mexico thatpose pest risks, such as fruits and vegetables (see ch. 10).Economic analysis could also highlight the role NIS play indifferent sectors of the U.S. national economy andthe potential impact of more, or fewer, import restrictions. For example, to what extent do profits of the nurseryindustry depend on continued infusion of new imported species or varieties? Could an indigenous plant industrysubstitute for imports in a way that would satisfy consumer preferences and maintain industry profitability? Littleanalysis of such questions has been done by either government or industry. They represent areas of fruitful inquiryon the relationship between economics and the environment.SOURCES: R.B. Norgaard, “Economics as Me&anb and tk Darnisa of _l Diversity:’ Ecok@ca/ Mod#ing, vol. 38,1987, pp.107-121; T. Dudley, Rssearch Botanist and Project Leader, National Arboretum, personal communication to Office of TdnoiogyAssessment, Oct. 4,1991; C. l%geibmgge, Director of ReguiatoryAffdrs, Amsrican Association of Nurserymen, personal communicationto Office of Tdnoiogy Assessment, Oct. 8,1991.wisely on broad programs. For example, NewZealand’s forest industries recently undertook adetailed benefit/cost analysis on conducting forestpest detection surveys at various levels ofintensity (6). They found the maximum nationalnet benefit from these surveys resulted at levelsthat detect 95 percent of new introductions (figure4-3). The costs of detecting the last 5 percentsharply exceed the marginal benefits. This exemplifiesthe case that seeking 100 percent successis not always the optimal allocation of resources.However, optimal resource allocation dependsentirely on the context, and relatively few detailedstudies exist for U.S. NIS programs. In otherenvironmental areas a clear trend exists towardincorporating more economic analysis in designingnew policies (13).BENEFIT/COST ANALYSISWhere enough is known about the probabilitiesof future effects from NIS, one can calculate thedifferent expected values of resulting benefits andcosts. Benefit/cost analysis (BCA) is a method ofweighing particular decisions (box 4-D), such asallowing an NIS to be imported or introduced, orcontrolling or eradicating it if already present (9).The resulting ratio compares the cumulativepotential economic benefits to the costs of thedecision, expressing them in 1991 dollars (presentvalue).Calculating a benefit/cost ratio does not automaticallydetermine a decision. Even when thebenefits are greater, the magnitude of the costsmay be so high as to make the action unacceptableor unfeasible. Costs and benefits that are unevenlydistributed socially, geographically, orgenerationally can present fairness questions. Forexample, crop losses from pests can be highlyregional-some farmers may lose while othersprofit from increased market prices (32). Excessiveuncertainty or questionable valuation techniquesmay undercut the analysis. BCA is mostuseful for ranking a comparable group of desira-

Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 125Figure 4-3-National Costs and Benefits ofDetecting Forest Pest Introductions in New Zealandbenefit from the development of standardizedpractices, such as those proposed in box 4-D andtable 4-4, to make results more consistent andcomparable. The ability of economists to provideuseful analyses will depend to a large extent onwhether scientists can estimate probabilities offuture effects of NIS in a consistent, comparableway. Economic models provide little assistance,regardless of their sophistication, where they reston vague or equivocal predictions of biologicalevents (“garbage in, garbage out”).000 0.01 0.200.03 0.400.05 0.60 0.07 0.80 0.09 1.00Proportion of Introductions detectedSOURCE: P,C.S. Carter, “Risk Assessment and Pest DetectionSurveys for Exotic Pests and Diseases which Threaten CommeraalForestry in New Zealand,” New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science,VOI. 19, NOS. 2/3, 1989, pp. 353-374.ble actions when budget constraints preventundertaking them all (9).In fact, benefit/cost ratios have been calculatedfor only a few NIS decisions. Most existingstudies have focused on the economic justificationfor eradicating or controlling establishedinfestations. Benefit/cost ratios have been developedfor past or potential effects of 12 prominentNIS (table 4-4), In almost all the studies (of highlyvariable rigor) the ratios are high (median 17.2/1;range 0.23/1 to 1,666/1). That is, the managementactions are well justified economically becausethe overall benefits of eradicating, controlling, orpreventing the potential infestations far exceedthe costs of the actions. However, these ratios donot give detailed accounting for the unevendistribution of the effects. Also, several of the‘‘potential impacts’ represent worst-case scenarios.The analyses did not weigh the likelihood thatthe worst potential impacts would actually occur.Thus, those resulting ratios are probably too high.As with risk analysis, future theoretical andtechnical improvements are likely to make BCA’smore comprehensive (56). BCA for NIS willDECISIONMAKING PROTOCOLSProtocols are written codes used in diplomatic,military, and scientific affairs to guide adherenceto a prescribed course of action. In the NIScontext, decisionmaking protocols consist ofcriteria developed by experts to guide the determinationof whether a proposed activity involvingMS is appropriate. Some protocols alsoprescribe precautions to minimize risks. They canbe focused narrowly, such as to guide proceduresfor federally funded research on non-indigenousaquatic species, or broadly on policy-level decisions,such as the model national approachproposed by the International Union for Conservationof Nature and Natural Resources (box4-E). The broader protocols have the distinctivefeature of going beyond scientific or risk-basedcriteria to encompass value-based considerationsand to guide the weighing of benefits and costs.Protocols lack enforceability except when adoptedby law, which has rarely happened (5,84). Forexample, the American Fisheries Society protocolon new fish introductions has existed for morethan 20 years, but no Federal or State lawsmandate its use, despite calls for its adoption (33).Few documented cases of its voluntary use exist(1 1,51). Congress considered, but did not pass, abill 13 in 1991 requiring agencies to follow adetailed protocol for aquatic introductions (77).Several experts have supported greater use of13 me Sptiles In&oduction and Control &t of 1991, HR. 5852.

Table 4-4-Documented Benefit/Cost Ratios for Eradication, Control, or Prevention of Selected Non-Indigenous SpeciesNotes: dollar figures are in millions; totals columns give Net Present Values in 1991 dollars, calculated as indicated in box 4-D to the extent that the information wasprovided in the original studies; letters after species names refer to references for table 4-4 at end of this table. Note numbers refer to notes at bottom of page. The ratiosgiven compare the benefits to the rests of eradicating, controlling, or preventing the NIS invasion under the circumstances that were studied. (Check index for scientificnames.)Past impacts-PlantsHydrilla and water hyacinth aHydrilla and water hyacinth aHydrilla and water hyacinth aHydrilla and water hyacinth aHydrilla and water hyacinth aMelaleuca bMelaleuca CLeafy spurge d0.4978.4Pest impacts-FishSea lamprey eSea Iamprey fPast impacts-insectsAlfalfa blotch leafminer g13Potential impacts--PlantsPurple Ioosestrife h6.54Witchweed 1389.55Witchweed 1997.17Witchweed 1389.55Witchweed 1997.17Potential impacts-insectsCotton boll weevil J3.755Cotton boll weevil J5.50 5Mediterranean fruit fly k1,2566Mediterranean fruit fly k816sMediterranean fruit fly 13,078Potential impacts-PathogensFoot and mouth disease m11,6507Foot and mouth disease” 11,6507Potential impacts-OtherPests of:Siberian log imports noSiberian log imports n.ocostsDirect effectsIndirect effectsDirect Distribution Year 1991 1991 Benefit/Market Nonmarket Multiplier Related control Opportunity rests of total total costgoods goods effects goods costs costs considered study benefits costs ratio-.0.016N1974 1.260 0.041 31/10.0230.100N1977 0.047 0.203 0.23/10.5670.003N1978 1.075 0.006 179/1160 1 12.3 1N1991 160 112.3 113/130.8690.019N1979 1.514 0.033 45.9/10.4680.089N 1982 0.641 0.122 5.25/18 -.15.2 145.0 15.0YN19891984182.75 16.259 11.24110/1 2219,748550342.898 8.68140NN19881980296.421878.58853.477845.62,163.43845.162,163.435.0687.1931,829.221,188.414,482.4925,275.5125,275.519.79763.8971.982124.53124.53113.03113.030.2790.41893.2193.2191.401,013.191,49730.25/113.75111.1 N 1983 17.128 2.0864UJ9)zw39.32 0.100 1.6 N 198757.4N197657.4N197652.1N197652.1N1976-0.84 0.16-1.37 0.24646462.7646769062,152 837.4 Y35,390.35 8 37.4 YYYYYNNN197919791981198119811976197627/16.78/117.37117.47/119.1/118.1/117.2/119.62/112.75/149/124.95/116.88/11990 64,704.21 38.94 1,661/11990 36.843.62 38.94 946/1sm

NOTES:1. Direct effects and costs were reported without further classifications, therefore, these figures are listed here under their general headings.2. Only benefit/cost ratio was reported for this study, without supporting figures.3. These estimates are the value of all sport and commercial fishers in the Great Lakes. This study used “all or none” valuation technique and hence overstates benefits to sea lamprey control.4. Costs converted to 1991 dollars by assuming that midpoint of time series was appropriate index year. Assumption was made due to lack of information on the flow of funds through the timeseries.5. Two scenarios were examined-the first is for current insect control with boll weevil eradication and the second is for optimum pest management with no government incentives but with a bollweevil eradication program. The analysis is for a 15-year period starting in 1979.6. High and Iow cost scenarios were used to estimate the impacts of severe infestations of the Mediterranean fruit fly in California. These were contrasted against only 2 years of current to controlcosts ($64 million), generating benefit/cost ratios which may be high.7. High and low control costs were employed as contrasted to the benefits estimated from 1976 to 1990.8. High and Iow scenarios for the economic impacts assuming accidental introduction and unmitigated infestations of defoliators (i.e., Asian gypsy moth and Nun moth), nemotodes, larch canker,spruce bark beetles, and annosus root disease resulting from the import of Siberian logs as contrasted to the estimated net welfare gains from the log imports,REFERENCES FOR TABLE 4-4a D,E. Cone, J.V. Shireman, W.T. Halter, J.C. Joyce, and D.E. Canfiekf, Jr., “influence of Hydrilla on Harvestable Sport-fish Populations, Angler Expenditures at Orange Lake, Florida,” NorthAmerican Journal of Fisheries Management vol. 7, 1987, pp. 410417.b F~~ra/ Re@ster, “Noxious Weeds: Additions to List,” VOI. 56, No. 201, Oct. 17, 1991, PP. 52,005-52,007.c c. Diamond, D. Da~s, and D-c. schmitz, “E~nomic [mp~t Statement: The A~ition of Mefa/eu~quj~uener~’ato the Florida Prohibited Aquatic Plant List,” unpublished paper for the JointCenter for Environmental and Urban Problems, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.d us Depafiment of Agriculture, Animal and plant Health lns~tion ~~icq “Biological control of Leafy Spurge,” program aid #1435, 1988, p. 2.e WM. SpauUing, Jr. and R.J. Mcphee, “An Analysis of the Economic Contribution of the Great Lakes sea Lamprey control pro9ram, ” The Report of the Great Lakes Fishery Commissionby the Bi-National Evaluation Team, vol. 2, Nov. 28, 1989, pp. 1-27.f DR, Talhelm and R.C, Bishop, ‘ f Benefits and Costs of Sea Lamprey (/Je~romyzon mafirrus) control in the Great Lakes: Some preliminary Results,” Canadian Journal of l%heryandAquaticScience, vol. 37, 1980, pp. 2,169-2,174.9 J.J. Drea and R.M. Hendrickson, Jr., “Analysis of a Successful Classical Biological Control Project: the Alfalfa Blotch Leafminer (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in the NortheasternUnited States,” Environmental Entomology, vol. 15, No. 3, June 1986, pp. 448453.hD.Q. Thompson, “Spread, Impact, and Control of Purple Iaosestrife (Lythrum sakaria) in North America Wetlands,” IJ.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987.~ P.M. Emerson and G.E. Plato, ‘Social Returns to Disease and Parasite Control in Agriculture: Witchweed in the United Stat=, ” Agrkxdtura/Eco nomicResearch, vol. 30, No. 1,1978, pp. 15-22.I C.R. Taylor et al., “Aggregate Economic Effects of Alternative Boll Weevil Management Strategies,”’ Agricu/tura/ Economics Research, vol. 35, No. 2, April 1983, pp. 19-28.k R.K, Conway, “An Economic persp~tive of the California Mediterranean Fruit Fly Infestation,” National Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,ERS Staff Report #AGES820414, 1982.I T,T, V. ,( Economic Analysis of the M~iterranean Fruit Fly ~ograrn in Guatemala,” Animal and plant Health lnsp@ion Servi@, U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 1989.m Natio’nal Research Coundl, “~ng-Term planning for R~ear& and Diagnosis to Protect U.S. Agriculture from Foreign Animal Diseases and Ectoparasites,” Sukmmittee on Researchand Diagnosis on Foreign Animal Disease, Committee on Animal Health, Board on Agriculture, NRC paper #PB84-165141, 1984.n us Department of Agriculture, Forest ~rvice, “pest Risk Assessment of the lmpo~ation of Larch from Siberia and the soviet Far East,” Misc. PuN. No. 1495, September 1991, pp. S-l-K-1 5.0 U,S. Depa~tment of Agficu]ture, “Eamxnic Benefits from the Importation of Soviet Logs,” unpublish~ draft (1 991).SOURCE: M. Cochran, “Non-Indigenous Species in the United States: Economic Consequences,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, March 1992.

128 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 4-D-Outline of Steps for Benefit/Cost Analysis of Non-Indigenous Species1. Effect estimationA.6.c.D.E.F.Identify relevant input and output categories1. Inputs-(e.g., wetland invasion by non-indigenous melaleuca)2. Outputs-(e.g., tourism; honey production)Define units of measurement for input and output categories1. Inputs-(e.g., acres invaded)2. Outputs-(e.g., tourist expenditures; quantity of honey sold)Establish a base of values for input and output categories without the introduction of the NISIdentify production process relating to introduction of the NIS to a series of outputs, expressedprobabilistically1. Expected units of invasion-(e.g., acres of distinct environs where NIS would be established anddistributed)Quantify expected magnitude of each output for the relevant magnitudes of each input categoryEstimate changes in input and output categories for with introduction versus without introductionscenariosii. Valuation of direct effectsA. Market goods1. Marginal changes in productiona. Market price x change in output quantity2. Non-marginal change in product in producta. Identify market price changesb. Measure consumer and producer surplusB. Non-market goods1. Contingent valuationIll. Calculate indirect effectsA. Multiplier income and employment effects1. Opportunity costs2. Unemployed resourcesB. Related goods1. Changes in production2. Changes in market price3. Calculate consumer and producer surplusIV. Calculate annual benefits and costsV. Accounting for timeA.B.c.Select appropriate discount rate1. Use real (deflated) rate (e.g., riskless rate; Water Resources Council rate)Convert annual benefits and costs to real terms (e.g., using CPI, GNP Deflator)Calculate present value1. Present value of benefits = !!$N C n2. Present value of costs = z— n-O (1+r) nn. number of the year in time series, N = last year of time series, r = discount rate, B = benefits, C = costsSOURCE: M. Cochran, “Non-Indigenous Species intheUnltedState$: Eoonomlo Cort8a quenoes,” oontraotormport prepared forthe Officeof Technology Assessment, March 1992.

Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 129Box 4-E-The IUCN Position Statement on Translocation of Living OrganismsA broad protocol covering the whole field of NIS releases was developed by the International Union forConservation of Nature and Natural Resources (lUCN), a body comprised of scientific experts and governmentofficials involved in conservation from around the world. The lengthy IUCN Position Statement on Translocationof Living Organisms, approved in 1987, lays out many questions to answer and steps to follow when consideringfuture releases. In summary it provides that:. Release of a NIS should be considered only if dear and well-defined benefits to humans or naturalcommunities can be foreseen.. Releases should be considered only if no indigenous species is suitable.. No NIS should be deliberately released into any natural area; releases into seminatural areas should notoccur absent exceptional reasons.. Planned releases, including those for biological control, entail three critical phases: rigorous assessmentof desirability; controlled experimental release; and extensive release accompanied by careful monitoringand pre-arrangement for control or eradication measures, if necessary.● Special consideration should be given to eradicating existing introductions in ecologically vulnerable areas.This approach represents the most broadly applicable model national law on NIS. Indeed, the positionstatement calls on national governments to provide the “legal authority and administrative support” to implementIUCN’s approach. This has not occurred. The statement did substantively influence the initial version of theConvention on Biological Diversity, which was drafted by IUCN’s legal branch. However, by the time the conventionwas opened for signing in Rio de Janeiro the negotiation process had greatly diluted the strong principlessummarized above (see ch. 10).SOURCE: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Species Survival Commission, ‘he IUCN PositionStatement on Translooation of Uvfng Organisms: Introductions, Reintroductions, and Restocking” (Gland, Switzerland, 1987).protocols; some suggest that they be implementedfederally by grafting their use into NEPA whenagencies assess potential environment impacts ofproposed releases (74).Adhering to a decisionmaking protocol canrequire data that are more difficult or expensive toobtain than the information traditionally consideredby managers. Even so, protocols often do noteliminate subjectivity and scientific uncertainty—some of the needed data may be unobtainable.Few protocols have been validated by way offollow-up evaluations of decisions based on them(83). Of course, if they are used more broadlygreater opportunities for evaluation will exist.Some prominent decisionmaking protocols doexist or have been proposed (box 4-F), Otherscould be developed to cover additional NISgroups and situations. Biological control specialistsin particular have proposed codifying morecomprehensive protocols: 1) to preempt overlyrestrictive regulations constructed by non-expertsand 2) to protect the public from amateur introductions(10). Their emphasis is on flexibilitywithin a reasonable, non-regulatory framework:“the protocols must be dynamic, i.e., capable ofbeing updated in response to ever increasingknowledge and changing conditions’ (10). Fisheriesspecialists have also stressed voluntarycompliance with protocols or guidelines, especiallycombined with education regarding itimportance, as a way to avoid the litigation thatmight accompany overly strict regulations (31).VALUES IN DECISIONMAKINGMany NIS issues may not be resolvable usingrisk analysis, environmental impact assessment,or economic analysis, because of lack of necessaryinformation or disagreement over the appro-

130 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 4-F-Prominent Decisionmaking ProtocolsCodes of Practice and Manual of Procedures for Considration of Introductions and Tranfers of Marine andFreshwater Organisms, European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization,United Nations, Rome, Italy, and International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark;revision published in 1988.Guidelines for lntroducing Foreign Organisms into the United States for the Biological Control of Weeds, WorkingGroup on Biological Control of Weeds, joint Weed Committees of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Interior;revised in 1960. (The U.S. Department of Agriculture has developed several other guidelines for the importation,interstate movement, and field release of various types of organisms for biological control.)Guidelines for Re-Introductions-Draft, Re-introduction Specialist Group, Species Survival Commission,International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland; proposed in 1992./UC/V Position Statement on Translocation of Living Organisms, International Union for Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland; approved in 1967.Position Statement on Exotic Aquatic Organisms' Introductions, American Fisheries Society, United States;revision adopted in 1966.Protocol for Translocation of Organisms to Islands, New Zealand; proposed in 1990.Research Protocol for Handling Nonindigenous Aquatic Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National FisheriesResearch Center, Gainesville, Florida, adopted by the Federal interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Forcein 1992.The Planned Introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms: Ecological Considerations and Recornmendations,Ecological Society of America; proposed in 1969.SOURCES: J.T. Carlton, “Man’s Role In Changing the Faoe of the Ocean,” Conservation 15b&y vol. 3, No. 3, September 19S9, pp.270-272; D.L. Kbgman and J.R. Coulson, ‘Wdallnes for Introdudng Foreign Organisms into the United States for the Biological Controlof ~eds,” Btdl#n of flte Enfomo@b/ So&ty ofAmm voi. 19, No. 3, 19S3, pp. 55-S1; J.M. Tiedje et al., ‘7?w Planned Introductionof Genetically Engineered Organisms: Eeotogioal Considerations and Recommendations,” Eco/ogy, vol. 70, No. 2, 19S9, pp. 29$315; D.R.Towns et af., “Protocols forTranslocation of Organisms to islands;’ Ecoldglcall?eeforatkm of/VewZea/amf kdmds, D.R.Tmetat. (ede.)(Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation, 1990).priate method. Decisionmakers may prefer, or becompelled, to decide on the basis of fundamentalvalues. As used in this section, ‘‘values” has nomonetary connotation, rather, it refers to overarchingcriteria that people use to make decisions(3). Values, although they are critical, oftenreceive little explicit acknowledgment in studiesof decisionmaking because of the focus onscience-based models.For most non-native Americans, being ofrelatively recent stock in North America andHawaii, little of their cultural identity revolvesaround a relationship with indigenous species.Indeed, much pioneer history is the story ofclearing the land of threatening or competingindigenous species in favor of tame, familiar,introduced ones. Not surprisingly, preservingindigeneity, both biological and cultural, has onlyrisen as a public value in the last few decades. TheEndangered Species Act 14 represents the strongestnational law embodying this biological preservationvalue. It is also reflected in native plantsocieties and similar manifestations of a growingemphasis on using indigenous species for landscapingand other applications (45).Americans also place strong emphasis onliberty as a value, here encompassing the libertyto sell, purchase, catch, hunt, possess, and useM ~~nger~ species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U. S.C.A. 1531 et w.)

Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 131NIS. Most people own pets and/or keep house orgarden plants, which are virtually all nonindigenous.This liberty value is so strong that atthe 1974 congressional hearing on the FWSattempt to implement a clean list decisionmakingapproach (box 4-A, above), the successful opponents-largelythe pet trade-argued that it usurpedtheir civil rights to import MS (76). This libertyis not limited to dogs, cats, and poinsettias. Manypeople want to own novel species because of theirnovelty (4).Values can conflict at social or personal levels.The use of non-indigenous fish for recreationalfishing, such as hybrid bass (Morone chrysops xM. saxatilis), represents a social conflict (59).Anathema to fishing purists, these “put and take’fisheries enjoy broad popularity-some haveclubs devoted to their furtherance. Preservingindigeneity in U.S. waters conflicts with theliberty to use the new fish. However, a limitedopinion poll (Arizona only) suggests that thepublic opposes the release of non-indigenous fishthat threaten the existence of indigenous fish (22).No broad public survey data exist on theprevalence of concerns about NIS problems.Surveys do show the public to be very concernedabout the health risks of pesticides, however (8).A person who supports preservation of indigenousspecies may also oppose the use of chemicalpesticides because of their health risks. In situationswhere chemical pesticides offer the onlycontrol for NIS that threaten indigenous species,that person has a personal conflict. He or she mustdecide which carries the most weight, the preservationor the health value.Many NIS choices boil down to humanevalues, rooted in basic moral principles. Monkeysmay be low-risk invaders, but many people objectto their being imported and possessed as pets forethical reasons. Feral horses and burros (Equusasinus) have been successful and often damaginginvaders, but vocal citizen groups object to theirbeing killed on ethical grounds. However, fewobject on ethical grounds to the killing of the lessattractive feral hog (Sus scrofa )-advocates fortheir preservation are the hunters who want toshoot them. (Indeed, a survey has shown that if adecisionmaker is a hunter he or she is more likelyto view non-indigenous animals, like feral hogs,as a beneficial resource than if he or she does nothunt (61)). Almost no one objects on ethicalgrounds to highly deleterious rats or sea lampreys(Petromyzon marinus) being killed.Clearly the attitudes of the public vary with theperceived attractiveness and usefulness of thespecies involved, indigenous or non-indigenous(28). Nevertheless, most people would probablysupport the following ethical position: regardlessof the species being controlled, if other factorssuch as costs and risks are equal, managers shoulduse the most humane methods. When applied inthe field, though, “humane” methods of controlelude easy definition (69).OTA makes no findings as to which valuesdeserve the greatest weight. Their role in pastdecisions, however, has tended to lack clarity.Future policy and management decisionmakingwould benefit from explicitly separating factualquestions from questions of values. Nevertheless,cultural, religious, and historical factors willinevitably color a decisionmaker’s perspective.NEW SYNTHESES OF DIVERSEAPPROACHESDifficulties abound in generalizing about NISdecisionmaking. An approach that holds for onetaxonomic group may not hold for another-onesize does not fit all. Potential impacts (harmfuland beneficial) vary with the species and theenvironments involved. Different areas of thecountry often have different interests. A new NISmay favor one group in society and burdenanother.Numerous interests can influence NIS decisionmaking(figure 4-4). Each interest is notmonolithic; as much contention can occur withinan identified group as between them. Not all theseinterests are brought to bear in all cases nor do allcarry equivalent weight. For example, a large or

132 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statespolitically influential constituency that favors aparticular decision regarding NIS may far outweighthe positions of a small number of expertscientists who caution against the decision (44).Are methods available to reconcile these diverseinterests and to resolve disputes that mayotherwise end in expensive and burdensomelitigation? If decisionmakers attempt to reconcilethese interests, which of the approaches discussedabove should they rely on—risk analysis, environmentalimpact assessment, economic analysis,and/or protocols? None of them alone is currentlybroadly applied to NIS. And how should diversevalues factor in?Two proposals for synthesis allow incorporationof diverse societal interests and capitalize onthe strengths of the various decisionmakingapproaches without according any of them trumpstatus. These proposals are outlined here with thecaveat that their application in particular contextsmay require modifications.Benefit/Cost Analysis Subject to a SafeMinimum StandardEconomist Alan Randall of Ohio State Universityproposes that current natural resources economicstheory justifies this rule: Decide on thebasis of maximizing net benefits to societysubject to the constraint of a Safe MinimumStandard (56). A “safe minimum standard’ is alevel of environmental quality that society shouldnot go below, except in extraordinary cases. Therule applies in deciding whether to prevent,support, or take no action on a particular introduction,or whether an existing NIS should becontrolled or eradicated. It can be applied tointentional releases and in preparing for orresponding to accidental releases. Generic applicationof the Randall approach by a managerwould follow six steps, with the underlyingpremise that each step involves an open, pluralisticprocess (56):Step 1: The manager obtains the judgment ofscientists who use risk analysis, experimentation,and/or other methods to predict the likelyspread and effects of a particular NIS. Theydetermine likely future scenarios of resultingecological situations under both baseline conditions,i.e., no introduction or further spread,and ‘‘with introduction” (or further spread)conditions. The scientists then determine whethera real possibility exists of a harmful invasion.If so, the manager proceeds to Step 2. If no suchpossibility exists, then the introduction canproceed, providing for further consideration ifand when new evidence arises.Step 2: The manager obtains the judgment ofscientists as to whether a possibility exists ofecologically disastrous-as opposed to harmfulbut manageable-consequences. If ecologicallydisastrous consequences are not a realpossibility, the manager proceeds to Step 3. Ifecologically disastrous consequences are areal possibility, the manager omits Steps 3, 4,and 5, and proceeds to Step 2a.Step 2a: If a real possibility of ecologicallydisastrous consequences exists, the managerinvokes a Safe Minimum Standard rule.This is a presumption based on preservationand other values that actions will not betaken that cause ecologically disastrousconsequences even if substantially greaterpotential benefits are lost. The introductionwould be prevented or reversed except forextraordinary cases in which the value ofthese foregone benefits would be intolerablyhigh. To make that decision, the managerfirst obtains economic calculations of theforegone benefits, then engages in a publicdecision process to determine whether theseare socially intolerable. If the decision ismade to proceed, mitigation of the potentiallydisastrous consequences would bepursued.

Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods 133Figure 4-4-The Major Interests Involved in ShapingNon-indigenous Species Policy-,-=- F\\Advocacy groups < >— —.Non-indigenous species policyA\< > State legislaturesv~Resource-basedGeneral publicUtilizmg publicMedia1— ——— Jindustry-JSOURCE: Adapted from S.R. Kellert and T,W. Clark, ‘The Theory and Application of a Wildlife Policy Framework,”Public Policy Issues in Wi/d/ife Management r W.R. Mangun (cd.) (New York, NY: Greenwood Press, 1991), pp. 17-38.Step 3: (from Step 2) Starting with the baselineand “with introduction’ scenarios (predictedin Step 1), the manager employs economists todevelop accounts of the resulting flows ofgoods and services. They per-form benefit/costanalyses based on these accounts, with appropriatemarket and non-market valuation methodsto measure total value, including use and‘‘existence’ values. The manager determineswhether the prospective introduction (orspread) is expected to have a net benefit.Step 4: If Step 3 reveals that the introduction (orspread) will not have a net benefit, the managerdevelops alternative scenarios to prevent it. IfStep 3 reveals positive net benefits, but alsosignificant harmful effects (ecological or economic),alternative scenarios to mitigate theharmful effects are developed. Then the economistsperform further benefit/cost analysesbased on accountings under these new scenariosthat incorporate the prevention or mitigationalternatives. (If positive net benefits resultwith no significant harmful effects, then nofurther accounting is needed.)Step 5: The manager gives full public considerationto the benefits and costs of thealternatives resulting from Step 4. Absentcompelling input to the contrary, the alternativewith the maximum net benefits ischosen.The Randall approach represents a compromisebetween the liberty value and the preservationand humane values discussed in the valuessection, above. That is, traditional benefit/costanalysis assumes the decisionmaker has thefreedom to choose the maximum net benefitalternative, regardless of associated costs, whereasthe Safe Minimum Standard (Step 2a) constrainsthat liberty based on a socially accepted highergood. The constraint also acts as a check on theproblem, discussed above, of relying on economicanalysis to value effects of low-probabilityfuture events that may be irreversible (i.e.,disastrous), like extinction.Decision Analysis Combined WithAlternative Dispute ResolutionProfessor Lynn Maguire of the Duke UniversitySchool of the Environment proposes adifferent way to synthesize decisionmaking approaches.It combines decision analysis with

134 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesalternative dispute resolution. This method hasmore participation by ‘‘stakeholder’ groups thandoes the Randall approach, but fewer pre-selectedanalytical methods (42).Decision analysis is a framework that ensuresthat the components common to any decision arerecognized and addressed explicitly. Those decisioncomponents are: objectives, criteria, alternativeactions, sources of uncertainty, and valuesassociated with possible outcomes. The concurrentuse of alternative dispute resolution recognizesthat leaving difficult decisions to governmentofficials or experts can result in continuedconflict among the interest groups involved. Theprocess creates a forum for addressing the decisioncomponents, making tradeoffs, recognizingcommon ground, and making the needed decision.A similar framework has been proposed fordecisionmaking for releases of genetically engineeredorganisms (20). The Maguire approachproceeds through four steps:Step 1: Identify and convene, in a neutral setting,representatives of stakeholder interest groupsin a particular NIS decision (e.g., release,control, eradication, or regulatory changes).Step 2: Undertake preliminary negotiations toachieve, where possible, joint acceptance ofmajor objectives and sub-objectives, and criteriafor judging whether alternative outcomesfrom the decision to be made meet the objectives(i.e., the ‘utility’ of the outcome). To theextent possible, separate technical questionsfrom value-based questions and obtain technicalexpertise to address the former. Whenagreed, engage in joint fact-finding efforts.Step 3: The parties flesh out the sub-componentsof their views of the probable effects of thealternative outcomes, including factual andvalue-based effects. These are graphicallyrepresented on a “decision tree” in which theparties, with expert assistance if needed, assignperceived probabilities to different outcomes(the “branches” of the tree), accounting foruncertainties. The ‘‘utility” (identified in Step2) of each identified outcome is weighted withthe perceived probability of the outcome occurringto calculate the “expected utility” of eachoutcome for each party.Step 4; All parties identify actions with “maximumexpected utility. ” Other jointly acceptedrules, such as minimizing the largest costs, arealso possible. Identify and negotiate options toreduce uncertainty by obtaining additionalinformation. If agreed, obtain this additionalinformation. Then discuss creative tradeoffalternatives in view of the maximum expectedutilities of all parties or other accepted decisionrule. Attempt to negotiate tradeoffs with theaim of achieving a consensus decision.The Maguire approach, unlike the Randallapproach, neither makes presumptions based onvalues nor prescribes analytical methods. It mandatesless input from scientists and economiststhan the Randall approach. Consequently, theoutcomes may reflect less ‘‘good science” andrely more on the subjective probabilities assignedby the participants. Indeed, the absence of scientificanswers may be why the dispute among thestakeholders exists in the first place. The approachesare not mutually exclusive, however.Participants in the Maguire process could ‘jointlyaccept” that benefit/cost analysis subject to aSafe Minimum Standard embodies the appropriateStep 2 criteria to judge the utility of alternativeoutcomes. They could choose to obtain more“good science” to the extent possible.OTA finds three common hurdles to implementingthese two approaches:1. Lack of clear guidance as to what shouldtrigger the significant commitment of personnel,expertise, and time necessary toimplement formal approaches. Various triggeroptions exist, however: for preparationof any new clean or dirty list; pursuant to apetition process (similar to listing decisionsunder the Endangered Species Act); under

Chapter 4-The Application of Decisionmaking Methods I 1352.3.NEPA for controversial environmental impactstatements (21); and pursuant to theFederal Negotiated Rulemaking Act, 15 discussedbelow.Lack of convincing treatment of uncertainty,because of their emphases on negotiating,quantifying, or developing scenariosbased on unknowns. Admittedly, it is hardto envision any convincing treatment ofuncertainty in a decisionmaking model.Lack of evaluation of their adaptability toNIS decisionmaking in the real world.Randall’s Safe Minimum Standard veryroughly resembles the restrained benefit/cost weighing allowed under the EndangeredSpecies Act (55). (The act’s SafeMinimum Standard is no further humancausedextinctions unless the ‘God Squad’determines the costs to be intolerably highin a particular case.) The Maguire approachhas been utilized successfully in othernatural resource contexts, such as reintroducingthe endangered grizzly bear (Ursusarctos horribilis) in the Northern Rockies,which is comparable in some ways tointroducing potentially harmful NIS (43).Obviously, neither model can be evaluatedin the NIS context unless a commitment ismade to try them.Agencies’ implementation of decisions should beevaluated if new decision making methods are tried.Also, the quality of decisions reached must beassessed, i.e., whether new approaches ultimatelyimprove management of harmful NIS.As far as strengths, both models can incorporatethe various decisionmaking approaches discussedin this chapter. In doing so, they organizeand structure information from diverse sourcesbut are not overly rigid. Both proposals also callfor full documentation of the process. They forcemethods, assumptions, comparisons, and tradeoffsto be explicit, which facilitates their communication,review, and appraisal (20,68).The question remains how these or comparabledecisionmaking approaches could be integratedinto a regulatory process. One existing avenue isthe Federal Negotiated Rulemaking Act. It pro-vides a process whereby the head of a Federalagency makes a threshold decision about whetheran issue would benefit from negotiations. He orshe bases this on the need for a new Federalregulation and the feasibility of convening arepresentative committee likely to achieve consensus.Public notice of the process is required.The agency may hire professional facilitators torun the negotiations. Under the act, the agencycommits to using the consensus agreement, if theparties reach one, as the basis for the proposedregulation “to the maximum extent possibleIS INegotiat~ Rtiemtig Act of 1990 (5 U. S.C.A. section 561 et seq.)

136 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesconsistent with the legal obligations of theagency. ‘‘16 Although it apparently has never beenapplied before in the NIS context, negotiatedrulemaking has successfully resolved disputes inother environmental areas.Even if these model approaches are used, andconsensus achieved, positive improvements inregulation and control of damaging NIS will notnecessarily follow. Regular feedback based onmonitoring of ultimate results would aid inimproving the models. Follow-up evaluation ofagency implementation of resulting decisionsshould be an integral part of any changes indecisionmaking processes (29).CHAPTER REVIEWThis chapter has examined the means by whichdecisions about potentially harmful NIS aremade: clean and dirty lists, risk analysis, environmentalimpact assessment, economic analysis,values, and protocols. This chapter also looked attwo methods to synthesize the different approaches.Explicitly addressing three interrelatedissues would contribute to clearer decisions in thefuture: 1) determining the level of risk that isacceptable; 2) setting thresholds of risk at whichdecisionmakers should invoke formal, more costly,approaches; and 3) clarifying the tradeoffs whendeciding in the face of uncertainty. The benefitsof taking these issues seriously would be betterNIS decisions in many cases or, at least, decisionsthat take better account of the diverse societalinterests involved.Even under the best of circumstances, somemistaken decisions will be made because of theinherent unpredictability of NIS. Technologyprovides the means to counter such mistakes.Methods to prevent and control problems due toNIS are the subject of the next chapter.165 U. S.C.A. 583(a)(7).

.Technologiesfor PreventingandManagingProblems5This chapter describes technologies and related issues forpreventing and managing harmful non-indigenous species(NIS) in the United States. Programs are discussedin the order of their occurrence for dealing with NIS:prevention, followed by eradication, containment, and suppression.Education is a key component within all of theseprograms.The adage “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’holds true for many harmful NIS. However, prevention is notalways sufficient. Harmful NIS do enter the country, although itis not possible to predict when or where the next harmful MS willenter, or what its specific impact will be. Alternative programsare required to prevent establishment of these MS or to managethem.Eradication is the first step in such reactive approaches.Destroying a population when it is relatively small or before itspreads can eliminate the need for long-term managementprograms. Eradication is not always possible, however, or maynot be implemented. The next step is containmentor developmentof a strategy to limit or slow the population’s spread.Long-term management using specific control technologies isthe final phase. At this point the goal is to suppress the populationbelow acceptable thresholds.TECHNOLOGIES FOR PREVENTINGUNINTENTIONAL AND ILLEGAL INTRODUCTIONSFinding:Shortcomings exist in Federal prevention programs. Thehigh volume of people and goods in transit can overwhelmt~--’:~-g-’ “+“1 ,!,,–7‘.--—~ .= ---. .-w+“. -’

138 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesinspectors, limiting thorough surveillance. Confusingregulatory authority can lead to delaysin applying known technologies. Lag timesoften exist between the identification of aharmful NIS and the implementation of aneffective prevention technology.Inspection and Exclusion Activities atU.S. Ports of EntryExperts often consider prevention the mosteconomical, desirable, and effective managementstrategy for harmful NIS. The manifestation ofthis policy is government inspection and exclusionprograms for NIS. The main factors involvedin successfully preventing the entry of NIS are:the availability and efficacy of technologies forknown problems (e.g., fumigation for importedfruits and nuts); the development of applicabletechnologies and programs for new NIS (e.g.,ballast water treatment for zebra mussels, Dreissenapolymorpha); and applying these technologieseffectively (e.g., matching availability ofinspectors to volume of passengers from internationalflights).Preventing the introduction of harmful NISinvolves various Federal and, to a lesser degree,State agencies, often working together. Thiscooperation may include assuming inspectionduties or sharing of resources and information.Chapters 6, 7, and 8 discuss the roles of thedifferent Federal agencies in NIS preventionactivities.TRAVELERS AND BAGGAGEA recognized pathway for NIS at U.S. ports ofentry is the traveling public and their baggage(14). Under normal circumstances, insufficienttime and staffing and the numbers of internationaltravelers prevent 100 percent inspection of passengersand baggage. A profile system based oncountry of origin and passenger descriptionsidentifies high-risk flights and passengers.Preferably, selective and efficient inspectiontechnologies are used to reduce NIS introduction.Inspections-before imports are shipped, at U.S. portsof entry, and after shipments are treated-areimportant means of excluding agricultural pests fromthe country.The categorization of flights from areas of knownNIS of quarantine significance can allow inspectorsto most effectively use their limited resources.Human ‘‘rovers’ also play an importantrole in identifying passengers who might intentionallyintroduce damaging NIS.X-ray machines and beagles are importanttools in detecting prohibited NIS in baggage.Presently, dogs are used at nine major airports inthe United States. X-ray equipment is used at 42major airports and land-border stations (43). Dogsand xrays have various limitations. For example,they cannot distinguish between permissible andforbidden items of similar type. Their effective-

Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems 139ness also depends on the quantity of goods in asample and the packaging of the items.Some innovative approaches to detecting NISin baggage are being developed; these includecarbon dioxide ‘‘sniffers’ and other electronic ormechanical probes (1 1).INTERNATIONAL TRADE: AGRICULTURE ANDCOMMERCIAL PRODUCTSInternational commerce provides another avenuefor the introduction of potentially harmfulNIS into the United States. Preventing theirintroduction requires the establishment of regulatoryquarantines. Such quarantines can requirethat a commodity be treated with a specifictechnology or that live organisms (e.g., largegame animals, plant germ plasm, or potentialbiological control agents) be held in a quarantinefacility to test for the presence of restrictedpathogens, predators, or parasites.Commodities (Fruits and Vegetables)—Techniques for preventing unintended introductionsof NIS with commodities include treatmentschedules and sampling programs. For example,mangoes from Brazil are tested for the presence ofMediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata). Ideally,treatments should provide complete effectiveness(100 percent kill); cause little or nodamage to the commodity; cause only minordelays in commercial transit; and have no humanhealth risks (69).Procedures such as picking fruit and vegetablesearly to minimize the chance of infestation orusing cultivars resistant to specific pests can beimplemented before a commodity leaves theoriginating country. In addition, changing theplanting date to avoid pest outbreaks, rotatingcrops, or using chemical pesticides to establishpest-free zones can reduce the chances of infestation(69).The goal of a pest-free zone is to remove thepest problem in a specific part of a country.Protocols for establishing such zones include:surveys; required action if the survey detects thetarget pest within the area; procedures for sampling,marketing, certifying, and safeguardingexported products; and a documented history ofpest-free status. The U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA) has pest-free zone agreements withMexico, Chile, and other countries (105).While a commodity is in transit, or after it hasarrived at a U.S. port of entry, specific treatmentssuch as the application of chemicals or holdingitems at specific temperatures for designated timeperiods are available (table 5-l). Several factorslimit the use of temperature or chemicals, includingthe biology of the NIS, the frailty of thecommodity, and the feasibility of application.Some chemical treatments cause damage orreduce the product’s shelf life (29). Temperaturetreatments are nonchemical alternatives but requirestrict adherence to protocols for efficacy.For example, a hot water dip for papayas wasdiscontinued because of difficulties in monitoringthe process (94).By combining cultural and physical treatmentsin the country of origin, some commodities canreceive pre-clearance before entering the UnitedStates. Pre-cleared commodities are permittedentry without further inspection. For example,inspectors trained by USDA’s Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service (APHIS) working incooperation with local inspectors in Japan, canmonitor field production, storage, packaging, andshipment of Satsuma oranges, which are inspectedfor the presence of citrus canker (Xanthomonascampestris pv. citri) (72). Pre-clearanceprograms exist between the United States and 24other countries, yet, with the exception of Canada,they remain relatively small (43,103).Subset sampling is part of the pre-clearanceinspection for highly perishable commodities orwhen known NIS potentially infest specific commodities.APHIS has established protocols forsubset sampling (93), which involves samplingsmall portions of an imported commodity toassess whether NIS are present. Limited resources,loading techniques, or large lots can

140 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 5-l—Examples of Treatment Technologies for Importing CommoditiesChemical treatment:Commodities are treated with chemical fumigants at specific atmospheric pressures for specific time periods.Example: Under normal atmospheric pressure and at 90-96 oF, imported chestnuts arefumigated for 3 hours with methyl bromide for infestations of the chestnut weevil (Curculioelephas),Temperature treatment:Freezing:Fruits and vegetables are frozen at subzero temperatures with subsequent storage and transportationhandling at temperatures no higher than 20 oF.Cold treatment:Commodities are cooled and refrigerated for specific temperatures and days.Example: Fruit infested with the false coding moth (Crytophlebia leucotreta) requiresrefrigeration for not less than 22 days at or below 31 ‘F.Vapor heat:Commodities are heated in water-saturated air at 110 ‘F. Condensing moisture gives off latent heat, tillingeggs and larvae.Examp/e:The temperature of grapefruit from Mexico is raised to 110 ‘F at the center of the fruitin 8 hours and is held at that temperature for 6 hours.Hot water dip:Commodities are treated with heated water for specific periods of time.Example: Mangoes weighing up to 375 grams from Costa Rica are dipped in 115‘F water for65 minutes.Combination treatment:Combination of fumigation and cold treatment.Example: Fruit infested with Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) is exposed to methylbromide for 2 hours then refrigerated for 4 days at 33-37 oF.Irradiation treatments:Commodities are exposed to irradiation at specific rates and times.Example: Papayas shipped from Hawaii would be treated with a minimum absorbed ionizingradiation dose of 15 kilorads. (This treatment schedule has USDA approval but is notcommercially used at this time.)SOURCES: 7CFRCh. 111 (1-1-91 Ed.) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA, Part 319- Foreign Quarantine Notices, Subpart- Fruitsand Vegetables, 319.56; 7 CFR Ch. 111 (1-1-92 Ed.) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA, Part 318- Hawaiian and TerritorialQuarantine Notices, Subpart - Hawaiian Fruits and Vegetables, 318.13.reduce the randomness of samples, compromisingaccuracy (91).One technology with potential for treatingmany commodities such as flowers, grain, andfruits is irradiation (e.g., gammaradiation). Irradiationkills organisms directly or indirectly (e.g.,causes sterility or other mutations in immaturelife stages) so that new populations cannot beestablished. This technology is currently used toincrease the shelf life of foods such as strawberriesand for treating spices.To become an effective tool, it is necessary toestablish dosage levels for specific pest speciesand commodities. The doses required to directlykill some non-indigenous pests can damagecommodities. For example, some flowers fromHawaii cannot tolerate certain radiation levels(29), but decreasing the doses potentially leaveslive (though nonfertile) pests. These presentproblems for inspectors, because practical methodsthat distinguish nonfertile from fertile pestsare limited.Public concern over health risks also affects theuse of irradiation. Although irradiated productspose no known hazards to consumers, potentialoccupational health risks exist (63).Animals (Livestock, Zoos and the Pet Trade)---NIS such as “exotic” game animals are recognizedas sources of disease for domesticated and

Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 141wild indigenous animals (47). Therefore, variousnon-indigenous animals being imported are temporarilyheld at quarantine stations, where they areexamined for general clinical signs of disease,ectoparasites, and specific diseases based on thespecies and country of origin. Categories ofvertebrate animals quarantined include domesticlivestock and swine, poultry, pet birds, andvarious ‘‘exotic’ game animals. Other categoriesof vertebrates have no or few restrictions. Forexample, no Federal quarantine requirementsexist for non-indigenous fish, and few exist fornon-indigenous reptiles.Animals are held either in USDA VeterinaryServices quarantine stations or in various privatefacilities approved by the USDA at or near portsof entry. Veterinary Services maintains quarantinestations in Newburg, New York; Miami,Florida; and Honolulu, Hawaii. In addition, theHarry S. Truman Animal Import Center at FlemingKey, Florida, quarantines imported animalswhen highly contagious diseases (e.g., foot-andmouthdisease) are a risk or where high securityis required.Animal quarantine does not completely preventthe introduction of animal disease or diseasevectors, however. Some non-indigenous animalscircumvent quarantine when they are shipped toapproved zoos. While these animals are technicallyheld in a permanent quarantine (i.e., thezoo), the potential exists for diseases to escape viaother vectors such as insects. Importation ofanimals such as red deer (Cervus elaphus) forgame and ostriches (Struthio camelus) for commercialpurposes also provides a potential pathwayfor NIS. A gap in prevention occurs becauseit is difficult to recognize diseases or their vectorscarried on these novel imports and to developappropriate tests quickly.Plant Germ Plasm—High-risk plant germplasm is quarantined to check for the presence ofpests or pathogens such as viruses, bacteria,insects and mites, or fungi. The National PlantGermplasm Center in Beltsville, Maryland, conductstests for detection methods. Present facilitiesand staffing are inadequate to process expectedfuture volumes of incoming material (65),and the Center is in the process of expansion.Ongoing construction activities may extend into1997 (92).Some standard techniques for detecting pathogensin germ plasm include visually looking forsigns and symptoms of disease, and checking fortransmission to healthy plants (79). More specifictechniques involving electron microscopy, immunosorbentassays (ELISA, EIA), molecularprobes, and other tools have been developed orimproved for particular pathogens (38). Thesetools, used alone or in combination, allow fasterand more precise pathogen detection, althoughthey also have limitations to their use. Researchis needed to detect other pathogens of quarantinesigntificance and to make these technologies morepractical at inspection stations (38).Biological Control Agents-Certain groupsof non-indigenous biological control agents (e.g.,insects and pathogens) are also quarantined uponimportation. The quarantine may screen for nontargeteffects of control agents, for hyperparasites,or for purity to guard against the inadvertentintroduction of additional NIS (43).Biological control quarantine facilities exist inFederal, State, and university laboratories. TheUSDA provides guidelines for their developmentand sets standards for features such as air intakesystems, drains, escape-proof containers, andgreenhouses. These standards vary depending onthe type of organisms being held. Quarantinefacilities in Frederick, Maryland, for example, aredesigned to prevent plant pathogens from escaping(58).Education at Ports of EntryA portion of travelers carrying prohibited NISare unaware of Federal restrictions or have madehonest mistakes about possessing prohibited items.These travelers would more likely comply withrestrictions if they were aware of the reasons for

142 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesAttempts to educate travelers regarding the dangersof importing non-indigenous species have relied onposters and other written materials, with mixedsuccess.regulatory actions, and the environmental andeconomic risks involved (38). A well-organized,active public education campaign could disseminatesuch information.One example of a public education campaignfor travelers was a USDA program begun in theearly 1960s. It used the media to build generalawareness in order to deter entry of prohibitedproducts (54). The program included printedinformation, radio and television advertisements,films, foreign language fliers, and the developmentof the symbol “Pestina” (akin to the U.S.Forest Service’s Smoky the Bear).The program had mixed results. No formalevaluation attempted to determine the program’seffectiveness (52). The program did illustrate alack of cooperation and coordination betweenFederal agencies and the private sector, as airlines,travel agencies, and port authorities wereindifferent about giving full support to the USDAprograms (54,91).Although public education is considered anessential element of prevention programs, OTAcould not identify a formal national educationprogram directed against NIS importation. Limitedpublic education at ports of entry dependsprimarily on printed materials (e.g., posters andpamphlets). Showing videos on airplanes is aninteresting approach. Hawaiian, Northwest, andContinental Airlines are sporadically involved insuch a program on flights to Hawaii.Where, when, and how to educate the publicabout NIS policy are important questions. Educationbefore travelers depart (allowing them toleave prohibited items behind) offers perhaps thebest way to prevent introductions. Educating afterdeparture but beforeacting not so much astrip, but as a methodfuture trips (54).arrival also is beneficial,a safeguard for the existingfor building awareness forEvaluation of Prevention Programs andMethodsAssessing the effectiveness of inspection andquarantine programs is difficult. For example, thenumber of reported interceptions at a port of entryonly provides the quantity and types of regulatedNIS discovered, This information provides littledata on the effectiveness of the prevention systembecause it does not estimate the total pest entries.OTA was only able to identify ad hoc programsthat evaluate the effectiveness of preventionprograms.THE “BLITZ”One approach to understanding how manyprohibited items enter the country is through‘‘blitzes,’ or brief 100 percent inspection. Duringone week in May 1990, USDA/APHIS, theCalifornia Department of Food and Agriculture,and some southern California counties conducteda blitz at Los Angeles International Airport. Outof a total of 490 flights, 100 percent of thebaggage of 153 targeted flights (from high-riskcountries of origin) and several non-targeted

Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems 1143flights was inspected. The remainder underwentstandard USDA inspection.The blitz showed that passenger baggage onforeign flights is an important pathway for plantand animal pests (7). Inspection involving 16,997passengers (i.e., passengers and their baggage)from the targeted flights intercepted 667 lots ofprohibited fruits and vegetables and 140 animalproducts (equaling 2,828 pounds). Another 690lots of prohibited fruits and vegetables and 185 ofanimal products (2,969 pounds) were interceptedfrom non-targeted flights. The results also demonstratedthat at this airport considerable illegalimportation occurs. A study of the blitz concludedthat more resources are needed to close thispathway and to more strongly deter commonillegal activity (8).“Shutting the Door”—Blitzes can evaluatethe effectiveness of prevention programs alreadyunderway, Assessing when and how new programsare established is another important issue.Lag times often occur between the identificationof new pathways (and new NIS) and the implementationof new prevention programs (table5-2). Eliminating such lags could help prevent theestablishment of new harmful NIS.Both political and technical limitations causedelays. For example, effective methods such asxrays and dogs exist for identifying domesticfrost-class mail containing prohibited agriculturalproducts. But postal laws and lack of departmentalinterest have limited the control of thispathway (7). And while many techniques areavailable to treat ballast water, few are practicalfor large-scale use (97).Even when programs are established, gaps intheir implementation may continue to allow theentry of NIS. The protocols to prevent introductionsvia ballast water apply only for the GreatLakes (97). Ships entering other U.S. ports canstill introduce non-indigenous aquatic organisms.The development of a domestic first-class mail inspectionprogram between Hawaii and Californiadoes not address the potential movement of harmfulMS between Puerto Rico and California (77).TECHNOLOGIES FOR MANAGINGESTABLISHED HARMFULNON-INDIGENOUS SPECIESPrevention programs are less than perfect atkeeping potentially damaging NIS out of theUnited States. Programs to manage already introducedspecies are essential and use additionaltechnologies.Finding:Accurate and timely species-level identificationis essential at all levels of a NIS managementprogram. Applications of computer technologiesprovide new approaches to NIS monitoringand information acquisition. However,these technologies are only tools. Their informationoutput is only as good as what is put in.Species Identification and DetectionAs illustrated in chapter 3, information concerningthe identity and number of NIS in theUnited States is incomplete. Correct identificationis vital for distinguishing NIS from indigenousones and for establishing managementprograms. For example, some scientists nowbelieve that the 1991 infestations of the sweetpotato whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) in Californiawere in fact a different species (2). If true, thesearch for control methods would require adifferent focus because many technologies arespecies specific (e.g., pheromone traps, classicalbiological control). Improper species identificationcan lead to the failure of these speciesspecificmanagement programs.COLLECTIONS AND STAFFINGNational, State, and university taxonomic collectionsprovide reference material for comparingand identifying species. They maintain records ofknown species and their historical and presentdaydistribution. Plant and animal collections ofUSDA and the Fish and Wildlife Service are held

144 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 5-2—Lag Times Between Identification of Species’ Pathway andImplementation of Prevention Program.Date pathway Date preventionSpecies Pathway identified program implemented Remaining gapsMediterranean fruit fly(Ceratitis capitata)Aquatic vertebrates,invertebrates, andalgaeAsian tiger mosquito(Aedes albopictus)Forest pestsFruit shipped through first- mid 1930sclass domestic mailfrom Hawaii1990, mail traveling fromHawaii to CaliforniainspectedShip ballast water 1981 1992, Coast Guardproposes guidelines fortreating ballast water intothe Great LakesImported used tires 1986 1988, protocolsestablished for importedused tiresUnprocessed wood 1985 1991, first restrictions(including dunnage,imposed on log importslogs, wood chips, etc.)from SiberiaFirst-class mail fromelsewhere or otherpotential pathways (e.g.,Puerto Rico to California)International shipping intoother U.S. ports; shipballast water fromdomestic portsInterstate used tire transportWood imports other than fromSiberiaSOURCES: Bio-environmental Services Ltd., The Presence andlmplication of Foreign Ckganisrns in Ship Ballast Waters Discharged into the GreatLakes, VOI 1, March 1981; C.G. Moore, D.B. Francy, D.A. Eliason, and T.P. Monath, “Aedes ahopktus in the United States: Rapid Spread of aPotential Disease Vector,” Journa/oftheArnerican Mosquito Contro/Ass=”ation, vol. 4, No. 3, September 1988, pp. 356-361; LA. Siddiqui, AssistantDirector, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA, testimony at hearings before the Senate Committee on GovernmentalAffairs, Subcommittee on Federal Services, Post Offices, and Civil Services, Postal Irnplementatlon of theAgricultural Quarantine EnforcementAct,June 5, 1991; United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Wood and Wood Product Risk Assessment,”draft, 1985.at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museumof Natural History, the National Arboretum,and taxonomic laboratories of the USDA AgriculturalResearch Service. In addition, the AmericanType Culture Collection, a non-profit, privatelyheld organization, maintains reference and researchmaterial on microorganisms.Some groups of organisms are better knownand easier to identify than others. Indigenousbirds and mammnals are thoroughly inventoried,but experts believe more than half of the indigenousinsects and arachnids in the United Statesare unidentified (40). The lack of information onindigenous species hampers the identification ofsome NIS in the United States. The ClintonAdministration’s proposed national biologicalsurvey, slated by the Department of Interior tobegin in October 1993, is an attempt to bolsterinformation on U.S. biological diversity (81).Taxonomists (people who describe, identify,and classify species) work at field locations,museums, and universities across the country. Ashortage of trained taxonomists at all levels in theUnited States (40,102) impedes rapid and accurateidentification of intercepted species and thecollection of scientific information on NIS (40).MOLECULAR BIOLOGY TECHNIQUESTraditionally, taxonomists study variations inanatomy, physiology, and morphology to distinguishbetween different species. For many NIS,identification is hampered by the species’ smallsize or because of taxonomic complexity orambiguity. Alternatively, methods of molecularbiology can provide effective options. Tools suchas gel electrophoresis can reveal enough geneticvariation to separate species (60). Molecularbiology methods can identify genetic strains, ordistinguish between hybrids and natural populations(27,36).Molecular techniques may also provide fasteridentifications, which is important for NIS likethe African honey bee. European (Apis mellifera)and African (A.m. scutellata) honeybees can existat the same location, and quick identification ofthe African type is important for management

Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 145programs. The morphological approach to identificationmeasures variation of specific body parts,while mitochondrial DNA testing works fasterand is more accurate (15).Aside from species identification, moleculartesting is useful for determining geographicorigin of a NIS (56). For example, molecularmarkers may in the future help identify the originof Californian populations of the Mediterraneanfruit fly (ch. 8, box 8-A). Understanding aspecies’ origin can help identify routes of invasionor spread and aid in developing appropriateprevention or management programs (39,74).Species Surveys and PopulationMonitoringPlanned detection systems are useful for identifyingearly infestations of NIS, monitoring populationsafter they are established, and documentingeffects. For example, monitoring water systemsfor young zebra mussels can provide early warningsof an invasion (55).DETECTION TECHNOLOGIESVisual surveys, traps, and physical inspectioncan locate infestations of NIS. Visual surveys areused for such species as weeds, birds, andmammals. Trapping locates organisms that aremore difficult to see, such as insects or aquaticinvertebrates. Physical inspection is especiallyuseful for diseases associated with livestock.Surveys for known harmful NIS occur at thelocal level, as part of pest management programs;at the State level, as part of domestic quarantineprograms; and at regional or national levels.Surveys to detect new introductions are generallyconducted by the Federal Government (Californiais an exception), in part because surveys generallyhave little or no immediate economic value andcan have significant long-term costs.Traps can provide information on the presenceand geographical distribution of NIS. Furtherinformation, such as the host, geographic origin,age, and sex of a NIS are potentially obtainableFast and accurate species identification is essential fordesigning detection methods and management plansbut distinguishing some species, e.g., European andAfrican honey bees, requires expertise that is in shortsupply.(9). The basic components of a monitoring systemare the attractant, the trap itself, and informationabout the species’ biology (100). Desirable attributesof trapping systems are low cost, readyavailability, easy servicing and inspection, andprovision of specimens in good condition fortaxonomic identification (13).Commercially available traps incorporatingbehavior-modifying compounds (biorationals) suchas sex pheromones or other attractants are relativelyinexpensive and effective tools for surveyingNIS in certain situations. Most researchinvolving pheromones and other attractants intraps is aimed at non-indigenous insects that areagricultural pests. Such traps are potentiallyuseful with other NIS (e.g., terrestrial vertebrates)(25). (For more on the use of pheromones see“Tools of the Control Trade” below.)Limitations to the broader use of pheromonemonitoring programs include the high cost of theactive ingredients, inadequacies in synthetic pheromoneformulation technologies, the lack ofcommercial development, and shortcomings intechnology transfer to the marketplace (78).

146 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesREMOTE SENSINGRemote sensing shows promise in NIS detectionprograms. Remote sensing of habitats withvideo and still-camera equipment can provideinformation on the distribution and spread ofcertain NIS, especially plants. Helicopters,planes, and even satellites gather informationusing infrared or near-infrared photography. Imageprocessingsoftware creates a digital mosaic inwhich dominant species can sometimes be distinguishedon a regional basis.Federal and State agencies are conductingresearch into and applying remote sensing technology.The data collected are important for identifyingnew infestations of damaging NIS and developingmanagement plans. For example, the AgriculturalResearch Service used Landsat imageryin a bollworm (Helicoverpa zea) control programfor cotton in Texas (32). Remote sensing data arealso often suitable for use in geographical informationsystems.GIS TECHNOLOGYGeographical information systems (GIS) store,manipulate, analyze, and display spatial data. Thecombination and display of variables such astopography, vegetation types, and climate hasrecently been enhanced by the merging of GISwith online satellite data. By sorting and filingvast amounts of information, GIS can rapidlycorrelate and map such variables. Limiting factorsin GIS technology are the high cost of dataacquisition and a lack of data linking NIS togeographical variables (39).Federal and State agencies and universities useGIS technology for various natural areas’ issues,e.g., to study wildlife migration patterns and ratesof wetlands loss. Such tools are also applicablefor monitoring NIS. The National Fisheries ResearchCenter in Gainesville, Florida, now usesGIS to analyze non-indigenous fish and certainmollusks (84). The National Park Service determinesresources vulnerable to fire or gypsy moths(Lymantria dispar) (85).The applications of GIS vary with the availabilityof suitable MS data. Detailed knowledge of aNIS allows the prediction of high-risk areas forunplanned invasions or expansion. Conversely,monitoring planned or known introductions cangenerate NIS data by identifying habitat correlations.Hypotheses can rapidly be tested, forexample, relating invasions to habitat disturbanceor identifying particular corridors that invasionsare likely to follow (39).Information Collection and DisseminationThe development of tools to collect informationabout NIS quickly and easily is important, asare mechanisms to disseminate the information.Methods to distribute information about NISpresence and distribution should be timely andreliable. The range of potential mechanismsvaries from printed books, journals, newsletters,and abstracts to electronic computer storage,CD-ROM (Compact Disk-Read Only Memory),and expert systems.Few programs for disseminating informationstrictly about NIS are available within the UnitedStates. As one example, the New York Sea GrantMarine Advisory Service operates the ZebraMussel Information Clearinghouse in Brockport,New York, to provide information on zebramussel distribution, impacts, research, and otherissues (84).Potentially, computer technologies could helpdevelop national or even global centralized NISdatabases. The function of such databases wouldbe not only to provide information on availablemanagement technologies, but also to warn ofpossible harmful NIS. No single organization islikely to develop such programs, as the creationand maintenance of the databases is expensive(33).Technologies such as computerized databasescould aid information management related toNIS. For example, the BIOCAT database recordsthe results of nearly 5,000 introductions of

Chapter 5--Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 147biological control agents in about 200 countriessince 1880 (28).An interest at the Federal level (especiallywithin the USDA) exists for increased use ofcomputerized databases (17,88). Within the USDA,however, OTA has found sharp contrasts betweenthe start-up and long-term support of databasesinvolving NIS. NAPIS (the National AgriculturalPest Information System) and DATAPEST (theNational Historical Pest Database) under CAPS(the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey), WHAID(Western Hemisphere Immigrant Pest Database),NAIAD (North American Immigrant ArthropodDatabase), ROBO (Releases of Beneficial Organisms),and PINET (Pest Information Network)are among some of the USDA databases that havebeen recently developed. However, few of thesedatabases are properly functioning (17, 40). Forexample, critics find that NAPIS suffers frompoor data (43); ROBO only was published in1988, with information collected in 1981 (17).Advances in computer technologies providerelatively inexpensive approaches for quick disseminationof information on NIS. Various Federalagencies have begun to apply these technologiesto NIS problems.CD-ROM first appeared in 1985 and hasdeveloped into an easy-to-use, well-standardizedtechnology (48). By applying indexing techniques,CD-ROM is commercially suitable forbuilding both general and specialized databases(e.g., the National Agricultural Library’s AGRI-COLA database, which indexes agricultural papers).Information specific to NIS could begathered in this format.Electronic mail or computer-based messagesystems are used by various agencies to transferNIS information. For example, information onplant pests is collected and electronically sent tothe NAPIS. The rapid transmittance and minimalcosts of information via electronic mail can allowfor better and more timely decisionmaking (48).Expert systems may also have use for NISconcerns. An outgrowth of artificial intelligenceresearch, expert systems are computer programsthat make inferences and draw conclusions fromstatements supplied by a user. These systemshave begun to find commercial application in thelast few years (48). For example, a prototypesystem was recently developed to assist in Europeangypsy moth management.EradicationFinding:Feasible eradication technologies do existfor many NIS, but public opinion and costoften prohibit implementation of a fully effectiveprogram. Three issues that complicate asuccessful eradication program include: thedifficulty in identifying the zero-populationlevel, diminishing returns as the populationapproaches zero, and the potential for reinfestationfrom surrounding areas. Although eradicationof a NIS can have high short-term costs,the alternative is often a long-term managementprogram with far greater cumulativecosts.It is important to distinguish between eradicationand control, Both strategies use the sametechnologies (e.g., chemical pesticides or biologicallybased methods), but they have differentgoals. The goal of eradication is to remove theentire population of a species from a specific area.The alternative is to keep the population below adefined threshold through containment or suppression.Eradication programs for NIS (especiallyterrestrial vertebrates) are often long, costly,frustrating, and controversial (73), yet the failureto fully eradicate a harmful NIS can lead tolong-term management programs, with continualyearly investments of time and money.APPLICATION OF ERADICATIONBoth governmental (State and Federal) andnon-governmental organizations (NGOs) conductMS eradication programs. The reasons foreradication vary. For example, a Federal programto eradicate witchweed (Striga asiatica) in Northand South Carolina is based on the potential

148 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Stateseconomic effects that would result if the weedwere to spread to the Midwest. Localized eradicationprograms for Asian tiger mosquito (Aedesalbopictus) infestations occur because they arevectors for human diseases. Eradication programsfor feral goats (Capra hircus) in Hawaii VolcanoesNational Park were implemented because ofthe goats’ impact on the natural resources of thearea.Studies assessing different eradication programsindicate that several factors influence theease of eradicating NIS (19,42). Some of the mostimportant include:. adequate monitoring and early detection,. quick implementation after detection,. sensitive enough tools to detect low populationdensities,. effective control technologies, and. public perception and cooperation.Eradication programs also require adequate planningand a commitment of sufficient resources(19,98). These two elements in particular affectedthe outcomes of eradication programs for importedfire ants (Solenopsis invicta, S. richteri)and boll weevil (Anthonomis grandis) (box 5-A).THE ROLE OF THE PUBLICPublic interaction can play a significant role ineradication programs for both governmental andnon-governmental organizations. Favorable publicopinion can lead to help and cooperationduring a program while opposition can lead tolegal actions aimed at ending a specific program.Perceived risk from control technologies, outragefrom involuntary quarantine restrictions, or moralissues of animal rights may charge public opinionagainst an eradication program. The desire forhumane treatment of MS can restrict or prohibitthe use of specific control technologies or eradicationgenerally. Programs to eradicate damagingNIS (like feral horses (Equus caballus) anddonkeys (Equus asinus) have evoked such publicopposition (23).In some instances, negative reaction can simplystem from a lack of accurate information (73).Implementing education programs around the useof specific technologies and the reasons forremoving particular NIS can help alleviate publicfears.I Domestic Quarantine and ContainmentThe goals of domestic quarantine and containmentare to prevent or limit the spread ofpotentially harmful NIS. Domestic quarantineprovides a regulatory means to prevent or slowdown the spread of a NIS within the UnitedStates, often during control or eradication programs.Plants, animals, and diseases have all beensubject to domestic quarantine. Containmentmore often applies to non-indigenous animals.Some containment of cultivated game and othernon-indigenous animals is required, for example,to prevent their spread into natural areas.DOMESTIC QUARANTINEDomestic quarantine attempts to slow or limitthe spread of a harmful NIS within or to a State orregion of the United States. Generally, domesticquarantines exist for pests that threaten agriculture,horticulture, or forestry. All States havesome type of domestic quarantines (68).Two important factors for a successful domesticquarantine program, like that for witchweed(71), are an effective certification process forpest-free commodities and other items within thequarantine area, and the cooperation of thegeneral public (71).Unfortunately, not all domestic quarantineswork as well. The domestic quarantine of theimported fire ant has not prevented it fromspreading. Movement reportedly has occurred inassociation with nursery material (l).Domestic quarantines cannot slow or preventNIS from moving by natural means; they can onlyhinder NIS from spreading through humanassistedmechanisms such as interstate shipmentsof nursery stock or household goods. Their

Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 149Imported Fire Ant Eradication:Box 5-A–Failure and Success: Lessons From the Fire Ant andBoll Weevil Eradication ProgramsTwo species of imported fire ants are assumed to have entered at Mobile, Alabama, in dry ship ballast:Solenopsis richteri in 1918 and, around 1940, Solenopsis invicta. The ants became a public health problem andhad significant negative effects on commerce, recreation, and agriculture in the States where they were found.In late 1957, a cooperative Federal-State eradication program began. it exemplifies what can go wrong with aneradication program.Funding was provided to study the fire ants, but information on the biology of the species was lacking, andthe ant populations increased and spread. Various chemicals (heptachlor and mirex) were used to control anderadicate the ants over a 30-year period. Although they did kill the ants, the chemicals caused more ecologicalharm than good. Their widespread application, often by airplane, destroyed many non-target organisms, includingfire ants’ predators and competitors, leaving habitats suitable for recolonization by the ants.The chemicals eventually lost registration by the Environmental Protection Agency, leaving few alternativesavailable. In the 5 years after 1957, fire ant infestations increased from 90 million to 120 million acres.Boll Weevil Eradication:The boll weevil, Anthonornus grandis, a pest of cotton, naturally spread into Texas, near Brownsville, fromMexico, in the early 1890s and crossed the Mississippi River in 1907. By 1922, it infested the remainder of thesoutheastern cotton area. Unlike the imported fire ant eradication program, boll weevil eradication does not relysolely on chemicals.The eradication program centers around the weevil’s life cycle and uses many different techniques. Part ofthe boll weevil population spends the winter in cotton fields. Insecticides are used to suppress this late seasonpopulation. In spring and early summer, pheromone bait traps and chemical pesticides reduce populations beforethey have a chance to reproduce. Still other control technologies (e.g., sterile male release or insect growthregulators) limit the development of a new generation of boll weevils.Boll weevil eradication trials were conducted from 1971-1973 (in southern Mississippi, Alabama, andLouisiana) and from 1978-1980 (in North Carolina and Virginia). Although results of the trials were mixed, cottonproducers in the Carolinas voted in 1983 to support the boll weevil eradication program in their area and to provide70 percent of the funding. The USDA Animal and PIant Health Inspection Service was charged with overallmanagement of the program.By the mid-1980s, the boll weevil was eradicated from North Carolina and Virginia. This 1978-1987eradication program achieved a very high rate of return, mainly from increased cotton yields and lower chemicalpesticide spending and use. In 1986, pesticide cost savings, additions to land value, and yield increases amountedto a benefit of $76.65 per acre. The benefit was $78.32 per acre for the expansion area in southern North Carolinaand South Carolina.SOURCES: G.A. Cartson, G. Sappie, and M. Hamming, “Economic Returns to Boll Weevil Eradication,” U.S. Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Service, September 19S9, p. 31; W. Klassen, “Eradication of Introduced Arthropod Pests: Theory and HistoricalPractice,” Entomological Society of America, Miscellaneous Publications, No. 73, November 19S9; E.P. Uoyd, “The Boll Weevil: RecentResearch Developments and Progress Towards Eradication in the USA,” Management and Control of Invertebrate Cmp Pesfs, G.E.Russell (cd.) (Andover, Hampshire, England: Irrteroept, 1989), pp. 1-19; and C.S. Iafgran, W.A. Banks, and B.M. Glancey, “Biology andControl of Imported Fire Ants,” Arrrrual Retiew of Enfomobgyvol. 30, 1975, pp. 1-30.State border station systems are one mecha-nism to enforce domestic quarantines. Presentlythey are used in California and Florida to inspecteffectiveness is based on enforcement by governmentagencies and the education of the generalpublic to prevent inadvertent spread.

150 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesagricultural commodities for the presence of Statequarantined pests (68). The effectiveness of Stateborder inspection is illustrated by California’senforcement of the Federal domestic gypsy mothprogram. Stricter enforcement raised compliancewith quarantine restrictions from about 20 percentin 1985 to approximately 80 percent in 1990 (7).CONTAINMENT OF LARGE GAME AND FISHNon-indigenous animals are kept as pets, forfood production, sport, and as part of conservationprograms. The escape of a NIS can introducedisease or parasites to wild populations, alterhabitats, and lead to competition for limitedresources or hybridization with wild populations.The scenarios that follow illustrate where deleteriouseffects might occur or have occurred.Large-Game Ranching—Ranchers have keptlarge game in the United States for at least 40years. Non-indigenous animals such as Africanungulates are raised for sport, show, food, and fortheir aesthetic value. Interest in species preservationhas also increased the numbers of large gamein the United States. The first documented escapeof contained non-indigenous mammalsoccurredapproximately 45 years ago, from private ranchesin Texas, California, and New Mexico (47; seech. 7).For most large mammals, no official nationalminimum containment standards exist. Statessuch as California and Florida have establishedguidelines, but they are far from uniform (75).The USDA has asked the American Associationof Zoological Parks and Aquariums to developminimum standards for mammal containment,but these are still under development (75).Big game animals are most commonly containedwith standard-grade sheep or goat fencing,often electrified. The reasons and means of escapevary, but they usually include poor fence maintenanceor design, weather damage, or vandalism(47). Further, when startled or upset, manymammals are capable of escaping either over orthrough fences.Triploid grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) aretested for sterility before their release as biologicalcontrol agents for aquatic weeds.Aquiculture-In aquiculture, NIS are propagatedfor food (e.g., salmon, crayfish, and oysters),biological control (e.g., grass carp—Ctenopharyngodon idella), and for the pet trade(e.g., tropical fish). Improvements in productionsystems and new developments in genetics andbiotechnology are expanding the size of theindustry. Fish have escaped from commercial andexperimental culture facilities (12), raising concernabout the containment of NIS as aquiculturemarkets expand.Scientists have created guidelines for the containmentof transgenic or non-indigenous fish forresearch purposes (35, 96). These guidelines aimto prevent the escape of NIS from containmentfacilities. They have little application to commercialaquiculture, however, because they ofteninvolve small, indoor buildings. Many States,such as Florida, have minimum containmentstandards for commercial aquiculture. In general,no national standards exist for commercial aquaculture.outdoor facilities for containing NIS for aquacultureinclude ponds, pools, raceways, canals,tanks, and floating pen nets. Escapes can beprevented by constructing levees, placing pondsabove 100-year flood lines, or using fences or

Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 151nets. Escapes from tanks or pools can be preventedwith the use of closed circulatory systemsand filtered drainage systems. Floating pen netsare generally anchored to prevent drifting andcovered with nets to prevent escape or removal ofanimals.The production of sterile or single-sex populationscan prevent establishment of reproducingpopulations if escape occurs. Single-sex fishpopulations are created by hybridization and sexreversals. Sex reversal in fish is possible in theearly developmental period by administeringhormones in the diet or in slow-release implants.These methods are not 100 percent effective,however (35).Reproductive sterilization is accomplished withradiation, chemicals, or hybridization. Reproductivesterilization is perhaps the most secureapproach for the biological containment of NIS.Currently, the use of triploid sterility l has thegreatest potential (35). Although the sterilizationtechniques are not 100 percent effective, someNIS can be tested for triploidy. For example, teststo guarantee grass carp and Pacific oyster (Crassostreagigas) sterility are available.Tools of the Control TradeFinding:No “silver bullets” exist for NIS control.Alternatives to chemical pesticides are beingdeveloped, but these new pesticides must provideadvantages (cost, efficacy, environmentalstability) before they can replace chemicals.Biotechnological improvements may overcomesome of the limitations of biological controlagents. As with chemicals, the potential for pestresistance exists.The final stage in the management of a NISis the development of a long-term control tosuppress the population below specific thresholds.Three major groups of control technologiesexist: physical controls, including manual, mechanical,and cultural methods; chemical pesticides,including synthetic and organic chemicals;and biologically based technologies, includingnatural or modified organisms, genes, or geneproducts and related techniques (table 5-3). Thebroad array of NIS in the United States requires anassortment of controls for use in agriculture,urban and suburban habitats, and natural areas.Whether to eradicate an NIS, contain it, or limitits economic damage to a crop, no controltechnology is optimal for all species, or in allsettings.PHYSICAL CONTROLPhysical controls may be mechanical (e.g.,mowing), manual (e.g., hand pulling), or cultural(e.g., burning) (table 5-3). Physical controls areoften applied to small populations of NIS becauseof the time (and therefore cost) associated withcontrolling larger populations. Physical controlsmay also be used where other control technologiesare infeasible (e.g., a control program for anaquatic plant occurring close to a municipal watersupply).Use of physical controls may be limited bytheir low efficacy and other environmental factors.Hand pulling or cutting may leave roots,vegetative fragments, or seeds to resprout orgerminate, leading to the establishment of newpopulations. Similarly, small populations of nonindigenousanimals (e.g., goats) can repopulate anarea if hunting or trapping does not remove allreproductive pairs.Physical techniques may also lead to highlevels of disturbance. The disturbance involved inthe removal of non-indigenous plants, for example,may encourage invasion by other, nearbyweedy non-indigenous plants and the germinationof weed seeds already present.i Triploid organisms have 3, instead of 2, se(s of chromosomes. For the most part, these organisms camot reproduce. This thkd set ofchromosomes arises from altering the earliest stages of development. Techniques to induce triploidy include temperature, chemical, andpressure treatments.

152 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesAquatic plantsTerrestrial plantsFishTerrestrial vertebratesAquatic invertebratesInsects/mitesTable 5-3-Examples of Control Technologies for Non-Indigenous SpeciesPhysical control Chemical control Biological controlCutting or harvesting fortemporary control ofEurasian watermilfoil(Myrlophyllum spicatum) inwatersFire and cutting to managepopulations of garlicmustard (Alliaria petiolata)in natural areasFencing used as a barrier alongwith electroshock to controlnon-indigenous fish instreamsFencing and hunting to controlferal pigs (Sus scrofa) innatural areasWashing boats with hot wateror soap to control thespread of zebra mussels(Dreissena polymorpha) frominfested watersVarious agricultural practices,including crop rotation,alternation of planting dates,and field sanitationpracticesSOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.Various glyphosate herbicides(Rodeo is one brandregistered for use in aquaticsites) for controlling purpleloosestrife (Lythrumsalicaria)Paraquat for the control ofwitchweed (Striga asiatica)in corn fieldsApplication of the naturalchemical rotenone tocontrol various nonindigenousfishBaiting with diphacinone tocontrol the indianmongoose (Herpestesauropunctatus)in industrial settings,chlorinated watertreatments to kill attachedzebra musselsMathathion bait-sprays forcontrol of theMediterranean fruit fly(Ceratitis capitatis)imported Klamathweed beetle(Agasicies hygrophila) anda moth (Vogtia malloi) tocontrol alligator weed(Alternantheraphiloxeroides) insoutheastern United Statesintroduction of a seed headWeevil (Rhinocy//usconicus) to control muskthistle (Carduus nutans)Stocking predatory fish suchas northern pike (Esoxlucius) and walleye(Stizostedion vitreum) tocontrol populations of theruffe (Gymnocephaluscernuus)Vaccinating female feralhorses (Equus caballus) withthe contraceptive PZP (porcinezona pellucida) to limitpopulation growthNo known examples ofsuccessful biologicalcontrol of non-indigenousaquatic invertebrates(Target specificity is a majorconcern)A parasitic wasp (Encarsiapartenopea) and a beetle(Clitostethus arcuatus) tocontrol ash whitefly(Siphoninus phiilyreae)CHEMICAL CONTROLWhen used properly, chemical pesticides are aneffective tool for controlling pests. Their greatestapplication has occurred within agriculture. In1989, U.S. users spent approximately $7.6 billionfor conventional pesticides, with agriculture accountingfor more than two-thirds (4). The use ofchemical pesticides for NIS control is limitedbased on availability and application to specificenvironments.Quick and effective control technologies areoften desirable to limit the impact of a NIS, andchemical pesticides can be applied and take effectwithin a short period of time. For example, innatural areas, systemic herbicides applied to anon-indigenous plant population can suppress itbefore it has a chance to produce seeds andthereby prevent future populations.Although chemical pesticides are effective formany NIS, problems do exist in using many ofthem in control programs. For non-indigenousaquatic plants, effective chemical pesticides maybe available, but are not registered for use inaquatic settings. Public concern can also limit the

Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 153use of chemical pesticides by government agencies.For example, Utah’s decision to use thebiopesticide Bacillus thuringiensis instead ofchemical pesticides to control the Europeangypsy moth was influenced by the general publicand environmental groups (44).An important issue related to the use ofchemical pesticides is their future availability.Methyl bromide, a widely used chemical pesticide,may soon become unavailable because of itseffect on the atmosphere (63). In addition, the1988 amendments to the Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 2 may also limitthe availability of many chemical pesticides forNIS (see the following section, “EPA Reregistrationand Minor Use Pesticides”).BIOLOGICAL CONTROLSAlternatives to chemical pesticides are oftendesirable for either economic or ecological reasons.Biological control has been in use in theUnited States and elsewhere for more than 100years, although the development of syntheticchemicals in the 1940s shifted focus away frombiological control (61). Attention has recentlyfocused again on the development and use ofbiological control. Biological control attributableto natural enemies (i.e., classical biological control)is distinguished here from controls involvingother biologically based methods (e.g., geneticcontrol, hormones and pheromones, and contraceptives)(70). Both forms are important alternativesto chemicals for NIS control.Biological Control With Natural Enemies—The standard definition of biological control isthe use of natural enemies—parasites, predators,or pathogens—to reduce populations of targetspecies and thereby reduce their damage totolerable levels (16). Applying biological controlinvolves research in many branches of biology—behavior, development, physiology, genetics, reproduction,systematic, biogeography, populationbiology, and ecology.Biological control is divided into three broadcategories: importation (or classical), involvingthe establishment of a NIS as a natural enemy ina new habitat; augmentation (often called thebiopesticide approach), involving direct manipulationof established populations of natural enemiesthrough mass production or colonization;and conservation, involving habitat manipulationsto encourage populations of natural enemies.To date, importation is considered the mostsuccessful of these approaches (16).Classical Biological Control-h theory, classicalbiological control re-establishes natural controlby predators or parasites for foreign NIS thatwere introduced without their natural enemies.The goal of classical biological control is notto eradicate a NIS, but to lower the populationlevel to economically or aesthetically acceptablelevels.Classical biological control has several advantagesover other types of control technologies.When successful, reasonably permanent managementof the target species results. Control agentsare self perpetuating, will increase and decreasewith populations of the pest, and are self disseminating.Costs are non-recurrent and benefit/costratios are high relative to other types of control(20,101). The average benefit/cost ratio for successfulbiological control projects is about 30:1,although the ratio varies widely among variousprojects (83).Historically, however, most biological controlprojects have not been successful (59). Theworldwide rate of establishment of introducedbeneficial predators and parasites is about 30percent; approximately 36 percent of these establishedagents successfully reduced or completelycontrolled their targeted pests-a proportion thatis probably estimated too high (28). According toanother author, the introduction of natural enemiessufficiently reduced host densities to replacez F~eral Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947 (7 U. S.C.A. 135 et seq.); 1988 amendments, Wblic ~w 1~532.

154 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Stateschemical control only in approximately 16 percentof 600 projects (59).Constraints to implementing biological controlstem from uncoordinated efforts among agencies,inadequate funding for overseas and domesticresearch, as well as the lack of a theoreticalframework for determining what species or combinationsof species will likely control a targetpest in a given situation (20). Classical biologicalcontrol does not work well in certain agriculturalsettings (e.g., annual crops where control must berapid). It does show great promise for controllingNIS in natural areas or rangelands. For example,an Australian weevil is the first natural enemyimported for use against melaleuca (Melaleucaquinquenervia) in the Everglades (3).Microbial Pesticides—Microbial pesticides (orbiopesticides) include the use of fungi, viruses,bacteria, protozoa, and nematodes to controltargeted species. Microbially derived herbicidesand insect pathogens are commercially availablein the United States (table 5-4, table 6-5).Microbial pesticides represent only a small portionof the pesticide market. The biggest obstaclesin their development and commercialization involvehost specificity, production technologies,lack of virulence, and the time frame needed tosuppress the pest populations. The prospects fordeveloping additional microbial pesticides, naturallyor through genetic modification, are consideredgood (83).The research and development costs of biopesticidesare significantly less than those for chemicalpesticides. The estimated cost for developing anddeploying a biopesticide is between $1 millionand $2 million, involving 11 to 13 scientist-years,whereas a chemical pesticide takes at least $10million (10). Although biopesticides will notcompletely replace chemicals in the foreseeablefuture, they will complement chemicals and allowthe development of improved integrated controlmeasures (37). Market size is an importantcriterion in the development of these controltechnologies because lead times are long and theTable 5-4-Examples a of Registered MicrobialBiological Control AgentsFungiPhytohthora palmivora controls citrus strangler vine(Morrenia odorata)Lagenidium gigantium controls various mosquito larvaeVirusesHellothis nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) controls thecotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea)Gypsy moth NPV controls European gypsy moth larvae(Lymantria dispar)BacteriaBacillus popilliae controls Japanese beetle larvae (Popilliajaponica)Bacillus thuringiensis controls various moth larvaeProtozoaNosema locustae controls various grasshoppersaSee table 6-5 for a Complete list.SOURCE: F. Betz, Acting Chief, Science Analysis and CoordinationStaff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, letter to E.A. Chornesky,Of fica of Technology Assessment, Apr. 10, 1992.development and registration costs for new productsare high.Other Biologically Based Methods--Severaltypes of other biologically based methods havebecome available for NIS control.Sterile Male Release (genetic control)-Therelease of sterile male insects was first successfullyused in the United States in 1953 to controlthe new world screwworm (Cochliomyia hominivorax).Since then, it has been attempted witha large variety of insects, such as the Mediterraneanfruit fly and the boll weevil, with varyingsuccess (51).Sterile males released in large numbers matewith females, leading to the production of unfertilizedeggs. Difficulties in implementing thistechnology exist, especially with mass rearing.Not only are appropriate facilities necessary tobreed large populations of a given species, butadequate information about dietary needs andbiology are vital. Accurate sterilization techniquesare also required, as is knowledge aboutthe effects of sterilization on species behavior.Vertebrate Contraceptives--Contraceptives providereversible fertility control for captive and

Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 155free-roaming non-indigenous animals. Their useis seen as a humane alternative to hunting or othermanagement practices. Use of contraceptive methodsrequires continual monitoring and repeatapplications.New research is centering on the use ofimmuno-contraception (relying on an animal’simmune system) instead of hormone levels tointerfere with a part of the reproductive process,Other research has focused on the use of commerciallyavailable contraceptives such as Norplantand in identifying antisperm antigens for maleanimals (41). These controls are still in theresearch and development stages for most NIS.Semiochemicals-Semiochemicals are a groupof compounds (e.g., sex pheromones) that canmodify behavior. The compounds, either naturalforms or synthetic copies, are useful for largescaletrapping or to disrupt mating behavior (78).Semiochemicals are presently useful only againstinsects (46). Their use has been inhibited by highdevelopment and registration costs and low use inspecialized markets. The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) considers pheromonespesticides, requiring toxicity and residue testingunder FIFRA. Such species-specific technologiesare often more expensive than more traditionaltechniques such as chemical pesticides. In agriculturalsettings, this generally makes the use ofsemiochemicals economical only on high-valuecrops (46).Host Plant Resistance—Enhanced host plantresistance is the artificial selection and breedingof plants to produce specific physical traits (e.g.,very hard or hairy leaves) or biochemical traits(e.g., production of specific chemicals) that deterpest damage (16). It is useful in agricultural andhorticultural settings.Resistance is developed against non-indigenousplant diseases and plant-eating insects. It isuseful in situations where no registered chemicalsexist or when alternative controls are unavailable(16). Host plant resistance is compatible withother control measures.Development of host plant resistance requireslarge-scale support. A lack of specific informationabout plant genetics can limit the use of thistechnology. Long production times mean it haslittle application as a quick fix against newharmful NIS (16).Biotechnology--Many new biological controltechnologies currently in the research stage dependon biotechnology to increase the virulenceand efficacy of controls. This approach, involvingrecombinant DNA, so far has been applied only tomicroorganisms. Limited knowledge curtails thegenetic manipulation of more complex organisms,such as insects used for biological control.The long-term goals of biotechnology researchinclude increasing the shelf life of microbialpesticides and their persistence in the field. Forexample, the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis(Bt) releases an insecticidal toxic crystal alongwith its reproductive spores. Researchers haveinserted the toxin gene into another bacteriumthat produces the toxin during the nonreproductivephase. After the bacterium is killedchemically, the dead cell wall protectively coatsthe crystal and increases its stability. This processalso eliminates the release of viable spores, anarea of environmental concern.The importance of biotechnology for biologicalcontrol will likely increase in the future,although more economic research into biotechnologymethods is needed (83). One applicationof biotechnology that will have a significantimpact, especially in agriculture, is the developmentof transgenic plants, an alternative approachto chemical or classical biological controlthat involves genetically engineering crops toexpress insecticidal or antifeedant proteins.The first successful application of transgenictechnology occurred within the past 5 years (57).Most of the work has focused on inserting genesfrom various Bt strains into plants, which thenproduce the insecticidal toxins. The Bt toxin isconsidered safe (specific to certain groups ofspecies) and is relatively simple to work with(57). Research has so far focused on cotton,

156 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statestomato, and potato. Private companies hope tohave transgenic tomato and cotton plants on themarket by the mid- 1990s (45).Concerns exist that pests, especially insects,will develop resistance to transgenic plants.Recently, resistance to Bt has been documented inboth laboratory and field settings (45), Efforts toprevent resistance counter-intuitively seek tomaintain the susceptible population, thus delayingcomplete population resistance. Possible techniquesfor maintaining susceptible populationsinclude rotating Bt toxins with other toxins,establishing nontoxic plant refuges, spatiallyalternating toxic and nontoxic plants, and expressingtoxicity only in specific plant parts (53).Scientists are just beginning to study theeffectiveness of these techniques in preventingpest resistance. Some feel government legislationto coordinate use by farmers will be required forthe proper application of this technology (50).Other issues surrounding the used of transgenicorganisms are discussed in chapter 9.Integrated Pest Management—Integrated PestManagement (lPM) is used in agricultural andnatural areas for the control of NIS. IPM isdefined as a management system that uses allsuitable techniques in an economical and ecologicallysound reamer to reduce pest populationsand maintain them at levels that do not have aneconomic impact while minimizing danger tohumans and the environment (90).IPM may combine biological control, pestresistance, autocidal, cultural, and mechanicaland physical control technologies with limiteduse of chemical pesticides (64). IPM uses monitoringand other decisionmaking tools to gaugethe health of the ecosystem, and consequentlyrequires an understanding of the biology andecology of the resource, the pest, and the pest’snatural enemies.Research establishes the needed economicthresholds and natural suppression factors. Anunderstanding of the effectiveness of the controltechnologies and damage caused by differentstages of pests is important. Because IPM doesThe boll weevil (Anthonomis grandis) eradicationprogram integrates a variety of control measures:chemical pesticides, releases of sterile males,pheromone bait traps, and insect growth regulators.not necessarily rely on chemical pesticides, quick,simple, inexpensive but accurate tools are neededto monitor the environment and implement programsbefore a pest becomes an economic problem.Education and ManagementThe need for greater public awareness regardingharmful NIS and for educating variousspecialized groups was cited repeatedly in recommendationsby OTA’s expert contractors (39,43,49,82)and its advisory panelists. Also, this themesurfaced frequently in recommendations by nongovernmentalgroups (39). For example, successfuleducation campaigns have been identified bymany experts as a key mechanism for gainingpublic support of NIS management programs(18,31,39).To assess the breadth of current NIS educationprograms, OTA asked the North American Associationfor Environmental Education to conduct asurvey of government and non-governmentalorganizations (NGO) involved in educationalprograms relating to MS. Federal and Stateagencies and NGOs conduct many activitiesc(no>

Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems I 157related to NIS education. The survey of NISeducation programs found:●●●●●●●●Education programs are typically small:funding averages less than 10 percent ofagencies’ budgets.Predicted funding outlays over the next 3years varied depending on the organization.NGOs generally devote a larger share oftheir budgets to NIS issues as compared withFederal and State agencies.The need for increased funding for NISeducation was often voiced.Little coordination of educational effortsamong agencies and organizations exists.Information exchange is hampered by a lackof networks and materials to exchange.The success of the education programs israrely evaluated.Programs that are evaluated rely on assessingsubjective factors (76).THE SCOPE AND METHODS OF EDUCATIONPROGRAMSSome environmental education programs tackleoverarching environmental issues while othersfocus on NIS in particular-. Groups in Hawaii areamong the leaders in environmental education.Generally, they have taken a broad approach,linking NIS to endangered species, land development,park protection, and agriculture. For example,the formal school-based Ohia project educateschildren about the biology of the Hawaiianislands (ch. 8). Part of the project deals with theeffects of NIS on Hawaii’s ecology.On the other hand, numerous groups havecreated focused educational materials on singleNIS such as zebra mussels, gypsy moths, orpurple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), sometimesfor specific user groups. For example, APHIS hasproduced pamphlets and small fliers to educatepeople leaving the quarantine zone for the Europeangypsy moth. They provide informationabout how to identify, inspect, and treat for mothson firewood, vehicles, and outdoor householditems. Vermont’s Department of EnvironmentalConservation began with a program focused onstopping the movement of Eurasian watermilfoil(Myriophyllum spicatum). It is moving now to abroader, regional watershed approach (76). Sometimesthe selection of a narrow approach relates toa program’s enabling legislation and fundingrather than its educational merits.Few formal national programs exist to identifyand distribute information concerning harmfulNIS. Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resourceshas compiled this kind of information atthe State level in its ‘Exotic Species Handbook’(62). The Handbook provides basic informationon organizing citizen-level awareness programsand contains reference materials on various NISin Minnesota. Information on obtaining educationalmaterial and a directory to the manyagencies and organizations involved are included.The USDA’s Cooperative Extension Service hasbeen cited as a good Federal model for relayinginformation about invasive NIS to the public (76).The Extension Service does some technical trainingnow, e.g., for pesticide applicators. And theExtension Service, in combination with LandGrant and Sea Grant universities, is doing themost comprehensive and innovative public educationregarding zebra mussels (76).Media and methods used in education aboutMS mirror the larger field of environmentaleducation in both scope and type. Techniques andmedia vary considerably and include almost anydevice or activity commonly used in educationand informational efforts (76). For example,Federal and State organizations and NGOs haverelied on a wide variety of channels to informpeople about zebra mussel problems (table 5-5).RELATED ISSUESEcological RestorationFinding:Ecological restoration is a relatively newpractice that shows some promise in prevent-

158 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 5-&Examples of Technologies Used in Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) Education ProgramsTechnique Organization Description or titleBooklet, brochure, or leafletFact sheetNewsletter, magazinePoster or signReportWorkshops/lecturesVideo or slide showClassroom kitsSOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.Ohio Department of Natural ResourcesIllinois-Indiana Sea Grant ProgramOhio Sea Grant ProgramMinnesota Department of Natural ResourcesVermont Department of EnvironmentalConservationOhio Department of Natural ResourcesZebra mussel Task Force Report to theMichigan legislationIndiana Academy of SciencesOhio Department of Natural ResourcesIllinois Department of Conservation“Zebra Mussels in Ohio”Information on how to report a sightingInformation on zebra mussels in the GreatLakes“On the LOOSE”“Out of The Blue”Boater’s advisory on zebra musselsZebra mussel control in MichiganPresentation on zebra mussels, Conferenceon Biological Pollution: the Control andImpact of Invasive Exotic Species,October 1991Zebra mussel slide seriesZebra mussel video“Lakes in My World” K-8 Workbooking NIS introductions and controlling reintroductionsof NIS. The goal of ecological restoration,when applied to NIS control or eradication, isto modify those biotic and abiotic conditionsthat make the habitat suitable for NIS.Ecological restoration is a branch of appliedecology that became visible as a management toolin the 1980s. It is the intentional return of anecosystem to a close approximation of its conditionbefore human disturbance (66). The goal isre-creation of whole, healthy, self-maintainingecosystems in which natural ecological processes,such as nutrient cycling and succession, canoperate without continual intervention by resourcemanagers or reliance on synthetic engineeredstructures (5). Generalizations about ecologicalrestoration’s effectiveness are difficult,mainly because of the time it takes to see a projectthrough to completion.Ecological restoration is almost invariably asequel rather than a preventive prelude to NISinvasion. Reestablishing prairie burns (i.e., fire asa restoration tool) is an exception to this statement.To date, ecological restoration has not beenwidely used to control harmful NIS (5) and itsimportance varies. At one extreme, the success ofa restoration project may rest entirely on theremoval of NIS. In other cases, control of a NISmay occur only after other phases of restorationhave been completed (i.e., in which the restorationitself may eliminate the introduced species).Existing data suggest ecological restoration isuseful for MS control, as it has been in part ofEverglades National Park, Florida, for example(box 5-B). Limitations of ecological restoration inthe management of NIS do exist, however. It willnot repel an invader that is genetically or behaviorallyvery similar to a desired indigenousspecies. Ecological restoration also does not seemeffective in managing NIS capable of invadingecosystems in pristine condition. For example,the non-indigenous garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata)is capable of invading relatively stableforests in Illinois (5).The genetic make-up of species used in restorationprojects has recently become an importantissue. Locally adapted germ plasm is importantfor assessing ecosystem performance, avoidingrestoration failure, and assuring long-term geneticconservation (5).

Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems 159Box 5-B-Ecological Restoration in the Hole-in-the-Donut,Everglades National Park, FloridaWork in the “Hole-in-the-Donut,” 4,000 hectares of former agricultural land in Everglades National Park,Florida, is testing ecological restoration’s ability to manage a damaging non-indigenous species and prevent itsreintroduction. Chemical and fire techniques were used to rid the site of Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius).Neither method was successful. in 1989, attempts were made to alter the environmental factors favoring NIS overindigenous species and to restore the site to pre-agricultural conditions.In the 1950s, approximately half of the site was rock plowed, i.e., the limestone substrate was crushed toproduce soil better suited for crops. The area remained in cultivation for 25 years. The changes in the soil-fromprimarily low-nutrient anaerobic conditions to higher nutrient aerobic conditions-were more favorable toBrazilian pepper and other non-indigenous plants.in 1975, Everglades National Park acquired the land. With the end of agriculture, the vegetation began tochange. The nonrock-plowed land returned, for the most part, to indigenous species. The 2,000 hectares ofrock-plowed land were invaded and eventually dominated by Brazilian pepper. Between 1979 and 1985, f ire wasused to control Brazilian pepper, but monitoring of the burned sites indicated that repeated burning did not retardor reduce its growth. Studies on the economic feasibility of Brazilian pepper control with chemicals concluded thatkilling female trees was not an effective control strategy.In 1989, a study on a 24.3-hectare site in the Hole-in-the-Donut attempted to determine the feasibility ofecological restoration on this former agricultural land. The idea was to remove the present vegetation and soil downto the limestone bedrock, establishing pre-agricultural conditions. Since 1989, recolonization by Brazilian pepperhas been significantly reduced. The experimental site is still being monitored to determine the extent of theindigenous flora’s return.SOURCES: R.F, Doren and L.D. Whlteaker, “Comparison of Economic Feasibility of Chemical Control Strategies on Differing Age andDensity Ciassea Schhws terebinthhbhs,” Natural Areas Journa/voL 10, No. 1,1990, pp. 2S-34; R.F. Doren and L.D. Whiteaker, “Effectsof Fire on Different Size Individuals of Schinus terebinthitb/ius,”NaturalAreesJourmhoL 10, No, 3,1990, pp. 107-1 13; F.J. Webb, Jr, (cd.),Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annuai Conference on Wetianda Restoration and Creation, Hiiisborough Community College, TampaFiorida, 1~, pp. 35-50.A common recommendation is to use germplasm adapted to the restoration site, preferablyfrom the original gene pool. The notion that thegerm plasm source might be important to restorationsuccess is too new to have been testedrigorously. The reason locally adapted germplasm is not used in plant restoration programsmay be because of a lack of available seed (5).Environmental Impacts of ControlTechnologiesFinding:Adverse environmental impacts associatedwith chemical pesticides have been documented.Host specificity, residual effects, andhuman toxicity also need to be taken intoconsideration when biologically based methodsare used. Classical biological controlshould also receive careful consideration beforeapplication, as it becomes very difficult toremove an agent from the environment once itis established.CHEMICAL CONTROLSince the 1940s, the chemical industry hasproduced an array of chemical pesticides tocontrol damaging NIS. Many pesticides are effectiveagainst more than one species (i.e., broadspectrum), and their application can pose significantenvironmental or human health risks whenused in natural or agricultural settings.One consequence of chemical pesticide controlof NIS is the occurrence of secondary pestoutbreaks. Chemical pesticides may kill not onlythe target pest, but also the natural enemies that

160 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Stateskeep different pests under control. For example,both indigenous and non-indigenous pest outbreaksare associated with malathion used forMediterranean fruit fly eradication in Californiain 1980 (21,22).Beginning with the 1972 amendment of FIFRA,EPA has been reviewing chemical pesticides usedin the United States for their toxic effects onnontarget organisms, including humans.The issue of human toxicity, either throughaccidental poisoning in the field or in residues onfood, is a large and complex issue. Becausechemical pesticides will continue to play animportant role in NIS management, support isneeded for EPA to finish its assessment ofchemical pesticide risk.In addition, the development of resistance tochemical pesticides by NIS threatens managementof problem species. At least 500 insectspecies are resistant to at least one syntheticinsecticide, and many are resistant to several (45).In agricultural settings, chemical resistance canlead to additional pest problems. For example,numerous new plant viruses are reported associatedwith the emergence of a more aggressive,pesticide-resistant, sweet potato whitefly (72).Similarly, the tomato spotted wilt virus maybecome an important disease outside its presentrange if its insecticide-resistant vector, the westernflower thrips (Frankliniella occidentals),spreads (72).BIOLOGICAL CONTROLBiological control is often considered a safer,cleaner, and environmentally friendly alternativeto chemical pesticides for the control of NIS. Aswith chemical pesticides, the risks associatedwith a biological control agent must be consideredbefore it is released into the environment.Some scientists believe that, like chemical pesticides,biological control agents may disruptexisting or future control programs (34). Thisconcern often focuses on introduced predators.For example, an introduced predator could attacka pest’s existing natural enemies. Secondary pestoutbreaks could result if previously controlledpests flourish. Also, newly introduced and previouslyestablished biological control agents couldcompete, lowering the efficacy of one or both.This topic is hotly debated among the manyscientists who study and apply biological control.Recognition of such potential environmentaleffects is important, since it is normally impossibleto eliminate a biological control agent fromthe environment once it is established (30,34).Comprehensive study before and after release ofa control agent would establish baseline data onthe environmental effects of such agents andcould limit future adverse effects.Many species have been found to be harmful asbiological control agents. Vertebrates, in particular,are poor choices for effective, host-specificcontrol. The mosquito fish (Gambusia spp.), theIndian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus), andthe cane toad (Bufo marinus), for example, wereintroduced for biological control and had extremelyharmful non-target impacts (34). Theselection of species that have relatively narrowhost preferences, such as some predatory insectsor microbial organisms, provides greater likelihoodof minimizing the impacts on non-targetorganisms.Environmental impacts of microbial pesticidesalso require evaluation. Although microbial pesticidesare considered safer than chemical pesticides,risks and uncertainties exist. Indirect effectsoften are not recognized because of a lack ofgeneral research (99), although studies are beginningto assess the impacts of microbial pesticides.The use of Bt can seriously affect indigenousbutterflies and moths (6,67). The effects of insectpathogens (e.g., nematodes) on species closelyrelated to the target are not well known (34).I EPA Reregistration and Minor UsePesticidesFinding:During the present EPA reregistration process,many old chemicals will become unavaila-

Chapter 5-Technologies for Preventing and Managing Problems 161Box 5-C-The Loss of Chemical Pesticides: A Real ExampleThe loss of minor use chemical pesticides and the Iack of alternative technologies pose a significant problemfor NIS control. The Ioss of chemical pestiades used to control the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in the GreatLakes illustrates the importance of the problem. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission relies on two chemicals,TFM and Bayer 73 for the control of sea lampreys. TFM is a selective chemical that kills sea lamprey larvae. Bayer73 is an additive to TFM. These two chemicals must be reregistered under FIFRA 88. Because of highreregistration costs and low revenue, the sole manufacturer of the two chemicals does not plan to reregister them.The scenario is complicated by the lack of effective alternatives. The two chemical Iampricides are the onlyeffective control. New, feasible technologies are not yet available. For example, a program based on sterile malerelease needs at least 10 more years of research before its effectiveness will be known (88).The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is the only user of TFM in the world, and it has been unsuccessful inidentifying additional suppliers. In order to maintain use of these pesticides, the Commission is faced withassuming reregistration costs, estimated to be $8 million over 4 years (88). The Commission has not begunincorporating the cost for reregistration into future budget proposals (89). However, FIFRA allows emergency useof unregistered pesticides for pests new to the country.SOURCES: U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, “Status of Efforts to Control Sea hmprey PopulationsIn the Great Lakes,”’ Sept 17, 1991, U.S. Congress, General Aocountlng Office, Great Lakes Fishery Comrnisshvr.’ ActIons Nesded toSupport an &pan&d PrvgraM, Maroh 19S2, and Pesfiddss: 30 Years Since Siient Spting, July 23,1 S92.ble, and fewer chemicals will receive registration.Concern exists that over the next 10 years,new or alternative technologies to replacechemicals will not be available for large-scaleuse.Chemical pesticide use will continue to beessential for control of a significant number ofNIS through the next decade, especially inagricultural settings (80). The 1988 amendmentsto FIFRA established reregistration guidelines foractive ingredients in pesticides first registeredbefore November 1, 1984. This reregistrationprocess uses tightened standards for human healthand environmental risk, and is scheduled forcompletion by December 1997.The cost for developing and marketing aconventional chemical pesticide is more than $10million (10). Although less expensive, reregistrationalso costs millions of dollars. FIFRA 88 willhave its biggest impact on minor use chemicalpesticides. Minor use is defined as low volumeuse that is not sufficient to justify the cost to apesticide manufacturer to obtain federal registration(95).In agricultural areas this includes chemicalpesticides used on most vegetables, fruits andnuts, herbs, commercially grown ornamentals,trees, and turf. In non-agricultural areas, minoruse chemical pesticides are used on aquaticplants, terrestrial vertebrates, fish, and aquaticinvertebrates.Many minor use chemicals are expected tobecome unavailable under FIFRA 88 (24). Forexample, the loss of herbicide registrations foraquatic weeds will leave a void in controlprograms because effective, economical substitutesare not now available (26). Chemicalregistration for vertebrate control has similarproblems (box 5-C). It is estimated that about1,000 minor use pesticides’ registrations, havingpriority uses, will lose sponsorship during thereregistration process (104).A potential model for the reregistration ofminor use chemical pesticides for NIS is theInterregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), aUSDA Cooperative State Research Service programorganized in 1963 to obtain residue tolerancesfor minor use pesticides on food and feedcrops. Since 1963, IR-4 has expanded to include

162 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesregistration information for pesticides used onnursery and floral crops, forestry seedlings, andturfgrass; animal health drugs, antibiotics, andantihehminthics; and for the further developmentand registration of microbial and specific biochemicalmaterials used in pest managementsystems (95).The IR-4 program is heavily burdened. It isestimated that 3,600 new uses and chemicalreregistrations will try to pass through the IR-4program by 1997 (95). Under the present fundingschedule and timetable it is unlikely that the IR-4program will complete the research and analysisnecessary by the 1997 deadline (87,95). At best,the IR-4 program provides a model for thereregistration of minor use chemical pesticidesfor NIS.CHAPTER REVIEWThis chapter examined the technologies toprevent the entry of harmful NIS and to control oreradicate those that slip through. These include awide array of useful chemical, biological, physical,educational, and regulatory methods. Severalrelated circumstances raise concern whether asmany effective controls will be available in thefuture. Some important chemical pesticides probablywill not be reregistered under FIFRA and sowill go out of use. The environmental impacts ofmicrobial, biological, or bioengineered substitutesare not yet clear. And efforts to makehabitats less suitable for NIS in the long-term, viaecological restoration, are not now possible on awide scale. For all of these reasons, continuedresearch and development remain essential.Effective management of harmful NIS involvesinstitutional, as well as technical, issues.In the next 3 chapters, OTA examines the effortsof Federal and State institutions.

A PrimeronFederalPolicy 6This chapter presents an overview of the Federal Government’sactivities related to non-indigenous species(NIS). It examines both the prevention and control ofharmful NIS and the intentional introduction and use ofdesirable NIS. The reason for this dual focus is that, in the past,some presumably beneficial NIS introduced or promoted byFederal agencies have subsequently caused great economic orenvironmental harm.OTA has drawn from this analysis a number of significantconclusions that cross agency jurisdictions and undergird severalpolicy options presented earlier (ch. 1). The chapter begins withthese conclusions, followed by a discussion of existing nationalpolicies on NIS. The remainder of chapter 6 presents a detailedreference to Federal programs, broken down along agency lines(box 6-A).LESSONS FROM THE PRIMERFinding:The current Federal framework is a largely uncoordinatedpatchwork of laws, regulations, policies, and programs. Somefocus on narrowly drawn problems. Many others peripherallyaddress NIS. In general, present Federal efforts onlypartially match the problems at hand.Keeping Harmful Species Out of the United StatesThe Federal Government currently plays a much larger role inpreventing the entry of agricultural pests than in excluding otherpotentially harmful NIS. The Animal and Plant Health InspectionService’s (APHIS) fiscal year 1992 budget for agricultural163

164 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 6-A–A Locator for Federal Agencies Discussed in Chapter 6Agency Page/s Agency Page/sDepartment of AgricultureDepartment of CommerceAnimal and Plant Health inspection ServiceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric(APHIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170-177 Administration (NOAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194-195Agricuitural Marketing Service (AMS) . . . . . . . 177 Department of Defense (DOD) . . . . . . . . . . 195-196Foreign Agricultural Service( FAS) .........177Environmental Protection AgencyForest Service (USFS) ...............177-179(EPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196-199Agricultural Research Service (ARS) . . . . 179-181Soil Conservation Service (SCS) .......181-183 Department of Health and Human ServicesAgricultural Stabilization and Conservation Public Health Service (PHS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199Service (ASCS) ...................183-184 Department of the TreasuryCooperative State Research Service customs service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....199(CSRS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Department of TransportationDepartment of the Interior Coast Guard (USCG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199-200Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) . . . . . . . . 184-188 Department of Energy (DOE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200National Park Service (NPS) . . . . . . . . . . . 188-189 Department of JusticeBureau of Land Management (BLM) ....189-193 Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) ..........200Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) .............193Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) .............193SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessmet, 1993.routine evaluations of their programs. The contin-uing entry of harmful species even in regulatedcategories (ch. 3) suggests that the agencies arenot entirely successful.Current Federal efforts may fail to exclude asignificant number of harmful MS because entryof many is prohibited only after they have becomeestablished or caused damage in the UnitedStates. Under certain laws, such as the Lacey Act 2and the Federal Noxious Weed Act, 3 harmfulspecies can continue to be imported legally untiladded by regulation to a published list. However,adding species to these lists is often difficult andtime consuming (40,83,140).Delays in preventing entry of harmful NIS alsosometimes occur when new pathways emergewith no regulatory history. Recent examplesinclude the slow reaction of PHS to the entry ofquarantine and port inspection was at least $100million, compared with the $3 million for portinspections of fish and wildlife requested by theFish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (97,100,170).The hundreds of agricultural pests restricted fromentry by Federal regulations form the largestcategory of excluded NIS. l Current FWS andPublic Health Service (PHS) regulations coveringinjurious fish and wildlife and potential humandisease vectors restrict entry of far fewer NIS (byan order of magnitude). Certain categories ofharmful NIS are not restricted from entry at all,such as many potentially affecting only naturalareas.Direct assessment of the effectiveness of Federalefforts to exclude harmful NIS is not possiblebecause both APHIS and FWS lack performancestandards for their port inspection activities or1 CFR Vols. 7,9.2Lacey Act (1900), as amended (16 U. S.C.A. 667 et seq., 18 U. S.C.A. 42 et seq.)s Federat Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 2801 et seq.)

Chapter 6—A Primer on Federal Policy 165the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) inused tire imports, and of APHIS to the potentialentry of forest pests and pathogens with proposedtimber imports from Siberia (see also boxes 3-Aand 4-B) (22,25), APHISs efforts to take a moreproactive approach for certain categories of agriculturalpests have had varying success in partbecause of erratic support of the databases necessaryfor worldwide monitoring and anticipation ofpotential pest threats (54).Dealing With Harmful NIS Already HereThe Federal Government devotes significantresources to managing and preventing interstatemovement of many NIS that are agriculturalpests. However, insufficient impetus or authorityexists for Federal agencies to impose emergencyquarantines on other highly damaging species,Noxious weeds, for example, despite explicitauthorization under the Federal Noxious WeedAct, 4 receive little attention from APHIS. Interstatetransport of injurious fish and wildlife listedunder the Lacey Act, such as the zebra mussel(Dreissena polymorpha), is not prohibited byFederal law (30).No coordinated control efforts exist to preventthe spread of large categories of harmful NIS,such as the many that damage only natural areasor are vectors of human diseases. Current Federalefforts to control non-indigenous fish and wildlifedeveloped piecemeal and are noncomprehensive.The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Preventionand Control Act 5 authorized a coordinatedprogram that might go far toward correctingthis shortcoming in the future. Lack of appropriationshas impeded implementation of the Act thusfar (3 1).Federal Land and Resource ManagementFederal agencies manage about 30 percent ofthe nation’s lands and play a major role inThe National Park Service has strict policies toexclude or eradicate non-indigenous species. Still,control of harmful species is not adequate inEverglades National Park and many others.determining the distributions and populationsizes of NIS in the United States. Their policiesregarding NIS vary from rigorous to nonexistent.The National Park Service (NPS) has the moststringent policies designed to conserve indigenousspecies and exclude or eradicate NIS.Nevertheless, even this agency does not adequatelycontrol harmful NIS,Most other Federal land management agencieshave general policies favoring the use of indigenousspecies or already established NIS inplanned introductions or stocking of fish andwildlife. Few have similar policies regardingplant introductions. Routine planting of NIS for47 U. S.C.A. 28045Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended (16 U. S. CA. 4701 et seq , 18 U.S .C.A. 42)

166 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Stateslandscaping, soil conservation, and to providevegetation for wildlife occurs on many Federallands, including FWS’s National Wildlife Refugesand other reserves (4).Grazing by non-indigenous livestock, feralhorses (Equus caballus), and burros (Equusasinus) is specifically allowed by law on vastareas of Federal land. In some places overgrazingin the past has contributed to rangeland degradationand domination by noxious weeds (134).Many Federal land managers consider the currentlywidespread and growing distribution ofnoxious weeds to be a significant managementconcern (136). Noxious weed control programsgenerally are small and underfunded, however.Widespread interest exists in the use of biologicalcontrol agents to control noxious weeds, but fewagencies have clearly defined policies for evaluatingtheir safety before release.Federal policies also affect millions of privatelyowned acres through the ConservationReserve Program of the Agricultural Stabilizationand Conservation Service. There are no requirementsfor planting indigenous species or controllingnon-indigenous insect pests and noxiousweeds on lands enrolled in this program.Evaluating NIS Before IntroductionFederal agencies vary in how rigorously theyassess potential environmental effects beforerecommending NIS for technical applications orintroducing them through Federal or federallyfunded activities. Neither the Soil ConservationService nor the Agricultural Research Servicesystematically evaluates plant invasiveness beforereleasing species for use in soil conservationor horticulture. FWS Federal Aid Programmakes it the responsibility of State applicants toensure any proposed introductions comply withthe National Environmental Policy Act 6 andExecutive Order 119877 (138,139).NIS in CommerceHistorically, seed purity laws significantlyreduced the entry and spread of non-indigenousweeds by requiring accurate labeling and bysetting standards for purity of agricultural seed.Many other categories of MS are commerciallydistributed today with varying degrees of equivalentcoverage. The significance of contaminationof transported goods as a potential pathway forharmful introductions is uncertain for these otherNIS. Nevertheless, areas with expanding productionand markets pose the greatest concern. Forexample, Federal regulations specifying labelingrequirements and standards for product purity arelacking for horticultural seeds (including wildflowers)and certain biological control agents(including insects and nematodes).CURRENT NATIONAL POLICYFinding:No clear national policy presently exists onNIS. President Carter issued a far-reachingexecutive order on NIS in 1977; in practice ithas been ignored by most Federal agencies.Moreover, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicehas yet to implement the order in regulationsalthough specifically directed to do so.President Carter’s Executive OrderPresident Jimmy Carter issued an executiveorder in 1977 that could have created a nationalpolicy on NIS if it had been broadly implemented(box 6-B). It instructed executive agencies torestrict introductions of ‘‘exotic’ species intoU.S. ecosystems, to encourage State and localgovernments and private citizens to preventintroductions, and to restrict the export of indigenousspecies for introduction into ecosystemsoutside of the United States. While the order’sdefinition of ‘exotic” is usually interpreted to bethose species not yet established in the Uniteds National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U. S.C.A. 4321 et seq.)7Executive Order No. 11987, Exotic Organisms, 42 PI? 26949, May 24, 1977

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy I 167Box 6-B-Executive Order 11987—May 24, 1977, Exotic OrganismsBy virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America, andas President of the United States of America, in furtherance of the purposes and policies of the Lacey Act (18U.S.C. 42) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) it is herebyordered as follows:Section 1. As used in this Order:(a) “United States” means all of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of PuertoRico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.(b) “Introduction” means the release, escape, or establishment of an exotic species into a natural ecosystem.(c) “Exotic species” means all species of plants and animals not naturally occurring, either presently orhistorically, in any ecosystem of the United States.(d) “Native species” means all species of plants and animals naturally occurring, either presently orhistorically, in any ecosystem of the United States.Section 2. (a) Executive agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, restrict the introduction of exoticspecies into the natural ecosystems on lands and waters which they own, lease, or hold for purposes ofadministration; and, shall encourage the States, local governments, and private citizens to prevent the introductionof exotic species into natural ecosystems of the United States.(b) Executive agencies, to the extent they have been authorized by statute to restrict the importation of exoticspecies, shall restrict the introduction of exotic species into any natural ecosystem of the United States.(c) Executive agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, restrict the use of Federal funds, programs, orauthorities used to export native species for the purpose of introducing such species into ecosystems outside theUnited States where they do not naturally occur.(d) This Order does not apply to the introduction of any exotic species, or the export of any native species,if t he Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior finds that such introduction or exportation will not havean adverse effect on natural ecosystems.Section 3. The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the heads of otherappropriate agencies, shall develop and implement, by rule or regulation, a system to standardize and simplify therequirements, procedures and other activities appropriate for implementing the provisions of this Order. TheSecretary of the Interior shall ensure that such rules or regulations are in accord with the performance by otheragencies of those functions vested by law, including this Order, in such agencies.JIMMY CARTERSOURCE: Exeoutive Order No. 119S7, 42 Fedemi Reglster26949 (May 24, 1977).States, the wording is sufficiently vague to allowa species presently in one U.S. ecosystem to be“exotic” in other U.S. ecosystems (30).The Secretary of the Interior was instructed toimplement the order in regulations. Attempts byFWS to develop regulations in 1978 met withstrong opposition from agriculture, the pet trade,and other interest groups (see ch. 4, box 4-A). Todate, FWS has not succeeded in issuing regulationsunder the order, although the earlier draftregulations continue as internal guidelines for theagency (37).No direct evidence exists that other executiveagencies changed internal guidelines or agencypolicies in response to the Executive Order. NoFederal agency contacted by OTA, other thanFWS and NPS, provided any explicit policystatement on NIS, although officials from severalwere aware of the Carter order. Considerablevariation exists among Federal agencies in how

168 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesthey define and treat NIS. This sometimes makescoordination among them difficult. Given itsminor effects, Executive Order 11987 did notgenerate a consistent national policy on NIS.Interest in implementing the Carter ordercontinues in some parts of FWS and otheragencies. However, executive orders are an inherentlyweak mechanism for establishing newnational policy. Executive Order 11987 has notbeen fully implemented for 16 years. Consequently,its future significance is questionable.Recent Related EffortsTwo acts of Congress in 1990 have recentlyfocused Federal attention on specific groups ofharmful MS.AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES TASK FORCEThe Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Preventionand Control Act created an interagency taskforce to deal with harmful aquatic NIS in responseto the spread of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes.The Act’s goals go beyond control of this singlespecies and include significant anticipatory functionsfor preventing and controlling future invasionsof other harmful aquatic MS.The Task Force is cochaired by FWS and theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) and draws additional members fromfive other Federal agencies. The Act set out anumber of assignments for the Task Force,including many having required completion dates(table 6-l). The delivery of most has been delayedconsiderably on account of several factors (31).First, little funding has been appropriated forthe program and policy development that isauthorized and necessary for fulfilling the TaskForce’s responsibilities (31), For most staff onworking groups, Task Force functions weresimply added to their existing responsibilities. Alack of funds has also seriously hampered initiationof the required ballast exchange and biologicalstudies (table 6-l). The related appropriationsthat have been forthcoming in fiscal years 1991and 1992 went primarily to zebra mussel controlprograms and research (91).In addition, the Task Force has a broad membershipwith differing missions and goals. It hastaken time for member agencies to air their differences,negotiate priorities, and set consensusgoals. Had a national policy on NIS already beenincorporated into the internal policies of allagencies, this process probably would have beenmore rapid. Nevertheless, the Task Force’s developmentof common policies and approaches maylay the foundation for future efforts in this area.Finally, administrative details related to themandated structure and function of the TaskForce have also slowed its progress. Early on,attorneys for several member agencies decidedthe Task Force needed to be chartered. 8 Further,the charter was deemed a prerequisite for thememorandum of understanding required underthe Act and for allowing non-Federal entities toparticipate in Task Force meetings (31).A key to future prevention and control effortswill be the development and implementation ofan ‘‘Aquatic Nuisance Species Program. ” 9 TheAct does not set out details of this program.Instead, it instructs the Task Force to develop theprogram, describe the responsibilities of individualagencies, and recommend funding levels. Adraft of the program was released for publiccomment in November 1992, Although the draftsets out general areas of potential agency activity,it does not clearly assign agency duties or provideguidance to Congress on future funding. Memberagencies have hesitated to take on new responsibilitiesunmatched by new appropriations.Should the prevention and control provisionsof the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Preventionand Control Act eventually be funded andimplemented, they could have a significant role in8 as requfied by tie Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972), as amended (5 Ap 2 U. S.C.A. 1 et seq.)g 16 U. S.C.A. 4722

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy I 169Table 6-l—Delivery of Requirements Under the Nonindigenous Aquatic NuisancePrevention and Control ActResponsibilityassigned to: Task: Required by: Delivered by:Task ForceTask ForceUSCGTask ForceUSCGTask ForceTask ForceUSCGTask ForceTask ForceUSCGRequest the Great Lakes Commission convene acoordination meetingIssue protocols for research on aquatic nuisancespeciesIssue voluntary guidelines for ballast exchangeSign memorandum of understanding on roles ofagencies in the task forceIssue education and technical assistance programs toassist in compliance with ballast exchange guidelinesReport to Congress on a program to prevent andcontrol aquatic nuisance species (“Aquatic NuisanceSpecies Program”)Report to Congress on intentional introductions policyreviewReport to Congress on needs for controls on vesselsother than those entering the great lakes (“ShippingStudy”)Report to Congress on effects of aquatic nuisancespecies on the ecology and economic use of U.S.waters other than the Great Lakes (“Biological Study”)Report to Congress on the environmental effects ofballast exchange (“Ballast Exchange Study”)Issue regulations on ballast exchangeFeb. 29, 1990Feb. 29, 1991May 29, 1991May 29, 1991NOV. 29, 1991NOV. 29, 1991(annual reportsthereafter)NOV. 29, 1991May 29, 1992May 29, 1992May 29, 1992NOV. 29, 1992NOV. 26, 1991Sept. 24, 1992 (draft)Mar. 15, 1991Apr. 17, 1992Dec. 1991NOV. 18, 1992(draft)anticipated mid-1 993Dec. 1992anticipated mid-1 995anticipated mid-1 994Apr. 8, 1993SOURCES: Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U. S.C.A. 4701-4751; 18 U. S.C.A. 42); G.B. Edwards and D.Nottingham, CochArs, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, letter to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, Nov. 25, 1992; 58 FederaiRegister 18330 (April 8, 1993).preventing the unintentional entry and disseminationof harmful aquatic species. However, sincethe draft program requires detailed and timeconsuminganalyses of requests for funds, thisprobably will not result in a rapid-responsecontrol program for new infestations (91). Theabsence of any mechanism to disperse funds foremergency control was a significant concern inState reviews of the draft program (17,49). TheAct’s implementation also will not address theescape of aquatic NIS from aquiculture facilities:the Task Force has interpreted all introductionsrelated to aquiculture as intentional, and thereforenot under the general purview of the Act (9 1).UNDESIRABLE PLANT MANAGEMENT ONFEDERAL LANDSThe 1990 Farm Bill contained an amendmentto the Federal Noxious Weed Act requiringagencies to control ‘‘undesirable plants, ’ including‘‘exotic’ ’ 10 species, on Federal lands. Itrequires each agency to develop, staff, andsupport a program for undesirable plant management.Implementation has been patchy thus far.The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)issued a department-wide policy on noxiousweeds in 1990 to more fully integrate its existingprograms and activities (103). Several agencies,such as the Bureau of Land Management, ForestService, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, have10 ~e ~endment does not define ‘‘exotic. ’ Instead it speciiles ‘‘undesirable’ as those plants classified ‘ ‘undesirable, noxious, exotic,injurious, or poisonous, pursuant to State or Federal law, ” (7 U. S.C.A. 2814)

170 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesnoxious weed programs in place, although thesetend to be a small component of overall landmanagement activities, and the level of effortvaries among sites. NPS has a long-standingprogram for management of non-indigenousplants, some of which are noxious weeds. Severalother agencies have not yet developed noxiousweed management programs, including FWS andthe Department of Energy.Representatives of several Federal land managementagencies met in September 1992 todiscuss future efforts to control noxious weeds.There was general consensus that the problemsare severe and growing, programs are generallyunderfunded and understaffed, and needs exist forgreater coordination among agencies. Such interestcould presage greater efforts in this area.POLICIES AND PROGRAMS OF FEDERALAGENCIESFinding:Of the 21 Federal agencies engaged in NISactivities, APHIS has the largest role, with asizable staff performing its responsibilities toprevent the importation and dissemination ofagricultural pest species. FWS, although itsprograms are smaller, also has an importantrole in regulating the importation of fish andwildlife. Other relevant Federal activities arescattered among agencies and primarily relateto other uses or management of NIS or research.Areas of Federal ActivityFederal activities related to NIS occur inseveral areas (table 6-2):. Movement of species into the United States.This involves restricting entry of harmfulMS by regulation, inspection, and quarantineor enhancing entry by intentional importationof desirable species or by importationof materials that unintentionally harbor harmfulNIS.●●●●●●Movement of species within the UnitedStates across State lines. This involvesrestricting movement of harmful NIS byregulation, inspection, and quarantine orenhancing movement of desirable NIS byintentional transfers and of harmful NIS bytransporting materials that unintentionallyharbor NIS.Regulating product content or labeling. Thisinvolves restricting entry or interstate movementof harmful NIS by regulating contaminationor mislabeling of NIS in commerce.Controlling or eradicating harmful NIS.Introducing desirable NIS.Federal land management. This involvespreventing, eradicating, or controlling harmfulNIS on Federal lands and introducing ormaintaining desirable NIS on Federal lands.NIS research. This addresses prevention,control, and eradication of harmful NIS andbeneficial uses of NIS.The following section examines the roles andresponsibilities of 21 Federal agencies (box 6-A)in each area of activity. Included are severalspecific topics, such as control of noxious weeds;development or application of aquiculture andbiological control (both often are based on thetransfer or cultivation of species in areas wherethey did not formerly occur); and management oflivestock, wild horses, and burros-all of whichare NIS. These same domestic activities of thevarious Federal agencies are shown for differentgroups of organisms in table 6-3.Department of AgricultureAt least eight separate agencies of the U.S.Department of Agriculture have responsibilitiesrelated to NIS. Their roles are diverse and includemost categories shown in tables 6-2 and 6-3.ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTIONSERVICEThe Animal and Plant Health Inspection Servicehas broad assignments related to the importa-

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy I 171-7>-7>>>>>-7 --7 --7--2 -7-7 -7>--7>>>-7 n -? >>>>>’? >,.. ..,... . ,.. . . . . .. .. . ,.. . . . . . . .

Table 6-3-Federal Coverage of Different Groups of Organisms aMovement into U.S.Interstatemovement within U.S.Restrict Enhance Restrict EnhanceFederalland managementRegulate ControlFund or do researchproduct or Fund Prevent Introduce Prevention Assistcontent or eradication or do eradication or control uses of industrylabeling programs introductions or control maintain eradication species usesPlants APHIS ARS C APHIS ARS APHIS APHIS ARS C USFS FWS APHIS USFS C ARS CDODASCS C FWS NPS ARS ARS C SCS Ccustoms DoD Customs SCS C AMS DOD b AMSNPS DOD SDS SCS CDEA BOR BLM CSRSNOAA DOD FWSDODNPSBLMBORDODTerrestrial vertebrates APHIS APHIS APHIS FWS APHIS FWS FWS USFS APHISFWS FWS FWS NPS FWS FWSDOD NPS NPSPHSBLMCustomsDODInsects (and arachnids) APHIS ARS APHIS ARS d APHIS ARS d USFS USFS d APHIS APHIS d AR&FAS DOD b DOD b USFS USFS d NPS NPS d USFS ARS d CSR dARS DOD d BLM BLM d ARS ARSDOD CSRS NPS dPHS NPS DOD dcustomsPHSFish FWS FWS FWS FWS FWS FWS NPS USFS USFS ARS e ARS eCustoms BOR BOR d BLM FWS NPS CSRS eCSRS eUSCGNPS NOAA FWS e FWS d eBLM EPA NOAA e NOAA eDOD USCGInvertebrates (non-insect) APHIS APHIS APHIS FWS APHIS ARS C ARS eARS FWS ARS C NOAA eCSRS eFWSNOAA CSRS e DOD eDODEPAPHSUSCGcustomsUSCGMicrobes APHIS ARS d APHIS EPA APHIS ARS USFS USFS d APHIS ARW ARS dFAS DOD b USFS USFS NPS NPS d USFS CSRS dARS FWS ARS NPS dFWSCSRSNOAAFWSDODNPSEPANOAAPHSUSCGCustomsUSCGa For a~onyms of Federal agenaes see box 6-A.b pests move unintentimally with equipment or due to =mstruction.c plants for agriculture, horticulture, or soil Conservation.d Biologi~l control agents.eAquiculture.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.sCD

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy 1173tion, interstate movement, and management ofNIS under the Federal Plant Pest Act, ll the PlantQuarantine Act, 12 and several related statutes.The agency’s primary concern is species that posea threat to agriculture, including plant pests andpathogens, animal pests and pathogens, andnoxious weeds. APHIS, for the most part, doesnot deal with species capable of harmingnaturalecosystems or creating a human nuisance, unlessthey also affect agriculture or forestry. Exceptionsinclude its responsibilities to control vertebratepests and to prevent importations of noxiousweeds. In addition, APHIS is a member agency ofthe Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.Movement of Species Into the United States-APHIS restricts the movement of agriculturalpests and pathogens into the country by inspecting,prohibiting, or requiring permits for the entryof agricultural products, seeds, live plants andanimals, and other articles that might either be orcarry pests and pathogens. In fiscal year 1992,actual expenditures for agricultural quarantineand inspection were $105,787,000, with 1,929full-time employees (170). APHIS’s task ofcontrolling movement of NIS into the countrycontinues to expand because of increased internationaltravel and trade (table 6-4). Pest exclusionactivities are projected to double between 1991and the year 2000 (42).Most import restrictions relate to the relativerisk that an item will be or will carry agriculturalpests or pathogens. Past risk assessments wereinformal and based on review of the scientificliterature, previous experience, and expert judgment(ch. 4). Development of more for-r-nakedrisk assessment procedures is under way.A shortcoming of current pest exclusion is thatpotential pests are not always restricted fromentry in a timely fashion. In 1990 APHIS did notscrutinize the potential movement of forest pestsand pathogens with proposed imports of timberfrom Siberia until substantial congressional concernsurfaced (25). Delays also occur in excludingnoxious weeds from entry, which requires formallisting of species by agency regulation under theFederal Noxious Weed Act. 13 The listing approachis difficult and time consuming, allowingspecies fulfilling the criteria of a noxious weed tobe legally imported until added to the list (40,83).The overall success of APHIS’s efforts toexclude pests is difficult to evaluate. Completeexclusion probably is infeasible. However, it isunclear what level of exclusion APHIS aims foror routinely attains, since the agency lacksperformance standards for its port inspectionactivities or routine evaluation of its programs.APHIS “pre-clears” some commodities beforethey are shipped to the United States byinspecting or treating commodities to eliminatepests or by inspecting growing areas, processingfacilities, or handling and shipping facilities (55).Approved countries sometimes provide staff forthese functions. Pre-cleared materials can enterthe United States without further inspection,although they are subject to random examinationat the point of entry (55). Thus far, APHISpre-clearance programs are small, with inspectionsof fruits, vegetables, and plant materialoccurring in 24 countries (170).Most of APHIS’s pest exclusion activitiesoccur at ports of entry, where inspection ofincoming passenger baggage and cargo andassignment to quarantine take place. Thirty-sevenmillion passengers arrived in fiscal year 1990.That year APHIS found 1,303,000 baggage violationsand assessed $723,345 in penalties for23,676 of these (42). APHIS forwards certainplants, animals, and commodities from ports ofentry to quarantine facilities within the countryfor detection and treatment of any pests orpathogens they might carry.11 Federal plant pest Act (1957), as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 147a et seq.)IZ NUr~eV Stock Q~ant~e Act (1912), as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 151 et seq.; 46 U. S. CA. 103 et ‘e4)137 U. S.C,A. 2809

174 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 6-4-APHIS’s Pest and Disease Exclusion ActivitiesRecent increases in Inspections, Incoming passengers, and commodities (thousands)Percentage1977 1984 1989 1980 increaseTotal inspections , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —a 18,917 —a 390,278 2000%Inspections of animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., —a 1,690 —a 2,965 75%Interceptions of prohibited material . . . . . —a 1,250 —a 1,858 49%Plant importations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155,000 —a 318,000 —a 105%Trade in commercial birds . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 —a 368 —a 18%Passenger traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —a 26,000 34,000 —a 31%Numbers of agricultural quarantine InspectionsAirplanes inspected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vessels inspected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Railroad cars inspected, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mail packages inspected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Regulated and misc. cargo inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Animal/plant import inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Personally owned pet birds inspected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Commercial birds inspected .,..,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Poultry inspected (chicks and poults) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Seed samples processed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .364,00054,000156,838237,0241,054,0002,965,0002,130361,3737,121,00012,9231990 1991356,91552,119151,988256,9641,109,175—a1,612180,7065,440,9765,099Numbers of interceptions of unauthorized materialUnauthorized plant material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,652,000 1,527,922Unauthorized animal products, by-products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206,000 221,174Noxious weeds: total interceptions (sent for inspection) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,219 3,065Noxious weeds: number of taxa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 30Mail containing unauthorized material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,900 10,785Baggage containing unauthorized material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,303,000 1,149,508aData not obtained.SOURCES: U.S. Department ofAgricuiture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “WADSlnformation: October1991/’lnformation FactSheet, October 1991 ;U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Submmmittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and RelatedAgencies, Hearings onAgricuiture, Rural Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for1992: Part 4, Serial No.43-171 0, May2,1991;D. Barnett, StaffOfficen USDAAnimaland Plant Health Inspection Service, FAXletterto E.A. Chornesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Nov.19,1992.19901991Movement of Species Within the UnitedStates—APHIS restricts interstate movement ofagricultural plant pests or pathogens by imposingdomestic quarantines and regulations. AffectedStates usually adopt parallel measures to restrictintrastate movement (55).Domestic quarantines exist for 14 nonindigenousplant pests. 14 Such quarantines restrictinterstate transport of items that might carrya pest, such as firewood and recreational vehiclesfor the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). APHISalso regulates the interstate transport of livestock,animal products, hay, manure, and other itemsthat could spread animal pathogens, as well asnursery stock, soil, and soil-moving equipmentthat could spread plant pathogens listed in domes-147 cm 301

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy I 175tic quarantines (55). Some domestic quarantinesrestrict interstate transport of imported commodities.For example, Japanese Unshiu oranges(Citrus reticulate var. unshiu) can carry citruscanker (Xanthornonas campestris pv. citri). APHISallows their importation, but restricts their transportwithin the country to non-citrus growingareas.Restricting the movement of non-indigenouspests with high natural rates of spread is difficult.Consequently, APHIS does not attempt eradication,containment, or suppression of pests like theRussian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia) (55).APHIS also does not regulate some areas wherethe States are active, unless problems occurrequiring a national approach. For example,although regulation of the honey bee (Apismellifera) industry has been a State function,introduction of varroa mites (Varroa jacobsoni)prompted APHIS to consider developing regulationson interstate movement of honey bees in1991 (42).APHIS’s current authority requires a warrantfor inspection of first-class mail between States,although this can be an important pathway forpest spread. The shipment of agricultural productsand associated pests, such as the Mediterraneanfruit fly (Ceratitis capitata), between Hawaiiand the mainland has been a growingconcern. APHIS confiscated 4,228 pounds ofprohibited plant material and imposed 85 civilpenalties during the first five months of a trialinspection program conducted with the U.S.Postal Service in 1990. Fruit fly larvae occurredin 45 inspected packages; other important agriculturalpests were found in 177 packages (42).APHIS supported formalization of first-class mailinspection either in Postal Service regulations orin additional legislation in 1991 (42). By 1992,the agency was no longer seeking an easing of thewarrant system, because the interdiction program,coupled with extensive public education, hadWitchweed (Striga asiatica) is the only noxious weedthat USDA’s Animal and Plant Health InspectionService has attempted to quarantine.reduced attempted quarantine violations by 80percent (64).APHIS narrowly interprets its authority underthe Federal Noxious Weed Act to restrict interstatetransport of noxious weeds. The agency onlyregulates interstate transport if a quarantine is inplace, and imposes a quarantine only if a controlor eradication program exists (41). Few control oreradication programs exist for noxious weeds,and the agency has imposed only one domesticquarantine-witchweed (Striga asiatica). 15 Consequently,although all 93 designated noxiousweeds are prohibited from entry to the UnitedStates, 9 of these presently are sold in interstatecommerce (55).Monitoring—APHIS conducts several monitoringprograms abroad and in the United Statesto track non-indigenous pests and pathogens.International pest detection surveys focus onapproximately 100 non-indigenous fruit fly species,khapra beetle (Trogoderma granarium),citrus canker, and Karnal bunt fungus (Tilletiaindica)-primarily in Mexico, the Caribbean, orLatin America (42). While monitoring of worldwideanimal disease agents is relatively success-157 cm 301,80”

176 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesful, widespread criticism exists of programs forplant pests. Many observers consider currentsystems to be inadequate for providing predictiveinformation of use to regulators (54). This may, inpart, be due to the inherent difficulty of developingplant pest databases (see ch. 4) (12). However,it also reflects erratic support.The agency has domestic survey programs forat least 23 non-indigenous insect pests (42).APHIS also participates in the National AnimalHealth Monitoring Program, a cooperative Federal-State-Industry monitoring system that providesinformation on the geographic scope of infectiouspathogens threatening livestock, poultry, andrelated industries.Control and Eradication—APHIS managementplans often combine regulatory actions withmonitoring, eradication, or control programs. Thechoice among these options depends on feasibilityand the existence of appropriate technologies.Many management plans are in cooperation withState agencies.APHIS eradicates or controls certain speciesthat are newly introduced or present in confinedareas. Its advanced planning includes “actionplans’ for eradicating pests not yet in the UnitedStates, but which previously have been interceptedat U.S. borders (32). Once a pest is widelyestablished, however, control responsibilities oftenshift to other Federal, State, and private agencies.For example, APHIS attempted to eradicate earlyswarms of the African honey bee (Apis melliferascutellata) along the Texas border, but switchedits strategy to technology transfer and advice tothe States when eradication no longer seemedfeasible (42).APHIS does have some eradication campaignsto eliminate or suppress widespread pests that areunder domestic quarantines, such as the bollweevil (Anthonomus grandis), the bluetonguevirus, several equine pathogens, golden nematode(Globodera rostochiensis), and witchweed (55).More often, however, the goal is to eliminateisolated infestations of pests, like the gypsy mothor imported fire ants (Solenopsis spp.).Suppression of noxious weeds is a minorcomponent of APHIS’s eradication and controlefforts. Small control programs exist for only 8 ofthe 45 listed noxious weeds that are known orthought to occur in the United States (164).APHIS spent an estimated $725,000 in fiscal year1992 for control of noxious weeds. As perspective,the agency’s budget for domestic quarantineand control totaled at least $42 million (98). Thebudget request for noxious weed control in fiscalyear 1993 was even smaller, $412,000 (98).Among other things, the agency plans to discontinuecontrol efforts for common crupina (Crupinavulgaris) (98), even though, according toexperts, this harmful weed of rangelands infestsabout 60,000 acres in the United States and isspreading (87).APHIS is increasingly involved in biologicalcontrol (55). Biocontrol programs exist for severalpests, including the European corn borer(Ostrinia nubilalis), diffuse and spotted knapweed(Centaurea difiusa and C. maculosa), leafyspurge (Euphorbia esula), and Russian wheataphid (98). In 1990, the National BiologicalControl Institute was created within APHIS to“promote, facilitate, and provide leadership forbiological control” (106). Planned functionsinclude increasing the visibility of biologicalcontrol within APHIS, developing related regulations,and performing liaison with other Federaland State agencies that use biological control(106).APHIS’s Animal Damage Control Program(ADC) controls or eradicates both indigenous andnon-indigenous wildlife that conflict with agriculture16 ( 15). It also is responsible for controllingthe brown tree snake (Boiga irregulars), underthe Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Preventionand Control Act. ADC is working on methods toprevent snake transfers in cargo and toxicants to167 U. S.C.A. 426a.

Chapter 6—A Primer on Federal Policy I 177reduce snake populations. It has begun to developa cooperative program with Guam, with controlefforts expected to begin in 1993 (16).Under the Organic Act of 1944, 17 APHISconducts eradication programs in countries adjacentto or near the United States. For example, asuppression program exists for the Mexfly (Anastrephaludens), a pest of more than 40 fruits, in thenorthwestern region of Mexico to prevent itsmigration into the United States (98).Research—Research at APHIS focuses onmethods to support the agency’s regulatory activities.Current areas include techniques to detectnoxious weeds at ports of entry, treatments toeliminate pests from commodities, pest identificationand control methods, and biological control(1,97). APHIS had research under way oncontrol methods for at least nine non-indigenouspests in fiscal year 1992 (98). The agencysometimes works with industry and other governmentagencies to evaluate promising controlagents (97). APHIS also funds some relatedresearch by the Agricultural Research Service.AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICEThe Federal Seed Act 18 authorizes USDA toregulate the labeling and content of agriculturaland vegetable seed imported to the United Statesor shipped in interstate commerce. Historically,implementation of this Act significantly reducedthe movement of non-indigenous plants into theUnited States and between the States by settingstandards for seed purity and requiring that seedpackages accurately identify their contents (60).The Act does not cover seeds of flowers orornamental plants (104). The Agricultural MarketingService (AMS) originally was responsiblefor regulating both seed importations and movementof seeds in interstate commerce. However,APHIS assumed responsibility for importation in1982 (75).AMS works closely with States in regulatinginterstate seed shipments. About 500 State seedinspectors inspect seed subject to interstate provisionsof the Federal Seed Act (98). Regulationsrequire accurate labeling, including specificationof all seed in excess of 5 percent, and designationof ‘weeds’ and ‘noxious weeds’ conforming tothose of the State into which the seed is transportedor offered for sale. 19 It is illegal to transportseeds containing weeds or noxious weeds into aState in excess of specified tolerances. Wheninspectors detect infractions, AMS usually resolvesthe case administratively, rather than byprosecution (98). In fiscal year 1991, AMS tested934 seed samples in connection with interstateshipments and collected $76,075 in penaltiesunder the Act (98). The fiscal year 1991 budgetfor Federal Seed Act functions was about $1.1million (98).FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICEThe Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) is thelead agency in all USDA foreign activities (75).It maintains agricultural counselors, attaches, andtrade officers in 74 offices, embassies and consulatescovering about 110 countries (95). FAS staffperiodically report on plant or animal healthissues that might affect expected importations,and the agency sometimes alerts U.S. Customs,APHIS, or other agencies of developing problems(75), FAS also facilitates the overseas activities ofAPHIS staff supervising pre-clearance or monitoringforeign pest and pathogen conditions (75).FOREST SERVICEPrimary responsibilities of the Forest Service(USFS) relate to its management of the NationalForest System and research on forest pests andpathogens.17 Dep~ment of A@ml~R org~c kt of 1956, as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 428a et ~e9)18 FederaJ Seed Act (1939), as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 1551 er seq.)197 cm X)I, as amended (Jan. 4, 1940).

178 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesGypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) research is the U.S.Forest Service’s responsibility while the ForestService and USDA’s Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service share obligation for controllingthe pest.Land and Resource Management—The 191million-acre National Forest System is distributedin 43 States (74) and makes up roughly 8percent of the U.S. land area. Congress hasdesignated 32.5 million of these acres, or 17percent, as wilderness (92). Policies regardingNIS are more restrictive in wilderness areas; forexample, stocking of ‘exotic’ ’ 20 fish is prohibited,restoration of disturbed vegetation must incorporateonly indigenous species, and wildlife may becontrolled when they harm indigenous species(75).In general, however, the National Forest Systemis managed for multiple uses, 21 includingtimber production, outdoor recreation, rangelandgrazing, watershed preservation, and fish andwildlife habitat (94). Thus, aside from constraintson wilderness areas, the Forest Service managesits lands for purposes that sometimes include theintroduction of NIS.Grazing—In 1989, a total of 1,147,916 cattle(Bos taurus), horses, and burros and 944,843sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra hircus)-allof them non-indigenous-grazed on lands of theNational Forest System (163). The Forest Servicehas inventoried approximately 50 million acres assuitable for grazing (93). According to a recentForest Service internal survey, 24 percent of thegrazing allotments in six Western Regions hadproblems with vegetation or soil and waterresources caused either by improper livestockgrazing or by grazing occurring where it conflictswith other valued resources such as wildlife orrecreation (92).Introductions of Fish and Wildlife-As ageneral policy, when stocking or introducing fishor wildlife, the Forest Service favors ‘native’ ’ 22 or“desirable” non-native species (108). Introductionsof new NIS desired by the public may beallowed (108). The Forest Service considersmanagement of fish and wildlife in the NationalForests primarily a State responsibility. Releasesof NIS at new sites involve joint agreements withState fish and wildlife agencies and coordinationwith FWS (108,163). In evaluating such introductions,the Forest Service and States considerprobable effects on adjoining private and otherpublic lands, as well as compatibility with multipleusemanagement (108,109). More careful considerationis given to introductions of new NIS thanto repeated stocking of species introduced in thepast, such as the chukar partridge (Alectorischukar). The latter do not require an environmentalanalysis unless they are controversial(108).Control of Noxious Weeds—The Forest Servicehas an active program to control noxiousweeds. The current emphasis is on use of integratedmanagement systems, and the ForestZo ‘tExotic’ is defied in the Fs manual as “!@XieS not Ori@y W curring in the United States and introduced from a foreign country.Exotic species that have become naturalized, such as the ring-neck pheasant [Phusianus colchicus], are considered the same as native species’(111).ZI ~der tie M~tiple-uSe sustied Yield Act of 1960, as amended (16 U. S.C.A. 528 et seq.)22 According to the Forest Service Manual, ‘‘native” refers to species indigenous to the United States (1 11).

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy I 179Service has a strong interest in using biologicalcontrol agents (1 12,168).A recently issued interim directive on noxiousweeds includes several notable components (1 12).Where possible, forage and browse seed forplanting and feed, hay, or straw brought ontoForest Service lands must be certified free ofnoxious weed seed (1 12). The directive furtherencourages the use of desirable plant species thatout-compete noxious weeds and requires whereappropriate that equipment brought onto ForestService lands by contractors or permitters be freeof noxious weed seeds (1 12), Forest Supervisorsare specifically instructed to assess the risks ofintroducing noxious weeds in projects that disturbplant communities (1 12).Control of Forest Pests and Pathogens—TheForest Service has responsibility for detecting,identifying, surveying, and controlling forestpests affecting forested lands in the United Statesunder the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act. 23While the Forest Service directly manages speciesaffecting the National Forest System, managementelsewhere is through cooperative agreementswith other Federal and State agencies usingfunds specifically appropriated to the ForestService for this use (162).Most of this program does not deal with NIS,since the majority of significant pests and pathogensaffecting the nation’s forests are indigenous(1 10). Nevertheless, it does address several wellestablishednon-indigenous pests, including gypsymoth, white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola),balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae),and Port-Or-ford cedar root disease (Phytophthoralateralis) (163). Gypsy moth, considered the mostdamaging of these, is controlled cooperatively bythe Forest Service and APHIS (163). The ForestService manages larger infested areas, and itshares eradication responsibilities with APHISfor isolated outbreaks (163). The Forest Serviceexpended an average of at least $10 millionannually for gypsy moth suppression and eradicationon Federal, State, and private lands from1987 to 1991 (163). Non-indigenous insects andpathogens could become an even more significantcomponent of forest pest management if speciesfrom Siberia ever become established in thePacific Northwest-some localized infestationshave already occurred (26).Research—Forest Service research on timbermanagement includes the selection, testing, anddistribution of plant materials to improve forests.The United States is rich in indigenous woodyspecies, and only a few NIS have been developedand distributed for specialized applications, suchas windbreaks in treeless areas, urban plantings,and Christmas trees (56).Forest Service research on forest insects andpathogens previously had large programs onintroduced pathogens such as white pine blisterrust, Dutch elm disease (Ceratocystis ulmi), andchestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitic) (162).It currently has a large program (funded at$3,849,000 in fiscal year 1992) on the gypsy mothat the agency’s Northeastern Forest ExperimentStation (163).AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICEThe Agricultural Research Service (ARS) isthe research branch of USDA. Its functionsinclude the evaluation of agricultural NIS, whichlater are disseminated throughout the country bythe commercial sector. ARS also conducts researchon the prevention, control, or eradicationof harmful NIS, often in cooperation with APHIS.Development of New Varieties—The NationalPlant Germplasm System (NPGS) is animportant repository of seeds and other plantmaterials (germ plasm) for plant breeding in theUnited States (53,166). ARS plays a pivotal rolein coordinating, funding, and staffing NPGS,although the system is actually a network ofcooperating Federal, State, and private institutions(77). ARS’s functions in the NPGS include23 coopemtive F~~~~q Assistance Act of 1978, as mended (7 U.S.C.A. 2651-2654; 16 U. S.C.A. 564 et seq.)

180 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesforeign exploration to bring back new plantvarieties of potential use to breeders and theinspection and quarantine of imported plantmaterials, which it conducts in cooperation withAPHIS (77). In addition, some of the U.S. plantgerm plasm collection is stored by ARS (105).An annual average of 8,503 accessions wereincorporated into NPGS between 1985 and 1989(165). About 90 percent of these were of foreignorigin (165). Screening of this plant material forpathogens or contamination by other species isgenerally successful. Only one introduced pest,the peanut stripe virus has been traced to theNational Plant Germplasm Program during thepast 25 years (165).Non-indigenous plant species and varieties arenot evaluated for potential invasiveness or otherharmful ecological qualities before being placedin NPGS. Many are cultivated plants posing fewecological risks (75). However, the collectiondoes contain some harmful plants that are sourcesof useful genes for plant breeders (e.g., noxiousweeds like wild oats (Avena fatua)) (166). Individualsreceiving noxious weed seed from thecollection must obtain Federal and State permits(166).ARS’s National Arboretum is part of theNational Plant Germplasm System. Its functionsinclude overseas plant exploration and importation,although the Arboretum’s main focus is onplants for ornamental horticulture (24). TheArboretum imported a total of 2,371 speciesbetween 1986 and 1988 (165). In addition,scientists at the Arboretum develop ornamentalplants and then release them to researchers or tothe commercial sector for multiplication, distribution,and sale. Plants are evaluated for hardiness,pest and disease resistance, and otherdesirable characteristics before release. The Arboretumdoes not systematically evaluate plantsfor invasiveness. Some ARS botanists, however,may be sensitive to such concerns and incorporatethem into plant assessments (27).ARS presently is developing the NationalGenetic Resources Program required by the 1990Farm Bill. 24 This program will eventually subsumework currently in the NPGS (75). Itsfunctions include the collection, classification,preservation, and dissemination of genetic materialof importance to U.S. agriculture. Itsbiological breadth is greater than that of NPGS,encompassing genetic resources of animals, aquaticspecies, insects, and microbes in addition to thoseof plants. The National Genetic Resources Programmay thus eventually expand ARS’s role inforeign exploration and importation to include agreater variety of organisms.Aquiculture-An additional research areainvolving the use of NIS is aquiculture. ARSprojects include culture techniques and diseasediagnosis and control (99). Total expenditures inthis area were at least $7 million in fiscal year1992 (99).Biological Control and Other Uses of BeneficialInsects-ARS considers biological controlto be one of the most important pest controltactics and has a sizable program for locating,importing, and evaluating insects and other organisms(5,99). The budget request for this programwas about $9.5 million for fiscal year 1993 (99).The agency operates several laboratories abroadwhere researchers locate and study new biologicalcontrol agents and ship them to the UnitedStates. The recently closed laboratory in Italyshipped a total of 80,175 individuals of 28biological control agents to the United States in1990 (34). (The laboratory’s functions shifted toa new facility in Montepellier, France.) Some ofARS research on biological control is in cooperationwith other Federal agencies. For example,ARS and the Army Corps of Engineers cooperateextensively on control of aquatic weeds in them Food, A@c~~e, Conservatio~ and Trade Ad of 1990 (7 U. S.C.A. 5841 et seq.)

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy I 181The Agricultural Research Service is studying methodsto control or eradicate the African honey bee (Apismellifera scutellata), the tracheal mites (Acarapiswoodi) that infect European honeybees (A. mellifera),and other agricultural pests.southeastern United States, and the Bureau ofReclamation contributes funding to ARS work onbiological control of salt cedar (Tamarix spp.).ARS researchers follow protocols for theimportation and release of non-indigenous biologicalcontrol agents, in addition to fulfillingAPHIS’s requirements for import and interstatetransport permits (18). General provisions includeadherence to applicable Federal and State laws,quarantine, detailed documentation, and evaluationof potential environmental and safety effects(18). These protocols provide guidance for ARSworkers, but are largely voluntary for otherresearchers in academia and industry (13). Detailedrequirements for evaluation of environmentaleffects before release have not yet beendeveloped by ARS for all categories of biocontrolagents (18).ARS also imports non-indigenous bees forresearch on crop pollination (88). APHIS requirespermits for importation and release of bees toprevent entry of bee pathogens, parasites, predators,or harmful germ plasm (58).Prevention, Control, or Eradication Methods-In addition to its biological control program, ARShas research aimed at the control or eradication ofseveral non-indigenous agricultural pests, such asthe Russian wheat aphid; sweet potato whitefly(Bemisia tabaci); Mediterranean fruit fly; Africanhoney bee; pear thrips (Taeniothrips inconsequens);and tracheal mites (Acarapis woodi),which infect honey bees (99).The agency spent almost $9 million for researchon these six NIS in fiscal year 1992 (99).Another relevant research area is plant diseaseresistance, which aims to prevent infections bynon-indigenous plant pathogens. ARS also studiesanimal pathogens not yet present in the UnitedStates at four specialized laboratories in theUnited States (75).Some funds for ARS research come from Stateor local governments. These are for research onthe control of NIS of great local concern. Forexample, in 1991 Florida provided at least $200,000to ARS for work on biocontrol of melaleuca(Melaleuca quinquenervia) and aquatic weeds(99).SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICEThe Soil Conservation Act of 1935 25 establishedthe Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Itscentral mission continues to be the protection ofland and related resources against soil erosion. 26SCS gives technical advice to nearly all publicagencies and many private entities in the UnitedStates on grasses, forages, trees, and shrubssuitable for erosion control (75). The agencydevotes a significant part of its efforts to thedevelopment and dissemination of new plantmaterials for conservation.Some plants released and recommended by theSCS are non-indigenous to the United States (79).Others are species of U.S. origin spread beyondtheir natural ranges through soil conservationapplications. SCS uses NIS at least in part25 Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (1935) (16 U. S.C.A. 590a et seq.)267 CFR 600, as amended (April 6, 1982).

182 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesbecause indigenous species sometimes may notsatisfy all soil conservation needs, especially forplants that grow rapidly in disturbed, contaminated,or polluted habitats (75).Movement of Species Into and Within theUnited States-SCS operates 20 plant materialscenters throughout the United States, and anadditional 6 are operated either jointly with otheragencies or by State agencies with SCS assistance(1 16). These centers assemble, test, release, andprovide for the commercial production and use ofplant materials. Plants evaluated for any givenapplication may come from collections of indigenousvegetation, foreign plant introductions,strains from plant breeders, or commercial seed(114). SCS has a small, informal program tolocate new species abroad (69). However, theprincipal source of foreign plant materials isARS, which provides an estimated 90 percent ofthe NIS evaluated by SCS (80).At any given time, the plant materials centerscollectively may be evaluating as many as 20,000plant types (117). Of these, about 25 percent arenon-indigenous to the United States 27 (1 17).From 1981 through 1990, the plant materialscenters formally released for public use a total of75 species or cultivars (varieties); 29 percent hadorigins outside the United States, including Turkey,China, and Africa (113). Once into commercialproduction, plants developed by SCS canhave wide distribution. For example, in 1989,200SCS cultivars were in production, resulting in24.8 million pounds of seed and 27.1 millionplants, with a retail value of $78.3 million (117).Within the SCS, no explicit agency-widepolicy governs the use of indigenous versus NIS,although SCS officials state that priority isgenerally given to indigenous 28 species (69,80).The SCS does provide general guidance to theplant materials centers regarding testing forpotential weediness. Specifically, it requires determinationof whether a plant “has any toxicqualities or has a potential for becoming a pest. ”Should the plant have these qualities, “controlmethods are to be developed and hazards are to becarefully assessed before the plant is consideredfor release” (114). Annually about 10 percent ofspecies under evaluation are discarded because oftheir potential to become weeds (80).Within those general national guidelines, thereview process and species choice occurs at theindividual plant material centers (69). Proceduresfor evaluating plants are not standardized and canvary among centers and even among individualresearchers (79,80). In the past, SCS has recommendedsome plants that have become notablepests, such as multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustfolia), and saltcedar (75). SCS staff believe that many, if not all,of these harmful species would not pass the plantreview process today (75,80).Nevertheless, present review processes mayfail to adequately screen out potential pests,especially those that only become pests in forestsand other natural areas. According to one expert,at least 7 of the 22 non-indigenous cultivarsreleased between 1980 and 1990 have the potentialto become invasive in natural areas (61). Inaddition, even U.S. species spread beyond theirnatural ranges by soil conservation applicationsmight cause problems: the Illinois Department ofConservation recently expressed concern over therelease of Elsmo lacebark elm (Ulmus parvifolia)by the Missouri plant material center for use inwindbreaks and ornamental and conservationareas (76).Control and Eradication-SCS does notcontrol or eradicate species it has released whenthey become pests (80). However, SCS is involvedin an effort to replace noxious weeds ongrazed lands with other palatable plants thatoutcompete the weeds (80,115). Current and27 scs s~fies that 75 percent are “native,’ presumably meaning indigenous to the United States (1 17).28 SCS .s~ use tie te~ ‘cMtive.”

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy183planned work includes grazing management studies,development of methods to encourage reinvasionby long-lived indigenous plants, and thecollection and screening of new grassland plants(1 15), The collection and screening may itselfinvolve new introductions, since SCS is considering‘‘importing plants that have been undercenturies of intensive grazing in Inner Mongoliabecause they have evolved to withstand abusiveand intensive grazing’ (79).Providing Indigenous Germ Plasm for Restoration—Since1990, SCS has collaborated withthe National Park Service to propagate indigenousplants for revegetation following park roadconstruction (149). SCS expanded this programto include providing plants for general parkmaintenance in 1992 and adopted it as an agencyplan (81). A unique aspect of this effort is the useof genetic strains that are indigenous 29 to individualparks. The program provides mutual benefitsto the participating agencies. SCS obtains plantmaterials for potential use in soil conservation.Park managers receive indigenous plants thatotherwise are difficult to obtain (80).A SCS draft strategic plan suggested this programand other SCS work could contribute to thedevelopment of banks of indigenous 30 specieswith known ecological zones for future needs(117). The plan recommended an expanded rolein the preservation of indigenous germ plasm,including the establishment and operation of anindigenous germ plasm center (117). Whether andhow this center would coordinate with the NationalGenetic Resources Center under developmentby ARS is unclear. In any case, a repositoryof indigenous plant material might decrease SCSreliance on potentially harmful NIS for conservation.AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION ANDCONSERVATION SERVICEThe Agricultural Stabilization and ConservationService (ASCS) administers the ConservationReserve Program (CRP), created under theFood Security Act of 1985. 31 CRP’s primaryobjective is to help reduce water and wind erosionon highly erodable croplands (19,95). Farmersenroll eligible acreage, and then plant soilconservingplants for a 10-year contract period(19). In exchange, participants receive annualrental payments and a one-time payment for halfof the eligible costs of establishing the plant cover(95). The 1990 Farm Bill broadened the programto include wetland preservation and other conservationpractices (75).CRP is set at a maximum of 44 million acres(95). As of 1990,33,922,565 acres were enrolled(19), or roughly 8 percent of U.S. cropland and 1percent of the total U.S. land area. In 1990, 58percent of CRP lands were planted with grassesnon-indigenous to the United States, while only24 percent were planted with indigenous grasses 32(19). The difference probably relates to per acreplanting costs of $37.39 for NIS versus $44.95 forindigenous species (19).CRP lands may inadvertently provide habitatsfor non-indigenous weeds, such as tumbleweed(Salsola iberica), kochia (Kochia scoparia), andleafy spurge (19). Plants on CRP lands can alsoprovide habitats for non-indigenous crop pestsduring periods when crop hosts are not available;for example, the Russian wheat aphid persists onseveral grasses recommended for western sites(10,19).Between 1986 and 1987, CRP acreage jumpedby approximately 17 million acres (107). Thisunanticipated rapid rate of enrollment caused thedemand for grass seed to exceed supply andresulted in large legal importations from abroad29 Text uses term ‘ ‘native” (149).30 Text uses term ‘‘native,’ referring to species indigenous to the United States (1 17).~1 F[)o(\ security Act of 1985, Public Law 99-198, Title MI.s~ Text uses ‘ ‘introduced’ and ‘ ‘native’ for non-indigenous and indigenous to the United States, respectively (19).

184 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesand widespread use of uncertified seed (75).While ASCS is not aware of any resulting weedproblems (75), such conditions provide a ripeopportunity for unintentional importation anddistribution of non-indigenous weeds.COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH SERVICEThe Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS)funds research on agricultural pest control andaquiculture through State agricultural experimentstations, forestry schools, land-grant colleges, theTuskegee Institute, and veterinary colleges. CSRSawarded grants for research on the managementand control, including biological control, ofnon-indigenous pests totaling at least $450,000 in1990 and $550,000 in 1991 (96). These includedleafy spurge, gypsy moth, imported fire ants,Eastern filbert blight (Anisogramma anomala),and Russian wheat aphid. CSRS also providesfunds for the use of NIS in technical applicationssuch as biological control or aquiculture. In 1990,$338,900 was awarded to develop facilities forbiocontrol of Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica)(96). CSRS funds five regional aquiculture centers.At these and other locations, research isunder way on the detection and prevention ofdiseases in aquiculture species and the developmentof species for aquiculture applications.Department of the InteriorAt least five agencies within the Department ofthe Interior have responsibilities related to NIS.Of these, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS) has the most diverse role. Collectively,management policies of the department’s agenciesaffect the distributions and impacts of NIS onat least 20 percent of the U.S. land area.FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEFWS simultaneously engages in both controllingand intentionally introducing or stockingNIS. The agency has responsibilities to preventand control injurious fish and wildlife and toprotect threatened and endangered species. At thesame time, FWS promotes recreational fisheries,BuyerBeware!souvenirsYOU buyoverseascouldend upcosting alot morethan youpaid forthem.Educational efforts, such as this brochure fortravelers, are part of the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService’s work to prevent and control injuriousintroductions and protect endangered species.

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy I 185hunting, and aquiculture that involve NIS. AlthoughFWS uses regulations drafted under ExecutiveOrder 11987 as an internal policy todiscourage introductions of NIS, the policy hasnot been uniformly adopted throughout the agency(30). Conflicting goals sometimes occur betweendifferent programs, and even between differentparts of individual programs.FWS’s participation as co-chair of the AquaticNuisance Species Task Force has required somesynthesis and internal evaluation of the agency’srole in NIS issues. While the ultimate effects ofthis effort are presently unknown, it potentiallywill generate increased communication and coordinationamong the currently disparate programswithin FWS.Movement of Species Into the United States-FWS has responsibility for regulating the importationof injurious fish and wildlife under theLacey Act. Current regulations prohibit or restrictentry to the United States of two families offishes; 18 genera or species of mammals,birds,reptiles, and shellfish; and two fish pathogens. 33FWS also restricts the importation of hundreds ofthreatened and endangered species from abroadunder the Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species (CITES).The FWS port inspection program is relativelysmall, especially in comparison with agriculturalinspection. The budget request for fiscal year1992 included $3,294,000 for 65 wildlife inspectorsand an additional $500,000 for an automatedimport clearance system (100). In 1990, FWS portinspectors inspected 22 percent (a total of 17,562inspections) of the wildlife shipments at internationalports of entry (100).The potential exists for FWS to play anincreased role in regulating fish and wildlifeimports, but current shortcomings of the FWS lawenforcement division might compromise expandedefforts. A recent advisory commission found thedivision seriously understaffed and underfundedand lacking clear priorities, adequate staff supervision,or sufficient technical expertise to identifyspecies (145). Unfunded needs for law enforcementidentified by FWS regional offices totaled atleast $7 million for fiscal year 1992 (67).Movement of Species Within the UnitedStates-Under the Lacey Act, interstate transportof federally listed species is legal. Thus, intentionalmovements within the country of harmfulfish and wildlife such as zebra mussels face noFederal prohibition. In contrast, amendments tothe Lacey Act in 1981 made the interstatemovement of State-listed injurious fish and wildlifea Federal offense, potentially subject to FWSenforcement (70,90). No interceptions of suchinterstate shipments were listed among the 1990accomplishments of FWS enforcement, suggestingthis is not a high priority within the agency(100). Future implementation of the NonindigenousAquatic Nuisance Prevention and ControlAct might increase the FWS role in preventinginterstate transfers of harmful aquatic species.Federally Funded Introductions-The FWSFederal Aid Program allows States to recover upto 75 percent of acceptable costs for variousprojects related to fish and wildlife restoration.Funds come from Federal excise taxes on sales offirearms and hunting and fishing equipment andsupplies. The receipts have grown steadily overthe past few years (figure 6-l), and payments toStates totaled more than $320 million in fiscalyear 1991.The program frequently is criticized for itshistorical role in supporting numerous introductionsof non-indigenous fish and wildlife species(20,141). Determining the exact number of introductionsfunded is difficult, however, since fewproject titles include species names or the words“exotic” or “non-indigenous” (63).The Federal Aid Program now discouragesintroductions of MS not yet established in anarea. It requires States to assess the environmental3350 CFR 16, as amended (Jan. 4, 1974).

I186 I Harmful Non-indigenous Species in the United Statesimpacts of any introductions they propose (4,138,139).Although proposals for introductions presentlyare uncommon, they do continue (142). Mostinvolve introductions of U.S. species into areaswhere they are not indigenous, such as the recentproposal by the New Jersey Division of Fish,Game and Wildlife to introduce chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from the Pacificcoast to the Delaware Bay (159). Such introductionshave become controversial only recently (4),and the Federal Aid Program lacks a clear policyregarding their eligibility for funds. Additionalconcerns are that proposals for introductions areclosely scrutinized only when they engendervocal public controversy, and that State agenciessometimes inadequately fulfill requirements forassessing environmental effects of introductions.Further, States can avoid scrutiny by using Statefunds for the initial introduction of a species; oncethe species is established, funding can be soughtfrom the Federal Aid Program for stockingwithout any requirement for environmental assessment.Control and Eradication—FWS has no centralized,comprehensive program for the controland eradication of harmful NIS. Instead, controlprograms have variable goals, such as control ofindividual species, recovery of endangered species,and control of fish diseases affecting aquaculture.The most notable control program is forthe sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in theGreat Lakes, conducted by the North CentralRegional Office in Minnesota in cooperation withother regional entities. Under the Great LakesFish and Wildlife Restoration Act, 34 FWS plansto expand sea lamprey control as part of a GreatLakes initiative (100).FWS had reported NIS as a factor contributingto the decline of approximately 30 percent ofspecies listed as threatened or endangered as ofJune 1991 (see table 2-3) (4). Control of NIS is acomponent of the recovery plans of many listedFigure 6-l—Account Receipts of the FWS FederalAid to States ProgramSport fish restoration account receipts““~l‘“v0 1 I I I 11985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 ●Source of funds:_ InterestFiscal yearD Fuel taxes~ Import duties m Excise taxes● 1991 figures are estimatesWildlife restoration account receipts160-, 1--140(/J 120zg 100: 80; 60.—z 4020-Io~l1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991Taxes on:_ Bows and arrows~ Pistols and revolversFiscal yearD Arms and ammunitionSOURCE: U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,Subcommittee on the Department of the Intenorand Related Agencies,“Hearings on Department of the Interior and Related AgeneiesAppropriations for 1992,” serial No. 43-2940, (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1991), pp. 1091, 1099-1100, 1111,1117-1118.I I34 Great ties Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990 (16 U. S.C.A. 941 et seq)

.Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy I 187species (4). Examples include control of feralanimals and non-indigenous vegetation in Hawaiiand reduction of non-indigenous fish populationsin the upper Colorado Basin (100). Implementationof many recovery plans has been poor,however (4, 152). Endangered species recoveryplans consequently contribute little to the controlof NIS at this time.Fisheries Enhancement and Aquaculture-FWS produces fish for stocking waterways at 77National Fish Hatcheries throughout the country(147). WhiIe much of this effort goes to culturingindigenous fishes, it also produces NIS commonlystocked in U.S. waters. Rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss) and striped bass (Moronesaxatilis), for example, are widely stocked beyondtheir natural ranges.FWS created an office to coordinate aquaculturewithin the agency and with other Federalagencies under the National Aquaculture Act of1980 (70). The office’s primary activity is providingtechnical assistance related to natural resourceissues and fish diseases to State agencies and theprivate sector. FWS helps control the spread offish pathogens by promoting a National FishHealth Strategy and by providing voluntarydiagnosis and inspection to the private sectorthrough technical centers associated with theNational Fish Hatcheries.Land Management—FWS manages approximately91 million acres, about 4 percent of theU.S. land area, mostly within the National WildlifeRefuge System. This system includes 500national wildlife refuges, 166 waterfowl productionareas, and 51 wildlife coordination areas(46). General goals include the preservation ofnatural diversity, although various units wereestablished under different authorities and forvarying purposes (4). Sometimes these eveninclude preservation of NIS-for example, managementof longhorn cattle (Bos taurus) at theWichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge.—The National Wildlife Refuge System AdministrationAct 35 only allows land uses that arecompatible with the refuges’ original purposes. Inpractice, this results in inconsistent NIS policies.Some NIS may be purposefully introduced-forexample, planting non-indigenous grass mixtures(i.e., wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.), alfalfa (Medicagosativa), and sweet clover (Melilotus spp.)) toenhance waterfowl production and stocking nonindigenousfish to achieve management objectives(4). Other NIS are controlled when theyinterfere with refuge management goals (72,147).Approximately 12 percent of the wildlife refugesexperienced problems with MS in 1991 (72).Research—FWS has ongoing NIS research inthe following areas: the distribution, biology, andcontrol of aquatic nuisance species; the identificationand treatment of fish pathogens; control ofwildlife diseases; control of the brown tree snake;effects of non-indigenous vegetation on nongamemigratory birds; biological control of purpleloosestrife (Lythrum salicaria); and aquiculturetechniques (72,85,100). Much of the work onaquatic species is conducted at the NationalFisheries Research Centers in Gainesville, Florida;AM Arbor, Michigan; and LaCrosse, Wisconsin.The Gainesville center sometimes is referred toas the ‘‘Exotic Species Laboratory. ” One of itsmissions is to identify the distribution, status, andimpacts of non-indigenous fish (85). The centerhas a database to monitor the spread of nonindigenousfishes in the United States and isdeveloping a geographic information system (ch.5) for monitoring non-indigenous aquatic speciesin general. The center’s prominent role in researchand information exchange has been due tothe intense efforts of a small, experienced staff.However, recent staff turnover coupled with theambiguous status of NIS among the center’svarious responsibilities makes its future unclear.35 Nation~ Wi]dltie Refige System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U. S.C.A. 668dd et seq.)

188 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesThe Federal Aid Program of FWS funds someState research on uses, impacts, and managementof non-indigenous fish and wildlife. For example,from 1989 to 1990,$100,036 went to research onthe brown trout (Salmo trutta) and $24,671 toresearch on feral dogs (Canis familiars) and pigs(Sus scrofa) (143,144). Such projects area smallpart of the total research funded by this program.Certification of Sterile Grass Carp-TheFWS has operated an inspection service to certifythat grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) aretriploid since 1979 (146). Presently, this is doneat the Warm Springs Regional Fisheries Center inGeorgia. Grass carp are non-indigenous fish thathave wide application as biocontrol agents foraquatic weeds. However, they can also spread andcause environmental harm if reproductive populationsbecome established in the wild. Thetriploid grass carp are sterile, and can be releasedwithout risk of establishing self-sustaining fieldpopulations.NATIONAL PARK SERVICEAlthough the law that created the National ParkService (NPS) says nothing about NIS, it does setout a general goal to “conserve the scenery andthe natural and historic objects and the wild lifetherein and to provide for the enjoyment of thesame in such a manner and by such means as willleave them unimpaired for the enjoyment offuture generations.” 36This responsibility is thebasis for NPS’s policies promoting the eradicationand control of NIS and prohibiting introductionsexcept under very limited circumstances (4).As early as 1933, NPS had explicit policiesregarding the need to control ‘exotic’ species onpark lands (52).When the National Park System was created,preservation of U.S. ecosystems could be accomplishedlargely by leaving things alone. Increasingly,however, intervention has become essentialto control the ecological disruption caused byharmful NIS. This changing need has not beenmet by an adequate shift in management priorities,funding, and staffing within the NPS.A rough estimate is that NPS allocates less than1 percent of its annual budget to research,management, and control of MS. Natural resourceissues in general receive low prioritywithin NPS. In fiscal year 1990, only 6 percent ofthe NPS budget went to management of naturalresources (66).Growing recognition exists that NPS will needto shift its funding priorities if it is to address thedegradation of natural resources, including thatrelated to NIS, resulting from human encroachmentaround park boundaries (86).Land Management—NPS manages approximately80 million acres divided into 10 geographicregions, or about 3 percent of the U.S.land area (2). The system is made up of about 364units having 22 different designations such asparks, monuments, recreation areas, historic sites,and battlefields (2). Reflecting this diversity, NPSlands are divided into natural, cultural, parkdevelopment, and special use management zones(148). NPS’s strictest policies related to NIS arefor natural zones (148).A survey done in 1986 and 1987 on naturalresource conditions in the parks found control ofharmful NIS to be a significant managementconcern throughout NPS (47). Respondents citednon-indigenous plants as the most common threatto park natural resources. Non-indigenous animalswere the fourth most commonly reportedthreat. Parks negatively affected by NIS occur inall 10 NPS regions (47).Most decisions regarding control and managementof NIS are made by individual parks duringdevelopment of resource management plans.Within any given park, the priority given to NISprojects depends on the park’s goals and presentcondition. NIS projects have relatively highpriority among natural resource concerns within36 Natio~ Park Service organic Act (1916), as amended (16 U.S.C.A. 1 et seq.)

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy! 189NPS; according to NPS officials, 42 percent ofNIS projects were either funded (39 percent) orranked as highest priority among unfunded projects(3 percent) for the period from 1991 to 1995,compared with only 36 percent for all otherresource management projects (51). NationalParks with especially pressing problems with NISinclude Haleakala and Volcanoes in Hawaii,Everglades in Florida, Great Smoky Mountains inTennessee, and the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.Even smaller parks like Rock Creek Parkin the District of Columbia have numerouspressing problems with non-indigenous plants.NPS generally seeks to perpetuate indigenousplants and animals, and its policy is to manage oreradicate NIS that threaten park resources orpublic health whenever prudent and feasible. NISintroductions are generally prohibited by agencyregulation. 37 To further prevent introductions,some parks, such as Yosemite, have park-specificregulations requiring feed materials transportedinto the park be certified weed free or requiringuse of pelletized feeds in the backcountry (52).Notwithstanding these various bans, intentionalintroductions are tolerated to varying degrees inNPS’s four management zones (box 6-C) (148).Still, NPS differs from other Federal landmanagement agencies in having strict guidelinesfor introductions. Plants and animals must befrom populations closely related genetically andecologically to park populations, except when thegoal is to correct losses of the gene pool caused byhuman activities (148). In natural zones, revegetationefforts are to use plant materials not only ofindigenous species, but of indigenous gene poolsas well (148).NPS Control of Activities Outside the NationalParks-NPS officials increasingly seepark resources affected by land use practices insurrounding areas (15 1). The potential impact ofNIS is clear, since live organisms can move freelyon and off park lands and few other public orprivate land managers are as restrictive as NPS.However, few parks actually do control NIS onneighboring lands, even though the 1991 NPSNatural Resources Management Guidelines listthis as an appropriate approach when surroundingland owners are cooperative (59).Research—NPS conducts research to provide‘‘an accurate scientific basis for planning, development,and management decisions” (148). Researchin the national parks is conducted by bothNPS staff and researchers from outside institutions.NPS provided about $2 million for over 200research projects related to NIS in fiscal year1990. Research topics included evaluating environmentaleffects, monitoring, management, eradicationmethods, and restoration following speciesremoval (150,151). NPS both conductsresearch on the potential use of biological controlto control NIS and participates in related cooperativeprojects with State agencies (36).BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENTThe Bureau of Land Management (BLM)manages about 270 million acres, or 11 percent ofthe total U.S. land area, mostly located west of theMississippi River (2). The Federal Land Policyand Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) directsBLM to manage lands under its jurisdiction for amix of uses including grazing, mining, timberharvest, recreation, and wildlife conservation. 38FLPMA thus authorizes certain uses that facilitatethe spread and establishment of NIS (4).Grazing-Grazing is one of the most commonand widespread uses of BLM lands (4). It also hasbeen a factor in the transformation and degradationof rangeland vegetation, including the spreadand establishment of many non-indigenous weeds(39,134). The agency annually authorizes grazingby 4.3 million cattle, sheep, goats, and horses on3736 ~ z-l (J- 30, 1983),38 Federal M poliq and Management Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C.A. 1701, 1702).

190 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 6-C-introduction of Non-lndigenouse Species in the National ParksNPS divides its holdings into four management categories. Natural zones are managed to protect naturalresources. Cultural zones are managed to preserve and foster appreciation of cultural resources. Parkdevelopment zones are managed and maintained for intensive visitor use. And special use zones are managedfor uses not appropriate in other zones, such as commercial use, mineral exploration and mining, grazing, forestuse, and reservoirs. NPS policies on introductions of NIS differ among the four zones.In natural zones, non-indigenous plants and animals may be introduced only rarely. Allowed introductionsinclude: nearest relatives of extirpated indigenous species; improved varieties of indigenous species when thelocal variety cannot survive current environmental conditions; and agents used to control established NIS.Introductions to natural zones are also permitted when there is explicit direction by law or legislative intent; forexample, the enabling legislation for Great Basin National Park allows for the perpetuation of free-ranging livestockwithin the park. The emphasis of natural zone management is on maintaining fundamental ecological processes,rather than individual species per se. Thus, ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus Colchicus) and chukars (Alectorischukar), introduced long ago to Haleakala National Park, are tolerated because they may satisfy ecological rolespreviously filled by now-extinct Hawaiian birds. Also, biological control agents have been introduced into naturalzones of several national parks to control harmful NIS.NIS maybe introduced in cultural zones when they area desirable, and historically authentic, part of thehistorical landscape. Such introductions are permitted only if the plant or animal is controlled so that it cannotspread. In park development zones, all of the above uses are allowed, as well as introductions to satisfymanagement needs that cannot be met by indigenous species. Again, such introductions are only permitted if t heNIS will not spread, become a pest, or harm indigenous plants and animals.Stocking of waterways with non-indigenous fish may occur only in special use zones, either in alteredwaterways that are inhospitable to indigenous species or in rivers and streams where non-indigenous fish arealready established. Similarly, stocking non-indigenous game species may be allowed in national recreation areasand preserves where they are already established. When stocking fish and game, NPS gives precedence toindigenous species wherever possible, and stocking is contingent on evidence that the species cannot spread ordo harm to indigenous species.SOURCES: M.J. Bean, “The Role of the U.S. Department of the Interior In Non-lndigenoua Spedes Issues,” contractor report preparedfor the Office of Twhnology Assessment, November 1991; D.E. Gardner, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, “Role ofBiological Control as a Management Tool in National Parks and Other Natural Areas,” technkal report NPS/NRUH/NRTR-90~1; G.H.Johnston, Chief of Wildlife and Vegetation Division, Natural Resoureea Program Branch, National Park Service, personal communicationto E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, July 10, 1991, Mar. 13, 1992; L. bope, U.S. Department of the lnterfor, NationalPark Service, “Public Outreach in Controlling Alien Spedes in Haleakala National Pam” talk presented at the National Park ServieeHeadquarters, Aug. 21, 1991; U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Servka, “Management Polides,” Washington, DC, 19S8.about 164 million acres, or 61 percent, of theBLM lands (100).Additional grazing on BLM lands occurs underthe Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. 39This law explicitly perpetuates NIS by protectingwild horses and burros and preserving them as aliving reminder of the history of the AmericanWest. An estimated 50,000 free-roaming horsesand burros occurred on BLM lands at the start of1991 (loo).Control of Non-Indigenous Weeds---Nonindigenousweeds are widespread on BLM landswithin the contiguous 48 States (figure 6-2) (132,161). They degrade rangelands because many areunsuitable for forage. Although some emphasis isalready being placed on weed management in39 Wfld Free. Roaming Horses and Burros Act (1971) (16 U. S.C.A. 1331 e( se9).

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy 191Figure 6-2—Growing Distributions of Three Noxious Weeds in the NorthwestCanada thistle (Cirsium arvense)Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)1920 1 1Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris)Many noxious weeds are widespread on BLM lands. These maps show how three species spread in fiveStates over a 60-year period.SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, “Northwest Area NOXIOUS Weed ControlProgram: Final Environmental Impact Statement,” December 1985.BLM, much more is needed (136). Weed managementis a small component of rangeland management,receiving only about $1.2 million annually(100,136). A 1991 internal evaluation concludedthat even though noxious weed problems arewidespread and growing, their control program isseriously underfunded and lacks adequate staff(136). Moreover, existing staff lack technicaltraining or an awareness of noxious weed problems(136). Documenting the extent and severityof noxious weed infestations on BLM lands isalmost impossible because of inadequate monitoringand inventory (136).Cooperative weed control efforts exist amongBLM and other Federal, State, and county agencies,and BLM’s funding provides for control onabout 225 sites within 8 States (100). BLM alsois involved in the management of noxious weedsin the greater Yellowstone area, in a coordinatedeffort with several Federal and State agencies

192 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States(44). Recent draft policies on weed managementinclude requirements for anticipating and addressingfactors that facilitate the spread andestablishment of noxious weeds (136), althoughsuch long-term strategies have not yet beenimplemented. Examples include requiring contractorsto clean equipment before entering BLMlands and using only seed, hay, mulch, or feed thatis free of noxious weed seed.The 1990 Amendment to the Federal NoxiousWeed Act 40 gave Federal land managers explicitauthority to develop programs for control ofundesirable plants. BLM’s internal evaluationcited a need for increased coordination andcooperation with State agencies (136), and theagency has instructed its State Directors todevelop cooperative agreements with State agenciesand review their programs to ensure fillcompliance (71).Introduction of Biological Control Agents-BLM encourages introductions of biological controlagents as part of an integrated management ofweeds (16 1). The agency differs from otherFederal land managers in having developedspecific guidelines for the release of biologicalcontrol agents. BLM requires compliance andcoordination with State and Federal authorities,including evaluation of an agent’s potentialenvironmental effects before its release in anenvironmental assessment prepared by APHIS(135). BLM contributes funding to the AgriculturalResearch Service for the development andrelease of biological control agents. ARS alsooperates several small, l-acre laboratories onBLM lands to propagate insects for biologicalcontrol; in return ARS makes these agents availableto BLM (161).Introductions and Control of Fish and Wildlife-BLMmanages more fish and wildlife habitatthan any other Federal or State agency(100,130). The agency’s long-standing policy isto give top priority to protecting, maintaining, andThe Bureau of Land Management is beginning aprogram to manage weeds-like dyer’s wood (Isatistinctoria)-on public lands.enhancing indigenous fauna and flora (131).Requirements for introducing fish and wildlifeinclude prior assessment of environmental effects,creation of a buffer zone around theintroduction area, and a trial release of at least 2years (131). In addition, animals must be quarantinedto prevent pathogen or parasite introductions.Except under limited circumstances, currentpolicy prohibits introductions into wildernessareas, into areas with threatened and endangeredspecies, or of species that can hybridizewith indigenous fauna (131). A unique feature ofBLM policy is a provision that ‘‘individuals ororganizations may beheld liable for damages andresponsible for expenses incurred in control ofunauthorized exotic wildlife introductions’ (13 1).However, no related regulation or law specifiessuch liability (4).~ 7 U.S.C.A. 2814

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy 193The current BLM manual lacks any statementconcerning harmful NIS already established onBLM lands (4). A 1986 draft revision of the fishand wildlife section did promote control of feralspecies adversely affecting indigenous species,and it would have permitted the persistence ofNIS that had become ‘‘naturalized’ prior topassage of the 1976 Federal Land Policy andManagement Act (133), However, this draft wasnever finalized, and BLM lacks any explicitpolicy regarding whether and under what circumstancesestablished non-indigenous fish and wildlifeshould be controlled or eliminated (4).BLM is indirectly involved in the control ofnon-indigenous fish through a new joint initiativewith the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.The “Return of the Natives” project was begunin 1991 and is cooperatively funded by public andprivate sources. Its goal is to restore indigenousfisheries in western streams, primarily throughhabitat restoration (68).BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRSThe Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is now inthe fourth year of a 10-year program for managementof noxious weeds, which agency staffestimate infest 726,000-or 12 percent-of theapproximately 56 million acres found on Indianreservations (129), The plan’s objective is toeliminate approximately 90 percent of the weedinfestation by the end of fiscal year 1999.According to BIA, the most serious problemswith noxious weeds occur in North and SouthDakota and Montana (65). The management planprovides funds on a 50 percent cost-share basisfor control of noxious weeds on reservations toStates, counties, and individual farmers. Controlprograms must last a minimum of three years.BIA requested $1,974,000 for fiscal year 1993 tofund control on approximately 80,000 acres(101).BUREAU OF RECLAMATIONCongress created the Bureau of Reclamation(BOR) in 1902 to reclaim arid lands in the Westfor development. Much of its efforts have been toconstruct dams and irrigation systems for watermanagement, although the agency’s objectiveshave expanded to include development of recreationalwaterways and other goals. Systems builtby the Bureau altered wetland habitats, and someagency programs have begun to address resultingchanges in the resident plant and animal populationsby controlling NIS. These projects are notpart of a coordinated program, but instead havearisen according to need through the Bureau’sregional offices (89).Salt cedar now constitutes, in single or mixedspeciesstands, 83 percent of riverside vegetationalong the Lower Colorado River (137). It providespoor habitat for most wildlife and consumeswater more rapidly than indigenous vegetation.BOR currently is developing along-term programfor the management and eradication of salt cedar(137). As part of this effort, BOR is fundingresearch by ARS on biological control. BORpresently spends between $250,000 and $400,000annually to remove salt cedar mechanically (89).In the Columbia River Basin Project, problemsoccur with Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllumspicatum) and purple loosestrife-the latter infestsabout 20,000 wetland acres in the area (89).Non-indigenous aquatic weeds, like hydrilla (Hydrillaverticillata) and water hyacinth (Eichhorniacrassipes), now clog waterways and reservoirsin Texas and California. BOR is workingwith Federal, State, and private agencies incontrol programs, which have included introductionsof triploid grass carp into irrigation systemsas well as the development of chemical controlmethods for aquatic plants (89).One by-product of BOR’s water managementprograms has been the creation of habitats moresuitable for non-indigenous rather than for indigenousfish, with indigenous species becomingthreatened or endangered in some cases (89).BOR currently has several projects designed tocontrol non-indigenous fishes and protect threatenedand indigenous ones.

194 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesDepartment of Commerce–NationalOceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationThe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s(NOAA) involvement with MSoriginates from its role in the management of theGreat Lakes and coastal resources. NOAA hasconducted much of the Federal research andfunded much of the outside research on the zebramussel. The agency also co-chairs the AquaticNuisance Species Task Force.MOVEMENT OF SPECIES INTOTHE UNITED STATESThe National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)of NOAA inspects imported shellfish to preventthe introduction of non-indigenous parasites andpathogens. NMFS has cooperative inspectionagreements with Chile and Australia. Venezuelahas requested a similar cooperative agreement,although it is not yet in place because of a lack offunds (167).ERADICATION AND CONTROLNOAA awards annual matching grants to theStates for coastal zone management as authorizedby the Coastal Zone Management Act. 41 Statesuse some of these funds for the eradication orcontrol of harmful NIS. For example, Pennsylvaniareceived a grant in fiscal year 1991 foreradication of four non-indigenous plants inPresque State Park to aid in restoration of wetlandand dune communities (14). Additional fundsused for species eradication and control maysometimes be allocated as a component of othergeneral management categories, such as “marshmanagement’ (160).LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENTNOAA cooperates with States in managing theNational Estuarine Research Reserve System,also under authority of the Coastal Zone ManagementAct. The agency provides 50 percent inmatching funds for States to acquire, develop, andoperate estuarine areas as natural field laboratories.As of 1990, there were 18 reserves, or a totalof 267,000 acres of estuarine lands and waters, inthe system (120). Multiple uses can occur in thereserves as long as they are consistent with theprogram’s goals, including maintenance of astable environment through protection of estuarineresources, and the uses do not ‘‘compromisethe representative character and integrity of areserve. The regulations allow, but do notrequire, restoration activities to improve therepresentative character and integrity of a reserve,including removal of NIS. 42RESEARCHNOAA funds both in-house and outside researchon NIS through Sea Grant, the Great LakesEnvironmental Research Laboratory, the NationalEstuarine Research Reserve System, andthe National Marine Fisheries Service. Researchtopics include the ecology and control of harmfulspecies as well as the use of NIS in aquiculture.Sea Grant’s competitive grants program funded15 projects on the zebra mussel in fiscal year1991, totaling about $1.5 million (45). Sea Grantalso funds aquiculture research, some of whichdeals with NIS (1 19,121).NIS have become a major research priority atNOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental ResearchLaboratory (GLERL) since invasion of the zebramussel (102). The Laboratory was conducting sixprojects on zebra mussels and one on the newlyintroduced spiny water flea (Bythotrephes cederstroemi)in fiscal year 1991 (118). Fundingincluded $1.2 million, with a similar amountprovided for fiscal year 1992 (9).NOAA funds some research projects on MS inits estuarine reserves. Six projects related to NISwere supported from 1985 through 1991 (23).41 Coas~l fine Mamgernent Act of 1972, as amended (16 U. S.C.A. 1451 et seq.)42 Reserve re@atiom refer to ‘intentjoti~intentio~ species changes-introduced or exotic species’ as a factor that IIMy ~h ‘therepresentative character and integrity of a site” (15 CFR 921).

Chapter 6–A Primer on Federal Policy I 195Plans for 1995 to 1996 are to increase the focus onrestoring habitats in the reserves; in many casesthis may be to correct problems caused by NIS(23).NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Servicealso conducts research on NIS. The NMFSLaboratory in Oxford, Maryland, studies thedetection and diagnosis of non-indigenous pathogensand parasites of aquatic species (167). Muchof the $270,000 (fiscal year 1992) program onoyster research involves studies of non-indigenousparasites and pathogens (91). NMFS alsoconducts research on aquiculture.Department of DefenseThe Department of Defense (DOD) has diverseactivities related to NIS. These generally relate toits movements of personnel and cargo, managementof land holdings, and maintenance ofnavigable waterways.MOVEMENT OF SPECIES INTOTHE UNITED STATESThe Armed Forces move large shipments ofequipment, supplies, and personnel into theUnited States from around the world. Theseusually are not inspected by APHIS. Instead, eachbranch of DOD conducts its own inspectionsusing military customs inspectors trained byAPHIS and the Public Health Service (124).Although APHIS officials express confidencein the capability of military customs inspection(33), concerns exist that it lacks sufficient rigor,especially during periods of enhanced militaryactivity. Insect pests were found within materialcleared for entry by U.S. Army inspectors duringOperation Desert Storm, and shipped equipmentsometimes carried excessive dirt or sand (3).While APHIS considered these problems minor(12), subsequent internal review by DOD suggestedsome Army inspectors may not be adequatelytrained and that careful inspection suffersunder the pressure to move materials rapidly (3).Similar problems may affect other branches of themilitary.The Army Corps of Engineers helps States controlaquatic weeds such as water hyacinth (Eichorniacrassipes) and also conducts specialized research oncontrol methods.The potential spread of NIS through militarymovements was graphically illustrated by discoveriesof the brown tree snake at military airportsand in naval cargo on Pacific islands where thisnoxious pest is not yet established (35). DOD nowconducts special pre- and post-flight inspectionsof military planes flying from Guam to Hawaii toensure they do not carry brown tree snakes. Theprogram has been commended by experts inHawaii (84).MOVEMENT OF SPECIES WITHINTHE UNITED STATESMovement of military equipment within theUnited States can also spread non-indigenousinsect pests, like the European gypsy moth (62),and noxious weed seeds. A specific objective ofthe Army pest management program is to preventthe spread of economic pests throughout theUnited States by controlling them at Armyinstallations (127).The Army Corps of Engineers sometimes is indirectlyinvolved in interstate transfers of speciesthrough its efforts to develop aquiculture and buildwetlands (1 1). For example, during wetlandsconstruction the Corps will use NIS from nearbyareas when indigenous species are not available

196 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States(11). In addition, Corps construction of dams,reservoirs, and channels can create new habitatsor pathways for the spread of aquatic NIS.CONTROL AND ERADICATIONThe Aquatic Plant Control Program of COEcontrols aquatic weeds in cooperation with Stateand local agencies by providing about 50 percentof the funds for approved projects. The programhas supported control efforts in 10 States, theDistrict of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Appropriationsfor fiscal year 1992 were $5 million (91).In addition, the COE is a member of the AquaticNuisance Species Task Force.LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENTDOD is the fifth largest land manager in theFederal Government, owning at least 25 millionacres and managing another 15 million throughagreements with other Federal or State agencies(82). DOD manages natural resources for multipleuses, including hunting, fishing, forestry,grazing, and agriculture (122). NIS are routinelyintroduced to DOD lands as livestock, agriculturalcrops, landscaping plants, and vegetation forwildlife. Management plans exist for all DODlands, and they must include control of noxiousweeds 43 (122). Cooperative agreements involvingDOD, FWS, and host State agencies are the vehiclefor DOD management of fish and wildlife,and new species introductions only occur whenconsistent with such an agreement (122). DraftArmy regulations for resources management furtherrequire an environmental assessment todetermine the impact of introductions on existingflora and fauna (126). These constraints are notcomprehensive, however: the Air Force, like theForest Service, excludes ‘‘certain game birds thathave become established, such as pheasants”from its definition of “exotic” species (125).DOD established the Legacy Resource ManagementProgram in 1991 to “inventory, protect,and manage biological, cultural, and geophysicalresources on lands owned or used by DOD” incooperation with other Federal, State, and nongovernmentalagencies and organizations (123).The Legacy program funded two projects forcontrol of non-indigenous plants in Ohio andCalifornia in fiscal year 1991 (123).RESEARCHThe COE conducts research on the biologicaland chemical control of aquatic weeds at its facilityin Vicksburg, Mississippi, an effort related toits Aquatic Weed Control Program. The researchpresently focuses on hydrilla and Eurasian watermilfoil.Research efforts are coordinated withother Federal and State agencies. The appropriationfor fiscal year 1992 was $4 million (91).Environmental Protection AgencyThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)deals with NIS in two general areas. First, itregulates the entry and dissemination of variousmicroorganisms. Second, it conducts research onaquatic nuisance species.MOVEMENT OF SPECIES INTO AND THROUGHTHE UNITED STATESEPA regulates the movement of certain nonindigenousmicrobes into and through the UnitedStates under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,and Rodenticide Act 44 (FIFRA) and the ToxicSubstances Control Act 45 (TSCA). Since bothstatutes address the development, distribution,and sale of commercial products, they generallydo not apply to the importation or distribution ofmicrobes for research uses before product development.EPA regulates pesticidal microbes, likethe bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), underFIFRA. Microorganisms that are neither agricul-

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy I 197tural pests nor pesticides—for example, nitrogenfixingfungi-are regulated under TSCA. Anymicroorganism falling under regulation by FIFRAor TSCA that is also either a potential agriculturalpest or a human pathogen would also deregulatedby APHIS or the Public Health Service.Pesticidal Microbes-FIFRA authorizes EPAto regulate importation, environmental release,and commercial distribution and sale of pesticides.Living microorganisms used as pesticidesinclude bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses (8).Manufacturers must register such microbial pesticideswith EPA before commercial distributionand sale. Reporting requirements for registrationare quite extensive and include detailed analysesof effects on organisms other than the target pestand of the eventual fate of” the microbe followingrelease to the environment (155). In addition,FIFRA requires explicit labeling of microbialpesticides (155). Violations of this or otherprovisions of the Act can result in civil or criminalpenalties. 46Only registered microbial pesticides may beimported into the United States for commercialdistribution and sale (43). Unregistered pesticidesmay be denied entry by U.S. Customs. As ofMarch 1992, 2 of the 23 microbes registered aspesticides in the United States were nonindigenous(table 6-5) (7). Origins of an additional11 are unknown, since EPA did not requirereporting of this information until 1984 (7). UnderFIFRA, EPA considers only those microbes fromcontinents other than North America to be nonindigenousto the United States (6).During pesticide research and development,EPA requires manufacturers to provide notificationbefore small-scale tests of non-indigenousmicrobial pesticides. EPA may then requireadditional information, or application for anexperimental use permit. Such permits are requiredfor large-scale tests. Permit applicationsinclude information on microbe identity, origin,host range, mode of action, intended application,and potential effects on nontarget organisms andthe environment. 47 Similar notification and applicationfor an experimental use permit is notrequired for small scale tests of indigenousmicrobes. EPA currently is considering whetherit should continue to require notification for smallscale tests of NIS, since APHIS and the PublicHealth Service require permits for tests involvingpotential agricultural pests or human healththreats (6).Non-Pest, Non-Pesticidal Microbes-UnderTSCA, EPA could regulate certain non-indigenousmicrobes that fall outside of other regulatoryauthorities, such as nitrogen-fining bacteria andfungi. Thus far EPA has regulated only geneticallyengineered microbes under TSCA (38).TSCA regulations do not explicitly distinguishbetween indigenous and non-indigenous microbes,except in the requirement for EPA notificationwhen microbes are imported for commercialpurposes or into commerce. TSCA’s applicabilityis further restricted to only those microbes havingan identified risk to human health or the environment,since naturally occurring microorganismsare considered to be ‘‘in commerce’ and thereforeimplicitly on the TSCA inventory of unregulatedsubstances (38). Nevertheless, should a riskbe shown, EPA could potentially ban, limit productionof, or remove from sale the non-indigenousmicrobes that fall under TSCA. 48MONITORINGThe goal of EPA’s Environmental Monitoringand Assessment Program @MAP) is to monitorthe condition of the Nation’s ecological resources(156). EPA began developing EMAP in 1987, andthe program is still in the preliminary phases of467 U. S.C.A. 136.474.0 CFR 172,4 (My 11, 1981).48 ~xic Substances Control AC4 as amended (15 USC 2601).

198 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 6-5-Microbial Pesticides Registered by EPAYearMicroorganism registered Origin Pest controlledBacteriaBacillus popilliae + B. IentimorbusB. thunngiensis “Berliner”Agrobacterium radiobacterB. thuringiensis istaeliensisB. thuringiensis aizawaiPseuhmonas fluorescentB. thuringiensis San DiegoB. thunngiensis tenebrionisB. thuringiensis EG2348B. thuringiensis EG2371B. thuringiensis EG2424B. sphaericusVirusesHeliothisTussock moth NPVGypsy moth NPVPine sawfly NPVnuclear polyhedrosls virus (NPV)FungiPhytophthora palmivoraColltotrichum gloeosporioidesTrichoderma harziarum ATCC20476 +T. polysporum ATCC20475Gliocladium virens GL21Trichoderma harzianum KRLAG2Lagenidium gigantiumProtozoaNosema locstae194819611979198119811988198819881989198919901991197519761978198319811982●●●Israel●Us.Us.GermanyUs.Us.Us.Us.19901990Us.U.S.1990 Us.1991 Us.1980● Reporting of the origin of registered microbes was not required before1984 so their origins are unknown.●●●●●●●Japanese beetle larvae (Popilliajaponica)Lepidopteran larvaecrown gall disease (Agrobacteriumtumefaciens)Dipteran larvaewax moth larvae (Galleria mellonella)Pythium, RhizoctoniaColeopteran larvaeColeopteran larvaeLepidopteran larvaeLepidopteran larvaeLepidopteran/ColeopteranlarvaeDipteran larvaecotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea),budworm (Choristoneura spp.)Douglas fir tussock moth larvae (Orgyiapseudofsugata)Gypsy moth larvae (Lymantria dispar)Pine sawfly larvae (Neodiprion spp.)citrus stangler vine (Morrenia odorata)northern joint vetch (Aeschynomenevirginia)wood rotPythium, RhizoctoniaPythiummosquito larvaegrasshoppersSOURCE: F. Betz, Acting Chief, Science Analysis and Coordination Staff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, letter to E.A. Chornesky, Officeof Technology Assessment, Apr. 10, 1992.design and small-scale application. However,EMAP’s planners expect the program eventuallywill involve the accumulation and analysis ofinformation on the plants, animals, and physicalenvironment throughout the country. AlthoughEMAP could conceivably be used to monitor NISin the United States, that is not one of its goals,and its current design would not provide suitableinformation for this purpose (50,57).RESEARCHEPA’s most direct involvement with NIS isthrough its Office of Research and Development.Staff from this office represent EPA on theAquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. EPA’sEnvironmental Research Laboratory in Duluth,Minnesota, conducts in-house research on theenvironmental effects and control of zebra musselsand the ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus), and

Chapter 6-A Primer on Federal Policy 1199participates in collaborative projects with NOAAand the Coast Guard on zebra mussel monitoring(48). In 1992, the laboratory also funded relatedresearch at several other institutions. EPA appropriationsrelated to harmful aquatic NIS totaled$1.65 million in fiscal year 1992 (91).Department of Health and HumanServices–Public Health ServiceThe Public Health Service (PHS) regulatesentry of living organisms that might carry orcause human diseases. 49 Current PHS regulationsrestrict, require inspection of, or require permitsfor the importation of all cats, dogs, monkeys,turtles, and bats, as well as certain snails, insects,and microbes. 50 PHS does not perform primaryinspection at ports of entry. Instead, it providestraining for Customs and USDA inspectors whodirectly examine people, baggage, and cargo andmake referrals to PHS when problems arise (158).PHS has only small efforts abroad to identifyspecies and commodities that might serve ashuman disease vectors, and it generally developsregulations only after a potential route of humandisease entry has been demonstrated. For example,PHS developed regulations requiring fumigationof used tire imports at least 2 years afterevidence demonstrated that the tires were a majorpathway by which the Asian tiger mosquito-avector of several human diseases--entered thecountry (see box 3-A). For certain human healththreats, like the African honey bee, PHS has takena minimal role. In this case, primary responsibilityfor devising a response has fallen to APHIS;however, since APHIS is not a public healthagency, it has not fully addressed the publichealth issues (78).PHS does not impose quarantines or regulationsto prevent the interstate spread of humandisease vectors once they become established inthe country (73). For such organisms, the agencydoes, however, monitor spread and conductresearch on their potential to transmit indigenousdiseases. PHS research also examines generaltechniques for tracking and controlling organismsthat can transmit human diseases (157).Department of the Treasury–U.S. Customs ServiceThe U.S. Customs Service (Customs) has amajor operational role in restricting the entry ofharmful NIS. Customs personnel inspect passengers,baggage, and cargo at U.S. ports of entry toenforce the regulations of other Federal agencies(154). They inform interested agencies when apossible violation is detected and then usuallydetain the suspected passenger or commodity forinspection by agency staff. APHIS, FWS, andPHS each has a cooperative agreement withCustoms and provides specialized training toCustoms inspectors. Customs inspects only someincoming passengers, baggage, and cargo, aimingto examine higher risk categories established bycountry of origin and other criteria (153). APHIShas established its own high risk categories foragricultural port inspection using different criteria(12).Department of Transportation—U.S. Coast GuardThe U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) was givencertain responsibilities related to preventing introductionsof harmful aquatic species by theNonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention andControl Act and is a member of the AquaticNuisance Species Task Force. USCG issuedvoluntary ballast management guidelines forships entering the Great Lakes in March 1991.Mandatory ballast management regulations wentinto effect May 10, 1993 to prevent further49 ~&r tie ~blic HealtlI Service Act (1944), as amended (42 U. S.C.A. 201 et seq.)~ 42 CFR 71,72, as amended (Jan. 11, 1985).

200 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesintroductions of aquatic species into the GreatLakes. 51 These regulations require ships to exchangeballast water at sea, to retain ballast wateron the vessel, or to use an alternative approvedmethod.USCG is also researching methods of shipdesign that might prevent the survival and transportof NIS in ballast water (91).Department of EnergyApproximately 2.4 million acres, or 0.1 percentof the U.S. land area, fall under the managementof the Department of Energy (128). These holdingsinclude research laboratories, electric utilities,and petroleum reserves (29). DOE has nogeneral policies regarding the control of NIS,including noxious weeds, on its lands. Theagency plans to issue a programmmatic EnvironmentalImpact Statement in 1993 that should helpestablish consistent land use policies (169).DOE conducts restoration in some areas. Althoughthe primary goal now is removal orcontainment of nuclear or toxic wastes, DOE isbeginning to restore ecological communities ofplants and animals at a few sites (28). DOE lacksa general policy regarding the use of indigenousversus non-indigenous organisms in restoration,presently relying on State policies for guidance.Department of Justice-DrugEnforcement AgencyThe Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) restrictsimportation of a few non-indigenous plants andfungi because they contain narcotic substances.Importation of NIS such as coca (Erythroxylumcoca), marijuana (Cannabis sativa), and opiumpoppy (Papaver somniferum) is only allowedwith a permit from DEA.CHAPTER REVIEWThis chapter described the large number ofFederal agencies and programs responsible fordifferent aspects of managing harmful NIS orintroducing desirable ones. Clearly, much isbeing done. However, OTA’s analysis shows thatthe U.S. system for dealing with harmful NIS fallsshort in a number of important areas. An overallassessment requires looking beyond the FederalGovernment, however. For example, when theAsian tiger mosquito became established in thecountry, control was left to State public healthauthorities; they simply were unable to respondeffectively (21). In the next chapter, OTA looksmore closely at such interactions between Federaland State efforts.5158 Federal Register 18330 (Aphl 8, 1993).

State and LocalApproachesFrom aNationalPerspective 7This chapter picks up from the last, adding how State andlocal efforts affect the management of non-indigenousspecies (NIS). Here, OTA discusses Federal and Staterelations and relationships among States. The chapter’scenterpiece is an analysis of the States’ 50 distinct approaches toregulating importation and release of “fish and wildlife”—mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. 1 In some cases,States have pioneered exemplary approaches and these arehighlighted. The chapter examines how States treat nonindigenousinvertebrates and plants also. Various proposedmodel State laws and local approaches conclude the chapter.THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERALGOVERNMENT AND THE STATESGeneralities come with difficulty regarding Federal-Staterelationships. The authority of the Federal and State Governmentsvaries not only with the type of organism regulated, butalso depending on the particular Federal and State laws andagencies involved. Mainly, however, States control the entry ofNIS across State borders and release of MS within the State.Often these are pests, of either foreign or U.S. origin, that arealready established elsewhere in the country.For fish and wildlife, States retain almost unlimited power,notwithstanding the Federal Lacey Act, 2 to make decisions about1 Some State and Federal laws include all, or certain groups of, invertebrate animalsunder their definitions of “fish and wildlife. ” For example, the Lacey Act coversinvertebrates like snails and crayfii. Occasionally, “wildlife” is defined to include allfauna and flor~ as in Illinois. The terq as used here, refers ordy to vertebrates, but it doesinclude domesticated or cultured species.2For full citations of this and other Federal laws see foomotes to ch. 6.201

202 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 7-A—Mahine v. Taylor; A Key Constitutional DecisionThe Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants to Congress the power to regulate international andinterstate trade. This grant puts limits on, but does not eliminate, the power of States to ban imports of NIS. Thelimits were outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1986 ruling on the constitutionality of a Maine law thatprohibited importation into the State of “any live fish, including smelts, which are commonly used for bait fishingin inland waters.” The case of Maine v. Taylor upheld the law even though it clearly discriminated againstout-of-state bait fish dealers. The Supreme Court applied a two-part test for validity under the Commerce Clause:“the statute must serve a legitimate local purpose, and the purpose must be one that cannot be served as wellby available nondiscriminatory means.” The Supreme Court approved a Iower court’s findings that both parts ofthe test had been met:First, the lower court found that Maine “clearly has a legitimate and substantial purpose in prohibiting theimportation of live baitfish,” because “substantial uncertainties” surrounded the effect that baitfish parasites wouldhave on the State’s unique population of wild fish, and the consequences of introducing nonnative species weresimilarly unpredictable . . . . Second, the court concluded that less discriminatory means of protecting against thesethreats were currently unavailable, and that in particular, testing procedures for baitfish parasites had not yet beendevised.... “[T]he constitutional principles underlying the commerce clause cannot be read as requiring the Stateof Maine to sit idly by and wait until potentially irreversible environmental damage has occurred or until the scientificcommunity agrees on what disease organisms are or are not dangerous before it acts to avoid suchconsequences.”The Supreme Court has long upheld State quarantine Iaws that, notwithstanding the Commerce Clause, banimportation of pests of known significance. Importantly, the Maine v. Taylor ruling upholds ban based on threatswhose significance involved “substantial uncertainties.” This gives States leeway in drafting laws on NISimportation in the face of such uncertainties so long as they do not needlessly discriminate against out-of-Stateinterests.SOURCES: 12 Me. Rev. StatAnn. see. 7613; Mainev. Taylor, 477 US. 131 (19S6).which species are imported and/or released.Congressional incursions on this traditional Statecontrol over fish and wildlife have been limitedand controversial (16). In contrast, several majorFederal laws—such as the Federal Plant Pest Actand the Federal Noxious Weed Act—set nationalpolicy for weeds and other plant pests.Where Federal programs miss significant problems,States, in effect, determinethe success ofnationwide efforts to manage harmful NIS. Thereare important limits to the States’ capacities,however.The Constitution vests the power to regulateinternational and interstate commerce in Congress.3 Therefore, States cannot unnecessarilyrestrict such commerce. The key Supreme Courtcase is Maine v. Taylor (box 7-A). As a result ofthe Commerce Clause, States lack the power tostop the importation and release of a potentiallyinvasive NIS in a neighboring State.A few States, e.g., Hawaii and Alaska, havegeographical barriers against the interstate spreadof NIS. A small number of States, like California,have border inspection stations to interdict pestsin transit. Without these kinds of barriers, a Statecannot do much to slow the influx of Stateprohibitedplants or seeds that were acquiredlegally in another State or country (53). Nor cana State effectively stop mail-order sales of plantsor seeds it prohibits, as policing the mails is aFederal function.s U.S. Constitution Article I, section 8, clause 3.

Chapter 7–State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 203Also, States cannot legislate in direct conflictwith Federal law. Nor can they directly regulateactivities on Federal lands, absent a cooperativeagreement. Occasionally, Federal laws explicitlypreempt State involvement.Federal Preemption of State LawFinding:Federal preemption of State law variesamong categories of NIS. It is more common inagricultural laws than in those related to fishand wildlife. Cooperative programs are a morefeasible way for the Federal Government toinfluence State actions.A key issue in the relationship between Federaland State authorities is whether an applicableFederal law preempts State laws, keeping Statesfrom legislating in the area. This occurs when theFederal law explicitly or implicitly provides forpreemption, or regulates an area so comprehensivelyas to leave no practical State role.Federal preemption is more common in agriculturallaws than in those pertaining to fish andwildlife—traditionally an area of State prerogatives.The Lacey Act required that a list of‘‘injurious species or groups be created and itpreempts States from allowing foreign importationof the 23 ‘‘injurious” taxonomic categoriesof fish, wildlife, and fish pathogens on that list.The Lacey Act does not, however, forbid morerestrictive State laws . 4 Similarly, no State maypermit foreign importation of a weed speciesprohibited and listed under the Federal NoxiousWeed Act, although it does not otherwise preemptState weed laws. 5 The Federal Plant QuarantineAct also allows States to be more restrictive undercertain circumstances, but it imposes a strongFederal presence. For example, the Federal Governmentcan quarantine an entire State under theAct. 6 The Federal Plant Pest Act similarly providesstrong emergency authority to overrideState laws. 7The Federal power to preempt does not meanthat the Federal approach is always the best. SomeState laws regulate more comprehensively thanparallel Federal laws and their implementation ismore effective (see below). Such States are, ineffect, laboratories where different approachesare tested; their successes can spawn Federalimitation. Nevertheless, when States adopt widelyvarying laws, the regulated industries may supportfederally imposed uniformity to facilitatecommerce.Using Federal preemptive powers to implementa national approach is fraught with politicaldifficulties-especially for fish and wildlifeandusually engenders resistance from the States.Thus, the trend is toward programs administeredcooperatively by State and Federal officials. Inthese the Federal Government provides incentivesto pull, and sanctions to push, the Statestoward certain general goals or national minimumstandards. Several points made in a 1987 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service discussion paper onaquatic introductions appear applicable to NISintroductions in general:Introduced aquatic organism issues are inherentlyinterjurisdictional and, thus, clearly national,indeed international in scope. Despite thisFederal interest, however, emergence of a fullyeffective program for avoiding undesirable introductionsof aquatic organisms requires that involvementby the Federal Government notpreempt State authority. Rather, the FederalGovernment should function as a catalyst/facilitator establishing incentives for action by theStates and the other co-managers of the Nation’sfishery resources. However, it will also be imper-4Lacey Act (1900) (16 U. S.C.A. 3378(a)).5Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U. S.C.A. 2812).b F~eral plant Quarantine Act (1912) (7 U. S.C.A. 161).7Federal Plant Pest Act (1957) (7 U. S.C.A. sec. 150dd(b)(l)).

204 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesative to ensure universal applicability of anyaction. Although it must be exercised as a lastresort, a credible threat of Federal sanctionsagainst non-complying jurisdictions is essentialto ensure uniform and, therefore, fair applicationof any corrective strategy. (66)Congress has previously recognized circumstancesthat justify overriding State managementof NIS when it conflicted with Federal goals.Congress restricted State control of feral horses(Equus caballus) and burros (Equus asinus)through the Wild Free-Roaming Horses andBurros Act. State officials may not kill them, orallow their killing, even if they stray off Federallands. 8A major extension of Federal authority resultedfrom litigation over the palila (Loxioides bailleui),a rare bird found only in Hawaii. 9 TheState’s Department of Land and Natural Resourceshad been managing feral goats (Caprahircus) and introduced mouflon sheep (Ovis spp.)for the benefit of sport hunters but to the detrimentof the palila and its habitat. A Federal court ruledthat Hawaii’s action amounted to an illegal“taking” of the palila under the EndangeredSpecies Act and ordered the State to remove thenon-indigenous goats and sheep (6). Under thisreasoning, other States could be compelled tomanage NIS to prevent conflicts with threatenedor endangered species. 10 Thus, precedents existfor Federal preemption even in the traditionallyState-dominated area of fish and wildlifemanagement. 11New emergency powers to override Statecontrol were added to the Federal Plant Pest Actafter the 1980-1982 medfly (Ceratitis capitata)crisis in California. 12 Delays occurred in developinga coordinated Federal-State response becauseof many factors including California’s unwillingnessto spray chemical insecticides over cities.These helped drive the eventual costs to thehighest ever for a single eradication project-atleast $100 million (17). Although they have notyet been invoked to preempt State authority, thesepowers represent a potent assertion of Federalprerogatives, but only under defined circumstances.They provide sufficient leverage suchthat actually invoking them may never be necessary.They also provide a potential model forpreempting State control efforts if they are foundlacking for other NIS (box 7-B).Federal preemption can engender controversywhen applied to new areas, even in agriculturalregulation where preemption has a long history.In 1993, Federal officials asserted their authorityto preempt more restrictive State laws regardingreleases of genetically engineered organisms,raising concerns among some State officials(see ch. 9).I Federal-State CooperationCooperative programs serve several key functionsin Federal and State efforts. Many providea means for developing consistent strategies inareas of common concern. Federal and Stateagricultural officials, for example, collaborate inthe regulation of NIS importation, interstatecommerce, and control. Postentry quarantine ofcertain federally restricted plants is a joint program,in which private importers keep the plantsin quarantine, usually subject to State inspection(50). The National Plant Board, and four regional8Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (1971) (16 U. S.C.A. sec. 1334).9 Palila v. Hawaii lleparz~nr Oftind and Natural Resources, 471 F. SUpp. 985 (D. I-k 1979), @d, 639 F.2d 495 (9ti Cir. 1981).10 me ~~~m~ spies Act does not provide the same protection against ‘‘takings’ of endangered or threateIRd pl~ts u it d~s forfish and wildlife, 16 U. S.CA, 1538(2).11 ~ ~efi narrow eases, Federal laws regulating States may be unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. New York v. United Stares,112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992). Federal laws may setup powerful incentives for State actionj or may impose preemptive Federal standards; however,they may not compel State legislatures to enact federally desired legislation.127 u.s.c.A. 150dd(b)(l).

Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 205Box 7-B-When Federal and State Interests Collide:Control of Harmful NIS In and Around Protected LandsWhere Federal- and State-related lands-, conflicts can arise over differing management goals. Somenational parks and other natural areas provide safe havens for non-indigenous pests of agriculture that arecontrolled elsewhere. However, harmful NIS also invade Federal reserves from lands under State jurisdiction. TheIack of comprehensive State regulation and control exposes the reserves to these species’ impacts when they areintroduced nearby and then spread.Federal agencies can be stymied in trying to address problems attributable to State-supported NIS withmultiple impacts. An example occurs in and around the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, where park andForest Service managers were compelled to cooperate with North Carolina in a trapping plan for introduced hogs(Sus scrofa). The plan limits control efforts in lower elevations of the park, despite the widespread ecologicaldamage the hogs have caused. The park engages in time-consuming and costly transfer of live-trapped hogs,which could otherwise be killed, so that they can be releasedon State lands. The reason: North Carolina’s wildlifeagency wants to maintain hogs in the area for hunters and it had support in dealing with the Park Service fromthe State’s congressional delegation.The Park’s hog management budget dropped drastically from FY 1992 to FY 1993 -from $197,000 to*5,000. The hog numbers will likely increase as will their negative effects.Federal managers sometimes must commit resources to control or eradicate threatening NIS in areas outsidetheir boundaries and their jurisdiction. A clear Federal interest lies in improving this situation by providing anunambiguous mechanism for Federal managers to act beyond their boundaries, but only if compellingcircumstances exist. While cooperative, negotiated agreements are always preferable, unresolved NIS threatsmay justify Federal preemption of State management to protect Federal reserves.SOURCES: R. Jwaph Abrell, C&f, Reeourca Managamwt and Sdanoa DMdon, Grad Smoky National park, personal oornrnunkationto P.T. Jenkins, OffIce of Tdmology AIS~ Dao. la l= F.C. Or@wad and R.F. Dasmann, Burw ol Land Management,%.xotlc Big Gamaon Public Lands; Saptsmbar 19S4; E,F. Hastar, %sU.S. Natbnai Park Exparfarmuvlth ExotkSpoolae~ iVatwa/AreasJournal, ml. 11, NO. 3,1991, pp. 127-2S; L bqm, Rasaati ~“ , Hakkak Nat)onalPa* poraonaicornmunioatbn bP.TJenkins,Offica of Technology Assesanw nt, Aug. 21, 1s91 .Yellowstone National Park signed a memoran-dum of understanding to control noxious weeds.The agreement included adoption of comprehensivemanagement guidelines (3). In Hawaii,Federal and State officials have an interagencyagreement to research the biological control offorest weeds (ch. 8). Similarly, the Western WeedCoordinating Committee, with members fromwestern Federal and State agencies, enhancescooperation in weed management (44). Florida’sExotic Pest Plant Council (EPPC) fills this rolefor primarily non-agricultural weeds; agencyofficials, botanists, and others from privategroups in California recently created their ownEPPC using Florida’s model.plant boards, composed of officials from Statedepartments of agriculture, help coordinate Federaland State regulations (50).Certain programs aim for consistent goals inthe management and control of harmful NISacross a geographic region; it does little good foran invasive NIS to be controlled in one area butnot in adjacent areas from which it can reinvade.The 1990 amendment to the Noxious Weed Actacknowledged this by requiring Federal landmanagers to control State-prohibited weeds. 13Several other cooperative programs for nonindigenousweeds are voluntary. For example,representatives of Federal, State, and local jurisdictionswith holdings in the area surrounding137 USC-A. 2814.

206 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesSome programs allow targeting of Federalfunds or technical assistance to the States foractions serving both national and State needs.Both APHIS and the U.S. Forest Service cooperateextensively with States in the suppression offorests pests such as the European and Asianstrains of the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). TheForest Service trains State personnel in themanagement of forest insects and diseases (65).Funding for pests surveys and control is on acost-sharing basis, with States providing 50percent or more of the funds for some activities(65). According to the Forest Service, such coordinatedapproaches have greater effectivenessand lower overall costs than separate efforts (65).The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also overseesa program for the control of aquatic weeds inwhich State or local governments can partiallyrecover costs for weed control in navigablewaterways (64). The Fish and Wildlife Serviceprovides information and expertise on diseasesaffecting aquiculture, an area where no comprehensiveFederal program currently exists (47).In some areas, the Federal Government assistsor provides funds to address State needs. Sometimesthese programs rely on Federal powers, forexample, the program to help California prevententry of agricultural pests via first class mail fromHawaii (58). Also, Federal inspectors at ports ofentry in a particular State may help interdictspecies prohibited by that State, even if they arenot federally listed (19).Federal assistance for local problems makessense if, over the long run, they may becomenational ones (e.g., a rapidly spreading NIS) or iflocal problems are so common they become anational concern. The Nonindigenous AquaticNuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990provides for State submission of comprehensiveaquatic nuisance species management plans.States with approved plans may receive Federalmatching grants for implementation. No Federalfunds have yet been budgeted for thesegrants (64).The Cooperative Extension Service, which producedthis booket on kudzu (Puereria lobata) in Alabama, isone of several means by which Federal and Stateefforts are joined.Federal and State agencies cooperate extensivelyin the prevention, quarantine, and controlof agricultural pests, but several problems exist.Federal agencies do not always inform States offoreign pest threats in a timely fashion. Forexample, although the Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service (APHIS) was aware of theapple ermine moth (Yponomeuta malinellus), aserious orchard pest, in British Columbia in 1981,it did not advise Washington State officials until1985. Shortly thereafter, the pest spread into theState. According to a Washington State agricultureofficial, it ‘ ‘just fell between the cracks”; inother words, Federal officials lacked a goodsystem for communicating about potentialthreats (l).The balance between Federal and State effortssometimes shifts too quickly to adequately ad-

Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective I 207dress potential problems, After APHIS removedFederal quarantine restrictions on the movementof nursery stock from Japanese beetle-infestedareas (Popillia japonica), a number of States, butnot all, promulgated quarantine regulations oftheir own. The resulting patchwork of Stateregulations led to the inadvertent movement ofinfested nursery stock to States both with andwithout their own quarantines (49). In anothercase, black stem rust (Puccinia graminis), APHIShas maintained a Federal quarantine, but hasdelegated nearly all responsibility to the States.Inconsistent enforcement by the States has increasedthe possibility that barberry (Berberisvulgaris) varieties susceptible to black stem rustwill be shipped to areas protected by the quarantine(49).Some observers maintain that the balance ofresponsibility for eradicating agricultural pestshas tilted to the States since roughly 1980. Thiswas forcefully argued by a Florida official in1991, after seven frustrating years of trying toeradicate citrus canker (Xanthomonas campestrispv. citri):The concept of dual responsibility, a partnership,if you will, between States and the USDAhas never fallen into greater disrepair or erosionthan it has over the last decade or so. Simply put,USDA/APHIS has become less and less responsiveto domestic and exotic pest eradicationprograms. (2)The official further complained that the State hadbeen forced to can-y out quarantines of severalwell-known, damaging NIS like the varroa mite(Varroa jacobsoni) and Caribbean fruit fly (Anastrephasuspensa), because APHIS consideredthem local pest problems of little economicsignificance (2).RELATIONSHIPS AMONG STATESFinding:Conflicts, particularly regarding aquaticreleases, arise among States because of theirdiffering ecological, economic, and policy contexts.Regional approaches provide opportunitiesfor States to resolve their differences andinfluence the actions of neighboring States.Such approaches have been used most frequentlyfor evaluating aquatic releases. Expandingthe use of regional approaches forother types of releases appears promising, butis limited by their voluntary nature.States lack the power to stop the importationand release of a potentially invasive NIS in aneighboring State. Since few Federal laws compelStates to cooperate with each other, and Stateshave differing priorities, conflicts can and dooccur. A recent conflict between Virginia andMaryland over the proposed introduction of thePacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) to the ChesapeakeBay has largely economic origins and ispartly rooted in different patterns of public versusprivate ownership of oyster beds (10,30), Harvestsof the indigenous Atlantic oyster (Crassostreavirginica) have declined to a historic low,especially on the Virginia side of the Bay (34).Virginia has a greater economic incentive topromote the introduction than Maryland, whichstill maintains a viable oyster fishery based on theindigenous species. Virginia approved an experimentalrelease of sterile Pacific oysters in 1992,but later reversed this decision.The experimental release by North Dakota of anew sport fish, the European zander (Stizostedionlucioperca), demonstrated how a State can introduceNIS notwithstanding concerns of adjacentStates. Minnesota had objections to the releasebecause of ecological and disease risks. (Federaland provincial Canadian governments also disputedNorth Dakota’s action; see Scarratt andDrinnan (51) for a description of Canadianfisheries policies). Still, Minnesota officials supportedthe principle of paramount State sovereigntyover natural resources (71). States themselvesare unlikely to be advocates for less Statesovereignty.Several councils or commissions exist to coordinateintroduction policies across a particular

208 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesThe Great Lakes Fishery Commission, like its 4 counterparts elsewhere in the United States, coodinatesintroduction policies across the region; controlling the damaging sea lamprey has been a major focus in theGreat Lakes.region. For fish and wildlife, these include theGreat Lakes Fishery Commission, the ColoradoRiver Fish and Wildlife Council, and the threeMarine Fisheries Commissions (Atlantic States,Gulf States, and Pacific). They provide venues forState officials to agree on guidelines for releases,inspections, and permits. For example, 5 westernStates and the province of British Columbiasigned a cooperative agreement in 1980 for theinterstate transfer of shellfish under the auspicesof the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission (28).The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service providestechnical and research assistance to the variousregional groups.The National and four regional Plant Boards,composed of State plant health officials, fill asimilar role for agricultural pests, i.e., facilitatingcoordination of quarantines. They have commissioneda compilation of all State laws on weedsand pests with the goal of improving communicationand reducing inadvertent violations. Theseboards move slowly, however, because of limitedfunding and spotty State participation.Sometimes no mechanism exists for resolvingconflicts between States short of a Federal lawsuit.The regional organizations that exist, however,provide important forums for proactivelyaddressing potential differences. Indeed, manyStates require approval by the regional council orcommission as a prerequisite for certain NISintroductions (52). Most of these regional organizationscurrently deal with aquatic releases,although similar structures could be useful fornonaquatic NIS issues. Regional organizationsare limited in that they are essentially voluntaryand not all States are members. Moreover, theyhave no independent regulatory authority. RobsonCollins (1 1), a California official, notes theclear need for interstate cooperation but also thatthe members of the Pacific Marine FisheriesCommission have largely gone their own wayssince the efforts of the 1970s and early 1980s.STATE LAWS REGULATING FISH ANDWILDLIFE IMPORTATION AND RELEASEFindings:● States prohibit importation and/or releaseof a median of only eight potentiallyharmful fish and wildlife species orgroups. In a survey of State fish andwildlife agency officials, about one-third

Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 209●●●●responded that their lists of prohibitedspecies are too short.About one-quarter of the States lack legalauthority over importation and/or releaseof one or more of the five major vertebrategroups (mammals, birds, fish, reptiles,and amphibians). Also, about 40 percentof State agencies would like to receiveadditional regulatory authority from theirState legislatures.Among those States that do have decisionmakingstandards for approval of importationand/or release of non-indigenous fishand wildlife, none legally requires adherenceto a scientific protocol when consideringa proposal. A few States mandatescientific studies for certain proposals.About half the States require a generaldetermination of potential impacts, definedbroadly enough to include all ecologicalimpacts. The rest lack rigorousdecisionmaking standards.Most State agencies rate their own implementationand enforcement resources (staff,funding, or others) as “less” or “muchless” than adequate; on average, theywould like increases of resources of about50 percent to meet their responsibilities.Several States present exemplary approachesto managing non-indigenous fish and wildlife.On the other hand, many States areunder-regulating in several important respects.Overall, States are not adequatelyaddressing non-indigenous fish and wildlifeconcerns.Overview of State LawsOTA researched the laws 14 of all 50 States toanswer the following questions regarding fish andwildlife importation and release: What regulatoryapproaches are used? Are large groups of clearlyharmful NIS not being regulated? What decisionmakingstandards are agency officials required tomeet? The aim of this undertaking is to determinewhich laws are exemplary, providing potentialmodels for national approaches. However, drawingconclusions from State-to-State comparisonsrequires caution because each State has an uniqueecological, agricultural, and institutional setting.No efficient way exists to find and compareState laws and OTA’s process was time consumingand expensive. States’ key provisions divergebroadly, use different terminology, are oftenscattered within their codes, and some rules andregulations are unpublished. No group has the jobof maintaining a comprehensive, up-to-date compilation.The last private compilation was basedon 1983 laws; it rapidly became obsolete (29).Any future oversight of State efforts will requireupdating the information summarized in thischapter. 15 In order to supplement this legalresearch, OTA also surveyed the heads of theresponsible State agencies for their opinionsabout their own laws as implemented (box 7-C).‘4 “Laws” here means State statutes and formal rules and regulations adopted by the executive agencies. Table 7-6cites thekeyprcwisions.OTA’S initial legal research was sent for review, correction and updating to the 50 relevant State agencies in fall 1992. Thirty-six Statesresponded and their information was used for the analysis throughout this chapter, Another two States responded too late to be incorporatedinto the full amlysis but their corrections are included in table 7-6. Respondents are listed in App. B.15 A research project is under way at be u~versi~ of New Mexico ~w School’s Center for Wildlife ~W to collect ~ State wildlife laWSand regulations (not just those affecting NIS) in an accessible, standard-forrnat colleztiow which eventually may be computerized (45).

210 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 7-C-Views From the State Fish and Wildlife AgenciesStates responding: 36(7%)-AK, AL, AR, AZ, CO, FL, GA, Hl, 1A, ID, IL, IN, KS, LA, MA, MD, ME, MN,MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, TN, UT, WI, WV, WV,WYNot responding: 14 (28%)-4A, CT, DE, KY, Ml, NV, NH, NM, OR, SC, SD, TX, VA, WANOTE: The OTA survey was conducted by mail in fall 1992. Percentages below are for the respondents listedin appendix B. Explanations provided with the answers are not included here. South Dakota and New Hampshire’sresponses were received too late to be included in the analysis, although their corrections for table 7-6 aretabulated.Question 1: Beyond your existing authority, are there additional areas of legal authority that youragency would like to receive from your State legislature to regulate the importation, possession, orintroduction of non-indigenous (exotic) fish and wildlife?Yes: 15 (42%-AK, AL, GA, Hi, ID, MA, MD, MO, MS, MT, ND, NE, NY, WI, WYNo: 18 (50%)-AR, AZ, CO, FL, 1A, IL, IN, KS, IA, ME, MN, NC, NJ, OK, PA, TN, UT, WVNo answer/other: 3 (8%) – OH, RI, VTQuestion 2: Evaluate the numbers of non-indigenous species that are prohibited outright(disregarding minor exemptions such as for research)from importation, possession, or introduction intoyour State.List is too short: 13 (36%)-AL, FL, KS, LA, MD, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NE, RI, WIList is about right: 17(47%)--AK, AR, CO, GA, Hi, IA, IL, IN, MA, ME, NC, NJ, OH, OK, UT, VT, WYList is too long: ONot sure: 2 (6%)-PA, WVNo answer/other: 4 (11%)-AZ, ID, NY TNBASIC LEGAL APPROACHESThe States employ several basic legal approaches(table 7-1). 16 The most restrictive approachis to prohibit all NIS except those individuallyevaluated and listed as allowed, that is, a“clean” list. Hawaii is the only State with lawsthat require this for both importation and releaseof all major fish and wildlife groups. A few otherStates have adopted clean lists for particularactions, most commonly for fish releases.More than half the States have “dirty” listapproaches, in which certain listed NIS areprohibited from importation and/or release becauseof their economic, ecological, or healtheffects. A smaller proportion of States haveneither clean nor dirty lists, that is, they have nospecies prohibited by statute or regulation. Forimportation this is true for 11 States regarding allmajor vertebrate groups and for 7 States regardingsome groups. For release, 12 States prohibit no16 some ~pomt pre~q q~lcatiom and observations: 1) me info~tions umrnarized represents the main provisions of the Statelaws that directly govern whether or not importation and release of NIS is allowed in particular cases. This narrow scope of inquiry excludesminor provisions, limited exemptions, and a myriad of veterinary, commercial, endangered species, humane, and other provisions that mayincidentally affect NH importation and release. 2) Some deftitional differences exist regarding what is included when States regulate‘‘non-indigenous’ or ‘exotic’ species. Generally, the legal deftitions refer to any species not naturally found within the State; a small number,such as Delaware, include only species not indigenous to the United States as a whole. A few States define these terms ecologically, similarto OTA’S definition of ‘indigenous’ (ch. 2), so as to potentially cover intrastate movements. 3) The agencies responsible for camying out thelaws vary. Many States divide responsibility for different taxonomic groups among different agencies, which can lead to inconsistencies andeven conflict within a State (54).

Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 211Question 3: Has your agency undertaken internal or external evaluations of your programs in thisarea?Yes: 11 (31%)-FL, HI, KS, MA, ME, MT, OH, RI, VT, WI, WYNo: 23 (63%)-AK, AL, AR, CO, GA, 1A, ID, IL, IN, LA, MD, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NY OK, PA, TN, UTWVNo answer/other: 2 (6%)-AZ, NJQuestion 4: How closely do your agency’s resources (staff, funding or others) match your current andanticipated responsibilities in enforcing your State’s existing laws regulating the importation, possession,or introduction of non-indigenous fish and wildlife?More than adequate: OAdequate: 7 (19%)-IA, LA, MD, MO, NY OH, OKLess than adequate: 20 (56%)-AL, AR, CO, GA, Hi, ID, IL, KS, MA, ME, MN, MS, NC, ND, NJ, PA, Rl, UT,WV, WYMuch less than adequate: 7(19%)-AK, AZ, FL, IN, MT VT, WINot sure: 1 (3%)-TNNo answer/other: 1 (3%)-NEQuestion 5: in future regulation of the importation, possession, or introduction of non-indigenous fishand wildlife, how would your agency prefer to see the Federal role in relation to the role of the States?increased: 23 (63%)-CO, FL, GA, Hl, IN, KS, IA, MA, MD, ME, MN, MT NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY PA, RI, TN,VT, WV, WYDecreased: 1 (3%)-WIAbout the same: 8 (23%)-AL, AR, IA, IL, MO, OH, OK, UTNot sure: 1 (3%)-MSNo answer/other: 3 (8%) — AK, AZ, IDSOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993 and Center for Wildlife Law, University of New Mexioc Law School, “SelectedResearch and Analysis of State Laws on Vertebrate Animal Importation and Introduction, “ contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, Washington, DC, April 1992.species in any fish or wildlife group and 9 Statesprohibit none in some groups. State’s that do treatvertebrate groups differently usually treat fishapart from the other wildlife groups.A species or group that is not prohibited maybeallowed in one of two ways: formal agencypermission is required, which the agency maygrant or deny, or no formal permission is required,except possibly to comply with incidental veterinary,commercial, or other laws. Many States usea combination of these two. They may have a listof species for which permits are required andallow any unlisted species to be imported orreleased without government oversight. Othersuse the opposite, and stricter, approach of onlylisting the permit-exempt species, such as commonpets, and requiring permits for all others.Wide variety exists both in the structure ofstatutory approaches and the detail of implementingregulations, even within the basic categoriesof table 7-1. For example, California lists noprohibited species but requires a permit forimportation of dozens of listed groups—including whole orders, families, and genera. 17The total of individual species requiring a permitis probably well into the thousands. Unlistedspecies and groups do not require a permit forimportation, but all species do for release. 18 By17 Cal, Fish and Game Code SCC. 2118.Is 14 Cal. Code Reg. SW. 671.

212 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 7-l—Basic Legal Approaches Used by States for Fish and Wildlife Importation and Releaselmportation a bBasic approach Number States Number StatesAll species are prohibited unless onallowed (“clean”) list(s).All species may be allowed exceptthose on prohibited (“dirty”) list(s).Prohibited list(s) have 5 or moreidentified species or groups.Prohibited list(s) have fewer than 5identified species or groups.Ail species may be allowed; there Is noprohibited list.2 + 1 pt c Hl,lDpt, VP d20+ 3pt AL AR, CO, CT FL, IL, KS,KY, Ml, MN, MTpt, NC, NE,NY, OH, PA, SCpt, SD, TN,TXpt, UT, WA, WY11 + 3pt AK, DE, IN, LApt, MD, ME,MS, NH, NV, NJ, ORpt, Rl,VA, WVpt11 + 7pt AZ, CA GA, IDpt, 1A, LApt,MA, MO, MTpt ND, NH,NM, OK, ORpt, SCpt, TXpt,Wl, WVptRelease1 + 5pt AKpt, FLpt, GApt, Hl, IDpt,KYpt14+ 6pt AL, AR, CO, CT FLpt, GApt,IL, KS, KYpt, MN, NE, NY,OHpt, PA, SCpt, TN, TXpt,UT, WA, WY11 + 6pt AKpt, IN, LApt, NC, NDpt,NJ, MD, MN, MS, NH, NV,OR, Rlpt, SD, VA, VTpt,WVpt12+ 9pt AZ, CA, DE, IDpt, IA, LApt,MA, ME, Ml, MO, MT, NDptNM, OHpt, OK, Rlpt, SCpt,Txpt, VTpt Wl, WVptaState regulation of "possession" of a group or groups IS considered here es regulation of both “importation” and “release,” since neither act canbe done without having possession. For the few states that specifically regulate “lmportation with intention to release (or introduce),” it is not treatedhere as comprehensive regulation of “release” because it covers only acts of importation done with a specific intent.bMany States that regulate imporation of particular r group exempt mere transportation through the State. The are not distinguished here.Some States treat different groups of vertebrates differently. This is designated, where applicable, by using the abbreviation “pt” after the Stateinitial to indicate the entry covers only “part” of the vertebrates regulated. They are totaled separately.The summary classifications are general;in many States there limited exemptions, such as for scientific research, and other minor provisionsCdwhich are not covered here. The extensive State regulation of falconry Is excluded.SOURCES: Office of Technology Asseesment 1993 and Center for Wildlife Law, University of New Mexico Law School, “Selected Research andAnalysis of State Lawson Vertebrate Animal Importation and Introduction,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,Washington, DC, April 1992.contrast, Texas prohibits 50 fish species or groupsoutright, and it requires a permit for release of allbut two fish species and for importation of manyothers. 19 However, Texas lacks a permit system toregulate importation and release of nonindigenousreptiles, amphibians, birds, or mammals,except for 15 mammal species that arepublic safety risks such as lions (Panthera lee).Analyzing the numbers of groups a Stateprohibits outright presents an attractively quantitative,but problematic, measure of the State’sattentiveness to potentially harmful NIS. Comparingthe totals is difficult for some States thatlist by taxonomic categories larger than singlespecies. A few list large indeterminate categories(which are only counted as one listing here), suchas Alaska’s prohibition against importing orreleasing “venomous reptiles. ” 20 States with fewor no species prohibited outright may still berestrictive in their review of permit applications,so that in practice they prohibit more species thando States with a larger number of species prohibitedoutright but lower decisionmaking standards.And, of course, States vary in their ecologicalvulnerability to NIS invasions such that theywould not be expected to all have the samenumber of prohibited species.

Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 213Table 7-2—Numbers of Species or Groups Prohibited From Importation and/or Release by StatesNumber NIS prohibited:0 I I-4 I 5-9 I 10-19 I 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-99 100+ aNumber States: 9 I 10 I 8 I 7 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 2 I 11a Ioo

214 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 7-3-Gaps in Legal AuthorityLegal authority over importation omits, oronly partially covers, the groupLegal authority over release omits, or onlypartially covers, the groupVertebrate group Number States Number StatesMammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 CT 1A, LA, ND, OR, SC, 10 CT, Ml, MS, ND, OH, Rl,TX, Wl, WVSC, TX, VT, WVBirds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1A, IA, ND, OR, SC, TX, Wl, 8 Ml, ND, OH, Rl, SC, TX, VT,Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1A, ND, NJ, WI 1 MSReptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1A, LA, Ml, ND, OR, PA, SC, 9 Ml, MS, ND, OH, Rl, SC,TX, Wl, WVTX, VT, WVAmphibians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 AK, 1A, LA, Ml, ND, OR, PA, 9 AK, Ml, MS, ND, OH, Rl,SC, TX, WISC, TX, VTSOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993 and Center for Wildlife Law, University of New Mexico Law School, “Selected Research andAnalysis of State Lawson Vertebrate Animal Importation and Introduction,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technolow -. Assessment,Washington, DC, April 1992.uncovered. Those States with authority gapsmight try to keep harmful NIS out under theirgeneral laws, but they could be legally challengedin disputed cases.DECISIONMAKING STANDARDSHow are State agencies required to exercisetheir discretion in cases where they do have legalauthority? “Decisionmaking standards” refers tothe legal criteria imposed on, or adopted by, theagencies to guide this discretion. With respect toNIS, these criteria typically address potentialecological impacts of the proposed action. Stateshave more restrictive standards for releases thanfor importation, but overall few States requirecareful studies, even for releases (table 7-4).The most restrictive standard, of course, iswhere the legislature prohibits entire groups ofNIS outright, eliminating agency discretion. Florida’sstatute prohibiting any marine releases is anexample. 22 But predeterminations are rare---agencies commonly have broad discretion whenpermitting or denying NIS proposals.For allowing NIS importation, 17 States lackstandards for all vertebrate groups and 3 Stateslack them for some groups; for NIS releases, 15States wholly lack standards, and 6 in part. 23 Inthese States the discretion of the responsibleagency may still be generally guided by thestatute(s) that grants the agency’s general powers.Nevertheless, having no defined, legally enforceablestandards, and thus less accountability,increases the likelihood of widely varying decisions.Political and citizen pressure, personalpreferences or values of agency officials, andother unpredictable factors will more likely beinfluential, especially as this regulatory area isrelatively volatile and fast changing (13).Among the States that do have express decisionmakingstandards for allowing importationand/or release of NIS, none legally requires thata scientifically based protocol, such as thatdeveloped by the American Fisheries Society, befollowed. Such protocols are designed by expertsto provide formal guides for examining allpotential risks and benefits of a proposal (seeprotocols section inch. 4). Three States—Florida,2228 Fl~. Shto ~~t. ~~co S70,081(4).23 ~e~e ~Ubm~ ~CIU& tie States previo~ly iden~ied ~ tile 7.3 as Iacbg legal autiori~ to regtdate in these WWS; phikdy, ifa state’Slaws provide no authority to make a decision+ neither do they provide decisionmaking standards.

Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 215Table 7-4—Decisionmaking Standards Used by StatesFor importation permissionDecisionmaking standard a Number States Number StatesAgency has no discretion; actionprohibitedMandated study of potential ecologicalimpactsDetermination of potential impacts,defined broadly enough to include allecological impactsDetermination of potential impacts, notdefined broadly enough to include allecological impactsNo specific decisionmaking standards1 pt b1 pt18 + 5pt8 + 4pt17 + 3ptVTptFLptAL, CApt, CO, CT DE,FLpt, GA, H/, ILpt, IN, KYMD, ME, MN, NC, NE, NH,NY, SCpt, TN, UT, VTpt,WAAZ, AKpt, CA@, ID, ILpt,MT NJ, NM, NV, PA, Rlpt,VAAKpt, AR, 1A, KS, LA, MA, MI,MO, MS, ND, OH, OK, OR,Rlpt, SCpt, SD, TX, W/,WV, WY6pt3pt15 +12pt4 + 6pt15 + 6ptFor release permissionAKpt, FFLpt, GApt, KYpt, MDpt,WApt cFLpt, Hlpt, MTptAL, AZpt, CO, CT, GApt,DE, HIpt, ILpt, IN, IA, KYpt,MDpt, ME, MN, MSpt, MTpt,NC, NE, NH, NY SCpt, TN,TXpt, UT, VApt, WApt, WIAZpt, ID, ILpt, NJ, NV, OKpt,ORpt, PA, VApt, WAptAKpt, AR, CA, KS, LA, MA,Ml, MSpt, MO, ND, NM,OH, OKpt, ORpt, Rl, SCpt,SD, TXpt, VT, WV, WYa “Decisionmaking standards” refers to the requirements legally imposed on, or adopted by, the permitting agencies when they exercise discretion.b some States treat different groups of “e~ebrates differently. This is designated, where appli~ble, by using the abbreviation “pt” after the StateImt!al to ind!cate the entry covers only “part” of the vertebrates regulated. They are totaled separately.C The 18 states indi=t~ in ~o/~/ta//c~have general environmental poliqstatutes, regulations orexec~ive Ordersthat may overlay NIS permittingand require higher decision-making standards with regard to environmental impacts than the standard indicated (18). They are: CA, CT H, IN,MD, MA, Ml, MN, MT NJ, NY NC, SD, TX, UT VA, WA, WY.SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993 and Center for Wildlife Law, University of New Mexico Law School, “Selected Research andAnalysis of State Lawson Vertebrate Animal Importation and Introduction,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology . . Assessment,Washington, DC, April 1992.Hawaii, and Montana—mandate ‘‘studies” forcertain groups to investigate the potential ecologicaleffects a proposed species will have ifreleased.The main drawbacks to mandating scientificprotocols or detailed studies are the costs toapplicants and agencies (52). This is reflected, forexample, by Maine’s explicit decision not torequire rigorous scientific studies as a preconditionfor marine NIS releases, on the groundsthat “[existing] regulations require substantialpre-introduction screening and review processesthat are the most appropriate safeguard and themost efficient utilization of scarce resources’(12). Some States require that NIS be scientificallystudied and evaluated after release, e.g.,Washington. 24Many States require some determination-butnot detailed scientific studies---of the potentialimpacts, and they define this broadly enough toinclude all ecological impacts. Eighteen Statesrequire such determinations for importation of allvertebrate groups and five require them for somegroups. Fifteen States require determinations ofimpacts for release of all vertebrate groups and 12require them for some groups. These standardsvary remarkably in their attention to detail. 25 Afew States set out long and complex permittingN Wash. Admin. Code 232-12-271(2)(a).‘5 The classification by OTA in table 7-4 is liberal as to whether the laws provide for consideration of all ecological impacts, even whensuch impacts ,are not mentioned specifically. Thus, Alabama’s standard of ‘‘best interests of the State “ is treated as potentially including allccologic:d impacts.

216 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statescriteria, such as Maine’s regulatory standards forwildlife imports. 26 By contrast, Alabama’s standardgoverning the Commissioner of Conservationand Natural Resources’ decision to prohibit aspecies is simply “the best interests of theState. ’ ’ 27It is difficult to hold decisionmakersaccountable for their actions regarding NIS whenlegal standards are vague.Several States require determination of potentialimpacts of the decision but do not define thesebroadly enough to include all ecological impacts.For example, Oregon’s standard for denying afish release pen-nit is “if the [Fish and Wildlife]Commission finds that the release of the fish intoa body of water would adversely affect existingfish populations. ” 28That standard does not requireconsideration of the other organisms potentiallyaffected by a fish release, such as plants,insects, and non-fish predators, nor of the overallcondition of the ecosystem.Adding the number of States in table 7-4 withno decisionmaking standards to the number ofStates with standards that are not broad enough toinclude all ecological impacts gives the followingtotals: For importation, 25 States have no ornarrow standards for all vertebrate groups and 7States have such standards for some groups. Forrelease, 19 States have no or narrow standards forall vertebrate groups and 12 States have suchstandards for some groups. These are the ‘‘Stateswithout comprehensive decisionmaking standardsin their NIS laws’ (category (a) in table 7-5).However, 18 States have a superimposed layerof decisionmaking standards in the form of Stateenvironmental policy acts (SEPAs) (table 7-4 initalics). The application of SEPAs varies widely,and they appear to have had little effect in StateNIS decisionmaking. 29 However, they can providegeneral protection against ill-consideredTable 7-&Non-indigenous SpeciesDecisionmaking Standards In Relation toState Environmental Policy ActsFor importationpermissionFor releasepermission(a) Number of States 25+ 7pt 19 + 12ptwithout comprehensivedecisionmakingstandards In their NISlaws(b) Number of States in 8 + 1 pt 6 + 3ptcategory (a) that haveadopted generalenvironmental policy acts(c) Remainder of States 17+ 6pt 13+ 9ptIacking comprehensivededsionmakingstandards (a minus b)NOTE: Some States treat different groups of vertebrates differently.This is designated, where applicable, by using the abbreviation “pt”after the State initial to indicate the entry covers only “part” of thevertebrates regulated. They are totaled separately.SOURCES: Office of Tsehnotogy Assessment, 1993 and Center forWildlife Law, University of New Mexieo Law S&ml, “Seieeted Researchand Analysis of State Lawson Vertebrate Animal Importationand introduction,” contractor report prepared for the office of TechnologyAssessment, Washington, DC, April 1992.decisions by requiring formal environmentalreview of both agency-permitting and agencyinitiatedactions (18). For example, Montanarequires a detailed environmental impact statementunder itsnon-indigenousexplicitly .30These SEPAsprocesses morecomprehensiveSEPA for all new releases offish, the only State to do socould make the decisionmakingrigorous in the States that lackstandards written directly intotheir NIS laws. But in how many States do SEPAsmake up for their low (or no) standards? Thepattern of adoption of SEPAs answers thisquestion (table 7-5). Even after considering those26402 Code Me. Rules, part IV, sec. 7.60.27 c~e ~+ 9.2.13.M Or. Rev. Stat. 498.228.29 State ~l=es ~upw~~ b yFeder~ ~ds my rquire enviro~n~ r~i~ UQ&X & National fiviro~entd POliCy kt (ch. 6).so Rev. Ctie Mont. 87-5-71 1(2).

Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 217States that have SEPAs, approximately one-thirdof the States have agencies that permit MSimportation and release with no legal requirementthat they give comprehensive consideration to thepotential ecological impacts of their decisions.Emerging Fish and Wildlife IssuesWith a general decline in hunting opportunitieson public and open private lands, numerous Statesface new proposals for releases of non-indigenousmammals and birds on private hunting preserves(22). A trend also exists toward use of “exotics”such as red deer (Cervus elaphus) for livestock.When the Wyoming Game and Fish Commissionwas confronted with a proposal for a large ranchusing several hundred animals from 15 nonindigenousspecies, officials surveyed 13 otherwestern States and four Canadian Provinces thathad experience with these ranches. They found agood deal of variation, including quarantine andfencing requirements and responsibility for escapees(32). The key finding: ‘‘As they have becomemore experienced with the problems of disease,competition, and hybridization with exoticsand game farms, regulations governing exoticsand game farms in 7 States and 3 provinces havebecome more restrictive for biological reasons. ’Four of the States and Provinces either lackedlegal authority or did not respond to the survey;only one State (Arizona) indicated it had becomeless restrictive in certain circumstances.As additional conflation of the greater Stateconcern in this area, in 1991 and 1992 Montanaand Washington imposed emergency moratoriumson various game farm activities, includingNIS importation. They cited mainly disease andhybridization risks.Another emerging area of State concern is therelease of non-indigenous fish stocks. (Stocks aresub-species or recognized strains.) The concernfocuses on genetic dilution resulting from releaseswithin the larger species’ range, but outsidethe particular stock’s range. The most prominentgenetic dilution problems occur in the Northwestwhere massive intentional releases of nonindigenousstocks of hatchery salmon have dilutedseveral wild stocks, contributing to theirendangered status (67).All States but Mississippi have general legalauthority to regulate non-indigenous fish releases(table 7-3). A 1990 survey found that 26 of the 39responding States had some restrictions on interstateand intrastate fish movements based ongenetics (70). But, 19 of the 26 States restrictedmovements of only one or a few species. Usuallythese were popular sport fish. Only 7 of the 26 hadpolicies applicable to all non-indigenous stockreleases.The growth of aquiculture, with the potentialfor accidental releases, compounds the risks ofgenetic dilution.Lessons From State Fish and WildlifeLawsThe above comparison of State wildlife lawsyields several lessons about exemplary approaches,areas of under-regulation, and problems regardingenforcement.EXEMPLARY APPROACHESWhich States’ approaches represent good examplesfor other States and the Federal Government?OTA’s broad answer, based on overallcomprehensiveness and attention to detail inexisting statutes and regulations, is that exemplaryStates include (in alphabetical order): Florida,Georgia, Hawaii, Montana, and Utah. Theyleave no major authority gaps, they have detailedlaws, and they require decisionmakers to observerigorous standards. This does not mean that theirapproaches cannot be improved or that OTAendorses decisions these States have made inparticular cases.Also, a number of States’ individual legalprovisions stand out. The States listed below arenot necessarily the only ones with the provisionsdiscussed. The wide variety of these exemplaryprovisions illustrates the strength of the U.S.

218 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statessystem, in which 50 different regulatory approachescan be developed and tested.Burdens of Proof: Georgia strongly asserts thatimportation and release of NIS are a ‘ ‘privilege’to be granted only upon a ‘‘cleardemonstration’ that the review criteria aresatisfied (Ga. Game and Fish Code 27-5-l).Expert input: Illinois created an AquicultureAdvisory Committee, which makes recommendationsregarding importation and possessionof NIS for aquiculture (17 Ill. Admin.Code sec. 870.10(e)). The regulation providesfor participation by experts from universities,government, and private industry.Funding: In the past, State fish and wildlifeagencies focused mostly on providing fishingand hunting opportunities. Many still rely foroperating funds on license fees and taxes onpurchases by hunters and anglers. Understandably,these agencies balk at meeting the costsof additional department responsibilities, likenew MS regulations, out of traditional revenues.Tennessee addressed this problem directlyby mandating that ‘‘costs of administration’of NIS laws come from either NIS permitfees or the general fund (Tern. Code Annot.70-4-417). New Jersey authorizes its Commissionerof Environmental Protection to chargeuser fees adequate to cover the costs of NISinspections and other necessary governmentalservices (N.J. Stat. Annot. 23:2A-5).Control of Escapees: Louisiana’s regulation, ofnon-indigenous game breeders is clear. Applicantsmust submit a written plan for recaptureof an escaped animal that includes: equipment,personnel, recovery techniques, and the methodof payment for any damages caused (La.Wildlife and Fisheries Reg. sec. 107.11 .D.).Compensation for Damages: Many States holdprivate owners of NIS responsible for damagescaused both to the State and to private claimantsif their animals escape. Vermont goesfurther than most by assessing treble damagesagainst importers of illegal NIS for expensesIllegal releases of fish and wildlife, such as theintroduced wild boar (Sus scrofa), are a major concernto States. Hogs and other animals that become feralare seldom brought under State law.●●incurred (10 Vt. Stat. Annot. sec. 4709).Nevada created a compensation fund for privateproperty damage and crop loss caused by“game mammals not native to this State”(Nev. Rev. Stat. 504.165). Georgia requires amajor insurance policy to cover potentialdamages caused by certain ‘inherently dangerous’‘ animals, such as lions (Ga. Game andFish Code 27-5-4(f)).Emergency Powers: Legal authority to respondquickly to newly perceived threats can cut offproblems before they become widespread.Montana imposed a 4-month moratorium in1991 on importation of certain non-indigenousgame species on the basis of disease concerns,using emergency rule-making powers (Mont.Admin. Register 2-1/30/92).Hybrids and Ferals: Although non-naturallyoccurring hybrid animals are non-indigenous,few States explicitly bring them under theirlaws. Wisconsin spells out coverage of hybrids(Wise. Admin. Code NR 19.05). Almost allStates exempt domesticated species from wildlifelaws, leaving their authority over feraldomestic animals ambiguous. However, Alaskaspecifically defines regulated ‘‘game’ so as toinclude ferals (Ak. Stat. sec. 16.05.940(17)).

Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 219●●●●Bait Fish: The importation of live bait fish,followed by its release during or after sportfishing trips, can cause NIS infestations (37,43). Some States have specific laws regulatinglive bait; Maine flatly bans all importation oflive bait fish commonly used in inland waters(12 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 7613) (see box 7-A, onthe constitutionality of this ban).Sanctions: A Vermonter’s hunting or fishinglicense may have “points” assessed against itfor violation of animal import laws, in additionto a fine and/or imprisonment (10 Vt. Stat.Ann. sec 4502(b)(2)(L)). This is similar topoints assessed against auto drivers convictedof traffic offenses—a certain number results inlicense suspension. In Montana, a convictionfor violation of NIS laws can lead to loss ofhunting, fishing, or trapping privileges for 2years (Rev. Code Mont. 87-1-102).Compliance Incentives: Hawaii recentlyamended its laws to provide some of the mostsevere frees for violations of its importationpermit laws—up to $10,000 for a frost offenseand up to $25,000 for a subsequent offensewithin 5 years of the prior offense (Ha. Rev.Stat. sec. 150A-1431). However, the samestatute provides a strong compliance incentiveby granting amnesty to any violator who“voluntarily surrenders any prohibited plant,animal, or microorganism or any restrictedplant, animal, or microorganism without apermit issued by the department [of Agriculture],prior to the initiation of any seizureaction by the department.Comprehensive Planning: Many States haveuncoordinated patchwork of NIS provisions.Minnesota recognized this in its own laws anddirected a public-private task force to preparea major report on NIS threats (41). Based onthis, the Commissioner of Natural Resourceswas to develop a comprehensive managementplan for ‘‘ecologically harmful exotic species’by January 1993,UNDER-REGULATIONThe comparison of State non-indigenous fishand wildlife laws also reveals areas of underregulationof clearly harmful MS by some States.Five States (listed alphabetically) represent thoselacking complete regulatory authority, lackingdetailed implementing regulations, and/or notlegally requiring careful decisionmaking for proposedNIS: Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio,Texas, and West Virginia. (This does not meanthat OTA disagrees with particular decisionsthese States have made.) Many others alsounder-regulate in one or more respects—a conclusionsupported by the survey of State officials, 42percent of whom wanted additional regulatoryauthority.The most important areas of NIS regulation inwhich many States fall short are:●●●●●●●●●●●prohibiting harmful species or groups,adopting legal authority covering all majorfish and wildlife groups and harmful activities,following rigorous decisionmaking standardsthat look at all ecological impacts,requiring scientific study of potential significantimpacts,defining ‘‘non-indigenous’ so as to potentiallyinclude both interstate and intrastatereleases,regulating all releases of fish stocks toprotect genetic diversity,covering hybrids and ferals unambiguously,making comprehensive rules for containmentand other ownership duties,clarifying liability for escapes and damagesthey may cause,mandating post-release monitoring and evaluation,andobtaining expert input to aid in decisionmaking.31 ~endments enacted in Wwaii House of Representatives Bill No. 2597, effective on June 17, 1992.

220 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesOBSERVATIONS REGARDING ENFORCEMENTAs with the laws themselves, great variabilityexists in legal enforcement regarding NIS (24).The following admission from Michigan’s Departmentof Natural Resources probably appliesto many States:[Michigan’s] laws and regulations have developedover many years and now exist in asomewhat complex and fragmented manner. Theselaws and regulations should be reviewed, consolidated,and publicized. Most people in the State areprobably not aware of the existing regulations,and the impacts of ignoring these regulations.Moreover, these regulations are often not vigorouslyenforced. (40)A major enforcement difficulty is that Statesgenerally lack effective ways to monitor importsfrom within the United States, except for Hawaiiand Alaska. Few real geographic checkpointsexist; State borders only provide meaningfulenforcement points in the rare States, like California,with inspection stations. A popular or widerangingspecies imported or released into oneunrestrictive State can soon spread on its own orbe taken into others.Illegal releases are a major concern of Statemanagers, especially of sport fish (52). Fisheriesagencies repeatedly eradicate illegal releases.California recently spent about $2 million to clearwhite bass (Morone chrysops) out of a CentralValley reservoir, where they were threateningnative salmonids, only to find them introducedagain in a neighboring reservoir (43). Indeed, insome States, thwarting illegal private fish releasesis an impetus for officials to undertake their own,more carefully managed, releases (52). Nevertheless,legal releases intended for one watershed canbe illegally transplanted by citizens into otherwatersheds (72).Illegal releases of animals for sport huntingalso occur occasionally, particularly of wild boar(Sus scrofa) (35,36). Several other NIS haveescaped from game farms, especially in Texas. InMontana, on March 2, 1992, the Wildlife Divisionconducted a statewide inspection and enforcementblitz of the 107 licensed game farms inthe State, looking for illegal or negligent practices(42). They uncovered a number of serious violations,falling into 22 different categories. Fivecategories involved escape or other opportunitiesfor MS, such as red deer, to come into contactwith indigenous wildlife. As a result of the blitz,the Division pursued legal action against 12 of thefarms’ operators (42).These types of enforcement operations arerelatively new for many States’ fish and wildlifeagencies. 32 Their traditional focus on fishing andhunting still holds. In many cases, their budgetsdepend almost exclusively on dollars generatedby hunters and anglers. For example, Utah’s StateDivision of Wildlife Resources receives only 6percent of its budget from the State legislature(52). They have a strong incentive to introducepopular, harvestable NIS. However, non-gameconcerns, including MS regulation, have risendramatically in the last 15 years or so (52).Internal and external evaluations are importantways to assess whether an agency is meeting itsobligations, especially at times when its clientsare rapidly changing. Still, only 11 (31 percent) ofthe agencies that responded to OTA’s survey hadundertaken prior evaluations of their NIS programs(box 7-A, question 3).Also, a majority of responding State agencies—20 of 36 (56 percent)-rated their own implementationand enforcement resources (staff,funding, etc.) as “less than adequate” (box 7-A,question 4).In the opinions of several commentators, theStates’ limited mandates, authority, laws, policies,and resources, when taken as a whole, haveled States to do relatively little to slow the establishmentor spread of harmful non-indigenous

Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 221fish and wildlife (table 7-6) (9,13,31,62). OTA’sanalysis supports these opinions. On the positiveside, OTA’s research revealed that many Stateshave recently taken steps to upgrade their lawsand programs, particularly in the West wherethreats from non-indigenous fish and wildlifehave caused significant concern.STATE LAWS ON NON-INDIGENOUSPLANTS, INSECTS, AND OTHERINVERTEBRATE ANIMALSFinding:State laws governing agricultural pests arerelatively comprehensive. However, for nonindigenousinvertebrates and plants that donot affect agriculture, State laws provide onlyspotty coverage.Overview of State LawsThe Federal Government dominates the regulationof foreign plants and invertebrate agriculturalpests—much more than for fish and wildlife.Nevertheless, States play a major role in quarantininginterstate and intrastate movements ofweeds and pests of both foreign and U.S. origin.No government agency maintains a compilationof State laws regulating plants and invertebrates.The National Plant Board, composed ofState and Federal agriculture officials, has commissioneda new compilation of nursery regulationsand plant quarantines, available in June,1993. Regional compilations are also underway.For example, the Southern Plant Board hadcompiled restrictions for 10 of the region’s 12States as of December 1992 (25). These includeda ‘‘quick reference’* to each State’s full regulationsand lists of: definitions; shipping andadditional permit requirements; fees; regulatedprofessions or industries; State noxious weeds;applicable Federal and State quarantines; andapiary and miscellaneous information. A similar,standardized format for the national compilationis planned.State seed laws are compiled annually by SeedWorld magazine (57). However, a State’s restrictionson seeds do not necessarily mean thatcorresponding restrictions exist against importingor planting whole plants of the same species.Also, limited tolerances of most noxious weedseeds are allowed per unit weight of importedseed. In other words, State seed laws primarilyprotect seed consumers (farmers) rather than theenvironment.As with fish and wildlife, variability exists inState approaches to non-indigenous plants andinvertebrates (68). However, all States haveagricultural pest prevention programs and certificationprograms for pest-free nursery stock (68).Most States inspect nursery stock before commercialinterstate shipments (50). These programshave been successful in eliminating the occurrenceof certain pests in some States (27). ManyStates also have interior quarantines designed tolimit infestations to certain counties.WEEDSAlmost all States list some prohibited agriculturalweeds beyond those listed under the FederalNoxious Weed and Seed Acts. In these cases,State prohibitions may reduce interstate spread ofsome harmful non-indigenous weeds otherwiseallowed by Federal laws and regulations. Relativelyfew States, however, have natural areaweed laws, that is, plant prohibitions separatefrom agricultural quarantines. The lack of suchprohibitions inmost States has left them unable toaddress some harmful NIS, such as the wetlandinvader purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)(63). A trend exists to adopt non-agriculturalweed prohibitions, especially to protect aquatic orwetland areas. Washington, for example, hasrecently adopted detailed regulations on naturalarea weeds (box 7-D).Since no national compilation of State plantlaws exists yet, OTA commissioned a case studyon the adequacy of the weed and seed laws forfive contiguous western States: Idaho, Oregon,Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. An expert on

222 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 7-6-References to Key State Statutes and Regulations on Importation and Releaseof Fish and WildlifeState Statutory authority Authority in regulationsAlabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2-13Alaska . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.05.251, -.255(8), -.920, -.940(10), 20-(17)Arizona , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2901; 17-306Arkansas ., . . . . . . . . . . .......15-46-101California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fish and Game Code 2118, -2150Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-6-112, -114, -114.5Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-40a, -55, -56Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 §7201 , 7§741, -772Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .370.081 ; 372.26, -.265, -.922; -.98, -.981Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27-5 -1, -2, -4, -5, -7Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 142-94, 150A-6, -7, -8; 197-3Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36-1 04(6), -701Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 §240; 56 §10-1 00, -105; 61§2.2, 2.3Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-2-7-20, -21Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109.20, -.47,-.83Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32-956, -1004Kentucky , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150.180Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56:20; 56:319, -:319,1Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 §1809, 12 §6071 ,-7202,-7204, -7237,-7237a, -7239, -7240, -7613Maryland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agric. Code 5-601; Health-Gen. 18-219, 24-109; Nat. Res, 4-1 IA-02, 10-903Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 §§19, -1 9A, -23Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300.253 93.(1), -(8), 300.257; 300.258(m);304.2 §2(a); 305.9; 308.1 15a; 317.81Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.45, -.497; 84.967,-.968,-.9691 ; 97C.515,-.521Mississippi , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , 75-40-1 13; 79-22-9, -11Missouri . ....,..,...........252.190; 578.023Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75-1-201 ; 87-3-105, -210, -221 ; 87-4-424;87-5-701 et seq.220-2-.26, -.935 AAC 41.005, -.030, -.070, -92.029R12-4-401, -405, -406, -410, -412, -413Game and Fish Comm’n’s Code Book §§04.07;18.1 2; 32.12-.16; 42.05, -.09Fish and Game Comm’n regs§§171 -171 .5;236; 670.7; 671.1 -671.5Art. VII.007, -.008, -.00926-55-1, -2Dep’t of Nat. Res. and Env’t’l Control, Div. ofFish and Wildlife regs. 10, 14Vol. 14, 39-4.005; 39-6; 39-12.004, -.011 ;39-23.006-.008; 39-23.088391 -4-2-.06; 391-4-3-.12Title 4, chs. 18, 71; Title 13, ch. 12413K 1,5.4, 7; 13L 317 IAC 630.10, -870.10, -870.80310 IAC 3.1-6.7, -10-1, -10-11none23-16-1 ; 115-20-3301 KAR 1:1 15; -:120; -:122;1:171 ; 2:040;2:080Title 76, §107Tab 402, Pt. IV, §7.60; Dep’t Marine Res.regs. Ch. 2408.02.14.05, -.07; 08.03.09.0; 08.02.1 1.05K321 CMR 2.12, -9.00-.9.02Wildlife Conservation Act Comm’n Orderupdate #92, 9/1 7/91: §§4.2, 5.2, 5.5Dep’t of Nat. Res. Comm’r’s Order No. 2450published in June 22, 1992 State Register,Chs. 6216,6250Dep’t of Wildlife Conservation Public NoticeNo.s 1405,27683 CSR 10-4.110, -013412.7.602, -.701 ; 12.6.1506, -.1507, -.1512,-.1514, -.1515

Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 223State Statutory authority Authority in regulationsNebraska . ..................37-713, -719Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503.597; 504.295New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . , . . . . 207:14; 21 1.62-(e) I and II (previousprovisions as reenacted in HB 1183, ch.171 of 1992 Laws), 211 :64; 212:25 and467:3New Jersey. , , ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23:4-50; 23:4 -63.1 , -63.2,-63.3, -63.4; 23:5-30, -33.1New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-3-32; 77-18-1New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ag. and Markets Law §74-9; Env’t’l Cons.Law $11-0507, -0511, -0917, -1703,-1709,-1728North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113-158, -160, -274, -291, -291.3, -292North Dakota. . . . . . . ... , ... , . 20.1-01-02; 20.1 -02-05.14; 20.1-04-03Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1533.31Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 §§5-103, 6-504, 7-801Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .498.052, -.222.b, -.242; 609.309Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30921 02; 34 §102, -2163, -2961, -2962,-2963Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11 -2; 4-18-3, -5; 20-1 -12; 20-1 O-12; 20-17-9South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-11-1 760; 50-1 3-1630; 50-16-20, -40, -60South Dakota . ...............41-2-1 8, -3-13, -13-1.1, -13-3Tennessee . ...,.............70-2-212; 70-4-401,-403,-412Texas . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ag. Code §134.020; Parks and Wildlife Code§§12.015, 66,007Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23-13-5, -14Vermont . . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . . 10 §4605, -4709Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.1-183.2; 29.1-521, -531, -542, -545Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.08.295; 77.12.020,-030, -.040; 77.16.150West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .20-1 -2; 20-2-13Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.47(6), -.51, -.535Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-1 -302; 23-3-301; 23-4-101Title 163, ch. 2, §§002, 004.03, 008.08503.110, -.140FIS ch. 8007:25-4.1 et seq., -5.1 et seq., -10.1 et seq.Reg. 677, Ch. 5, Art. 3, §ATitle 6, part 174; part 180, 3180,1T0252B.0212; T15AO3B.O1O8; T15A:1OB.OIOO;T15A:1 OC.021129-04-04-01, -03; 30-04-041501.31-19-01800.25-25635-07-515, -522, -523, -527, -585, -600,-615, -62058§§71.1-71.6, 73.1-73.2, 77.7, 137.1Dep’t of Env’t’l Management, Div. of Fish andWildlife, Rules and Regs. no.s 61 -63; Dep’t ofHealth, Rules and Regs., R4-18-IWA, §§2.0,3.0, 4.0none41 :07:01:11; 41 :09:01 :02, 41 :09:02:02;41 :09:02:06.01; 41 :09:08; 41:1 4:01Rules of Term. Wildlife Resources Agency,ch. 1660-1-18-.01 (5), -.02(2), -.02(5), -.03(1 ), -.03(4), -.03(5)31 TAC 52.202-.401, 55.201 et seq., 57.111et seq., 57.251 et seq.R657-3-1 et seq., -16-1 et seq.Fish and Wildlife Regs. GoverningImportation of Wild Birds and Animals325-01-1. sec. 5,325-01-2. sees 1 -4; 325-02-27 §§12, 13; 325-03-1 §§5, 6220-20-039, -040; 232-12-017, -271noneNR 19.05; 150.03Game and Fish Comm’n regs. Chap. X.

224 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesThis mailing package was designed to complement a State-produced videotape on the dangers of zebra mussels(Dreissena polymorpha) in Illinois. Generally, State laws on importation and release of these and other aquaticmollusks are less comprehensive than for agricultural pests.non-indigenous plants of that region, RichardMack of Washington State University, assessedthe adequacy of the protection afforded by therestrictions under the States’ noxious weed andseed lists (also considering the species restrictedunder the Federal Noxious Weed Act and FederalSeed Act) (33). He based his assessment on thelikelihood of unlisted weeds causing economic orecological problems. His conclusions:Idaho-list of 47 weeds (species or larger taxonomicgroups) provides adequate protection butomits at least 6 well-known threats. 33Oregon—list of 67 provides more than adequateprotection, although a few additions would beappropriate.Utah—list of 23 does not provide adequateprotection, omitting at least 11 threateningspecies.Washington—list of 75 provides more thanadequate protection (box 7-D), although a fewadditions would be appropriate.Wyoming—list of 34 provides barely adequateprotection, omitting at least 11 threatening species.Thus, the adequacy of the case-study States’lists of prohibited weeds varies considerably, butonly Utah’s was rated as inadequate. Also, someState lists include inaccurate or misspelled scientificnames, raising questions about the lists’technical validity (33).33 Ap~ial liSt of the weeds most como~y fo~d unlisted by these States that nevertheless present wonotic or ecologi~ threats includes:poison hemlock (Conium macularum), kochia (Kochia scopana), Russian thistle (SaLwla Mi), silver-leaf nightshade (SokJnwnelaeagnifolium), tamari sk (Tamati gallica), tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus).

Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective I 225Many western States have implemented apromising approach to protect both agricultureand natural areas through certification of noxiousweed-free forage (feed, hay, straw, or mulch) (4).Forage is grown, marketed, and transportedthroughout the West and is often taken intonatural areas to feed pack animals. The certificationprogram reduces the pathways for the spreadof noxious weeds and protects consumers whowant to purchase pure feed.INSECTS AND OTHER INVERTEBRATE ANIMALSIn many States, the same laws governingimportation and release of vertebrate animalsgovern those invertebrate animals not otherwisecovered by agricultural pest quarantines. Nonindigenousaquatic invertebrates that can becultured, like oysters, are commonly covered byspecific laws regulating aquiculture. Most Statesalso have specific laws on bee culture. But inmany States, other non-agricultural pest invertebratesare simply left unregulated, including, forexample, aquatic mollusks-one of the mostpotentially invasive animal groups-imported foruse in home aquariums (7).As of 1992, only three States had adopted regulationsspecifically on biological control agents.They are California, Florida, and North Carolina(39). However, a later survey identified sevenStates with laws encouraging the developmentand application of biological control (see ch. 1).ENFORCEMENTState pest and weed programs lack the personnelto undertake comprehensive enforcementagainst illegal importations. Almost all Stateslack border inspection stations. Existing programsalso have been weakened in recent years bytwo major outside factors: widespread budgetcrises affecting State Governments, and demographicchanges favoring urban areas, with ruralinterests losing their former dominance in manylegislatures (56).Weed prevention and control programs arehighly underfunded (44,48), perhaps more thanother pest programs, Montana has addressed thefunding problem by creating an innovative NoxiousWeed Trust Fund. 34 Funded by a l-percentsurcharge on retail herbicide sales and a‘ ‘vehicleweed fee’ imposed through automobile registration,it provides $1.2 million per year for grantsfor weed control, with one-fourth earmarked for“research and development of non-chemicalmethods of weed management’ (44). Anotheravenue Montana has pursued that lessens the needfor government expenditures is imposing greaterlegal responsibility on private landowners toprevent the spread of weeds from their property.Designated noxious weeds are treated as commonnuisances, and it is illegal to ‘‘permit any noxiousweed to propagate or go to seed’ unless thelandowner is in adherence with a local weedmanagement plan. 35The leading agricultural production State, California,is the most well equipped to addressimportation of weeds and pests. The CaliforniaDepartment of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has16 border agricultural inspection stations to checkthe almost 30 million incoming vehicles annually,and it carries out cooperative inspectionprograms with USDA at ports and airports (15).CDFA also inspects parcel post. It carries outintensive insect detection trapping (over 100,000traps per year), as well as active pest eradicationprograms. Public education and involvementreceive high priority, In 1990, CDFA began anapparently unique enforcement program called‘‘We Tip, ’ with its own toll-free hotline. It offersrewards of up to $10,000 (from funds donated byprivate growers) for information leading to convictionsof people who smuggle in quarantinedfruit (8). Yet even with such programs, threeagriculturally significant new NIS were detected34 Mont. Code Ann. 80-7-801 er Seq.35 Mont, code Ann, 7-22-2115, -2116.

226 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 7-D–Washington State’s New Quarantines on Natural Area Weedsin response to concerns about natural area degradation, in 1992 the Washington Department of Agriculturepromulgated sweeping regulations prohibiting all transactions that could lead to the spread of seeds or wholeplants of 39 invasive plants not indigenous to the State. Previously, the only non-agricultural weed underquarantine was purple Ioosestrife ( Lythrum salicaria and L. virgatum). The new listings are:Scientific nameCommon nameAmorpha friuticosaindigobush, lead plantAnchusa officinaliscommon bugloss, alkanet anchusaAnthriscus sylvestriswild chervilCarduus acanthoidesplumeless thistleCarduus nutansmusk thistle, nodding thistleCentaurea diffusadiffuse knapweedCentaurea jacea brown knapweed, rayed knapweed, brown centaury,horse-knobs, hardheadsCentaurea maculosaspotted knapweedCentaurea macrocephalabighead knapweedCentaurea nigrablack knapweedCentaurea nigrescensVochin knapweedChaenorrhinum minusdwarf snapdragonChrysanthemum Ieucanthemum oxeye daisy, white daisy, whiteweed, field daisy,Marguerite, poorland flowerCytisus scopariusScotoh broomDaucus carotawild carrot, Queen Anne’s laceEchium vulgareblueweed, blue thistle, blue devil, viper’s bugloss,snake flowerHeracleum mantegazzianum giant hogweed, giant cow parsnipHibkcus trionumVenice mallow, flower-of-an-hour, bladder ketmia,modesty, shoo-flyHieracium aurantiacumorange hawkweed, orange paintbrush, red daisy,frameweed, devil’s weed, grim-the-collierHieracium pratenseyellow hawkweed, yellow paintbrush, devil’s paintbrush,yellow devil, field hawkweed, king devilHypericum perforatumcommon St. Johnswort, goatweed, St. JohnswortIsatis tinctoriadyers’ woadKochia scoparia kochia, summer-cyprus, burning-bush, fireball,Mexican fireweedLinaria genistifolia dalmaticaDalmatian toadflaxLepidium Iatioliumperennial pepperweedMirabilis nyctagineawild four o’clock, umbrella-wortOnopordum acanthiumScotch thistleProboscidea louisianicaunicorn-plantSalvia aethiopsisMediterranean sageSilybum marianummilk thistleTorilis arvensishedgeparsleyUlex europaeusgorse, furzeZygophyllum fabagoSyrian bean-caper

Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 227Wetland and Aquatic PlantsScientific nameCommon nameMyriophyllum spicatumEurasian watermilfoilHydrilla verticillatahydrillaSpartina patenssalt meadow cordgrassSpartina anglicacommon cardgrassSpartina alterniflorasmooth cordgrassMyriophyllum aquaticumParrot’ s-feather, parrotfeather or waterfeatherEgerja densa or Elodea densaBrazilian elodea or egeriaSOURCE: Washington State Department of Agriculture, Plant Services Division, Plant Quarantine Manual, Seattle, WA, 1992.in 1990-one weed (jointed vetch—Aeschynomenerudis), a fungal plant disease (a smut—Ustilago esculenta), and one nematode (Hirschmanniellaspp. ) (8). This is further evidence thatcompletely preventing entry of harmful nonindigenousspecies is not possible.California’s park system is also active in NISissues. Its policies support replacing NIS, such aseucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), with indigenousspecies; however, the expense is high and oppositionoccasionally comes from members of thepublic who prefer the NIS (ch. 2) (69).A few other States have begun to emphasize theuse of indigenous plants for soil conservation,wildlife habitat, landscaping, and other publicpurposes, which have traditionally dependedheavily on NIS. Illinois has blazed a trail in thischange (box 7-E).PROPOSED MODEL STATE LAWSModel State laws have been developed byexperts outside the legislative process to helplegislators improve, and achieve consistency in,States’ statutes and regulations. Legislatures haveadopted them, sometimes wholly but usually inpart, in a wide range of contexts. Model State lawshave been directed to a wide range of topics, e.g.,controlling narcotics, enforcing child supportobligations, and facilitating interstate business(the Uniform Commercial Code).A model law can be a preferred alternative to asuperimposed, preemptive Federal uniform lawfrom the perspective of preserving State sovereignty(see Federal/State section of ch. 8). RobertMcDowell, Director of New Jersey’s Division ofFish, Game, and Wildlife, expressed this intestimony against a proposed congressional Houseof Representatives bill that would have imposedgreater Federal control over State fish and wildlifereleases (38). He supported, as an alternativeto Federal control, a‘ ‘model law that states couldadopt to control undesirable impacts of introductions’;adopting the model law ‘‘would be arequirement in order to have, for example, . . .lack of Federal intervention in the issue” orpossibly as a condition for obtaining relatedFederal funding (38).Three proposed model laws address NIS issues.The frost, and by far most detailed, is for fish andwildlife.“Model for State Regulations Pertaining toCaptive Wild and Exotic Animals”In 1985, the Animal Health Association, anational veterinary group, resolved to develop amodel law for upgrading State laws on NISintroduction and related subjects, an effort led bythe Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Disease StudyCenter (SCWDSC) at the University of Georgia’sCollege of Veterinary Medicine. The Centerproposed a broad regulatory system for animalimportation that addressed veterinary, humane,public safety, ecological, and other concerns (46).After extensive external review and revisions,SCWDSC sent the model out to all appropriateState agencies in late 1988 (60).

228 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 7-E-Illinois Shifts to Indigenous PlantsIn the early 1980s, the Illinois Department of Conservation took a hard look at the benefits and costs of itsheavy reliance on non-indigenous species (NIS) in the two State-run nurseries. These produce plants for suchuses as Iandscaping of State property, erosion control, and for wildlife habitat and feed. Department officialsrecognized the risks of degrading natural ecosystem and even endangering indigenous plants throughcompetition and hybridization with NIS. They found no evidence that NIS were better food or habitat for wildlife.in 1983 they decided to phase out NIS. It took roughly 5 years to changeover.First they proved that indigenous plants could be grown in nurseries using existing techniques andequipment Then, they collected seeds from State parks and began producing plant materials on a commercialscale. Currently, they grow 67 species of Indigenous trees and shrubs, 61 species of prairie wildflowers andgrasses, plus 13 woodland herbs. In 1990, the two nurseries filled 2,517 orders with 4.5 million plants.Also, they adopted a general policy restricting the use of NIS on Department lands. Harmful NIS are to becontrolled or eradicated from Department-owned or managed land ‘as time, manpower, and funds allow.” Officialsrewrote several manuals and public information pieces, such as “Landscaping for Wildlife, “ to emphasizeindigenous species. The Department of Conservation, USDA’s Soil Conservation Service, and the CooperativeExtension Service at the University of Iliinoisjointiy prepared a manual for all agencies and organizations planningand designing wind and snow breaks in the State. It specifies 31 indigenous trees and shrubs and just threewell-tested, non-invasive NIS (blue spruce (Picea pungens), Norway spruce (Picea abies), and Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii)).Despite the Department’s trailblazing efforts against the use of potentially harmful NIS, it was stymied in theIliinois Legislature by commercial nursery and agricaultural interests when it sought to add more prohibited speciesto the State’s Exotic Weed Act. The act designed to protect natural areas, prohibits only three species, each ofwhich is already extensively present-purple Ioosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), multifora rose (Rosa multiflora), andJapanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). To put this number in perspective, at least 811 non-indigenous plantspecies grow in a free-living condition in IIIinois, representing 29 Percent of its total plant species. About 37 of these811 are considered to be damaging invaders of natural communities, yet Illinois law allows most of them to beplanted.SOURCES:M. Solln, R. Oliver, S. Srady, and F.M. Harty, Wno& I#rdmak Manud(Sprin@M, IL: UIInols Department of Constxvatlon,1SS7); F. M. Hwty, Wow Illlnols IWkad the Exotk Habi: “ amfemnm on Bkkgkal PoWtlon: the Control and Impaot of Invadw ExotloSpecies, Indiana Academy of Scbn-, Indianapolis, IN, Oot. 25=26, 1S91; R.D. tknry and AA ~ % of Introddoo of the AlienComponent of the Spontanam Illinois V-r F* “ Arn#kxM A#dsndNafwalfs4 vol. 10S, No. 2, 1SS1, pp. 31 S-S24; J. Schwegman,Sotany Program Manager, Ifllnok Department of Conservatkn, pwaonaloommunkatkn to P.T.JankJne, Offbo#Ttinokgy&mawne~Aug. 20, 1s92.The entire model law runs to 45 pages. It givesStates an optional resource to fill gaps in theirlaws. Key features include:A permit requirement to “own, possess,transfer, transport, exhibit, or release’ nonexemptand non- “established exotic wildanimals.A list of 30 common domestic animals thatshould be exempt from the model’s regulatoryrequirements.A list of “established exotic wild animals”that have “become widespread and aregenerally considered native wild animals.”These ‘‘will vary from State to State and thespecies listed below are a partial list offeredfor consideration. ” It consists of ringneckedpheasant (Phasianus colchicus),chukar (Alectoris chukur), Hungarian partridge(Perdix perdix), European starling(Sturnus vulgaris), English or house sparrow(Passer domestics), Muscovy duck (Cairinamoschata), mute swan (Cygnus olor),European carp (Cyprinus carpio), browntrout (Salmo trutta), and nutria.

Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 229Criteria for deciding on “environmentallyinjurious animals’ and a list of animals thatmeet the criteria ‘‘offered for consideration.The list includes all 18 vertebratespecies or groups already prohibited underthe Federal Lacey Act plus 36 other speciesor groups-28 more than the median numberof State-prohibited species. The list wasdesigned to be tailored to each State’sparticular circumstances.A Technical Advisory Committee to provideadvice regarding regulations and exemptions,consisting of 12 members representingscientific, commercial, humane, and otherinterests,No States have adopted the model wholly, butsome, such as Missouri, have used different parts.Utah recently adopted the most detailed nonindigenousanimal regulations of any State; itconsidered the SCWDS model, but chose theirown approach instead (20). No further revisionsof the model are planned, nor has it been formallyevaluated.Model Honey Bee Certification PlanIn response to the impending invasion by theAfrican honey bee (Apis mellifera scutellata),State and Federal officials and private beekeepersdeveloped a Model Honey Bee Certification Plan.In 1991, they offered it to the States for adoptionor modification. It sets out methods to certify thatqueen bees are the desired European type, ratherthan African types, and it recommends steps forquarantining areas in which the African beeappears. It also prescribes beekeeping practices toreduce ‘‘ Africanization. ’ Texas, the first Stateaffected by the new bee, has adopted most of theplan; other States are considering it (23). However,some experts question the plan’s technicalassumptions and probable effectiveness, particularlyin light of the very limited enforcementpersonnel States commit to bee inspection andcertification (61).Outline of a Model Law forNon-Indigenous Weeds inNatural CommunitiesJohn Schwegman, the Botany Program Managerof the Illinois Department of Conservation,has outlined the only known model State lawapproach to combating weeds in natural areas(55):States should enact laws that:1. Allow for designation of State exotic weeds bya flexible administrative procedure under controlof conservation interests as opposed toagricultural interests.2. Prohibit the sale, offering for sale, or plantingof plants or seed of designated exotic weeds.3. Designate plants and seeds of exotic weedsoffered by dealers as contraband subject toseizure by the State in addition to imposition offines.4. Do not force landowners to remove or controlexotic weeds growing naturally on their lands(based on the idea that doing so would rouseintolerable public opposition).5. Set policy on removal and control of exoticweeds on all State owned and managed lands.6. Require testing or other proof of safety fromescape to natural communities of new potentialproblem plants proposed for marketing in theState.Nonregulatory components of the model programinclude supporting research into control methods,providing adequate management staff, supportingFederal efforts, and public education. Schwegman’ssuggested approach has not been widelyadopted, even in his own State (box 7-E). Indeed,few States have comparable programs, althoughsome have made steps toward them, e.g., Washington(box 7-D).LOCAL APPROACHESSome local governments have ordinances coveringharmful NIS. Generally, local authority hasnot included imposing quarantines or prohibitingimportation of particular NIS except in publichealth and safety matters. (However, particular

230 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesEurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) isamong the non-indigenous weeds of natural areasnewly targeted by State and local efforts.counties are routinely quarantined by State authoritiesto stop the intrastate spread of pests.)Local governments most commonly address localizedproblems, such as the capturing of dangerousescaped exotic pets by animal controlofficers.Local authority has predominated in the controlof agricultural weeds in many western States, inthe form of weed control disticts. These districtsgenerally develop a county-wide managementplan and provide enforcement mechanisms. In theevent a landowner fails to comply with the plan byallowing designated weeds to flourish, the districtsoften have authority to take control measuresdirectly and charge the landowner for itscosts. Operations are typically funded throughlocal property assessments with some State support.Funding can vary greatly from county tocounty, depending on local economies and propertyvalues (44). In regions without such districtsmostof the East and South-weed control, otherthan private efforts, is a State Governmentfunction. The historical reasons for this splitrelate to the greater roles of county governmentsin the West, the greater size of western States, andtheir relatively severe weed problems.Another key area of local authority is theregulation of land development and use. Asdevelopment involves alterations to vegetation,the local permit process affords an opportunity torequire the elimination of existing weeds. Ordinancescan also require that certain areas be keptin indigenous vegetation or prohibit the plantingof certain NIS. However, the nursery and landscapingindustries, already concerned with 50disparate State approaches, view increasing localregulation with alarm (5). They would prefer notto have to adjust their activities to a variety ofordinances adopted by hundreds of sub-unitswithin a State.The only ‘‘model local law’ addressing NIScombines weed control with regulation of landdevelopment. In 1985, the South Florida ExoticPest Plant Council, an association of governmentand private individuals concerned with nonagriculturalweeds, drafted a “Model ExoticSpecies Ordinance for Municipalities and Counties”(59). Below OTA summarizes, with theirtitles, the ordinance’s main provisions:●●‘‘Model Ordinance Prohibiting the Importation,Transportation, Sale, Propagation andPlanting of Harmful Exotic Vegetation”—an outright prohibition is imposed on thelisted activities for particular designatedharmful species.“Requiring Removal of Harmful ExoticVegetation Prior to Development of Land orWhen Such Vegetation Constitutes a Nuisance’—before development, the landownermust remove all of the designated species,subject to the plant removal standards; also,

Chapter 7-State and Local Approaches From a National Perspective 231ownerscan bespeciesof land that is not being developedordered to remove the designatedwithin 1 year if their property lieswithin given distances of defined environmentallysensitive areas.. “Providing Property Tax Reductions forRemoval of Harmful Exotic Vegetation”-landowners who have been ordered to conductremoval efforts to protect sensitiveareas under the previous provision are entitledto a l-year 25 percent property taxreduction for the portions of their land fromwhich the vegetation was removed.● “Establishing Standards for Exotic VegetationRemoval”—specifies removal techniquesand precautionary measures.● “Establishing Standards for Acceptance ofCovenants for the Protection and Managementof Environmentally Sensitive Lands”—lays out a procedure encouraging the 1ongtermprotection of ecologically importantareas, with an emphasis on maintainingg themfree of harmful vegetation.At least seven South Florida counties and twocities have adopted parts of the model ordinance(14). Clearly, South Florida’s non-indigenousplant problems are among the worst in the country(ch. 8). The model ordinance offers a usefulexample for other regions with similar, butperhaps currently less severe, problems.CHAPTER REVIEWThis chapter surveyed State and Federal relationshipsand State laws regulating fish andwildlife, insects, other invertebrate animals, andweeds. States’ approaches vary widely, some tendto under-regulate certain types of potentiallydamaging NIS, and their enforcement of existingstandards is often inadequate. Other States’ showexemplary approaches. More successful managementof harmful NIS depends upon addressing thedeficiencies, disseminating noteworthy State approaches,and ensuring that Federal and Stateefforts are mutually supportive. This chapter,along with chapter 6, suggests that much morecan be done by both Federal and State Governments.In the next chapter, OTA takes a closerlook at the situation in two States where severeNIS-related problems have prompted specialconcern: Hawaii and Florida.

Two Case Studies:Non-IndigeneousSpecies inHawaii andFlorida ,8In this chapter, OTA focuses on the status, problems, andpolicies regarding nonmarine, non-indigenous organismsin two particular States: Hawaii and Florida. These twoStates have large numbers of non-indigenous species (NIS)because of their particular geography, climate, and history. Eachhas experienced considerable problems as a result. And each areahas developed interesting policy responses in the attempt to solvethese problems. Their efforts are worth attention in their ownright and also because they may provide lessons for other partsof the United States.Several common themes appear in both States. Invasive NISthreaten the uniqueness of certain areas. In Hawaii, this threat isto the remaining indigenous species, most of which occurnowhere else in the United States or the world. In both States, thegreatest threat of NIS is to unusual natural areas as a whole, BothStates are transportation hubs and tourist destinations. Therefore,entry and establishment of non-indigenous pests in either Stateprovide a route for further spread into other parts of the UnitedStates.Of course, Hawaii and Florida are very different from eachother. Hawaii is the only State subject to a Federal agriculturalquarantine that includes comprehensive Federal inspectionactivities. Many policies affecting Hawaii would be different ifCalifornia, with its massive agricultural sector, were not nearby.No other State receives as much U.S. military traffic and, thus,needs to pay as much attention to this pathway. Florida is thecenter for U.S. production of tropical aquarium fish, and fewother States have engaged in environmental manipulation on thelarge scale Florida has.233

234 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesThese two States have learned certain lessonsin dealing with harmful NIS:●●●●Federal and State approaches need to becoordinated;seldom do those who are the source of NISproblems also bear their cost;agriculture and natural areas bear a high costfor introductions, whatever their source; andpublic education is vital to preventing newspecies entry and spread.These lessons are worth the attention of otherStates, perhaps with less severe problems rightnow. Also, these lessons are worth the attention ofFederal policymakers. The Federal Governmenthas both helped and hindered these States in theirefforts to deal with harmful NIS. Better integrationof Federal and State policies and programs inthe future would benefit both the Nation and theStates.NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES IN HAWAllFinding:Hawaii has a unique indigenous biota, theresult of its remote location, topography, andclimate. Many of its species, however, arealready lost, and at least one-half of the wildspecies in Hawaii today are non-indigenous.New species have played a significant role inthe extinction of indigenous species in the pastand continue to do so. Hawaii, the Nation, andthe world lose something valuable as theindigenous flora and fauna decline.The Nature of the ProblemBy many measures, the Hawaiian Islandsrepresent the worst-case example of the Nation’sNIS problem. No other area in the United Statesreceives as many new species annually, nor has asgreat a proportion of NIS established in the wild.At the same time, Hawaii, the Nation’s so-calledextinction capital, has the greatest concentrationof threatened and endangered species in theUnited States and the greatest number of extinctspecies as well. While habitat destruction hasbeen and continues to be a main factor in thedemise of the indigenous biota, NIS 1 have beenidentified as an important, if not the mostimportant, current threat (27,85,86,128).In addition, Hawaii may be the State mostvisibly transformed by NIS. Most of the coastalareas and lowlands of the mountainous islandsappear to be the proverbial paradise-green, oftenlush, replete with birds and flowers. But except ina few pockets, most of the trees, foliage, flowers,and birds are non-indigenous. Only at higherelevations can one find any appreciable expanseof the globally unique flora and fauna.Non-indigenous species have had a distinctiveimpact in Hawaii for several reasons.●The island ecology. The Hawaiian Islands arethe most remote land mass in the world,separated from the continents by a 2,500-milewideocean moat. As a result, only a relativelyfew kinds of plants, insects, birds, and otherorganisms managed to colonize the islandsbefore human settlement (see ‘‘original immigrants’in table 8-l). The original severalhundred species that arrived by ocean or aircurrents evolved into many thousands of species,more than 90 percent of which areendemic (unique) to Hawaii.Missing from this assemblage were many ofthe predators, grazers, pathogens, and otherorganisms that have shaped the ecology of thecontinents. Birds, plants, brightly coloredsnails, and insects dominated the originalHawaiian landscape. Yet there were no ants,mosquitoes, or cockroaches, nor any snakes orother reptiles. The only mammals were a smallinsect-eating bat and a marine mammal, theHawaiian monk seal (Monarchus schauinslandi).1 In Hawaii, alien species is the preferred term.

Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida 235Table 8-l—Past and Present Status of Nonmarine Species in HawaiiOriginal Indigenous Endemic Extinct Threatened/ Establishedimmigrants species species species endangered NIS bGroup (number) (number) (no./%) (no./%) (no./%) (no./%)Plants c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 =1 ,400 =1 ,200/867. /=1 O% /=30% =900/450/0Birds c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 =100 92/=920/. 60/=60 30%700/0 38/480/0Mammal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 0 0 1/100% 1 9/950/0Reptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NA NA NA NA 1 3/1 00%Amphibians . . . . . . . . . . 0 NA NA NA NA 4/1 00%Freshwater fish . . . . . . . 5 5/100% o 0 29/84%Mollusks c . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-24 =1 ,060 /=99% /=50% /100% =30/6%Insects c . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350-400 =8,000 /=98% /=30% =2,500/=25%a percentage of remaining species, for most cases representing unofficial estimates. As of December 1992, 104 plant species (all but one asendangered) and 30 bird (marine and nonmarine) species and subspecies (all but one as endangered) were on the U.S. Endangered Species List.Another 61 plant species were proposed for listing (all but one as endangered). A total of 189 plant species were slated to be listed by 1993 undera Federal court settlement (Civil No. 89-953 ACK).b Refers t. species non-indigenous to Hawaii. This includes many species originating in the continental United States.C Numbers for plants, birds, mollusk (mostly land snails), and insects in most categories are rounded estimates based on species lists, otherpublished reports, and expert opinion.NA = not applicable.SOURCES: Adapted by the Office of Technology Assessment from W.L. Wagner, D.R. HerbSt, and S.H. Sohmer, Manual of the Flowering P/antsof Hawaii (Honolulu, Hi: University of Hawaii Press, Bishop Museum Press, 1990); L.L. Loope, O. Hamann, and C.P. Stone, “ComparativeConservation Biology of Oceanic Archipelagoes,” @’oScience, vol. 38, No. 4, April 1988, pp. 272-282; G.M. Nishida (cd.) Hawaiian TerrestrialArthropod Checldist (Honolulu, Hl: Bishop Museum Press, 1992); and personal communications from H.F. James, ornithologist, National Museumof Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Jan. 23, 1992; W. Devick, aquatic resources specialist, Hawaii Department of Land and NaturalResources, Jan. 7, 1992; M. Hadfield, zoologist, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Jan. 6, 1992; and F.G. Howarth, entomologist, Bishop Museum,January 1992.Because they evolved in the absence of anylarge herbivorous animals like deer, many ofthe plants lost their physical and chemicaldefenses against such animals (17). Hawaii’sindigenous raspberries (Rubus hawaiensis) donot have the sharp thorns of related species.The 50 species of indigenous mints lack theherbivore-deterring aromatic scent of sage(Salvia officinalis), basil (Ocimum basilicum),and other continental mints. Similarly, morethan a dozen species of flightless, grounddwellingbirds (88) evolved on the islands, asdid several unusual flightless moths, flies, andother insects (55).This isolated evolution is seen as the primereason why Hawaii, and oceanic islands ingeneral, are especially vulnerable to ecologicalinvasions (70). In addition, most indigenousspecies in Hawaii are not adapted to free, whichhas increased considerably with human settlement.This now common physical disturbancenot only eliminates indigenous species, particularlyrare and threatened or endangered plants,it provides an inroad to invasions by betteradapted NIS (109). Trampling by large nonindigenousanimals also facilitates invasions.. The tropical climate. Hawaii’s average temperaturesvary little between winter and summer,at sea level ranging from about 72 to 78degrees F. In contrast, rainfall, delivered to theislands by trade winds from the northeast, “varies tremendously. Windward mountainslopes can receive 300 to 400 inches per year,while leeward coasts receive as few as 10 to 20inches.The variation in rainfall, along with thediverse, volcano-created terrain, accounts forHawaii’s large variety of habitats, which inturn accounts at least in part for the diversity ofrecently arrived organisms that have successfullycolonized the islands (69). And the lack ofa killing frost except at high elevations means

236 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesthat Hawaii is subject to invasion by manyspecies that would not be a threat to the largelytemperate continental United States.. The transportation hub. Lying close to themiddle of the Pacific Ocean, Hawaii is a portalbetween Asia and North America. Trafficthrough the islands has been increasing dramatically,given the rising economic importance ofthe Pacific Rim nations and the increasingpopularity of Hawaii as a vacation spot. Witha 50-percent increase in traffic during the1980s, Honolulu’s airport was 15th busiest inthe United States in 1990, according to theFederal Aviation Administration. Equally importantis the military traffic through Hawaii,the Pacific center for U.S. defense (see below).The large volume and variety of traffic isresponsible for the great number of NIS thatarrive in the State. In addition to stowaways ontransport equipment or cargo, plants and animalsare brought in, intentionally or unintentionally,by the increasing number of travelers,both residents and tourists.RATES OF INTRODUCTIONSThe rate of NIS introductions in Hawaii increaseddramatically with the start of regular airservice to the islands in the 1930s. But Hawaii’stransformation by NIS began 1,500 or more yearsago, with the arrival of sea-faring Polynesians.Polynesians intentionally introduced about 30kinds of plants for cultivation—including sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) and coconut (Cocosnucifera), two images closely allied with Hawaiianculture today—and accidentally brought alongseveral weeds. They also brought a few domesticatedanimals (pigs, dogs, chickens) and stowawayslike rats, lizards, and probably severalinsects. The rate of species becoming establishedin the islands thus changed from the natural rateof one new species every 50,000 years to three orfour new species every 100 years (70).Hawaii began to absorb a new wave of specieswith the arrival of Europeans in 1778, when therate of successful introductions jumped to hundredsof thousands of times the natural rate.Among the most significant and persistent introductionswere the goats (Capra hircus), sheep(Ovis aries), European pigs (Sus scrofa), andcattle (Bos taurus) released by explorer JamesCook and other early ship captains as gifts or tocreate herds to feed their crews. Feral Europeanpigs and goats in particular remain serious pestsof natural areas (and to some extent agriculture)today.In the subsequent two centuries of Europeanand Asian settlement, horses, deer, and morerodents have also been introduced. More nonindigenousbird species (including 15 gamespecies) have become established in Hawaii thananywhere else (64). More than 4,600 nonindigenousplant species have been introduced,primarily for cultivation. Of these, almost 900have become established, so that Hawaii’s wildnon-indigenous plant species today are approachingthe number of indigenous species (129).Non-indigenous freshwater fish, most of whichwere intentionally introduced for sport, food, orother reasons (71), far outnumber the relativelyfew indigenous freshwater species. In the case ofinsects, NIS make up perhaps 25 percent (table8-l). Many of Hawaii’s NIS are indigenous to thecontinental United States; according to the HawaiiDepartment of Agriculture, about onequarterof Hawaii’s non-indigenous pests aremainland species (47).Like goats and pigs, many other present-daypest species were deliberate, well-intentionedintroductions in the past (table 8-2). Severalplants originally brought in for agricultural orornamental purposes have become extremelyinvasive, as in the case of strawberry guava(Psidium cattleianum) or bananapoka (Passifloramollissima). Some animals brought in to controlother pests became problems themselves. TheIndian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus), introducedvia Jamaica in the 1880s, was supposedto control rats in sugar cane fields, but has cometo prey on birds, including the Hawaiian goose(nene, the State bird) (Branta sandvicensis), and

Table 8-2—Significant Non-Indigenous Pest Species in HawaiiDateSpecies Origin introduced Reason ImpactsPig (Sus scrofa) Europe 1778 Gift, food Damages crops; degrades natural habitats by foraging,trampling; spreads alien plants; causes erosion, harmingwatershedsGoat (Capra hircus) Europe 1778 Gift, food Degrades natural habitat by foraging, trampling; spreads alienplants; causes erosion, harming watershedsMyna bird (Acridotheres tristis) India 1865 Control armyworm Spreads alien plants; damages crops; spreads avifaunalin pasturesdiseasesCattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) Southern Eurasia 1959 Control insect pests Damages crops, aquiculture; airport hazard; preys onAfrica on cattle indigenous waterbird chicks“Trifly” Widespread Accidental $300 million in lost produce markets; $3.5 million in damagedproduce; $1 million in postharvest treatment in 1989Melon fly (Dacus cucurbitae) 1895Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis 1907capitata)Oriental fruit fly (D. dorsalis) 1945Strawberry guava (Psidiurn Brazil 1825 Cultivated for fruit Forms a thicket shading out indigenous plants; fruit attractsCattleianum)pigs; crowds out cattle forage; serves as primary host tooriental fruit flyKoster’s curse (Clidemia hirta) Tropical America pre-1 941 Possibly for erosion Highly invasive, forming a thicket in forest understory; 80,000controlacres affectedBanana poka (Passiflora Andes pre-1921 Ornamental Heavy vines damage indigenous trees; alters forestmollissima)understory; 100,000 acres affectedFountain grass (Pennisetum Africa early 1900s Ornamental Invades bare lava flows, natural areas, rangelands; providessetaceum)fuel for damaging wildfires and is spread by fireFire tree (Myrica fava) Azores, pre-1900 Ornamental, or for Invades natural areas to forma dense stand, obliteratingCanary Islands fruit (wine) or indigenous ground cover; upsets nitrogen balance in soils,firewoodencouraging other weeds; attracts pigsSOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.gsDY-.

238 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesat least seven other endangered species. The rosysnail (Euglandina rosea) from Florida was introducedin 1955 to prey on a non-indigenous pest,the African giant snail (Achatina fulica), but iswidely believed to have also hunted many of theendemic snails to extinction (55).Today organisms brought in for biologicalcontrol are more rigorously screened to avoidnontarget effects; ‘‘no purposely introduced species,approved for release in the past 21 years, hasbeen recorded to attack any native or otherdesirable species” in Hawaii (40). Other scientists,however, question whether monitoring adequatelyassesses other important impacts, such ascompetition with indigenous species (55). Still,most new problem species today are believed tobe the result of accidental or smuggled introductions.The rate of MS establishment neverthelessremains high, About five new plant species peryear have become established during the 20thcentury (133), For the 50-year period from 1937to 1987, Hawaii received an average of 18 newinsect and other arthropod species annually (6,48)----more than a million times the natural rateand almost twice the number absorbed each yearby North America (77). Since the mid- 1940s, theannual rate for this fairly well-documented grouphas been highly variable (see also ch. 3)--rangingfrom at least 35 new species in 1945 and 1977 to10 or fewer in 1957 and the beginning of the1990s (86). It has been suggested that some of theupsurges may be related to wartime activities atthe ends of World War II and the Vietnam War(6). Annually about three of Hawaii’s new arthropodspecies turn out to be economic pests (7).STATE OF INDIGENOUS SPECIESThe impact of the high rate of biologicalinvasions in Hawaii is partly reflected in theextreme numbers of its extinct and threatened orendangered indigenous species (table 8-1). Someof the best evidence of extinction by MS comesfrom Hawaii, as in the case of the rosy snail (ch.2). Although habitat destruction was probably thegreater force behind extinctions in the past, todayMS, through predation and competition, are oftenconsidered to be the main threat because they caninvade parks and other natural areas protectedfrom development (128).Hawaii has been described as the 50th State butfirst in terms of biological imperilment. It occupiesonly 0.2 percent of U.S. land area-the fourthsmallest State—but takes up disproportionatespace on the Federal Endangered Species List:about a third of the plants and birds listed or beingconsidered for listing belong to Hawaii,Much of the unique plant and animal life isalready gone. Of all the plants and birds known tohave gone extinct in the United States, two-thirdsare from Hawaii (128).Hawaii’s spectacular bird life has been themost visibly diminished. Half of the original birdspecies, including all of the flightless birds, areknown only from skeletal remains. Polynesiansand their animals probably hunted the birds toextinction, or ensured their demise by clearingtheir habitat. About a dozen additional species arethought to have gone extinct since Cook’s arrival.Most of the remaining birds are either threatenedor endangered (table 8-l), accounting for thegreatest known concentration of endangered birdsin the world,At least a tenth of Hawaii’s plant species arealready extinct, and about 30 percent of theremaining species are considered threatened orendangered (129); some botanists say as many ashalf may be at risk. The indigenous insects andother life forms are too poorly known to allow anassessment of their status, but experts believethey have been similarly affected (table 8-l). Atleast half of Hawaii’s distinctive land snails, forexample, are thought to be extinct, while theremaining species are probably all threatened orendangered, in large part because of the importedrosy snail (43,54).Because islands are especially vulnerable tobiological invasions, many of their indigenousspecies—Hawaii’s in particular-were oncethought to be doomed to extinction. But recent

Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida 239work in ecological restoration in Hawaii has beenpromising, and some biologists and conservationistsnow express optimism that some habitats canrecover when browsing animals, for example, areremoved (55,70).Causes and ConsequencesFindings:As a set of islands, Hawaii is unique amongthe 50 States in its vulnerability to the sometimesdevastating ecological impacts of NIS.On the other hand its geographic isolationlimits the pathways for introductions andpresents unique opportunities for the design ofprevention strategies.Hawaii’s natural areas and agriculture bearthe brunt of new species’ harmful impacts.However, agriculture, including horticultureand forestry, also has been a source of problemintroductions.Few economic or noneconomic activities inHawaii are unaffected by or uninvolved in theinflux of NIS to the State. Specific costs incurredbecause of harmful NIS, however, are available inonly some cases, (The State does not maintainrecords of crop damages from pests.) Many of theconsequences of invasions, especially in naturalareas, are unquantified.NATURAL AREASIn Hawaii, harmful NIS have taken theirgreatest toll on natural areas. Although theyproduce no commodities like timber in substantialamounts, they are of value for their uniquebiological diversity, for maintainingg the islands’freshwater supply, for providing scenery andsome recreation in a tourist-dependent economy,and as a scientific laboratory.Hawaii is considered an unparalled site for thestudy of evolution (see special issues of Bioscience,April 1988; Trends in Ecology andEvolution, July 1987; Natural History, December1982). The diverse indigenous species all evolvedfrom a small number of colonizers (table 8-1) andHarmful non-indigenous species have taken theirgreatest toll on Hawaii’s natural areas, includingHaleakala National Park.as such have been important for understandinghow new species arise. One of the world’s mostdramatic examples of this process is Hawaii’s 600or more species of fruit flies, a quarter of theworld’s species, all the evolutionary descendantsof one colonizing species. Similarly, a singlecolonizing finch species gave rise to 40 remarkablyvaried species of honeycreepers.This evolutionary proliferation of species hasendowed Hawaii with the most biological diversityper unit area in the United States (68); as suchit is a potential source of useful new biologicalmaterials for research and development (123).Hawaii’s endemic cotton plant (Gossypium tomentosum),for example, lacks the nectarproducingglands of other cotton species and hasbeen used by plant breeders to create a commercialstrain that is less attractive to insect pests. Amarine coral produces a promising antitumorcompound. Only a fraction of Hawaii’s uniquespecies, however, have been screened for suchproperties.Many indigenous species—perhaps one-thirdor more of the insects, for example-have noteven been described, prompting calls for athorough inventory of the remaining species andimportant baseline population studies. The re-

240 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statescently signed Hawaii Tropical Forest RecoveryAct 2 specifies development of “actions to encourageand accelerate the identification andclassification of unidentified plant and animalspecies” (sec. 605) and baseline studies (sec.607) in Hawaii forests. The legislation alsoauthorizes grants for NIS control (sec. 610). The1992 Hawaii legislature also took action 3 toestablish a biological survey of the islands’indigenous and NIS.Natural areas that still support indigenousspecies in relatively intact habitat makeup about25 percent of Hawaii (114). These areas areprotected by the Federal Government (56 percent),the State (41 percent), and others, primarilythe Nature Conservancy of Hawaii (3 percent).The State forest reserves were established atthe beginning of this century in recognition of theforests’ importance as watersheds (27). Earlymanagement involved large-scale plantings ofnon-indigenous trees, as well as fencing andremoval of feral goats, pigs, and other ungulates.By rooting, browsing, and trampling, these animalsdestroy the vegetation that holds soil inplace, especially on steep terrains, resulting inrun-off into rivers and streams. Communitieshave spent millions of dollars for water filtrationsystems to deal with the contamination, siltation,and discoloration (41).Damage by feral ungulates is still one of twomain non-indigenous threats to forests and othernatural areas. Control of feral ungulates has beenbest achieved in parts of two national parks, butat considerable cost. Areas must be fenced offthen cleared of animals by shooting. At HaleakalaNational Park (HALE), for example, 45 miles offencing were installed around two importantareas-including a rainforest of exceptional biologicaldiversity-at a cost of $2.4 million,provided by the National Park Service’s NaturalResource Preservation Program. Maintenance offences—because of damage from storms, humidity,tree falls, and the like-costs an estimated$130,000 per year (67). Fencing is also underwayat Hawaii Volcanoes National Park at a comparablecost.Weeds constitute the second main nonindigenousthreat to natural areas. About 90 of theestimated 900 established non-indigenous plantspecies in Hawaii are serious pests (109), capableof invading undisturbed natural areas. Hawaii’snational parks have a much greater proportion ofnon-indigenous plant species than do other U.S.national parks (65). At Hawaii Volcanoes NationalPark, the non-indigenous plant problem isespecially severe: 30 of the worst plant pestspecies are present, 24 of which are widespread(26). Out of 900 total plant species in the park,two-thirds are non-indigenous. Control by handclearing, chemicals, or in some cases biologicalagents is concentrated on portions of the park thatare especially sensitive; parkwide control isconsidered impossible.Non-indigenous insects also threaten naturalareas, by competing with or preying on indigenousspecies and altering pollination patterns,although the extent of their impact is lessunderstood and has received less attention. Perhapsthe worst of the insect pests are the predatoryArgentine ant (Iridomyrmex humilis) and westernyellow jacket (Vespula pensylvanica), which arethe subject of monitoring and control research inthe national parks.For all natural areas, the control and managementof harmful NIS consume the vast bulk oftheir resource management budgets. In the case ofthe two national parks, which have the mostaggressive management programs, the 1987 resourcemanagement budget was $1.8 million(114); the 1991 budget was $1.2 million (86)prompting concerns among managers regardingshrinking and inconsistent funding. (Resourcemanagement represents 40 percent of the totalpark budget at HALE (66). By contrast, in thez Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act (1992), Public Law 102-574s H.B. 3660

Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida I 241Federal AgenciesTable 8-3-Non-lndigenous Species in Hawaii: Roles of Federal and State AgenciesTreasury DepartmentCustoms Service-inspects cargo and passengers from foreign points of origin; directs cases to USDA or FWSInterior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service-manages 14 wildlife refuges, includes NIS control. Law Enforcement Division-inspects wildlife imported into United States to enforce CITES, ESA, and Lacey ActNational Park Service—manages 2 nature parks, includes NIS control and researchAgriculture DepartmentAgricultural Research Service-research on pest control and eradicationAnimal and Plant and Health inspection Service● Animal Damage Control—works to reduce feral animal problems● Plant Protection and Quarantine-inspects foreign arrivals and domestic departures for U.S. mainland to preventmovement of agricultural pests● Veterinary Service-quarantines animals for rabies and other diseasesForest Service-NIS control researchDefense DepartmentMilitary Customs inspection--inspects military transport arriving from foreign areas under Customs and APHIS authorityState AgenciesGovernor’s OfficeAgricultural Coordinating CommitteeDepartment of AgricultureBoard of Agriculture● Technical Advisory Committe-advises on plant and animal imports, based on input from five technical subcommitteesPlant Industry Division● Plant Quarantine Branch-inspects arriving passengers and cargo to prevent entry of pests; reviews requests to importplants and animals; regulates movement of biological material among islands; provides clearance for export of plantmaterial to meet quarantine standards● Plant Pest Control Branch-carries out eradication and control of plant pests through two sections: Biological Control andChemical/Mechanical ControlAnimal Industry Division● inspection and Quarantine Branch-inspects animals entering Hawaii, manages animal quarantinesDepartment of Land and Natural ResourcesDivision of Forestry and Wildlife-manages State forests, natural area reserves, wildlife sanctuaries; involves watershedprotection, natural resources protection, control/eradication of pest species.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.National Park system as a whole, less than 10percent of the budget is directed to naturalresource management, a figure OTA finds to below (ch. 6).) The budget for the State’s Divisionof Forestry and Wildlife, which oversees Stateownedforests, natural areas, public hunting areas,and wildlife sanctuaries (table 8-3), has beensubstantially increased in recent years. In 1991, itspent $2.8 million for pest control activities (86).AGRICULTUREAgriculture is Hawaii’s third largest source ofrevenue-$551 million in 1991 (farmgate value)--behind tourism and military-related spending.Although declining in importance, sugar andpineapple remain Hawaii’s two main agriculturalproducts, respectively generating about $200million and $100 million in recent years. “Diversified’agriculture-macadamia nuts, papayas,flowers, beef, dairy, coffee, and other products—

242 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesprovides the rest and represents a growth industryfor Hawaii.All these products are derived from importedspecies, and virtually all the agricultural pests(primarily insects) are non-indigenous as well (8).(By contrast, estimates of non-indigenous agriculturalpests on the U.S. mainland range from 40to 90 percent of all pests.) Many pests arrived inHawaii on agricultural material that was importedto improve genetic stocks or to introduce newcrops. All of today’s pineapple pests, for example,were brought in on vegetative material for propagation.The pests not only destroy crops but alsolimit markets in mainland and foreign areas thathave imposed quarantines on produce from Hawaiibecause of the threat of new pests. This lossof export markets is often cited as the main barrierto the expansion of Hawaii’s diversified crops,such as avocados (46).The Governor’s Agriculture Coordinating Committeespent $3.8 million from 1987 to 1990 onresearch to control or eliminate pest impacts onagricultural commodities (86). The Federal AnimalDamage Control (ADC) unit (table 8-3) inHawaii spent $181,000 (36 percent Federal funds)in 1989 to minimize feral animal damage toagriculture, as well as to natural resources, humanhealth, and property (about half of ADC’s workinvolves controlling bird strike hazards at airports).Agricultural and nonagricultural damageby non-indigenous animal pests confirmed by orreported to ADC in 1989 amounted to $6.9million (126).Specific pest-control or -damage costs borneby various types of agriculture follow. Instanceswhere agriculture has contributed to Hawaii’sNIS problem are also noted. In general, about halfof Hawaiis non-indigenous established plants arethought to have been introduced as crops orornamental (133).Crops-Costs of pest control and damage arebest documented for sugar cane, Hawaii’s maincrop. Throughout its 150-year history, the sugarcane industry has been confronted with a series ofdamaging insect pests, most of which wereeventually controlled biologically. In 1904, thesugar cane leafhopper (Perkinsiella saccharicida)from Australia was responsible for the lossof 70,000 tons of sugar, at a cost of $25 million in1990 prices ($350 per ton), according to theHawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association (91). By1907, the leafhopper was subdued by severalpredators imported from Australia.The sugar cane beetle borer (Rhabdoscelusobscurus) from New Guinea was first found in1865 and remains an important pest of sugar cane,Damage from the insect is exacerbated in areaswhere rats are a problem, since damaged stalksare favorable for egg laying. A study of losses attwo plantations in the 1960s estimated that borersdestroyed 2.2 percent of the crop. Industry-widelosses from this pest amount to about 3,000 tonsof sugar per year, or about $1 million annually(1990 prices).Since 1985, at least four new insect pests ofsugar cane have become established in the State(90). The lesser cornstalk borer (Ehsmopalpuslignosellus) has exacted an estimated $9 millionin lost yields and other costs since it appeared in1986 (124). A parasitoid from Bolivia wasestablished in 1991 and is now suppressing theborer in sugar cane fields.Chemical controls are used on weeds, whichare even more costly to the sugar cane industrythan are insect pests (91). (Chemical pesticidemanufacturers have generally not addressed theneeds of Hawaii’s agriculture, however, becauseof its small size and the expense involved inobtaining clearance for new pesticides by theEnvironmental Protection Agency.) Research costsfor all types of pest control in the sugar caneindustry in recent years have approached $1million annually (table 8-4). Development ofsugar cane resistance to recently introduceddiseases, primarily sugarcane smut and rusts,accounts for another large portion of the industry’sresearch (an estimated $400,000 in 1991 and1992).

Chapter 8—Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida I 243Table 8-4—Research Costs for Sugar Cane PestControl in Hawaii, 1986-1992Pest 1986-87 1988-89 1991-92Weeds . . . . . . . . . . $60,000 $214,000 $280,000Rats . . . . . . . . . . . . $104,400 $281,000’ $232,500’Insects . . . . . . . . . . $101,000 $224,600 $179,000Diseases . . . . . . . . $152,700 $208,000 $172,000Total . . . . . . . . . $418,100 $927,600 $863,500aincluldes $220,000 from USDASOURCE: Sugar industry Analyses, 1986,1988,1991.Quarantines imposed on Hawaii’s fresh producebecause of established pest species havebeen a substantial cost to growers by limitingmarkets. The most serious market-limiting pestsare the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata),the melon fly (Dacus cucurbitae), and theOriental fruit fly (Dacus dorsalis) jknown as thetrifly complex (box 8-A). The financial impact ofsuch quarantines are difficult to gauge; it has beenconservatively estimated that Hawaii’s exportmarket could increase by 30 percent if quarantineson tropical fruits were lifted (46).Ranching—Hawaii’s pastures and rangelandsare vulnerable to invasions by non-indigenousplants, such as the ornamental fountain grass(Pennisetum setaceum), which are unpalatableand lower livestock (primarily cattle) productivity.Grasses planted on rangelands themselves areimported and have been plagued by such pests asthe army worm (Pseudaletia unipuncta) and grasswebworm (Herpetogramm lifsarsisalis). Sinceits discovery in Kona in 1988, the highly invasiveyellow sugarcane aphid (Sipha flava) has spreadto all the islands and exacted several milliondollars in losses annually from State ranchers and$200,000 in biological control research (124).Seeds, grasses, and animal feed imported byranchers are believed to have been the avenue forthe introduction of some weeds, as in the case ofbroomsedge (Andropogon virginicus) (27), aninvasive North American grass that is adapted tofire. Many sugar cane weeds are believed to havearrived in imported rangeland materials (91).Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum), a rangelandcover imported from Africa, has itselfbecome a weed in natural areas (109). Finally,browsing cattle have been a destructive force innatural forests and other habitats (27).Ornamentals—The ornamental plant and floralindustry in Hawaii has grown in recent years,although it too has been limited by quarantines onspecific fresh products. Based predominantly onNIS, the industry has also been affected by newdiseases and pests. A bacterial blight was responsiblefor a drop in revenues from anthuriums(Anthurium spp.), a shiny, brilliantly coloredflower from Central America, and a lucrativecommodity for the State ($8 million in 1988, thesixth largest crop). A sample of some 50 farmslost $5.5 million in 1987 revenue and $1.6 millionin 1989 revenue because of the disease (124).Two non-indigenous birds, the red-vented bulbul(Pycnonotus jocosus) and the red-whiskeredbulbul (P. cafer), are responsible for significantdamage to orchids, a leading product in the cutflower industry, as well as to fruits and otherhorticultural products. In 1989 the total cost ofdamaged orchids on Oahu, the only island to beinvaded thus far, was $300,000 (46). Indigenousto India and prohibited from entry by State law,bulbuls probably were smuggled into Hawaii aspets, which then escaped or were released in themid- 1960s.In turn, horticultural activities have been responsiblefor much of Hawaii’s non-indigenousplant problem. Several hundred non-indigenousplants introduced for landscaping or cultivationhave escaped and become established (138).One of Hawaii’s worst weeds, the banana poka,a pink-flowered vine, was introduced as anornamental early in this century and today infestsabout 100,000 acres of forest. It is notolious forengulfing indigenous trees, killing them or breakingbranches and altering the understory. About$1 million in State and Federal funds was spentbetween 1981 and 1991 on research for thebiocontrol of banana poka and Koster’s curse

244 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 8-A-Costs of Hawaii’s Major Fruit Fly Pests and Their EradicationThree of Hawaii’s insect pests-the Mediterranean fruit fly (medfly) (Cetatitis capitata), the Oriental fruitfly (Dacus dorsalis), and the melon fly (Dacus cucurbitae)- were responsible for $300 million in lost markets in1989, according to the Hawaii Agricultural Alliance. In addition, the so-called trifly complex cost $3.5 million indamaged produce and $1 miilion in fumigation of other postharvest treatments. The triflycomplex has “imposedstrong constraints on the development and diversification of agriculture in Hawaii and has provided a largereservoir for the unwanted and increasingly frequent introduction of fruit flies into the mainland United States andother areas of the world viacontrabandfruit,” accordingtothe Agricultural Research Service. Consequently, ARSis conducting a series oftechnology demonstration tests to help determine the feasibility of statewide eradicationof the fruit fly pests.The three flies became established in Hawaii beginning with the melon fly in 1895, the medfly in 1907, andthe oriental fruit fly in 1945. Their establishment was aided by the spread in Hawaii of non-indigenous plants thatserve as host plants for the pests. The medfly alone—considered one of the world’s worst agriculturalpests-infests 250 fruit and vegetable crops. A 1980-1982 effort to eliminate the medfly from seven Californiacounties cost $100 million, acoording to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).Cailfornia agricuitural interests have been strong proponents, if not the strongest, of the proposed eradicationproject in Hawaii, as well as of the inspection of first-class mail from Hawaii, since the islands are assumed to bea major source of medfly arrivals in California But preliminary DNAanalysis of medflies trapped in California duringits 1989 and 1991 infestations indicates the flies very Iikely did notcome from Hawaii; genetically they resemblemedflies from Argentina and Guatemala While the finding does not rule out the possibility that Hawaii may be asource of medfly introductions in the future, it also raises the possibility that Hawaii’s role in medfly introductionsto the mainland maybe overemphasized. Additional genetic studies should help clarify where new infestations arecoming from and hence where resources should be targeted.In the meantime, Hawaii’sfirst demonstration project, slated to end in 1993 at a3-year cost of $5 million, isattemptingto eradicate a large established medfly population on the island of Kauai through the release of sterileinsects, although noeradication has been achieved with this technique alone; traps with lures and the insecticidemalathion are expected to have to be used against the more abundant oriental fruit fly and melon fly. Demonstrationprojects for eradication of these fruit fly species are scheduled to run into the next century, at which point thedecision is expected to be made on whether to proceed with statewide eradication.Statewide eradication plans have been controversial becauseof concernsforpublic health, as well as for thediverse endemic fruit flypopulations in Hawaii, given the likely use ofinsecticide. Objections have also been raisedover the enormous cost of such an undertaking-perhaps $200 million or more for medfly eradication alone-and,if it succeeds, the strong possibility that the pests could become reestablished unless Hawaii’s and USDA’sinspection and quarantine efforts are substantially improved. The Malaysian fruit fly (Bactrocera latifrons), whichis also targeted in the eradication plans, was introduced as recently as 1983.SOURCES: J.R. Carey, “The Medlterranaan Fruit Fly In California: Taking Stock” Ca/hnla Agdctdfuru, Jan.-Feb. 1992, pp. 12-17; W.S.Sheppard, GJ.~ and 6A. McPheron, “Geographic Populations of the MadffyMaySe Differentiated by Mhochondrfal DNA Variation;Expafenfka, vol. 4S, No. 10, Ootober 1982, pp. 1010-1013; U.S. Department of Agricdture, Agricultural Research service, Tropical Fruitand Vegetabb Reaearoh Laboratory, “1. ARS Perspective for Fruit Fly Eradication in Hawaii and PilotT=t Raquirementsfor f)emonstrationof Ttinobgy,” and ‘“Ii. Pilot Test to Eliminate Mediterranean Fruit Fiy from the Islanda of Kauai and Niihau: Detailed Work Plan,” drafts(Honolulu, Hi: December 19S9); R.1. Vargaa, research scienti~ ARS, personal communications, Dec. 18,1991, Feb. 10,1992.(Clidemia hirta), another forest weed (46) (table Other ornamental that have escaped to be-8-2); additional sums are spent by public and come problems in natural areas are the fire treeprivate groups in pulling weeds or applying (Myrica fava), fountain grass (table 8-2), andherbicide. A 2-year poka eradication effort on other grasses. In some cases, botanic gardensMaui was allotted $244,000 by the State (56). have been the source of the escapees (109). For

Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida 245example, the velvet tree (Miconia calvescens), anincipient invader described as the botanical equivalentof rabbits, probably escaped from a privatebotanic garden.TOURISMThe large volume of traffic associated withtourism is often cited as a factor behind the influxof harmful NIS to the islands. At the same time,the $9.9 billion visitor industry (in 1991) is theState’s biggest source of revenue and largestemployer. Consequently, some observers believethere has been resistance in Hawaii to implementingcontrols that may be perceived as deterringvisitors.The number of visitors in 1990 was 6.9 million,according to the Hawaii Visitors Bureau, anincrease of about 50 percent from 1980. Most ofthe visitors are from the U.S. mainland andCanada, especially the West Coast, with anincreasing number from Japan. The remaindercome from other countries in Asia and westernEurope (78).According to an opinion survey of Stateagriculture inspectors, airline passengers arethought to be the most common pathway forinsect pests and illegal animals to be introduced,on undeclared plants hidden in carry-on orchecked baggage (49) (figure 8-l). For domesticarrivals, this pathway may become less importantif a 1992 State law is well enforced. Previously,the State’s agricultural declaration process waseasily bypassed; the law now requires all passengersto fill out a declaration form, with increasedpenalties for bringing in prohibited organisms.Development catering to the large number ofvisitors may also contribute to the NIS problemby disturbing natural habitats, providing inroadsfor invasive species. Unauthorized importationsof grass materials for golf courses are thought tobe the inadvertent avenue for the recent increasein the number of introductions of sugar cane (alsoa grass) and rangeland pests (91,124). The yellowsugarcane aphid, for example, was first found in1988 near a new golf course development.Figure 8-l—Perceived Importance of Pathwaysin the Introduction of Insect Pests and IllegalAnimals in Hawaii13“/060/0~ Domestic airline passengersm First-class mail➤ ] Cargo~ Military~ . Foreign arrivals_ Private boats, planesSOURCE: Based on an opinion survey of State agriculture inspectorsin the Department of Agriculture, State of Hawaii, Honolulu, “Report tothe 15th Legislature, 1989 Regular Session.”Many observers point out that Hawaii’s tourismdepends on the unique natural beauty of theislands and that it would be harmed if theindigenous natural resources are further diminishedby harmful NIS (12,78). But there is alsosaid to be little emphasis within the visitorindustry on ecotourism or the distinctiveness ofHawaii’s indigenous plant and animal life (109,113).Resorts and residences are typically landscapedwith tropical plants from around the world:bougainvillea (Bougainvillea buttiana) (from CentralAmerica); bird-of-paradise flower (Strelitziareginae) (from Africa); palms from other tropicalareas. Even the traditional Hawaiian lei is usuallymade with non-indigenous plants.

246 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesMILITARYDefense spending accounts for about $2 billion,or 10 percent, of State revenues, the secondlargest share. The military is also believed to bea significant contributor of new introductions tothe State and among the islands (figure 8-1)because of the large volume of traffic associatedwith it. Military personnel traveling from Fiji mayhave been responsible for the introduction ofbulbuls, for example (135).Military transport in recent years is thought tohave been responsible for bringing in from Guamone of the most serious non-indigenous pestthreats to Hawaii, the brown tree snake (Boigairregulars). Although the snakes were dead orseized, the possibility of their introduction remainsa serious concern (box 8-B), especiallywith the relocation of military personnel fromclosed bases in the Philippines to Singapore andGuam. Traffic between Guam and -lawaii isprojected to increase accordingly (1 1).OTHER SECTORSTwo additional groups are often high ighted fortheir impact on the NIS problem in Hawaii: sporthunters and pet keepers.Sport hunting—All of the legally huntedgame birds and mammals in Hawaii are introduced,and the maintenance of these populations—including feral ungulates-has often conflictedwith conservation of natural areas. Negativeimpacts on natural areas have been documentedfor many of the game species (27). The kalijpheasant (Lophura leucomelana), for example,feeds on and disperses the seeds of the invasivebanana poka, enhancing its spread. Game andother non-indigenous birds are also the source ofintroduced diseases afflicting indigenous birds(131). On the other hand, sport hunting providesthe State with one means of reducing feralungulates and generates almost $100,000 annuallyfrom the sale of licenses (51).The conflict may have peaked in 1988, when aFederal court found that the State Department ofLand and Natural Resources had “demonstratedsusceptibility” to hunters by not protecting thehabitat of one of Hawaii’s endangered birds, thepalila (Loxioides bailleui), from destruction byferal goats and sheep (120). Under the ruling, theState was required to remove the animals from thepalila’s habitat (see ch. 7). More recently, theState has begun to address the issue of feralungulate removal from other especially sensitivenatural areas (86).Pet trade-Animals escaped from their cagesor dumped by their owners are a common sourceof vertebrate introductions today, particularly ofbirds and reptiles (80). Several species of aquariumfish have also found their way into Hawaii’sstreams (71). According to the Hawaii Departmentof Agriculture, about 22,000 birds from U.S.and foreign sources were imported in 1989,primarily for pet stores. They also sell thousandsof rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) each year.In October 1989, a resident released six unwantedrabbits at Haleakala National Park. Feralrabbits can severely damage indigenous plantsand birds (by attracting predators), and therabbits’ eradication became the park’s top priorityonce the population was discovered. By May1991, 100 rabbits had been snared, shot, ortrapped. The emergency eradication cost $15,000(National Park money) (66). Although the rabbitswere considered eradicated in 1992, future releasesof escaped pets are expected to be arecurring problem, with no Federal, State, orisland agency mandated to prevent rabbits fromestablishing (67).Searching for SolutionsFinding:Hawaii’s geographic isolation makes it thestate most in need of a comprehensive policy toaddress NIS—virtually a separate “national”policy with its own programs and resources.The greatest challenge is to coordinate thisneed with Federal priorities, which can differ.For example, Federal port inspections and

Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida I 247Box 8-B—The Potential Invasion and Impact of the Brown Tree Snake in HawaiiThe brown tree snake has been singled out as one of the more serious-and perhaps imminent-newbiological invasions facing Hawaii. It also illustrates how approaches to such threats are often cobbled together,with unclear lines of authority or responsibility among agencies.Indigenous to the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, and northern Australia, the snake (Boiga irregulatis)has been accidentally dispersed-usually as a stowaway on planes and ships-to several Pacific Islands,including Hawaii. So far, however, the snake is only known to be established on Guam, where the social cost hasbeen great and the ecological impact disastrous.As on most Pacific Islands, the indigenous birds of Guam evolved in a snake-free habitat (the island has onlyone small, blind, wormlike snake species) and consequently lack the protective behaviors of other birds. They wereeasy prey for the bird- and egg-eating brown tree snake when it arrived sometime around 1950. Of 11 speciesof indigenous forest birds present in 194&some of which were unique to the island-9 have gone extinct onGuam. The remaining species have been drastically reduced. Experts attribute the extinctions and declines to thebrown tree snake.Along with birds, the snake also feeds on introduced rats and shrews, whose numbers have also declined.Today the snake is sustained primarily by introduced lizards. The large number of introduced species and otherecological disturbances on Guam have facilitated the snake’s invasion of the island. With a diverse and vulnerableprey base and no natural predators, the snake population has soared, reaching densities of 10,000 to 30,000 persquare mile.An able climber, the brown tree snake damages power lines, frequently interrupting service and costing Guammillions of dollars a year. Although it is not considered dangerous to human adults, it is mildly venomous and canpoison small children. During a 14-month period in Guam, 27 people were treated for snake bites at one hospitalemergency room. The 8-foot-long adult snake commonly enters homes through sewer lines, air conditioning vents,and other openings.Several characteristics of the brown tree snake make it a likely candidate for invading other islands fromGuam. “It is tolerant of disturbed habitats and can maintain dense populations near shipping ports. it is nocturnal[hiding during the day] and readily escapes detection in or around cargo. It is able to live for long periods of timewithout food, and is thus able to survive for long periods in ships’ holds or cargo bays of aircraft. Finally, the broadrange of feeding habits ensures that snakes arriving in new environments will adapt to available lizard, bird, andmammal prey species and will therefore be likely to successfully colonize [a new] island” (32). Several reports in1992 of snake sightings on Saipan in the Marianas, a U.S. Trust Territory, have raised suspicions that the browntree snake may be colonizing that island.The increased threat to Hawaii-where the climate is hospitable, habitats have been extensively disturbed,and many indigenous and introduced species exist as a potential prey base-is seen to be the result of t he highsnake densities on Guam and t he frequent number of military and civilian flights from the island. The brown treesnake has turned up in Hawaii at least six times between 1981 and 1991, at Honolulu International Airport, BarbersPoint Naval Air Station, and Hickam Air Force Base. Two snakes were found on the same day in September 1991:one crushed on an airport runway, the other live, coiled underneath a military transport that had arrived 12 hoursearlier.Pest problems are best contained by interceptions at the points of departure, and inspection of military flightsdeparting Guam for Hawaii (typically five per week) is said to have been tightened as awareness of the threat hasincreased. Jurisdictional questions remain, however, about inspection of the 10 to 15 civilian flights perweek-whether it is a Federal, Territorial, or State (Hawaii) responsibility. Such questions have resulted in agenerally uncoordinated response to the problem.(continued on next page)

248 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 8-B-The Potential Invasion and Impact of the Brown Tree Snake in Hawaii-ContinuedThe main vehicle for the Federal Government’s response has been a line item in the budget for the Officeof Territorial and International Affairs in the Department of the Interior. Beginning in 1990, the office has received$500,000 to $600,000 annually for brown tree snake research and control, with $100,000 to$200,000 earmarkedfor the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, to explore the use of dogs in detecting snakes. The remainder has beendisbursed to Guam; a Fish and Wildlife Service research program; and, beginning in fiscal year 1992, the AnimalDamage Control unit of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Alsobeginning in 1992, the Department of Defense (DOD) was appropriated $1 million in new money for brown treesnake research and control, in addition to funds available for the brown tree snake through its Legacy program(which provides for natural resources management on DOD lands).In addition to these appropriations, Congress has addressed the brown tree snake in several pieces oflegislation. The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPACA) of 1990, 1 which focuseson the zebra mussel, directs that a program be developed to control the snake in Guam and other areas. Two otherbills direct that the Secretary of Defense 2 and the Secretary of Agriculture 3 take steps to prevent the introductionof the brown tree snake into Hawaii. In Hawaii, in addition to the federally funded airport dog teams for snakedetection, State-run SWAT teams have been established on each of the islands to respond in the event of snakesightings.Despite these actions-as well as a memorandum of agreement intended to coordinate the various State,Territorial, and Federal departments involved-the overall Federal response to the brown tree snake is perceivedin Hawaii to have been uneven and sometimes slow. A committee to carry out the NANPACA-directed activitieswas not in place until 1993, and no agency has taken on the crucial task of inspecting civilian aircraft in Guambefore departure.Ultimately, safeguarding Hawaii and the Pacific basin will depend on establishment of long-term control onGuam. Research by the Fish and Wildlife Service is aimed at an ecological control, along with more immediatecontrols such as the use of methyl bromide for fumigating cargo and the use of toxicants, baits, and traps. Costsfor the various controls that would need development have been estimated to be about $2.5 million annually overseveral years.1 poLo 101-646, WC. 1~9,2 ~Wrtment of Defense authorization, P.L. 102.190, ~. ~“3 Farm Bill TecJlni~l c~rre~ti~ns, p,L, 102,237, see, 1012,SOURCES: T.H. Fritts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ssrvice, 7he Smwr Tree Snake:A HarrnfidPestSpedes (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1988); J. Engbring and T.H. Fritts, “Demise of an insuiar Avifauna: The Brown Tree Snake on Guam,” Transactkws oftbeWssterrr Section of the 144/d/ife Society, vol. 24, 196S, pp. 31-37; T.H. Fritts, personal communications to the Office of TechnologyAssessment, Jan. 10, Jan. 30, and December 1992; G.R. bong and P. MoGarey, legislative asaietants to Sen. D.K Akaka, personaicommunications to Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 6, 19S2, and Dec. 3,1992, respectively; P, Deiongohamps, Offioe of Territorialand International Affairs, personal communications to Offioe of Technology Assessment, May 22 and December 1992; L Nakaharaj plantQuarantine Manager, Hawaii Department of Agriculture, personal communication to Office of T*noiogy Assessment, Apr. 16,1992 andJune 23, 1993.quarantines are directed at protecting mainlandagriculture and enforcing internationaltrade agreements, sometimes at the expense ofHawaii’s natural resources and agriculture.FEDERAL INVOLVEMENTHawaii’s experience with NIS is also distinctivein terms of Federal involvement. Hawaii isthe only State where all passengers and cargoenroute to other States (to the U.S. mainland) aresubject to “preclearance activity” by Federalagricultural inspectors, a function of Hawaii’sgeographic isolation and a Federal quarantineimposed before Hawaiian statehood. Agriculturalinspection of traffic from the mainland to Hawaii,however, is for the most part left to the State; the

Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida I 249nature of mainland pest problems do not meet theexisting criteria to warrant Federal inspection ofHawaii-bound passengers and goods.The domestic quarantine on Hawaii has in turnled to Federal inspection of first-class mailleaving Hawaii and a recent proposal (whichfailed) to collect inspection fees from passengersdeparting the State for the mainland, The Federalintent of all these actions, along with the proposedfruit fly eradication program (box 8-A), has beenprotection of mainland agriculture. An unintendedeffect, however, has been creation of adouble standard, since reciprocal protective measureshave not been applied to Hawaii. In 1992,Congress took action to begin to redress thisimbalance; any changes in the system have yet tobe evaluated.Details about the Hawaii quarantine, inspectionfee, and first-class mail issues follow.Hawaii quarantine—Passage of the PlantQuarantine Act? led to the quarantine of Hawaiito prevent importation of the Mediterranean fruitfly and other agricultural pests. 5 The U.S. Departmentof Agriculture (USDA) began inspectinggoods bound for the U.S. mainland in 1910 andgoods arriving in the islands from foreign ports in1949. Hawaii’s own plant and animal quarantineswere begun before the turn of the century.The Federal quarantine regulations stipulatethat cargo and passengers from Hawaii to the U.S.mainland are to be inspected by USDA’s Animaland Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) forprohibited materials (fresh produce, cut flowers,and other plant materials). Certain products areallowed provided they are treated or handledaccording to prescribed methods to kill any pests.This preclearance activity, aimed at preventingpests from reaching the mainland, accounts forabout 85 percent of APHIS Plant Pest Quarantineactivity in Hawaii (106). Inspection ofships and planes arriving from foreign countriesaccounts for 15 percent. The division of resourcesis said to be roughly proportional to the numberof domestic and foreign passengers.APHIS inspection of foreign arrivals focuseson federally prohibited agricultural pest species,which in turn reflects the temperate climate thatpredominates in the United States (1 10). Thispolicy may allow new pests into Hawaii thatcould otherwise be avoided, For example, Stateofficials tried unsuccessfully to have a mealybugpest (Pseudococcus elisae) of bananas declared afederally prohibited species after it repeatedlyturned up in the mid- 1980s on bananas fromCentral America that were shipped from the U.S.mainland, where they are inspected by APHIS.The mealybug eventually slipped into Hawaii,became established, and has resulted in lostmarkets: California rejected shipments of cutflowers from Hawaii because of mealybug infestation(124).Since the State has no authority over foreigntraffic, State agricultural inspectors rely on Federalinspectors (table 8-3) for referrals in order tointercept State-prohibited species. Cooperationamong the agencies in this regard is generally saidto be good, although neither State nor Federalinspection staffing has kept pace with the growthin traffic through Hawaii in recent years. Between1971 and 1988, for example, State inspectionactivities on Oahu increased by a total of 138 to1000 percent, while staffing increased by 15percent (49). In the last 5 years, APHIS hasreceived less than its requested budget, andstaffing has remained constant, although the 1992budget allowed for an increase (52).Over the past decade, Customs has undergonea change in policy, from one of inspection of allforeign arrivals to “profiling’’ —inspection ofonly a fraction of arrivals-in order to facilitatethe movement of passengers. In Honolulu, whichis said to be one of the stricter ports of entry intothe United States, APHIS and Customs each4Plant Quarantine Act of 1912, as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 161)57 CFR Ch. III Pti 318 (Jan. 1, 1991).

250 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesmanage to check about 15 percent of the internationalbaggage passing through the airport. (Agoal is to check all of the baggage originatingfrom high-risk areas such as the Philippines.) Incontrast, APHIS inspects all of the baggagebound for the mainland by x ray. Many observersmaintain that goods and people coming intoHawaii should be as thoroughly inspected as ismainland-bound baggage to minimize the flow ofunwanted new species into the State and, in turn,the rest of the country.Pests found on the U.S. mainland may be asthreatening to Hawaii as those brought in fromforeign points of origin: seven of the eight newinsect pests of grasses that have appeared inHawaii in the last decade occur in the continentalUnited States, including the economically importantyellow sugarcane aphid and the lessercornstalk borer (124). The transit of goods andpeople from Florida and the Caribbean throughthe mainland to Hawaii is thought to be anincreasingly common pathway of harmful newpests (7).Domestic quarantine user fees-In 1991,APHIS proposed to collect user fees from inspectedpassengers and vessels departing Hawaiifor the mainland. The user fee, of $2 perpassenger, was intended to cover the cost ofagricultural inspections, 6 in order to meet deficitreduction goals. The fee would have been similarto the fees collected by U.S. Customs andImmigration and Naturalization services.But the fee was interpreted as a “tourist tax”that discriminated against Hawaii, being the onlyState subject to domestic agricultural quarantineand inspection activities. After the rule had beenmade final, 7 the Hawaii congressional delegationtook the unusual step of inserting a provision inthe 1992 Federal budget that prohibits suchdomestic inspection user fees (45). Again, theproposed action was seen as benefiting thePROTECT HAWAll’SAGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTFROM UNWELCOME VISITORSA Guide for People Importing Plants & Animalsinto Hawaii or Exporting Plants from HawaiiDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREPlant Quarantine BranchPlant Industry DivisionInspections offoreign arrivals are intended tointercept harmful non-indigenous species, whileeducational materials are often aimed at decreasingthe number that reach inspection stations.656 Federal Register 8148 (Feb. 27, 1991).758 Federal Register 18496 (Apr. 23, 1991).

Chapter 8-Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida I 251mainland at the expense of Hawaii’s tourists andresidents.First-class mail—First-class mail and expressmail delivery services have been identified as animportant pathway for the introduction of newpests to Hawaii (figure 8-l). Plant material mailedinto the State is possibly responsible for theintroduction of the large number of whitefliesestablished in the last 25 years, since these pestscan only be transported long distances on livingplants (7). Similarly, prohibited seeds, plants,fruits, other insects, and small animals have allmade their way into Hawaii through the mail,Prohibited materials have been interceptedonly when suspicious packages were noticed andthe State informed, since domestic first-class mailis federally protected from inspection. (Foreignmail may be inspected.) Congress, however,following passage of the Agricultural QuarantineEnforcement Act, 8 which prohibits mailing ofquarantined agricultural material, authorized atrial frost-class mail inspection program in Hawaii,but only of pieces departing for the mainland.The intent was to determine if fruit flieswere arriving on the mainland through domesticfirst-class mail.The trial program, originally proposed to runfor 60 days at a cost of $30,000 in USDA funds,involved use of an APHIS dog at the mainHonolulu post office to sniff parcels for anybiological material. Reportable fruit flies, thetarget of the program, and other insect pests werefound on produce seized from 130 parcels (94),most of which were bound for California, Oregon,or Washington. According to another report onthe program, fruit flies were found in 29 of the 2million packages processed between June andOctober 1990; five contained the Mediterraneanfruit fly. The report concluded that frost-classdomestic mail from Hawaii is a means of transportfor the medfly larvae, ‘‘but that the rates arelow” (16).The trial program has been indefinitely extended,entailing three additional staff positions(107), at an estimated cost of $100,000 annually.The use of Federal funds to conduct the one-wayinspection was again perceived as discriminatoryin Hawaii, given the importance of frost-class mailas a pathway for introduction to the islands (93).Consequently, legislation readdressing the issuefor Hawaii was introduced and signed in 1992.The Alien Species Prevention and EnforcementAct 9 is intended to prevent the introduction ofnew pests to Hawaii through first-class mail byallowing inspection of incoming parcels as well.With each of these issues, the historical lack ofreciprocal protection for Hawaii’s agriculture andespecially for the large number of federally listedendangered species has created the perception ofa Federal bias, with the $17 billion Californiaagriculture industry seen as the primary beneficiary.It is frequently observed as well that thegrowing national interest in conserving tropicalforests in the developing world should be extendedto U.S. tropical forests—namely, those inHawaii (2,85).A greater Federal role in protecting Hawaiifrom new damaging introductions may also bewarranted because of the large military presencein the State. All military arrivals from foreignports, as well as military departures for themainland, are inspected in Hawaii under theauthority of Customs and APHIS. Military customsinspectors collaborate with APHIS on foreignarrivals and routinely spray plane cabinswith insecticide. Military arrivals from the mainland,however, are a State responsibility, andinspections are said to be limited (49).On the other hand, the Federal Government—namely the National Park Service-has beenconsidered the most effective manager in terms ofg Agricultural Quarantine Enforcement Act of 1988, Public Law 100574.g Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1992, Public Law 102-393, Part 3015.

252 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statespreserving Hawaii’s habitats through the controlof harmful NIS (1 12,1 14).Finding:The National Park Service devotes considerableresources to eradicating or controllingharmful NIS in Hawaii within and outsidepark boundaries. The impact of these effortsare limited, however, because State managementon its own lands has been less aggressive.Influx of a significant number of new speciesannually, despite Hawaii’s relatively strictsystem of regulating introductions, compoundsthe problem.STATE ROLEState laws governing the entry of new plant andanimal species specify protection of agriculture,the natural environment, and public health. Naturalresources, however, are said to rank behindagriculture and other economic issues, especiallytourism, as a priority for the State (61,108).Comparison with other States’ spending levelsbears out this observation.Hawaii’s Division of Forestry and Wildlife inthe Department of Land and Natural Resource,which oversees the State-owned natural areas(table 8-3), ranks 8th out of 50 States in terms ofthe area it is responsible for (900,000 acres), but38th in permanent staff and 45th in funding (13).Similarly, Hawaii ranks 44th in terms of itsannual expenditures on natural resources and theenvironment (0.85 percent of the State budget),although this ranking may reflect the State’ssmall size and relative lack of ‘brown’ environmentalproblems associated with heavily industrializedStates. In per capita spending, it ranks 29th($25.35) (10).Hawaii spends almost $1.9 million annually onits agricultural quarantine program, 90 percent ofwhich involves inspection of incoming passengersand goods and other preventive measures(50,124). But coverage of incoming traffic to theislands is still incomplete. A 1989 assessment bythe Hawaii Department of Agriculture estimatedthat the additional cost of extra staffing and 16x-ray units (for 16 baggage claims) to ensure completeinspection of incoming domestic baggagealone would be about $2.25 million (49). In contrastto Federal inspection of mainland-bound baggage,which is all x rayed, State inspectors haverelied on agriculture declaration forms to bring tolight any incoming produce, plants, or animals.Opinion differs on the efficacy of the State’simportation and quarantine system. In one highprofileexample, the importation of Christmastrees each year, the likelihood of harmful newinsect introductions has taken a backseat to atraditional societal demand. Because there is noeffective fumigant that does not damage the trees,they are only visually inspected. Christmas treeswere very likely the vehicle on which yellowjackets arrived in Hawaii, as might gypsy moths(Lymantria dispar), according to some observers.Other prevention efforts are improving. In1990, State inspectors began to use beagles tosniff baggage and cargo arriving from the mainland.Use of one portable x-ray unit for randominspection of domestic baggage was also instituted.Penalties for smuggling in prohibitedspecies have been substantially increased, and theState list of prohibited plant species is beingupdated for the first time in 10 years. To emphasizeprotection of natural areas, the Department ofLand and Natural Resources, with the support ofenvironmental groups, is exploring the possibilityof creating a separate list of State-prohibited plantspecies that threaten natural areas.Many observers point out that the most costeffectiveapproach to dealing with new pestsanywhere is to prevent their introduction (86).Hawaii clearly needs tightened inspection andquarantines to minimize the number of harmfulnew introductions. Neither State nor Federalefforts have been up to the task.Harmful new introductions are expected to bereduced once the recently authorized program forinspection of first-class mail from the mainland toHawaii is in place. New pests could be furtherreduced by inspection of:

Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida 253● all arriving international airline passengersand baggage. Complete inspection by x rayor beagles would require increased APHISstaffing and airport reconfiguration.In 1990, State inspectors began using beagles to sniffbaggage and cargo for prohibited soil, agriculturalproducts, and other biological materials.● all arriving domestic airline passengers andbaggage. Complete inspection by x ray orbeagles would require reconfiguration ofHonolulu’s airport, or that agricultural monitoringbe made along with security checks atthe main U.S. points of departure for Hawaii.Federal involvement in domestic arrivalinspections would require a change in APHIS'smandate; complete inspection by the Statewould require a redoubling of current effortsand a clarified legal mandate.● military transport arriving from the mainland,requiring increased State effort and/ormilitary effort or a change in APHIS’smandate.A more controversial option, because of objectionsby the public to pesticides, would involvetreating planes arriving from the Pacific regionwith insecticide, since visual inspection of a planeis not fail-safe. Such treatment was once routinefor mosquito (malaria) control.Shortcomings exist in the State’s efforts tocontrol and eradicate NIS. Responsibility isdivided, depending on the type of species (insect,plant, or other animal); whether it has an economicimpact; and where the infestation isoccurring. Response to emergencies is said to beslow for this reason. The jurisdictional difficultiesof controlling pest species on private land is aparticular problem (86).Monitoring to detect pests before they becometoo widespread to eradicate is also incomplete.The Hawaii Department of Agriculture maintainsa program using traps, sweepings, and surveys todetect new insect pests, but there is no clear authorityfor monitoring in cases like feral rabbits.EDUCATIONFinding:Public education is considered central tosolving problems involving NIS in Hawaii.These efforts are better developed in Hawaiithan elsewhere in the United States.Education is repeatedly cited as the primarytool for enlisting the public’s cooperation incontaining the problem of harmful NIS. The stateof public understanding about the issue in Hawaiiis probably no different than anywhere else, butthe ecological repercussions of a lack of publicunderstanding are more severe, as in the case ofthe released rabbits in Haleakala National Park.The rabbit case also indicates how effectivepublic education can be. Park-generated publicityand media attention resulted in calls from thepublic about rabbit sightings. The pet owner

254 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesresponsible for the release was unaware of therabbits’ impact and was said to be apologetic. Theincident led to a proposal to create a National ParkService public outreach position devoted to suchissues. The idea was praised, although it did notreceive funding.Other public and private groups in Hawaii havebegun educational campaigns related to NIS,including the Alien Species Alert Program (ASAP)of the Hawaii State office of the National AudubonSociety; publicity about prohibitions of mailingfruits and vegetables to the mainland by theUSDA and the U.S. Postal Service; informationaloutreach about indigenous species by the Divisionof Forestry and Wildlife; and the Bishop Museum’sOhia project (named for a common indigenoustree), a grade school curriculum designed toincrease understanding of Hawaii’s ecology.In February 1992, the Hawaii Department ofAgriculture publicized a l-week amnesty programencouraging residents to turn in illegalanimals. The campaign netted 53 animals, includingsnakes, other reptiles and amphibians, harvesterants, hamsters, and birds (82).The traveling public is singled out as an importanttarget for educators. As one botanist puts it:“Tourists come for the scenery, but unlessthey’ve been educated, they won’t care if theplants are native or not, just as long as the hills aregreen. There has been little effort to informvisitors of Hawaii’s NIS problem by posters,amnesty buckets, or other means upon arrival,although a State-funded educational video beganto be shown on flights of a few domestic carriersin 1992.The brief video (“It Came From Beyond”)takes a decidedly friendly approach to informingvisitors about NIS and is expected to reduce thenumber of ‘‘innocent’ introductions; some observersbelieve a stern approach emphasizing thelaw with its steep fines and penalties is necessaryto reduce the potentially more harmful flow ofsmuggled species, which are probably morecommonly brought in by residents with commercialor hobby interests.Educational efforts in Hawaii also need to bedeveloped and targeted to the State’s diversecultural and ethnic groups. An edible gourdproducingvine (Coccinia grandis) that has recentlybecome a weed in Hawaii might have beenintentionally brought in as a delicacy fromSoutheast Asia, for example.COOPERATIVE EFFORTSFinding:In recent years, various groups in Hawaii—from State and Federal agencies, nongovernmentalorganizations, agriculture, and universities—havetaken a strong interest in NIS.Increasingly, they view harmful NIS as aunifying threat.Awareness of the widespread impact of damagingNIS in Hawaii has prompted a high degree ofcooperation across diverse groups. One sucheffort involves an interagency agreement toresearch the biological control of forest weeds, anarea that no agency was adequately addressingdespite the spread of weeds like banana poka. Theagreement involves the National Park Service;U.S. Forest Service; Hawaii’s Division of Forestryand Wildlife and Department of Agriculture;and the University of Hawaii.There is growing interest in Hawaii in expandinginteragency cooperation to address the largerjurisdictional and informational gaps in the presentsystem. Most of the agencies involved aresupporting a plan by the Nature Conservancy ofHawaii and the Natural Resources Defense Councilon improving interagency cooperation (86)(box 8-C). A single interagency system mayprove more effective for Hawaii’s particularneeds than applying stop-gap measures to theexisting approach.NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES IN FLORIDAFinding:The problems caused by non-indigenousspecies (NIS) in Florida are among the mostsevere in the United States. Certain features of

Chapter 8—Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida I 255Box 8-C-A View From Hawaii: Recommendations of the Nature Conservancy andNatural Resources Defense CouncilIn 1992, the Nature Conservancy of Hawaii and the Natural Resources Defense Council released a detailedanalysis of the “alien pest species invasion in Hawaii” and offered a plan to create a coordinated multiagencyresponse to the problems, to be led by the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. It does not, however, advocatecentralizing all inspection or other activities under one agency. The report stresses public education andinvolvement in curbing Hawaii’s pest problems and identifies the following areas that need initial attention:. Pre-entry prevention, Visa applications, importation permits, travel and tourist materials, mail order andshipping instructions, and similar materials should be reviewed with an eye to stopping pests at their origin.Similarly, international inspections and trade agreements should be reviewed and improved.. Port-of-entry sampling and inspection. Methods for sampling and inspection should be developed to meeta standard of pest interceptions.● Statutes, policy, and rules. Conflicts and gaps in authority should be identified and resolved. A clear systemfor allowing and prohibiting species should be created.. Rapid response. Specific plans for dealing with new infestations should be created, including centralreporting mechanisms, staffing and equipment concerns, contingency funding, and identification of prioritypests.● Statewide control. Federal, State, and private groups should collaborate in developing strategies to isolateor eradicate selected major pests.The report further identifies several long-range needs, namely, joint training among agencies for inspectionand response activities, coordinated information systems, coordinated research for prevention and controlmethods, and expanded public awareness campaigns. The pest prevention and control systems of New Zealandand Australia are highlighted as instructive models for Hawaii (see box l-D).SOURCE: The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii and Natural Resources Defense Council, “The Alien Pest Species Invasion in Hawaii:Background Study and Recommendations for Interagency Planning,” July 1992.the State have contributed to the problems: thesubtropical climate; major ports of entry;burgeoning pet, aquarium, and ornamentalplant industries; high rates of human immigration;increasing urbanization; and extensiveenvironmental manipulation.The Nature of the ProblemFlorida is renowned for its mild climate,abundant waterways, beaches, and other naturalattractions. Its freshwater lakes and streamsafford recreation, navigation, commercial fishing,and wildlife habitat (57). Its major forest types,various mixtures of oak and pine (22), are crucialfor wildlife as well as timber. South Floridacontains one of the largest complexes of preservedecosystems in the eastern United States,totaling about 3,500 square miles: EvergladesNational Park, Big Cypress National Preserve,Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and FakahatcheeStrand Preserve (figure 8-2).South Florida also contains troublesome infestationsof several aggressive non-indigenousplants, most of which were deliberately introduced(30). The State has approximately 925established non-indigenous plant species (130).Non-indigenous plants and land mammalsconstituteabout 25 percent of all species in the State(table 8-5). Sixty-three percent of the introducednon-indigenous bird species in the continentalUnited States are found in Florida (l), which alsohas the largest number of established nonindigenousamphibian and reptile species in theUnited States (136).Non-indigenous species cause severe ecological,economic, and resource management prob-

256 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesFigure 8-2—Protected Areas in Southern Florida. c, , ,,.,/. T-@l. . S% \> ‘0.,s,,.,.Beach. WCA2Bti~Miami.;:~; /Acquisition AreaBiscayne,.-. . . . . . . . ,, ~ay.:. ‘:::”:....,.!:O-. . . .~d. . . Homesteadf, Florida\7BayAl‘L+?SOURCE: Adapted by OTA from M. Bodie, South Fiorida Water Management District, West Paim Beach, FL.

Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida 257Table 8-5-Estimated Numbers ofNon-Indigenous Species in FloridaGroup Established NIS Total speciesPlants. . . . . . . . . . .Insects . . . . . . . . . .Freshwater snails .Land snails . . . . . .Freshwater fish . . .Amphibians , . . . . .Reptiles . . . . . . . . .Birds . . . . . . . . . . .Land mammals . . .27164019“32211b173,450981408055100607’70a D~crib~ as “estab~ish~” and including one transplant; 4 otherspecies are “possibly established,” 9are “formerly reproducing,” and41 are “collected w“thout evidence of reproduction.”b Aithough on~ 11 are considered established, at least 140 have benclassified as “free-flying exotics.”c Many birds found in Flortia are migratory and * not bred there.SOURCES: Compiled by the Office of Technology Assessment from:R. Ashton and P. Ashton, Handbook of Reptiles and Amphibians ofFlorida, Parts 1,2,3 (Miami, FL: Windward Publishers Inc., 1981, 1985,1888); J.H. Frank and E.D. McCoy, ‘The Immigration of Insects toFlorida, With A Tabulation of Records Published Since 1970,” Flor@aEntorrro/ogist, vol. 75, No. 1, 1992, pp. 1-28; J.N. Layne, Checklist ofRecent Florida Mammals, MS, 1987, 10 pp.; W.B. Robertson, Jr. andG.E. Woolfenden, Florida Bkd Species: An Annotated Usf, SpecialPublication No. 6 of the Florida Ornithological Society, Gainesville,Florida, 1992, 260 pp.; P.L. Shafland, “Management of IntroducedFreshwater Fishes In Florida,” Proceedings of the 1990 InvitationalSymposium/Workshop: New Directions in Research, Management andConservation of Hawaiian Stream Ecosystems, Hawaii Dept. of NaturalResources, Div. of Aquatic Resources, Honolulu, Hi, 1991; L.A.Stange, “Snails and Slugs of Florida,” Flortia Garden Guide, January/February 1980, pp. 1-2; D.R. Thompson, APHISWSDA, personalcommunication, May 27, 1992; D.B. Ward, “How Many Plant SpedesAre Native to Florida?” Paknetto, winter 89/90, 1989-90; and L D.Wilson, Professor of Biology, Miami Dade Community College, Miami,FL, personal communication to D.W. Johnston.lems in the State, They have had negative impactson fishing and water sports and have degradedwildlife habitat, decreased biological diversity,and altered natural ecosystems. Future harmfuleffects on agriculture and human health can beanticipated from continued immigrations of insectsand plant pathogens (39), as well as continuedrange expansion of established NIS (81).Disturbed areas-construction sites, abandonedfarm land, drained or stressed wetlands, roadsides,and canals and ditches—are often the siteswhere NIS gain footholds and eventually becomeestablished. In such areas NIS often displaceindigenous forms, thus altering ecosystem dynamics.Debate persists as to whether NIS becomeestablished by actively out-competing anddisplacing indigenous species even in undisturbedareas or whether they primarily colonizedisturbed habitats that are no longer optimumsites for indigenous species. In many southFlorida urban and suburban sites, a lizard, theinvasive Cuban brown anole (Anolis sagrei) hasout-competed, and thereby replaced, the indigenousgreen anole (Anolis carolinensis) (136).Undisturbed areas are difficult for many NIS tocolonize, but most of Florida’s natural areas andwaterways have experienced disturbance in somevarying degrees, thus making them prone to NISinvasions (35,8 1).Other conditions in Florida favor the introductionand establishment of NIS. The State has asubtropical climate and prolonged growing season;abundant freshwater resources; large andgrowing industries of aquiculture, ornamentaland nursery plants, and the pet trade; a thrivingtourist industry; and cargo flights originating inCentral and South America (102).● Subtropical Climate. Florida’s subtropicalclimate is attractive to people and to certainindustries, such as those dealing with ornamentaland aquarium plants. The climate is moderatedby large bodies of water on three sides.Furthermore, Florida is as close to the equatoras is any conterminous State, so that most of itis in the humid subtropical climatic zone; thesouthern tip, from approximately Lake Okeechobeesouthward, is tropical savanna, the onlysuch zone in the United States (22). Areas inthis last zone are always hot, with alternate dryand wet seasons.The State has an average annual maximumtemperature of 82 degrees F and an averageannual minimum temperature of 63 degrees F(137). Winter temperatures (40 degrees F andlower), especially in south-central Florida, probablylimit the northward dispersal of many NIS(100,103,136). Florida is one of the wettestStates, with an average annual rainfall of 53

258 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesinches (60 or more inches in southeastern andpanhandle parts). This climate is conducive tothe establishment of many NIS of tropicalorigin. Florida is also subject to tropicalweather systems, such as 1992’s HurricaneAndrew, which can facilitate the spread of NISthrough disturbance (box 8-D).Routes of Entry. Florida has numerous pathwaysof entry for NIS. Large numbers of plants(333 million in 1990) and animals pass throughMiami International Airport each year, theshipments originating chiefly in Latin America;85 percent of all plant shipments into theUnited States pass through the Miami InspectionStation (118). The shipments are destinedfor a great variety of ornamental, nursery, andlandscaping businesses; the aquarium industry;and commercial pet trade. This influx of NISsets the stage for potential escapes and unintentionaland intentional releases.Unintentional releases and escapes fromanimal dealers, aquiculture, subsequent purchasers,public and private collections, andtourist attractions have been documented (92,95).Specific examples of harmful or potentiallyharmful species are the African giant snail(Achatina fulica) (1 11), cane toad (Bufo marinus)(136), and monk parakeet (Myiopsittamonachus) (95).Deliberate introductions for sport, biologicalcontrol, food, pharmaceutical material or dyestuffs,ornamental uses, and aesthetics are alsowell known in Florida (98). In the 1800s andearly 1900s, botanist David Fairchild importedlarge volumes of non-indigenous plants intoFlorida (96). Since 1900, the most disastrousdeliberate introduction has been that of melaleuca(Melaleuca quinquenervia), a fast-growing treebrought in to dry out the swamplands of southFlorida. Another tree, Brazilian pepper (Schinusterebinthifolius), introduced for its showyfoliage, is also spreading rapidly in southFlorida. At least two introduced aquatic plantscontinue to cause extensive ecological andeconomic damage: hydrilla (Hydrilla verticil-●●lata) and the showy water hyacinth (Eichhorniacrassipes) (97). Plant pathogens and otherstowaways have concomitantly gained entrythrough importation of foodstuffs and plants onships or aircraft (28).In the 19th century and as late as 1941,several insects, such as mole crickets (Scapteriscusvicinus and S. acletus) and a variety ofbeetles, probably arrived in ship ballast (96).For most non-indigenous plants and someanimals, however, the exact path of entry intothe State is unknown.Industries Dealing With NIS. Several industrieshave played large direct or indirectroles in the introduction of harmful NIS intoFlorida. A $1 billion woody ornamental industrycontinues to import large numbers of plantsfor landscaping and shade. A few woodyornamental, such as Australian pine (Casuarinaequisetifolia) and Brazilian pepper, havebecome major pest plants in Florida (79).Florida’s aquiculture industry is the largest ofany state; tropical fish and aquarium plantsshipped from Florida are valued at $170million annually, according to the FloridaTropical Fish Farms Association. Most ofFlorida’s 19 non-indigenous fish species escapedfrom aquarium fish culture facilities(25). The aquarium plant trade introducedhydrilla into canals near Tampa about 1950,and later into Miami canals and the CrystalRiver (58). Pet merchants and pet owners havebeen implicated in the escape of tropical birds,reptiles, and mammals (92,122).Human Population Growth. Florida continuesto be one of the fastest g-rowing States: its 1990population totaled 12.9 million, an increase of32.8 percent since 1980 (127). Populationgrowth over the years has increased pressure todevelop more land and to make adequate watersupplies available. Most of the natural ecosystemsof south Florida have been severelyaltered. The disturbed areas-urban, suburban,and rural-have become prime sites for colonizationby non-indigenous plants and animals.

Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida 259Box 8-D—Non-indigenous Species and the Effects of Hurricane AndrewOn the morning of August 24,1992, the small but intense Hurricane Andrew cut a25-mile swath across southFlorida fromt he Dade County coast westward to Monroe Count y’s west coast. Alt hough total rainfall was relativelylight (5 inches or less), maximum sustained winds were 135 to 140 miles per hour and gusts exceeded 164 milesper hour. Estimates of property damage to urban and suburban sites reached $20 billion, thus ranking HurricaneAndrew as among the costliest natural disasters in U.S. history. Natural areas were also affected. The hurricanecaused an estimated $51 million in damage at Everglades and Biscayne National Parks and Big Cypress NationalPreserve.A large number of non-indigenous animals escaped from captivity when zoos, pet stores, and tropical fishfarms were destroyed, Escapees included fish, lizards, nonvenomous snakes, birds, and primates (e.g., some 500macaque monkeys and 20 baboons).Based on knowledge of the ecology of non-indigenous trees in south Florida and their invasions enhancedby two previous hurricanes (Donna in 1960 and Betsy in 1965), a significant increase in the spread of somenon-indigenous plants can be predicted fort he next few years. The hurricane spread melaleuca seeds (Melaleucaquhquenervia) and other non-indigenous plants in its path, thus setting back years of efforts to control melaleucain t he East Everglades. Newly disturbed natural communities in south Florida will be more susceptible to invasions.Other potential problems might come from escaped non-indigenous invertebrates and plants that are not alreadyestablished in south Florida.As a direct result of the hurricane, Florida’s Department of Natural Resources estimates that mechanical andchemical control of non-indigenous plants over the next 5 years will cost $14 million, approximately tripling costs.Because those control measures might not completely eliminate harmful NIS, the Department recommends thatbiological control agents be introduced as quickly as possible. For species of primary concern in the aftermath ofthe hurricane-melaleuca, Australian pine (Casaurina equisetjfolia), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius),lather leaf (Colubrina asiatica), and air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera)-funding for research, quarantine andgrow-out facilities are estimated to be $53 million over the next 10 years.SOURCES: A. DePalma, “Storm Offers Chance to Rethink Everglades,” The New York Times, Sept. 29, 1992, p. A14; G.E. Davis et al.(eds.), “Assessment of Hurricane Andrew Impacts on Natural and Archaeological Resources of Big Cypress National Preserve,” BiscayneNational Park, and Everglades National Pati, Draft Report, U.S. National Park Service, Atlanta, GA, Sept. 15-24, 1992; Exotic Pest PlantCouna”/ Newsletter, vol. 2, No. 3, fall 1992; Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, “Effects of Hurricane Andrew on fish andWildlife of South Florida: A Preliminary Assessment,” Tallahassee, FL, Sept. 25, 1992; D. Schmitz, personal communication to Offica ofTechnology Assessment, Jan. 21, 1993.Causes and ConsequencesFindings:Natural habitats, especially in south Florida,have been altered or lost by drainage andwater storage projects, urban and suburbanland development, and land reclamation foragriculture. Harmful NIS often invade andbecome established in altered ecosystems fromwhich they can invade surrounding areas.Invasive NIS in the State have disruptednavigation and recreational activities, displacedindigenous wildlife and their habitats,and reduced biological diversity. Severe ecologicaland economic impacts from severalaquatic plants, such as hydrilla and waterhyacinth, and trees, such as melaleuca andBrazilian pepper, have been documented.The most conspicuous non-indigenous plantsin Florida are aquatic weeds (e.g., water hyacinthand hydrilla) and trees (melaleuca, Australianpine, and Brazilian pepper). Their success is dueto their ecological characteristics as well as thecondition of the ecosystem being invaded. Indisturbed ecosystems, NIS are sometimes betteradapted than indigenous species. Aquatic plantshave clogged waterways, hindered navigation,disrupted fishing and water sports, and smotherednatural vegetation. In drier habitats, invasive trees

260 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Stateshave often created monoculture, displacing indigenousspecies, decreasing biological diversity,and destroying wildlife habitats. Insects, pathogens,and nematodes have caused damage toagricultural crops. Several invading plants andinsects have created public health problems.Invasion and establishment of many nonindigenousplants and animals is closely related tothe degree of ecosystem disruption. Alterations toaccommodate water management projects, humanpopulation growth, and agriculture have beenespecially important (81 ,98).WATER MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH FLORIDAWater management programs in the southeasternpart of the State have greatly contributed tothe spread of non-indigenous plants and fishes(83). Waterways and marshes were among thefrost natural systems in Florida to be affected byincreasing numbers of people because of demandsfor irrigation, urban water supplies, andrecreation.As early as 1907, drainage of south Florida’sEverglades was promoted for land reclamation, toreduce flooding, and to supply water to developingsoutheastern coastal cities (42). Drainage wasaccelerated in the 1930s, and by 1947, the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers had created the EvergladesAgricultural Area and a plan for managementof Everglades’ waters, thus laying the basefor the vast urban areas now found on Florida’ssoutheast coast. Areas along the eastern margin ofthe Everglades, critical to movement of its watersunderground, are now drained and paved.Today, a complex network of canals, dams,pumping stations, and levees stretches from LakeOkeechobee to southern Dade County, just east ofEverglades National Park (119). This network—80 percent of it federally funded and built by theCorps of Engineers-now controls flooding anddiverts large volumes of water for agriculture andcoastal urban areas. Half the Everglades-onceoccupying about 3,600 square miles, perhaps thelargest wetland in North America-is now farms,groves, pastures, and cities. The remaining frag-Altered hydrology in south Florida has been linked tothe spread of non-indigenous fish, aquatic plants, andtrees-such as melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia).ments of natural communities now function sopoorly that plant and animal life suffers as waterand food supplies are diminished, distorted, andpolluted (132).Altered hydrology in the East Everglades hasbeen linked to the spread of non-indigenous treessuch as melaleuca (104). This alteration of thenatural water flow has decreased populations ofnesting wading birds (92) and accelerated theproliferation and spread of non-indigenous fishesand aquatic plants (24,59,60,102).Some 700,000 acres of agricultural land justsouth of Lake Okeechobee-nearly two-thirds ofit in sugar cane-not only use much of southFlorida’s water, but also release run-off contaminatedwith nitrogen and phosphorus (105). Excessivegrowth of hydrilla and other plants has beenlinked to this increased pollution (15).URBANIZATIONFlorida’s population in 1990 was concentratedin three principal areas: Miami-Fort Lauderdale(3.19 million), Tampa-St. Petersburg (2.1 million),and Orlando (1.1 million) (127). Naturalareas, such as the Atlantic Coastal Ridge andscrub communities, have been developed tosupply urban demands for house sites, municipal

.Chapter 8–Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida 1261services, and landscaping. Many urban sites insouth Florida have become dominated by NIS,especially ornamental plants, birds, and fishes(23,59,122,136).Many non-indigenous animal species are todayfound chiefly or entirely in urban and suburbanareas of south Florida. Collectors, hobbyists, andpet owners have deliberately or accidentallyreleased tropical fish, mammals, birds, reptiles,and invertebrates into urban and suburban settingswhere they find plentiful food, breedingsites, shelter, and a subtropical climate conduciveto growth and reproduction (25,31,72,95,136). Incities, non-indigenous birds such as parrots havefew predators, diseases, or parasites (122). Atports of entry, such as Miami, stowaway insectsand other invertebrates have escaped from theirimported hosts (28). The Asian tiger mosquito(Aedes albopictus) commonly breeds in waterthat collects in waste tire dumps and flower potsin cemeteries (89).THE SPREAD OF MELALEUCAThe last three decades have been marked by anexplosive invasion of melaleuca across southFlorida (53), where some 450,000 acres areinfested (73). In 1983, its estimated rate of spreadwas 8 acres per day, but less than a decade laterthe rate is estimated to be 50 acres per day. Thus,melaleuca has the potential to invade all of southFlorida’s wetlands within the next 50 years (37).Indigenous to Australia, melaleuca’s releasefrom natural competitors, predators, and diseaseand its characteristics of prolific seed productionand adaptation to fire have facilitated its spread.Its monoculture have replaced sawgrass marshes,sloughs, forests, and other natural habitats to theextent that melaleuca is now regarded as the mostserious threat to the integrity of all south Florida’snatural systems (74).Because of its proximity to the numerousmelaleuca plantings in the urban areas of the PalmBeaches, Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refugehas one of the most severe infestations ofmelaleuca anywhere in the Everglades. The treeswere rare in the 1960s, but by 1990, 14 percent ofthe refuge was moderately to heavily infested(36). Moderate to heavy infestations also occur inBig Cypress National Preserve, the eastern half ofthe East Everglades Acquisition area, in marshesof Okeechobee, in large areas of Broward andDade counties east of the Everglades, and in anarea designated Water Conservation Area 2-B.Equally severe problems exist on the west coastof Florida from Charlotte Harbor to U.S. Highway41 (74).ECONOMIC COSTSThe various control programs for melaleucahave been expensive. Since 1986, 2 millionmelaleuca and Australian pine stems have beentreated in the East Everglades at a cost of$287,000 for helicopter services and herbicides(104). Mehdeuca management costs in the BigCypress National Preserve were $60,000 in 1989.Costs for mechanical removal of trees range from$500 to $2,000 per acre. Estimated melaleucamanagement costs in recent years for WaterConservation Areas 2-A, 2-B, 3 in south Florida,and Lake Okeechobee have been nearly $1million annually (74).One estimate in 1991 placed the cost ofmelaleuca removal in Florida at $1.3 million. Forfiscal year 1992 the estimated expenditures forherbicide and mechanical control of melaleucawere $720,000 in the South Florida Water ManagementDistrict, $150,000 in Loxahatchee NationalWildlife Refuge, and $180,000 in EvergladesNational Park (1 17). Based on the currentrate of expansion, in one water conservation areaalone, complete eradication of melaleuca withherbicides and mechanical removal would cost$12.9 million over 5 years (1 17).The benefits and costs for removal of melaleucahave been estimated (29). The total annualbenefits, especially to tourism, of preventing acomplete infestation of melaleuca would be$168.6 million, whereas the resulting losses inhoney production and pollination services (thetree provides honey bees with nectar) would cost

262 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesonly $15 million. Thus, eradication of melaleucawould greatly benefit the State’s economy, accordingto this analysis, although some of itsassumptions may inflate the benefits (21).Florida has experienced severe economic impactsfrom other NIS as well. The economicimpact of hydrilla on tourism and recreationalfishing can be staggering. For example, a study ofOrange Lake in north central Florida indicatedthat the economic activity on the lake was almost$11 million annually, but in years when hydrillacovers the lake, these benefits are all but lost (63).During the 1980s, statewide costs for controllinghydrilla totaled approximately $50 million (98).Today hydrilla is the most costly aquatic plant tomanage, with an annual expenditure of $7 million.Since 1980, management of all nonindigenousaquatic plants by State and Federalagencies has cost $120 million (98).Consequences to the State’s agriculture alsohave been documented. The value of citrus cropsin Florida from 1955 to 1985 totaled $13.5billion. An estimated 15 percent of the citrus waslost because of the burrowing and citrus nematodes(Radopholus similis, Tylenchulus semipen -etrans), with an average annual estimated cost of$77 million (33). While the nematodes’ originsare not certain, experts speculate that one or bothare non-indigenous. Fire ants (Solenopsis invicta)from South America have extensively damagedeggplants, soybeans, and potatoes. Brazilian peppergrowing in proximity to agricultural areas isbelieved to support large populations of vegetabledamaginginsects, especially when vegetablecrops are nearing harvest (19). In 1984, the cost ofdamage and control of mole crickets in Florida,Georgia, Louisiana, and Alabama was about $45million, with most of the cost to Florida. By 1986,the losses had risen to $77 million for turf grassesalone (38).From 1957 to 1991, NIS eradication andcontrol programs cost $31 million for citruscanker (Xanthomas camestris pv. citri), $11million for fire ants, and $10 million for citrusblackfly (Aleurocanthus woglumi). In 1990 and1991, Meditemanean fruit fly (medfly) eradicationprograms totaled $0.5 million, according tothe Florida Department of Agriculture and ConsumerServices.POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL HEALTHCONSEQUENCESMany NIS have been linked to human healthproblems, and an increasing number of incidentsare reported annually in the growing urban areas.Very common trees, such as melaleuca andBrazilian pepper, can cause contact dermatitis,allergies, and respiratory problems. A large numberof other cultivated and established plants inFlorida contain some poisonous compounds (3).The Asian tiger mosquito, now in virtually allFlorida counties, can carry dengue fever and aform of equine encephalitis virus (39) (ch. 10). Inaddition to their agricultural impacts, nonindigenousfire ants can cause stings, allergicreactions, and secondary infections in people.EFFECTS ON ENDANGERED SPECIESNon-indigenous aquatic plants are threateningthe integrity of habitats occupied by certainendangered and threatened species in Florida.Both water hyacinth and water lettuce (Pistiastratiotes) can cover surface waters, thus hamperingefforts of the endangered snail kite (Rostrhamussociabilis) to find its prey (116). Nonindigenoustrees are invading habitats of theendangered Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramusmaritimus mirabilis). Australian pineshave interfered with nesting of endangered andthreatened sea turtles (84); on the other hand, theyhave improved nesting conditions for the Americanoyster catcher (Haematopus palliatus) (121).The endangered beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotusphasma) and key deer (Odocoileusvirginianus clavium) are subject to predation byferal cats or dogs (4). Populations of the endangeredOkaloosa darter (Etheostoma okatoosae)have been reduced because of competition fromthe introduced brown darter (E. edwini) (14).

Chapter 8-Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida 263CONFLICTING INTERESTS ON NON-INDIGENOUSSPECIESThe introduction of cetiain NIS into Florida hasresulted in conflicts between agencies and usergroups. Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)were introduced to control aquatic weeds (1 15),but the carp shows a preference for importantwaterfowl food plants, thus apparently causingdeclines in waterfowl populations (134). Peacockbass (Cichla spp.) were introduced to controlother non-indigenous fish and as a game fish insoutheast Florida canals (101), but the bass isslowly reducing populations of indigenous bassand bream (73). Perhaps the most troublesome ofthe 19 non-indigenous fish species is the bluetilapia (Tilapia aurea), introduced by the FloridaGame and Fresh Water Fish Commission as apossible weed-control and sport fish. Blue tilapiacompetes directly with indigenous fishes and isnow established in 18 Florida counties (73).Hunters value wild hogs (Sus scrofa) as game,and management and relocation programs arecommon in Florida. Yet wild hogs have detrimentaleffects on terrestrial habitats and are probablepublic health threats (parasites and diseases) (9).Certain aquatic plants frequently categorizedas pest species may be beneficial for wildlife.Despite extensive, costly efforts to control oreradicate hydrilla, some hunters like the plantbecause it is an important duck food and its matsprovide habitats for wintering waterfowl (44,57).At least in small amounts, it is also believed toimprove sport fishing (76).Aside from those species introduced for biologicalcontrol or sport, some NIS in Floridabenefit people and wildlife. The aesthetic valuesof colorful tropical birds are intangible, but areimportant to urban dwellers in an otherwise lesscolorful environment (92). Avid birdwatcherstravel to the Miami area to observe its nonindigenousavifauna (122). The importance ofNIS as food for indigenous wildlife is only partlyunderstood, but the endangered Florida panther(Felis concolor coryi) feeds on non-indigenousBlue tilapia (Tilapia aurea) is among the mosttroublesome of Florida’s 19 non-indigenous fishspecies.wild hogs and nine-banded armadillos (Dasypusnovemcinctus), whose negative environmentalimpacts have been documented (18,72).Non-indigenous ornamental shrubs and treesare in great demand for landscaping (because oftheir showy leaves or flowers), fruit, and shadefrom the intense sunlight of south Florida (79).Many species of introduced fig trees (Ficus spp.)line southeastern Florida’s roadsides, and Australianpines offer shade along beach fronts.POTENTIAL FUTURE IMPACTS OFNON-INDIGENOUS SPECIESBiologists and ecologists caution that manypoorly studied NIS have the potential of becomingagricultural pests, transmitting diseases, ordisplacing indigenous species. Potentially seriouspests include Cogon grass (Imperata cylindrical),which is invading pine forests (81); about 20recent insect immigrants (39); the Asiatic clam(Corbicula manilensis) (87); catclaw mimosa(Mimosa pigra var. pigra), a highly invasive plantof disturbed areas; the disease-carrying Asiantiger mosquito; and African honey bees (Apismellifera scutellata), predicted to be in Florida by1994.

264 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesI Searching for SolutionsFindings:Florida’s Exotic Pest Plant Council hasprovided an effective forum for the exchangeof ideas and conflict resolution concerningNIS. It has identified the most invasive NISand involved policy makers in its discussions.Florida’s extensive problems with NIS andits high human immigration rate suggest thatpublic education is vital to the management oreradication of NIS in the State.SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAMSThe Exotic Pest Plant Council (EPPC) was thefirst multiorganizational effort in Florida to controlnon-indigenous water weeds because of thegrowing environmental threats posed by pestplants that were crossing political and jurisdictionalboundaries. EPPC is an organization of 40member agencies, and local and private groups.Through frequent meetings, a newsletter, andother publications, EPPC promotes coordinatedefforts in developing management programs. Italso assists in writing appropriate legislation;pushes for State and Federal funds to manageinvasive plants in wetlands and upland forests;and organizes symposia to bring together scientists,policymakers, and the public to exchangeinformation and formulate plans (30).EPPC assisted in coordinating efforts by theNational Park Service, Dade County Departmentof Environmental Resource Management, SouthFlorida Water Management District, and theFlorida Department of Corrections to establishand maintain a melaleuca-free buffer zone alongthe eastern boundary of Everglades National Park(the East Everglades).Because of melaleuca’s highly invasive nature,its control and eradication have received toppriority in the East Everglades, South FloridaWater Management District, Loxahatchee NationalWildlife Refuge, and other sites in southFlorida. At least three techniques are currently inuse: manual removal of seedlings and youngtrees, mechanical removal of older trees, andherbicides (62).The future use of biological control agents hasbeen identified as one of the keys to effective,long-lasting management of melaleuca (5). Majorefforts are under way to identify natural controlsfor melaleuca, both in the United States andAustralia. Even after biological control agents areidentified, several years must pass before theireffectiveness can be determined. Meanwhile,herbicidal and mechanical control will be neededto arrest further spread of the tree (74).Control of Australian pine and Brazilian pepperdemands a combination of mechanical removaland herbicides. Hydrilla is currently managedat considerable cost with herbicides andmechanical removal and in some cases withsterile triploid grass carp. At one time, waterhyacinth infested more than 120,000 acres ofFlorida waterways. Herbicidal and mechanicalcontrols have limited the plant to less than 3,000acres in public waters (98). Three natural enemies,the bagoine weevil (Bagous affinis) and twoleaf-mining flies (Hydrellia spp.), also showsome promise in controlling hydrilla (62). Managementof these and other species would benefitfrom increased coordination.Several other control and eradication projectshave been successful in Florida. In the mid- 1980sat least 18 million young citrus trees weredestroyed to eradicate citrus canker (99). Otherspecies successfully eradicated include themedfly; the giant African snail; and 13 species ofinsects, viruses, and rusts, according to theDivision of Plant Industry in Florida.LONG-TERM NEEDSResource managers in Florida stress that successfulmanagement and eradication programs forexisting and future problem NIS in Florida willrequire an educated public along with coordinationamong agencies, long-range planning, andconsistent funding.Inventories of existing harmful NIS, theirdistribution, and impacts in the State are needed

Chapter 8—Two Case Studies: Non-lndigeneous Species in Hawaii and Florida 265Department of Environmental Regulation and theSouth Florida Water Management District for notenforcing water quality standards for water enteringEverglades National Park. In July 1993, theseparties, along with agricultural interests, environmentalgroups, and Indian tribes, agreed to amediated framework for a 20-year, $465 millionrestoration and clean up plan. The impact of theseefforts on harmful NIS will not be clear for sometime.The critically endangered Florida panther (Felisconcolor coryi) and other indigenous species rely onremnants of undisturbed habitat that are susceptible todamage by non-indigenous species.to develop priorities for management. Earlydetection of damages enhances the probability ofsuccess in controlling any pest (20). Because theestablishment and spread of any NIS may be dueto a lack of natural enemies, the search forbiological control agents is an important consideration.Relatively undisturbed ecosystems in Floridaare fast disappearing and are usually representedby small fragments of their original extent. Theseareas warrant special attention to protect themfrom injurious NIS. The State needs to enhancestrategies for controlling or eradicating injuriousnon-indigenous animals such as wild hogs (75).Ample evidence indicates that the existingmanagement of water flow through the Evergladeshas altered hydroperiods and contributedto the invasion of non-indigenous trees. A newdesign and management of water flow would beneeded to restore a natural water regime, one thatwould protect the quality and quantity of waterfeeding the Everglades (34).Some aspects of water quality management inthe Everglades, especially those related to phosphorus,are being addressed now, In 1988, theU.S. Department of Justice sued the FloridaCOORDINATED EFFORTS FOR MANAGING NISCenters or councils to coordinate the work ofvarious agencies and industries could be of helpin developing and implementing effective managementof harmful NIS. They might also encouragestatewide resource protection, public awareness,and consistency in policies, goals, administration,and control methods, The structure andoperations of the Exotic Pest Plant Council couldbe used as a model for coordinating work onpestiferous fish and insects, for example. Aplanned “Center for Excellence, ” combiningexpertise from the University of Florida, Divisionof Plant Industry, and the U.S. Department ofAgriculture, also shows promise in coordinatingbiological control research and implementation inthe State, especially for agricultural crops.FUNDING FOR RESEARCH, MANAGEMENT ANDBIOLOGICAL CONTROLExcept for a few highly invasive aquatic plantsand trees, little biological and ecological informationis available for most of Florida’s MS.Equally lacking are data on natural enemies of thespecies and ecological data for the ecosystemlikely to be invaded. Without the necessaryresearch to reveal this information, effectiveprograms of control, management, and eradicationcannot be fully developed nor expected to besuccessful.For the most part, funding for management andresearch of NIS in Florida has been piecemeal andoften inadequate for programs to achieve maximumsuccess. For example, management pro-

266 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesgrams for noxious weeds and biological controlresearch are said to have been underfunded andshort-term. Current quarantine facilities for biologicalcontrol research are inadequate, thushampering efforts to control melaleuca and otherspecies. Development and implementation ofstrategies to arrest further spread of NIS and todecrease their environmental impacts would requireconsistent, adequate funding.PUBLIC EDUCATIONFlorida’s continuing population growth andtourist influx plus the magnitude of the impactsfrom harmful NIS suggest that public educationand awareness programs could be intensified toprevent new introductions. Such programs couldbe targeted toward unintentional and intentionalintroductions, including ornamental plants, aquariumfishes, other pets, and insects. Attempts couldbe made to discourage the planting of invasiveornamental species and to warn of the need tocontrol their spread. The major biological andeconomic impacts of melaleuca, water hyacinth,and hydrilla could be widely publicized to encouragesupport for management issues. Theimportance of protecting remaining natural communitieswarrants emphasis, especially sinceundisturbed ecosystems can serve as barriersagainst the spread of NIS.CHAPTER REVIEWVirtually all parts of the country face problemsrelated to harmful NIS, but Hawaii and Floridahave been particularly hard hit. Both States havelarge numbers of established NIS, constitutingsignificant proportions of their flora and fauna,and including numerous high-impact species.Many harm natural areas that are unique orotherwise special reservoirs of the Nation’s biologicalheritage. Both Hawaii and Florida haveturned to cooperative, interagency mechanismsand public education to address their particularproblems with NIS. Federal action and inactionhave sometimes hindered the States’ efforts.Lessons learned in these States are likely to servewell elsewhere. The situation in Hawaii andFlorida, while unusual in some ways, neverthelessheralds what other States face as numbers ofharmful NIS climb and people become moreaware of their damage.

GeneticallyEngineeredOrganisms asa SpecialCase 9In requesting this assessment, Congress asked OTA tocompare non-indigenous species (NIS) and geneticallyengineered organisms (GEOs; box 9-A)---specifically,whether and how pre-release evaluations can reduce therisks of unwanted introductions (41). The comparison makessense because the central issues for NIS and GEOs are the same,namely, making decisions regarding intentional introductions,devising strategies to prevent unintentional introductions, andplanning eradication and control programs should releases haveunexpected harmful effects.Moreover, according to OTA’s definition of non-indigenous,all GEOs are non-indigenous. OTA has defined MS to includespecies beyond their natural ranges, domesticated and feralspecies, and non-naturally occurring hybrids (see ch. 2, box 2-A).Most species used in genetic engineering research today aredomesticated species and fall within this definition. Whendomesticated species long cultivated in the United States aregenetically engineered and then released, they become newvarieties of these NIS. Just as the products of domestication arenon-indigenous, regardless of origin, so too are the products ofgenetic engineering. Indigenous species that have been alteredvia genetic engineering and introduced into the environmentbecome non-naturally occurring, and therefore non-indigenous,varieties.The overlap between GEOs and NIS goes beyond suchfunctional and definitional issues, however. Federal agenciesapply many of the same laws to NIS and GEOs, and some of thesame legislative gaps and ambiguities hold for both categories.Overlap also occurs in the risk assessment procedures used for267

268 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTerms Used by OTABox 9-A–What Do You Call an Organism With New Genes?OTA uses the adjectives genetically engineered and transgenic to describe plants, animals, andmicroorganisms modified by the insertion of genes using genetic engineering techniques. GEO is used in thischapter as an abbreviation for “genetically engineered organism.”Genetic engineering refers to recently developed techniques through which genes can be isolated in alaboratory, manipulated, and then inserted stably into another organism. Gene insertion can be accomplishedmechanically, chemically, or by using biological vectors such as bacteria or viruses. The bacterium Agrobacteriumturnefaciens is commonly used to carry genes into plant cells.A GEO potentially contains genetic material from three types of organisms. Genes from one or more donororganisms are isolated for insertion into a recipient organism. A biological vector maybe used to insert the genes.Genetic material in the resulting GEO thus includes all of the recipient’s genes, the isolated donor genes, andsometimes genetic material from the vector as well.Many of the organisms being genetically engineered today are domesticated species. Domestication occurswhen organisms are selectively bred by humans for desired characteristics. The term “domesticated” often is usedin discussions of genetic engineering to indicate how likely an organism is to establish a free-living population.However, this usage can be misleading since domesticated organisms vary greatly in this regard. Some, like corn(Zea mays), are incapable of living beyond human cultivation, whereas others, such as goats (Capra hircus),readily form free-living populations.Related TermsGenetically modified organisms have been deliberately modified by the introduction or manipulation ofgenetic material in their genomes. They include not only organisms modified by genetic engineering, but also thosemodified by other techniques such as traditional breeding, chemical mutagenesis, and manipulation of sets ofchromosomes.Biotechnology refers to the techniques, including both genetic engineering and traditional methods, usedto make products and extract services from living organisms and their components.SOURCES: Office of Sdence and Technology Poiicy, “Prindples for Federal Oversight of Biotechnology: Pianned introduction into theEnvironment of Organisms with Modified Hereditary Traits,” 55 Federal Register 31118 (July 31, 1990); U.S. Congress, Office ofTechnology Assessment A New 7&hno/o@a/ Era for American A@w/ture, OTA-F-474 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffioe, August 1992).the GEOs and NIS, although in the recent pastmethods have developed more rapidly for GEOs.This chapter takes a closer look at these twoareas-regulation and risk assessment—relatedto Federal review of GEO releases. The analysisdraws heavily on the previous assessment ofFederal coverage for NIS (ch. 6) and of risksassociated with introductions (chs. 2, 3, and 4).The chapter begins, however, with a brief discussionof why comparisons between GEOs and NISare sometimes controversial.SOURCES OF CONTROVERSYDespite the overlap between GEOs and NIS,comparisons between the two can arouse strongobjections, especially among those in the executivebranch charged with reviewing environmentalreleases of GEOs (20). Such reactionshave origins in the technical and policy issuesdiscussed below. They are complicated by thehistorical context—the rapid development overthe past decade of Federal policies on GEOs(table 9-1) and the continuing dialogue amongscientists, policymakers, and the public regardingthe potential benefits and risks of GEO releases.

Chapter 9–Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case 269Table 9-1—Federal Policies and Regulations Related to the Environmental Release of GEOs Since 1984Office of Science and Technology Policy1992 Exercise of Federal Oversight Within Scope of Statutory Authority: Planned Introductions of BiotechnologyProducts into the Environment, 57Federal Register (FR) 6753 (Policy statement,)1990 Principles for Federal Oversight of Biotechnology: Planned Introduction into the Environment of Organisms withModified Hereditary Traits, 55 FR 31118 (Proposed Policy)1986 Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, 51 FR 23302 (Policy Statementar?d Request for PublicComment)1985 Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology; Establishment of the Biotechnology ScienceCoordinating Committee, 50 FR 471741984 Proposal for a Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, 49 FR 50856 (Proposed Policy)The President’s Council on Competitiveness1991 Report on National Biotechnology Policy (Policy Statement and Recommendations for Impementation)U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service1993 Genetically Engineered Organisms and Products; Notification Procedures for the introduction of CertainRegulated Articles; and Petition for Nonregulated Status, 58 FR 17044 (Final Rule)1992 Genetically Engineered Organisms and Products; Notification Procedures for the introduction of CertainRegulated Articles; and Petition for Nonregulated Status, 57 FR 53036 (Proposed Rule)1987 Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are PlantPests or Which There is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests, 7 CFR 340 (Final Rule)1986 Final Policy Statement for Research and Regulation of Biotechnology Processes and Products. 51 FR 23336(Final Policy Statement)1986 Plant Pests: introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Whichare Plant Pests or Which There is Reason to Believe are Plant Pests, 51 FR 23352 (Proposed Rule and/Noticeof Public Hearings)U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Agricultural Biotechnology1990 Proposed USDA Guidelines for Research involving the Planned Introduction into the Environment of Organismswith Deliberately Modified Hereditary Traits, 56 FR 4134 (Proposed Voluntary Guidelines)1986 Advanced Notice of Proposed USDA Guidelines for Biotechnology Research, 51 FR 13367 (Notice for PublicComment)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency1993 Microbial Pesticides; Experimental Use Permits and Notifications, 58 FR 5878 (Proposed Ru/e)1989 Biotechnology: Request for Comment on Regulatory Approach, 54 FR 7027 (Notice)1989 Microbial Pesticides; Request for Comment on Regulatory Approach, 54 FR 7026 (Notice)1986 Statement of Policy: Microbial Products Subject to the Federal insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act andthe Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 51 FR 23313 (Policy Statement)— EPA has not yet issued proposed or final rules for the regulation of genetically engineered microbes under TSCA.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993Technical SourcesConsiderable controversy surrounded the firstreleases of GEOs because of concerns over theirpotential effects and how they should be evaluatedbefore their release. In the absence ofexperience with GEOs, some scientists arguedthat experience with ‘ ‘exotic’ (i.e., nonindigenous)species might help provide guidance(29,32). However, the comparison of GEOs toNIS itself provoked debate,The approach was criticized because GEOsintroduced to the same environment as the parentnon-engineered organism differ by only a fewgenes. Effects of the gene changes in GEOs mightbe well characterized, allowing better predictionof how they affect the organism’s ecology. Incontrast, most NIS differ from indigenous organismsby many genes that generally are not wellcharacterized. Further, some comparisons of GEOsto harmful NIS, such as kudzu (Puerario lobala)and the sea lamprey (Petrornyzon marinus), werealarmist, inappropriately suggesting that all GEOsare potentially like the worst NIS.

270 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesThese limitations, however, do not address thebasic similarity between the process of introducinga MS and the process of introducing a GEO.Both involve the release of a living organismpotentially capable of reproduction, establishment,and ecological effects beyond the initialrelease site (36). The specific characteristics ofthe organism and the receiving environment willdetermine the consequences of either type ofintroduction (18,36,37), In this regard, experiencewith NIS has proven quite useful in defining thetypes of ecological questions that should be raisedbefore releasing a GEO into the environment (box9-B) (23,37).Policy SourcesA recurring theme in policy discussions ofGEOs has been whether effective regulation canbe accomplished under existing Federal statutesor whether new legislation is needed (25,41,42).For the interim, at least, this issue has been tabledby the development of the “Coordinated Frameworkfor the Regulation of Biotechnology” bythe White House Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy (OSTP).OSTP has announced policies related to Federalregulation of biotechnology several timessince 1984 (table 9-1). General goals of thesepolicy statements include:●●●coordinating and streamlining Federal regulation,in part by clarifying the roles ofvarious agencies;giving guidance to Federal agencies in theirregulatory approach and scope; andensuring such regulation adequately balancesprotection of human health and theenvironment along with the national interestin fostering growth of the biotechnologyindustry.An important early conclusion was that existinglegislation was generally sufficient to coverplanned releases of GEOs to the environment(25). The President’s Council on Competitivenessstrongly reiterated this position in 1991:“The Administration should oppose any effortsto create new or modify existing regulatory structuresfor biotechnology through legislation’ (28).This policy reflected, in part, a desire to supportcommercial development of biotechnology byreducing the regulatory burden on the industry(28).Although both proponents and critics of geneticengineering agree that Federal agenciesexercise sufficient oversight of most current GEOreleases, the adequacy of the Coordinated Frameworkmay be challenged in the future. CertainGEO releases may not be adequately covered byFederal statutes. In some cases, the application ofexisting statutes to genetic engineering requiresapplication of laws beyond their initial intent. Theresult has been confusing regulations based onconvoluted interpretations of legal definitions.It is important to note that the CoordinatedFramework is an executive branch policy and hasno explicit basis in Federal law. This imparts asometimes counter-productive flexibility. For example,repeated changes since 1984 in how OSTPdefined which GEOs should be regulated helpedstymie efforts by the Environmental ProtectionAgency to issue regulations under the ToxicSubstances Control Act (39).The Federal agencies that review environmentalreleases of GEOs have been faced with thepractical reality of regulating an activity wherepolitical pressures are strong to allow releases,technical information for decisionmaking is sometimesinsufficient, and legislative authority imperfectlymatches the problems at hand. Theprocedures currently in place reflect compromiseshard won over the past decade. And for thepresent, at least, the system generally works. Inthis light, the reluctance of regulators to revisitdebates of the past concerning the risks of GEOreleases is understandable. It may, however, leavethem unprepared for the future when technicaladvances, the application of genetic engineeringto a wider array of organisms, and the move to

Chapter 9–Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case 1271Box 9-B–The Risks of Genetically Engineered Organisms:Lessons from Non-Indigenous SpeciesCan the Species Become Established Outside of Human Cultivation?The risks associated with a NIS depend in part on whether it can become free-living. Species requiring humancultivation (e.g., many agricultural crops) are unlikely to become pests or harm natural ecosystems. GEOs formedby the insertion of genes into cultivated species similarly pose little risk, unless the inserted genes affect theorganism’s reliance on human cultivation or cause it to unintentionally harm other organisms.Greater risks are associated with introductions of NIS that do not require human cultivation. Some canestablish free-living populations and cause environmental or economic harm. Certain significant pests ofagriculture and natural areas are escaped crop and horticultural plants (e.g., crabgrass, Digitaria spp., andJapanese honeysuckle, Lonicere japonica) or livestock (e.g., feral goats (Capra hircus)). NIS directly introducedto less managed systems, such as rangelands and forests, can affect other species in these systems. Melaleuca(Melaleuca quinquenervia), a major cause of habitat degradation in the Florida Everglades wetland system, wasinitially introduced for water management. Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), widely introduced for aquaticweed control, also increase water turbidity and destroy habitats of young fish. Thus, GEOs resulting from insertionof genes into potentially free-living species similarly are of greater concern because they might affect natural areas.Can Genes Spread Through Hybridization?A potential risk factor common to NIS and GEOs is that of gene spread to other species through hybridization(interbreeding). Genes can move from some cultivated crops that otherwise pose low risk. Notable examplesinclude hybridization between rapeseed (Brassica napus) and wild mustards (B. kaber, B. juncea, B. nigra);cultivated and free-living squash (Cucurbita pepo); and between domesticated tomatoes (Lycopersiconesculentum) and wild tomato (Lycopersicon pimpinnellifolium) in South America. Hybridization between crop andweed species has sometimes given rise to new weeds like the Bolivian weed potato (Solanum sucrense).Moreover, the potential for hybridization between cultivated and wild and weedy relatives varies greatly amongspecies. For example, although there is no evidence that genes move from carrots (Daucus carota sativa) to wildrelatives like Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota) in North America, gene exchange between alfalfa (Medicagosativa) planted for forage and wild relatives appears to be widespread.The opportunity for hybridization also varies geographically. Most major agricultural crops lack free-livingrelatives (and therefore the opportunity for hybridization) in the United States because they originated in otherareas of the world. Some exceptions are sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), sunflower (Helianthus spp.), clover (Trifoliumspp.), and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Wild cotton (Gossypium tomentosum), which potentially might hybridizewith genetically engineered cotton, exists in Hawaii, but not elsewhere in the United States.The potential for gene spread from GEOs to other species is thus an important consideration in riskassessments. All else being equal, GEOs lacking free-living relatives in the area of release pose fewer risks. Theconsequences of gene movement from GEOs to other species depend on what traits they confer. Some, like genesaffecting fruit color, pose little risk. Greater concerns center on genes that might transfer harmful traits to free-livingspecies. For example, much current research involves insertion of genes for herbicide resistance into crop plantsto allow control of weeds without harm to the crop. Should this trait be transferred to weedy relatives, the usefulnessof a particular herbicide for weed control could be lost.SOURCES: N.C. Ellstrand and C.A. Hoffman, “Hybridization as an Avenue of Escape for Engineered Genes,” BhSckrce, vol. 40, No. 6,pp. 438-442, June 1990; R.S. Grossman, “Biotechnology Products in the Field: Bringing Regulation Closer to Home,” American Jourrralof Pub/ic Health, vol. 82, No. 8, August 1992, pp. 1165-1 166; K.H. Keeler and C.E. Turner, “Management of Transgenic Plants in theEnvironment,” Risk Assessment in Gerret/c Engirrearing, M.A. l.svin and ti.S. Strauss (eds.) (New Yo~ NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1980); E.Small, “Hybridization in the Domesticated-Wee&Wild Complex,” P/ant Bkzsysternatics, W.F. Grant (cd,) (New York, NY: Academic Press,1984), pp. 195-210; H.D. Wilson, “Gene Flow in Squash Species,” Bioscience, vol. 40, No. 6, June 1990, pp. 449-455.

272 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 9-2—Who Regulates Which GEO Releases?RegulatedTypes of approvedAgency category Authority a releases thus far NumberAPHISEPAPlant pestsVeterinary biologicsPesticidesOther microbesFederal Plant Pest ActPlant Quarantine ActFederal Noxious Weed ActVirus-Serum Toxin ActFederal Insecticide,Fungicide andRodenticide ActToxic Substances ControlActTransgenic plantsLive animal vaccines(microbes)Pesticidal microbesPesticidal plantsMicrobes modified forImproved detection orenhanced nitrogenfixation327 contained field tests at660 sites in 37 Statesand Puerto Rico b25 controlled releases;7 licenses forcommercial distribution c42 small-scale field tests d3 releases of over 10 acres e19 small-scale fieldreleases fa For full citations of Federal laws see text.b As o f @tober 1992 The flFlavrSa~~~tomato was r~entl~exempted from regulation, permitting r~uirementswere reiwed in 1993 fOr5CategOdeSof GEOS, to allow notification of APHIS rather than requirement of a permit before release.c Number permitted during fiscal years 1989 through 1992.d As of July 1g93, cmvering the period 19S4 through 1993.e ~perimental Use permits were issued fo r Iarge-=aie tests of Baa”//us thurirrgiensls delta endotoxin produced in ~tton, wrn, and Potato. AS ofJuly 1993.f As of Feb. 3, 1993,SOURCES: F. Betz, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, EPA, FAX to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology &sessment, Aug. 2, 1993; D.E.Giamporcaro, Section Chief, TSCABiotechnology Program, Ietterto P.N. Wlndle, OTA, Apr. 29, 1993; J.H. Payne, Associate Director Biotechnology,Biologics, and Envkonmental Protection, APHIS, letter to P.N. Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, Nov. 10, 1992; B. Slutsky, “PesticidalTranegenic Plants: Risk Issues,” Pesticidal Transgenic Plants: Product Development, Risk Assessment, and Data Nee& (U.S. EPA ConferenceProceedings: Nov. 6 and 7, 1990), pp. 127-132. -commercialization of GEOs broaden the scope ofregulatory issues.FEDERAL REGULATION OF GEORELEASESUnder the Coordinated Framework, two Federalagencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’sAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS) and the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) oversee most environmentalreleases of GEOs (table 9-2).APHIS regulates releases of GEOs for whichthe donor, recipient, or vector of new geneticmaterial is a potential or actual plant pest (box9-C). In the past, anyone wishing to move orrelease such organisms needed to apply for apermit certifying the action did not pose asignificant risk to agriculture or the environment.APHIS then evaluated the ecological risks ofrelease by conducting an in-house environmentalassessment for each permit granted. APHISrecently relaxed these permitting requirementsfor transgenic potatoes (Solanum tuberosum),tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum), cotton (Gossypiumhirsutum), soybean (Glycine max), tobacco(Nicotiana tabacum), and corn (Zea mays) thatfulfilled certain eligibility criteria and releasedaccording to specified performance standards, lThese cases now require only that APHIS benotified in advance of field trials. In practice,APHIS has overseen releases of a wide array ofgenetically engineered plants because the bacterialvector used to insert genes is itself a plant158 Federal Register 17044 (hlaxch 31, {993)

Chapter 9—Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case 1273Box 9-C-Which Categories of GEOS APHIS Regulates as “Plant Pests” 1Definition of a Regulated Article“Any organism that has been altered or produced through genetic engineering, if the donor organism,recipient organism, or vector or vector agent belongs to any genera or taxa designated in 340.2 of this part andmeets the definition of a plant pest, or is an unclassified organism and/or an organism whose classification isunknown, or any product which contains such an organism, or any other organism or product altered or producedthrough genetic engineering which the Deputy Administrator determines is a plant pest or has reason to believeis a plant pest. Excluded are recipient microorganisms which are not plant pests and which have resulted fromthe addition of genetic material from a donor organism where the material is well characterized and contains onlynon-coding regulatory regions.”Taxa Listed in 340.2Viruses (all members of groups containing plant viruses, and all other plant and insect viruses); Bacteria(13genera; gram-negative phloem-limited bacteria associated with plant diseases; gram-negative xylem-limitedbacteria associated with plant diseases; all other bacteria associated with plant or insect diseases);Other disease-causing organisms (all rickettsial-like organisms associated with insect-diseases; membersof the genus Spiroplasma; mycopiasma-like organisms associated with plant diseases; mycopiasma-likeorganisms associated with insect diseases);Algae (three genera of green algae);Fungi (3 classes; 16 orders; 33 families; and ail other fungi associated with plant or insect diseases);Plants (parasitic species in 13 families and 27 genera);Animals (nematodes-20 families; snails-6 superfamilies and 1 subfamily; spiders, mites, and ticks—13superfamilies; millipedes—1 order; insects-4 orders, 8 superfamilies, 53 families, 5 subfamilies, 3 genera)Definition of a Plant Pest“Any living stage (including active and dormant forms) of insects, mites, nematodes, slugs, snails, protozoa,or other invertebrate animals, bacteria, fungi, other parasitic plants or reproductive parts thereof; viruses; or anyorganisms similar to or allied with any of the foregoing; or any infectious agents or substances, which can directlyor indirectly injure or cause disease or damage in or to any plants or parts thereof, or any processed, manufactured,or other products of plants.”1 API+IS has exempted from permitting requirements interstate movement of certain GEOS Contaning leSS thanthe compfete genome of a plant pest and fieid releases of a set of tomatoes having aitered softening properties. Theagency recently relaxed the permitting requirements for several other categories of GEOS.SOURCES: 7 CFR 340 (June 16, 1987) as amended, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through GeneticEngineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There is Reason to Believe are Plant Pests;” J.H. Payne, Associate Director, Biotechnology,Biologics, and Environmental Protection, APHIS, letter to P.N. Wlndle, Office of Technology Assessment, Nov. 10, 1992; U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Genetically Engineered Organisms and Products; Notification Procedures forthe Introduction of Certain Regulated Articles; and Petition for Nonregulated Status,” proposed rule, 57 Federd Fte@ter53036 (Nov. 6,1992).product purity, efficacy, and safety (to the envi-ronment, human health, and animal health) beforelicensing and wider distribution. APHIS has notissued specific regulations for GEOs in thiscategory, but has instead relied on existingregulations for live vaccines.pathogen or because plant pathogen genes havebeen inserted to promote expression of otherinserted genes,Uncontained uses of live animal vaccines(veterinary biologics) are also regulated by APHIS.A permit is required for experimental use of avaccine, and vaccines must fulfill standards of

274 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesEPA regulates releases of genetically engineeredmicrobes under the Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 2 and theToxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 3 Finalregulations have not yet been promulgated undereither Act for small-scale releases; consequently,the agency is operating under interim policy. TheGEOs regulated under FIFRA are pesticideproducingmicrobes. Users must notice EPAbefore small-scale field tests. Following notification,the agency may require submission ofmaterials for an Experimental Use Permit beforerelease. EPA also intends to regulate underFIFRA the commercial distribution and sale oftransgenic plants engineered for pest and diseaseresistance (i.e., because of the pesticidal substancesthey produce) (34). This category eventuallyis likely to include agricultural crops, ornamentalplants, aquatic plants, and species forforest and rangeland management (48).Under TSCA, EPA regulates transgenic microbesnot covered by any other statute, forexample, nitrogen-fining bacteria or microbesused for environmental remediation. This regulationrests on extension of TSCA’s definition of‘‘chemical substance’ to live organisms-aninterpretation that has been a source of continuingdebate and could be subject to legal challenge inthe future. Transgenic microbes constructed bytransferring genes between genera or highertaxonomic categories are considered ‘‘new chemicalsubstances’ under the agency’s currentpolicy (unless they are on the TSCA inventory).Notification of EPA is voluntary before experimentalreleases, but required before full generalcommercial use (6).The National Institutes of Health (NIH) historicallyhas had a role in evaluating environmentalreleases through its Recombinant DNA AdvisoryCommittee. However, this committee has notreviewed any deliberate releases of GEOs since1987 and voted in May 1991 to terminate over-Several corporations hope to genetically engineerinsect viruses-such as the celery looper virus thatinfects cabbage loopers (Trichoplusia ni) and severalother insect pests-into more potent insecticides.view in this area that overlaps with APHIS andEPA. The issue is now under consideration by thedirector of NIH (43).Holes in the Coordinated FrameworkFinding:Some of the same gaps in current Federalauthority and regulation that exist for NIS alsoapply to GEOs under the Coordinated Framework.In the foreseeable future, commercialdevelopment is likely to proceed for severalcategories of GEOs that lack Federal or Stateregulation of experimental release or commercialdistribution. Similar gaps for NIS continueto allow some ill-advised introductions resultingin economic costs or environmental harm.Because environmental releases of GEOs currentlyare regulated under many of the samestatutes that cover NIS, several gaps in Federalcoverage identified by OTA for MS also apply toGEOs. Most of the gaps raise few “real-world”concerns at present: environmental releases ofGEOs through October 1992 primarily have beenz Feda~ I~ecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (1947), as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 135 et seq.).J Toxic Substances Control Act (1976), as amended (15 U. S.C.A. 2601 et seq.).

Chapter 9–Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case 1275of only a few types of organisms (table 9-3).These generally have presented relatively lowrisks and are clearly covered by current Federaloversight. However, the gaps may become increasinglyimportant as the range of biologicalorigins and applications of GEOs expands overthe next 5 to 10 years. This is especially worrisomegiven the rapid advances in genetic engineeringtechnologies and the growing numbers offield releases. Between 1987 and 1991 alone,applications to APHIS for field testing of transgenicplants increased more than six-fold (49).Some observers anticipate that Federal oversightunder the Coordinated Framework willevolve to fill these gaps as needs arise (6,43).Experience with NIS has shown, in contrast, thatunder the constraints of budgetary limitations,Federal agencies sometimes hesitate to expandtheir regulatory domains, even where clear needsand authority exist (see boxes 3-A, 4-B). Moreover,statutory authority does not exist to fillcertain of these gaps. Voluntary compliance byGEO producers—motivated by a desire to quellpublic concerns—also might help limit futureproblems resulting from regulatory gaps. OneLimitation may be that, as the number of releasesgrows ever larger, public scrutiny of individualreleases is likely to decline, potentially decreasingthe incentives for producers to seek voluntaryapproval.The following sections describe some areaswhere Federal authority to review GEO releasesis lacking or ambiguous. This is not to say thatevery release of a GEO in these categoriesnecessarily poses a risk. But these are areas wherethere is no experience on which to evaluateriskiness nor mechanisms yet in place to gainsuch experience. Moreover, the track record ofharmful introductions of NIS in these samecategories suggests a need for some level ofreview before GEO releases (chs. 2 and 4). Thesepotential limits to the Coordinated Frameworkwere addressed by Congress during considerationof the Omnibus Biotechnology Act of 1990 (40).The bill, however, was not enacted.Table 9-3—Current and Potential Future Releasesof GEOsGEOs Already Released In Field ExperimentsMicrobes:pesticidal microbesnitrogen-fixing microbesmarker microbes for tracking environmental dispersallive animal vaccinesPlants:agricultural crops (e.g., tomato (Lycopersiconesculentum), cotton (Gossypium hirsuturn), corn(Zea mays))agricultural crops producing pharmaceuticals orspecialty chemicalsforage crops (e.g., alfalfa (Medlcago sativa))trees (e.g., poplar (Populus spp.), walnut (Juglansspp.))Geos Currently Under Research for Future ReleasesMicrobes:microbes that break down chemicals for bioremediationPlants:ornamental plantsplants for range managementtrees for timber productiontrees for urban plantingserosion control plantsFishes:game fish for fisheries managementfish for aquiculture (rapid growth, disease resistance,cold tolerance)Invertebrate animals:shellfish for aquaculturecrustaceans for aquaculturenematodes (roundworms) for biological controlinsects and arachnids for biological controlSOURCES: M. Fischetti, “A Feast of Gene-Splicing Down on the FishFarm,” -’ence, vol. 253, No. 5019, Aug. 2, 1991, pp. 512-513; P.K.Gupta et al., “Forestry in the 21st Century,” Biofledmology, vol. 11,No. 4., pp. 454-463, April 1993; E.M. Hallerman et al., “Gene Transferin Fish, ” Advances in fisheries Technology and Biotecfrnolcgy for/ncreased Profitability, M.N. Voight and J.R. Bottia (eds.) (Lancaster,PA: Technomic Publishing Co., 1990), pp. 35-49; L.F. Elliot and R.E.Wildung, “What Biotechnology Means for Soil and Water Conservation,”Journal of Soi/ and Water Conservation, vol. 47, No. 1,January-February 1992, pp. 17-20.FISH AND WILDLIFENo law directly provides for Federal oversightof interstate transport or release of geneticallyengineered fish (finfish and shellfish) or wildlife.Under the Lacey Act, controls over environmentalreleases of fish and game are Statefunctions, although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

276 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesService (FWS) can play a role in limiting theinterstate transport of species listed by States asprohibited or injurious (chs. 6, 7). Few Statescompensate for this lack of a Federal presencewith comprehensive laws covering release ofGEOs. Moreover, States have been discouragedfrom developing such laws by those concernedthat States might obstruct the testing and developmentof agricultural GEOs like transgenic crops(9).Future implementation of the Non-IndigenousAquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of199@ could narrow this gap slightly by restrictingthe unintentional importation or transport ofharmful aquatic GEOs. However, the Federalinteragency task force implementing the Act hasnot yet addressed GEOs in any context.Other significant areas remain uncovered byFederal law. No Federal authority exists todirectly limit the interstate transport or release ofaquiculture species, although this is an activearea of genetic engineering research (19). Similarly,should genetic engineering techniques beapplied to game species of fish and wildlife, therepresently are no Federal requirements for reviewbefore release. Moreover, the agencies mostlikely to be involved, FWS and the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration, lackapplicable policies on GEOs.Some experts estimate genetically engineeredfish will enter commercial distribution within thisdecade (1 1). Two have already been field testedin holding ponds. This category raises particularconcerns because many fish can establish freelivingpopulations.CERTAIN PLANTSAPHIS's current regulations for GEOs do notexplicitly include large categories of plants (box9-C). Listed as regulated are parasitic plants in 13families and 27 genera that fulfill the definition ofplant pest. Not included are numerous taxacontaining species that are weeds or can becomeA genetically engineered variety of striped bass(Morone saxatilis) is likely to be among the firsttransgenic fish released.weeds in some habitats. Examples of the latter areBermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), which is animportant turf grass and forage plant but also oneof the worst weeds in many parts of the UnitedStates (4), as well as many plants used inornamental horticulture, such as purple loosestrife(Lythrum salicaria). Should genetic engineeringbe used to develop new varieties ofspecies for range management or ornamentalhorticulture (21), it is unclear whether they wouldbe reviewed before release under the category oforganisms ‘‘altered or produced through geneticengineering which the Deputy Administratordetermines is a plant pest or has reason to believeis a plant pest. ’Many genetically engineered plants (includingsome forage and ornamental plants) presently fallunder APHIS review because the plant pathogenAgrobacterium tumefaciens was used as avector for gene insertion (boxes 9-A, 9-C). Newmechanical and chemical techniques for insertinggenes into plants do not involve plant pathogens.Consequently, some genetically engineeredplants produced by such methods also will not fallsquarely under APHIS’s authority, Again, it isunclear how the agency will choose to deal withthese GEOs.A Nonindigenous Aquatic NuiS~Ce ~evention and Control Act of 1990, as amended (16 U. S.C.A. 4705 et seq., 18 U. S.C.A. 42).

Chapter 9—Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case I 277Users are required to contact APHIS regardingplanned releases of unregulated GEOs only ifthey have reason to believe the GEO poses a riskof being a plant pest (44). Given the historicalcomplacency regarding introductions of nonindigenousplants, expecting users to rigorouslyevaluate the risks of transgenic plant introductionsmay be unrealistic.CERTAIN INSECTS AND INVERTEBRATES USEDFOR BIOLOGICAL CONTROLIn the future, should genetic engineering techniquesbe applied to insects, nematodes, or otherinvertebrates, environmental releases of someproducts might fall outside APHIS’s purview.The key criterion defining APHIS’s authority iswhether an organism is a potential plant pest (box9-C). Some insects and invertebrates used inbiological control clearly fall outside this categorysince they injure neither plants nor plantproducts, for example. an insect that eats orparasitizes another insect that is itself a plant pest(40). Given that the agency’s present coverage ofthis category is uneven (ch. 6), and its authority isambiguous, it is unclear how APHIS would dealwith GEOs in this category. The EnvironmentalProtection Agency has exempted such nonmicrobialbiological control agents from regulationunder FIFRA. 5 The agency still could step into assume this role (6), although it has not yetshown any interest in doing so.RESEARCHIn general, research releases of GEOs aresubject to the same restrictions as nonexperimentalreleases. Further, research conductedor funded by Federal agencies is subject tothe National Environmental Policy Act. 6 The U.S.Department of Agriculture’s Office of AgriculturalBiotechnology recently released proposedvoluntary research guidelines that apply only toUSDA funded research (47). The guidelines relyheavily on input from the Institutional BiosafetyCommittees that exist at many public and privatesector institutions conducting genetic engineeringresearch. The committees originated to ensurethat researchers follow guidelines developed byNIH. Their main role has been in the review ofcontained laboratory research on GEOs. Thecommittees are predominantly composed of memberswith expertise in genetic engineering (38); animportant issue will be whether the committeesexpand their membership to include ecologistsand others with technical backgrounds moreappropriate for evaluating the safety of fieldreleases.Research releases falling within the gaps listedabove (fish and wildlife, certain plants, biologicalcontrol agents) and not funded by Federal dollarsmay not be covered by the current framework. Forexample, no Federal agency would review theresearch release of a genetically engineered fishwhere the research is privately funded. The ToxicSubstances Control Act does not cover noncommercialand strictly academic research releasesof non-pesticidal transgenic microbes (30).Concerns over research gaps are not purelyhypothetical, as was demonstrated when a researcherat Auburn University moved to conductexperiments involving releases of transgenic carp(Cyprinus carpio) in ponds where there was a riskof fish escape (box 9-D).COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION AND SALECertain laws, such as the Federal Seed Act; 7Virus, Serum, and Toxin Act (VSTA); 8 andFIFRA, set standards for accurate labeling andassurance of product purity and efficacy for liveorganisms in commerce. The Federal Seed Actcovers agricultural seed, VSTA covers live mi-540 CFR 152.20(a) (hhy 4, 1988).6 NatiO~l E~~ir~nment~l Po]lcy #ict of 1969, as amended (42 U. S.C.A. 4321 et se9)7Federal Seed Act ( 1939), as amended 7 U. S. CA. 1551 et seq.).$ Vlms, Semm, an(j Toxin .4ct (19 13) (21 U. S.C.A. 151 e? $eq. ).

278 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 9-D-Transgenic Fish: EventsSurrounding the Auburn ExperimentsConsiderable controversy erupted in 1989 whena researcher at Auburn University in Alabama movedto conduct experiments with transgenic fish in outdoorholding ponds where there was a risk of escape. Aftersome initial confusion over the appropriate Federalforum for review of the proposal’s safety, oversight fellto the Cooperative State Research Service of USDA,which partly funded the experiments. The agency’sfirst Environmental Assessment and its associatedfinding of no significant environmental impact was metwith strong criticism. This prompted the agency toconduct a second assessment with assistance fromAPHIS. While this assessment also found no significantimpact, the finding was contingent on substantialmodifications at the site to prevent fish escape.Modifications included construction of new ponds at ahigher elevation and filtration of pond effluent, inaddition to the existing preventative measures of an8-foot fence and bird netting above the ponds. NoFederal scrutiny necessarily would have occurred hadthis research been funded by the private sector. In thiscase, the researcher voluntarily sought Federal oversighteven prior to receiving Federal funding.SOURCES: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary,“Environmental Assessment of Research on TransgenicCarp in Confined Outdoor Ponds,” Nov. 15, 1990; J.L. Fox, WishDrifi Satween Agencies’ Guidelines,” IYotechnology, vol. 7,September 19S9, p. SS5.crobes in animal vaccines, and FIFRA regulatesmicrobial pesticides and pesticidal transgenicplants. These laws aim to protect against productmisrepresentation and the distribution and sale ofcontaminants. The lack of equivalent protectionfor other types of organisms in commerce maybecome important as the living products ofgenetic engineering move toward commercialization.Flower seeds, for example, are not coveredby the Federal Seed Act. Nor do any Federal lawsor regulations currently specify labeling requirementsfor grown plants or insects and othermicroorganisms used in biological control.An additional role of commercial statutes is toregulate usages of potentially harmful productslike pesticides-only allowing certain uses underspecified conditions. As agricultural GEOs movetoward commercial sale, they will not be subjectto such regulation. Under the Federal Plant PestAct 9 and the Plant Quarantine Act, 10 the mechanismAPHIS uses to allow commercial sales ofGEOs is to formally exempt them at this stagefrom regulation. 11 For certain GEOs it may bemore appropriate to place constraints on commercialapplications; for example, it might be prudentto limit planting of certain transgenic cottons inHawaii where the potential for hybridization withfree-living cotton (Gossypium tomentosum) exists.GAP FILLING BY THE STATESA perceived lack of adequate Federal regulationhas been the driving force behind Stateefforts to develop laws on GEOs. As of February1991, nine States had laws specifically dealingwith the release of GEOs, and about 30 percent ofthe States were in the process of developing GEOrelease and product policies (3). A total of sixStates introduced, and three enacted, legislationrelated to the environmental release of GEOs in1991 (15).In at least some cases, State laws may cover allreleases of GEOs. Under the North CarolinaGenetically Engineered Organisms Act, for example,“A genetically engineered organism maynot be released into the environment, or sold,offered for sale, or distributed for release into theenvironment unless a permit for its release hasbeen issued pursuant to this article.” 12 Thus,9 F~er~ plant Pest Act (1957), as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 147a et seq.).10 plat @nfie Act (1912), as amended (7 U. S.C.A. 151 et seq.).117 CFR 340 (June 16, 1987) as amended.12 Gmti~ Stm. of North Carolina, sec. 106-64.

Chapter 9-Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case 279releases of transgenic fish in the State of NorthCarolina currently would require a State, but noFederal, permit (33). North Carolina, however, isan exception among the States in this regard.Similar to the patchwork of State fish andwildlife laws (ch. 7), current State laws on GEOsvary widely in scope and rigor (43). Suchinconsistency could create burdensome requirementsfor researchers and industry (13). Onerepresentative of the seed industry clearly expressedsome of the potential hazards of multipleStates’ regulation:Few engineered crop varieties or hybrids, ifmy, could bear the cost and time involved inmultiple registrations in 50 individual States.Environmentally this approach would also fallshort, as environmental problems, should theyoccur, can hardly be expected to respect Stateboundaries. Thus, a Federal lead in regulation ofengineered crop plants is essential, but can onlybecome a reality if the final system gains theconfidence of the public and the States (35).A SURPRISE CONSEQUENCE OF APPLYING THESAME LEGAL AUTHORITY TO NIS AND GEOsApplying the same laws to NIS and GEOs mayhave some unanticipated results. A case in pointis APHIS’s recent move to relax permittingrequirements for releases of certain transgenicplants. APHIS’s authority here derives from theFederal Plant Pest Act and the Plant QuarantineAct, both of which were designed to protect U.S.agriculture from pests. Historically, this is an areawhere Federal preemption of the States is common;for example, the Federal Government mayimpose quarantines unsupported by the States or,alternatively, it may allow for more liberalinterstate transport of commodities that the Stateswould prefer to curtail (ch. 7). In a recent rule,APHIS asserted its authority to exercise thispreemptive power in the area of GEO releases; 13that is, where the Federal Government has movedto allow a release, States cannot prevent therelease from occurring.Whether APHIS’s position here would withstanda challenge in the courts is open to question(8). The issue may be largely theoretical, however:legal challenge is unlikely since most Stateslack the technical expertise to evaluate plannedreleases of GEOs and rely heavily on APHIS’sjudgment (17,33). Moreover, the new regulationsprovide for notifying the States before GEOreleases. Nevertheless, the example demonstratesan important point. As long as the same sectionsof the same laws are used as authority for bothNIS and GEOs, any amendments to these lawswill need to anticipate how they will affectFederal actions regarding both categories oforganisms. Moreover, legal precedents establishedfor one category may eventually be appliedto the other (7).ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENTSince the first environmental release of a GEOin 1986, Federal agencies have reviewed, authorized,or permitted several hundred additionalreleases of genetically engineered plants andmicrobes under final or interim rules. The generalapproach has been to treat each release as allowedonly after case-by-case evaluation (i.e., on a‘ ‘notsure” list; see ch. 4). Central to the evaluationprocess is some form of risk assessment. Thepotential for high profits combined with vocalpublic concern has driven the rapid developmentof risk assessment methods for GEOs and agrowing scientific literature in this area (table9-4).As with NIS, assessments of GEO risk usuallycenter on characteristics of the organism, theenvironment into which it will be released, andthe likelihood the GEO or new genes will spreadto other locales. Of particular concern has beencharacterization of the effects of the geneticmodification, specifically its stability and whetherIS ~’Geneti~ly Engineered orga~s~and~ducts: NoMication~o~d~es forthe Int.mductionof Certain Re@atedArticles; ~dpetitionfor Nonregulated StatuS,” Final Rule, 58 Federal Register 17044 (March 31, 1993).

280 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 9-4—Selected Recent Discussions of the Environmental Effects of Releasing GEOsL.R. Ginzburg (cd.), Assessing Ecological Risks of Biotechnology (Butterworth-Heinemann: Boston, 1991).M. A. Levin and H.S. Strauss (eds.), Risk Assessment in Genetic Engineering (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1990).D.R. MacKenzie and S.C. Henry (eds.), International Symposium on the Biosafety Results of Field Tests of Genetically ModifiedPlants and Microorganisms (Agricultural Research Institute: Bethesda, MD, 1990).H.A. Mooney et al. (eds.), Ecosystem Experiments, Published on behalf of the Scientific Committee on Problems of theEnvironment (SCOPE) of the International Council of scientific Unions (ICSU) (Chichester, England; New York, NY: John Wileyand Sons, 1991 ).National Research Council, Field Testing Genetically Modified Organisms: Framework for Decisions (Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press, 1989).J.M. Tiedje et al., “The Planned Introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms: Ecological Considerations and Recommendations,”Ecology, vol. 70, No. 2, 1989, pp. 298-315. (Report from the Ecological Society of America).U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Workshop on Safeguards for Planned Introductionof Transgenic Potatoes,” Conference Report, 1991.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Workshop on Safeguards for Planned Introductionof Transgenic Corn and Wheat,” Conference Report, April 1992.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Workshop on Safeguards for Planned Introductionof Transgenic Oilseed Crucifiers,” Conference Report, 1990.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticidal Transgenic Plants; Product Developrnent, Risk Assessmerrt, and Data Needs(U.S. EPA Conference Proceedings: Nov. 6 and 7, 1990).SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.inserted genes might confer unwanted characteristicson the GEO or other species to which theymight spread. Factors affecting the GEO or genespread include how likely the GEO is to establisha free-living population outside of human cultivationand the presence of free-living relatives thatmight hybridize with GEOs.A far greater number of authorized releases hasoccurred for plants than for microbes. Althoughthe same categories of risk apply to both, developmentof general risk assessment methods has beenless tractable for microbes. The biology andecology of microbes in nature is relatively poorlyunderstood (16), and predicting environmentaleffect and dispersal potential is difficult (2).Microbes present special problems in evaluatingthe potential spread of genes since gene exchangein nature can occur not only between differentspecies, but also between different genera (27). Inaddition, populations of microbes evolve rapidly,complicating predictions of the possible longtermeffects of inserted genes.Comparing the Current Level of Reviewfor NIS and GEO ReleasesFinding:While some categories of GEOs actuallypose lower risks than similar NIS, pre-releaseevaluations for certain GEOs have been morerigorous. This inconsistency reflects the chronicunderestimation of risk for NIS introductionsin the past. Some of the approaches beinginstituted for evaluating risks of GEOs mightusefully be transferred to NIS.Comparison of the current level of review bythe Federal Government for various categories ofMS and GEOs shows that greater scrutiny oftenis applied to GEOs, even though some may poselower risks than NIS (table 9-5) (see ch. 4). Forexample, until 1993, APHIS conducted an environmentalassessment for each permitted releaseof a genetically engineered plant, even for plantshighly dependent on human cultivation andlacking free-living relatives in the United States.In contrast, non-indigenous plants are routinelyintroduced in the United States for applications in

Chapter 9-Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case I 281Table 9-5—Federal Pre-ReIease Requirements for Small-Scale Releases of CertainNon-Indigenous Species (NIS) and GEOsCrop and forage plantsLive animal vaccinesPesticidal microbesNon-pest, non-pesticidalmicrobes (e.g., nitrogenfixingbacteria)SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.No systematic reviewNISRequires application to APHIS for a permit;APHIS reviews applicationRequires notification of EPA; EPA mayrequire additional information orapplication for an Experimental UsePermit; EPA reviews submitted materialFor “plant pests”: APHIS also reviewsmaterial before releaseNo systematic reviewGEOsIf within APHIS’s definition of a “regulatedarticle” (box 9-C):Most require application to APHIS for apermit; APHIS conducts anenvironmental assessment; EPA reviewsAPHiS’s assessments for pesticidalplantsFor certain regulated articles: no permit isrequired, instead requires notification ofAPHIS at least 30 days before the day ofreleaseIf not a regulated article: same as for NISSame as for NISSame as for NiSVoluntary notification of EPA; EPA mayrequest additional information; EPAreviews submitted materialsoil conservation and wildlife forage with nosystematic review of the potential environmentalconsequences of release-although such speciesmay be chosen specifically for the ability toestablish free-living populations (ch. 6). Similarly,EPA does a case-by-case review of certainreleases of transgenic microbes, such as nitrogenfixingbacteria, but releases of equivalent nonindigenousmicrobes are not subject to anyFederal oversight. If more rigorous standards areapplied to under-evaluated categories of NIS inthe future, methods already developed for GEOscould provide a useful model.Impending Scale-Up of Releases forAgricultural GEOsFinding:Experience with NIS overwhelmingly hasshown that an organism’s effects and ecologicalrole can change when it is transferred tonew environments. This suggests a need forcaution in extrapolating from the results ofsmall-scale field tests of GEOs to larger scalereleases. Also GEOs that pose a low risk in theUnited States sometimes may pose a higherrisk in other countries.Most releases of GEOs in the United Statesthus far have been small field tests (table 9-2). Thegeographic area of release will inevitably increasefor approved GEOs, particularly as they enter thephase of commercial production, distribution, andsale. This issue looms large especially for agriculturalreleases: estimates are that commercialdistribution for some crops under developmentcould occur as early as 1994 or 1995 (5). Theimpending scale-up raises several as yet unansweredquestions, recently illustrated by the caseof transgenic squash (Cucurbita pepo) (box 9-E).

282 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 9-E-Controversy Erupts as Upjohn’s Transgenic Squash (“ZW-20”)Moves Towards CommercializationThe case of squash (Cucurbita pepo) genetically engineered for disease resistance illustrates severalimpending issues: the complexity of some of the decisions ahead; needs for better use of field tests to evaluatethe risks of large-scale releases; and potential problems in applying domestic decisions internationality.in September 1992, APHIS announced its intent to rule that a transgenic squash produced by the UpjohnCo.—ZW-20-is not a plant pest and therefore is not subject to further regulation by the agency. This varietycontains genes from two plant virusesthat confer enhanced disease resistance. APHIS’s ruling would be essentialto the squash’s commercial distribution. Calgene's Flavr Savr TM tomato (Lycopersicon esclentum)is the only othertransgenic plant that the agency has ruled is not a plant pest.Respnse to APHIS’s plan, especially from environmental organizations, was strongly negative. Upjohn’spetition was criticized for its scientific in accuracies and failure to cite important research. Further concerns werethat APHIS apparently took the scientific content of Upjohn’s petition at face value, and, in the absence of outsidereaction, might have allowed commercialization of ZW-20 without additional analysis.instead, however, APHIS issued a second call for public comment in March 1993. The agency specificallyrequested further information on the potential for hybrization between ZW-20 and free-living squash and whethertransfer of disease resistance genes to free-living populations would affect their weediness. APHIS also contractedwith Hugh Wilson, an expert on squash genetics at Texas A&M University, to prepare a report addressing theseissues.Wilson’s report clearly identified several important risks. The potential for hybridization with ZW-20 would begreat throughout the 12-State range of free-living squash. Moreover, free-living squash are already significantagricultural weeds in some areas and the transfer of new disease resistance genes to these populations couldenhance their weediness. Gene transfer might also erode the genetic diversity of the free-living squashpopulations-a potential gene source for future squash breeding.(continued)WHAT IS THE ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF RISK FORGEO RELEASES?Finding:Proposals approved to date by APHIS forsmall-scale field releases of GEOs have beenlow risk. For the most part, APHIS has not yetbeen challenged to evaluate proposals posingintermediate risk levels. It is unclear how theagency plans to deal with this difficult task ofsetting acceptable levels of risk, especially asAPHIS has not yet standardized its proceduresfor evaluating the risks associated with NIS.Permit applications to date primarily haveinvolved low-risk GEOs, such as those lackingfree-living relatives in the United States, orinvolving genes that would pose negligible riskeven if transferred to free-living relatives. Decisionsconcerning which releases to allow willbecome increasingly complex as the numbers andtypes of GEOs increase (table 9-3) and GEOsposing more intermediate levels of risk begin tobe proposed for release.APHIS is operating under statutes designed toprotect U.S. agriculture from harmful pest species.Neither the Federal Plant Pest Act nor thePlant Quarantine Act contains any specificationof what level of “harm” might be acceptable.This is in contrast to commercial statutes likeFIFRA and TSCA, which give explicit instructionson how benefits should be weighed againstrisks. APHISs current regulations give no indicationof how acceptable levels of risk are to be set.Some perspective on how the agency balancessuch issues might be gleaned from its experiencewith NIS. Here APHIS weighs preventing entryof new plant pests against the economic desirabilityof free trade (see ch. 4). Critics complain theagency often errs in the wrong direction by

Chapter 9–Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case 283Although hybridization between free-living and domesticated squash has probably occurred throughouthistory, hybridization involving the transgenic squash poses special concerns. According to Wilson, the novelsource of the disease resistance genes (viruses) “represents, within the biological and historical context . . . anunknown and untested factor. The process of injecting a foreign genetic element. . . that has no precedent withinthe phylogenetic history of a complex crop-weed system such as C. pepo, constitutes a biological risk.” Further,the magnitude and impacts of this risk are “difficult-if not impossible-to predict.”APHIS’s final ruling on ZW-20 is expected sometime during the fall of 1993. In the interim, Upjohn isconducting additional field tests to address many of the important issues. According to one USDA official, APHISplans to make its decision regarding ZW-20 according to the same criteria used to judge varieties produced bytraditional breeding. However, the consequences of gene transfer from domesticated to free-living plants have notbeen examined in the past. So, even traditional plant breeding provides little experience on which to base aregulatory decision.If APHIS rules to allow commercialization of ZW-20, another issue will arise. Free-living squash also occurin Mexico and the export of ZW-20 seed to Mexico could pose additional potential risks.SOURCES: R. Goldburg, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund, letter to Chief, Regulatory Analysis and Development, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Oct. 19, 1992; J. Payne, Senior Microbiologist, Biotechnology,Biologics, and Environmental Protection, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personalcommunication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, July 13, 1993; J. Rissler et al., “National wildlife FederationComments to USDA APHIS on a Proposed Interpretive Ruling Concerning Upjohn’s Transgenic Squash,” Oct. 19, 1992; U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health inspection Service, “Notice of Proposed Interpretive Ruling in connection With the Upjohn CompanyPetition for Determination of Regulatory Status of ZW-20 Virus Resistant Squash,” 57 Federa/RegMer40632-40633 (Sept. 4, 1992); U.S.Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Proposed Interpretive Ruling in Connection with the UpjohnCompany PetitIon for Determination of Regulatory Status ZW-20 of Virus Resistant Squashp” 5S Fedem/Regkter15323 (March 22, 1993);H.D. Wilson. “Free-Living Cucurbita pepo in the United States: Viral Resistance, Gene Flow, and Risk Assessment” contractor reportprepared for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 27, 1993; H.D. W!/son, Professor,Department of Biology, Texas A&M University, personal communication to E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment, July 16,1993.allowing new species and products to enter thecountry with few restrictions until risks areclearly demonstrated. Further, APHIS gives fargreater attention to effects of its actions on agriculture,often neglecting effects on natural areas.This is of particular concern since upcoming GEOreleases may have the potential to invade naturalareas, or to affect populations of non-targetspecies through their pesticidal properties.RESULTS OF CONFINED FIELD TESTS ANDPOTENTIAL RISKS OF LARGER SCALE RELEASEIn approving the hundreds of test releases oftransgenic plants thus far, APHIS has placedconsiderable emphasis on confinement—requiring that special precautions be incorporatedinto experimental protocols to prevent genespread. Such precautions include destroying theplants before they flower or removing the flowers.Sometimes non-engineered plants are plantedaround the perimeter of an experiment to ‘‘trap”pollen from the transgenic plants. Test fields alsomay be isolated a certain distance from otherfields to minimize the chance of pollen transfer.General agreement exists that confinement willbecome infeasible for many GEOs when they arereleased on a large-scale or go into commercialsale. The range of different environments intowhich a GEO is released will also increase. Ifchanges in environment influence such risk factorsas likelihood of establishment or dispersal,the relative risk of a release may increase withscale-up. Evidence from experiments with transgeniccrucifers (plants in the mustard family) in Englandalready has demonstrated variation amongsites in the plants reproduction and other featuresthat affect the potential for establishment (10).Confined experimental releases conducted thusfar demonstrate the characteristics, stability, andperformance of GEOs—attributes important to

284 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesevaluate during product development. They donot, however, necessarily provide any additionalinformation on the ecological risks posed by aGEO under unconfined conditions or whetherthese risks will change as the scale of releaseincreases (49). An analysis by the NationalWildlife Federation showed that, for the 115 fieldreleases permitted by APHIS from 1987 through1990, the required final report was filed for onlyhalf (24). And most lack data on potentialenvironmental effects that could be used forscale-up decisions. Nevertheless, proponents ofgenetic engineering have used the approval of,and low risk attributed to, small-scale experimentalreleases as evidence that permitting requirementsfor field tests are far too stringent (l).In new regulations issued in 1993, 14 APHISused the same reasoning to justify why certainreleases of GEOs should require only agencynotification rather than receipt of a permit. Thisprobably poses few problems for the bulk oflow-risk GEOs that will fall under the newregulations. It does, however, establish a poorprecedent for higher risk GEOs. Especially forthese, small field trials will need to betterincorporate research and monitoring designed toevaluate the ecological risks of larger scalereleases.In the absence of such research, it is unclearwhat information will be used to make scale-updecisions. APHIS assumes that petitions to exemptan organism from regulation (i.e., allowcommercial distribution) will include the necessaryinformation to judge whether a GEO willcause significant environmental impacts whengrown under unconfined conditions (26). However,the existing data applicable to such decisionsare patchy at best.Some groups in the private sector also haveconducted or funded experiments to determinewhether genes are likely to spread from transgeniccrops by hybridization with wild and weedyThe cotton boll at left (Gossypium hirsutum) wasprotected from pests by a gene from Bt (Bacillusthuringiensis). Domesticated cotton has wild relatives(G. tomentosum) in Hawaii and elsewhere in the worldthat potentially could hybridize with the geneticallyengineered form.relatives (22,49). But, Federal investment in basicresearch in this area has not occurred in the UnitedStates until quite recently. The 1990 Farm Bi11 5required USDA to allocate 1 percent of itsresearch budget to “biotechnology risk assessmentresearch. ’ The Cooperative State ResearchService administers the program, which is expectedto provide about $1 million annually inresearch grants (14).HOW TO DEAL WITH INTERNATIONALTRADE IN GEOs?An even greater level of scale-up will occurwhen GEOs enter international commerce. CurrentFederal regulations do not address export ofGEOs (44), although the risks associated withreleases in other countries sometimes may besubstantially greater than in the United States(box 9-B) (18, 23). Further, recipient countries forexports may themselves lack laws or regulationsrequiring oversight of GEO releases (12).1458 Federal Register 17044 (Mmch 31, 1W3).15 me Food, &pjcu]~e, consemritio~ and Trade Act of 1990, Public Law 101-624.

Chapter 9—Genetically Engineered Organisms as a Special Case 1285Most important crops lack wild and weedyrelatives in the United States because they originatedelsewhere, However, in countries closer tothese crops’ centers of origin, wild and weedyrelatives generally are common. Close relatives ofcorn, tomatoes, and potatoes are common inCentral and South America. In these areas the riskwould be far higher that engineered genes mightspread through hybridization (45,46). Moreover,the small fields surrounded by vegetation typicalof farmingin developing countries provide greateropportunity for contact and hybridization withwild and weedy relatives (4).A Question of Values: The Hazards of OurSuccessesObjections to the first releases of GEOs commonlyaddressed the intrinsic merit of altering thenatural world. This issue has been less prominentrecently probably because it is less germane foragricultural releases to environments alreadyhighly modified by human manipulation. It may,however, reemerge as GEOs begin to be releasedinto natural areas,In many cases, NIS are valued by naturalresource managers because of their ability to livein stressed, polluted, or otherwise degraded habitatswhere comparable indigenous species cannotdwell. Concerns have been voiced that geneticengineering may pose a similar opportunity todeal with environmental degradation not byfixing the problem but by changing the managedspecies.In the past, we tried to control pollution toaccommodate plants and animals. Now, new[genetic engineering] techniques give us thepower to control plants and animals to accommodatepollution. . . . In the past, petrochemicalcompanies engineered pesticides to make themcompatible with crops. Now they can engineercrops to make them compatible with pesticides (31).The potentially vast opportunities genetic engineeringbrings also will pose certain implicitquestions about the biological future of thecountry. As with NIS, managers of natural areasmay need to decide between indigenous speciesand GEOs, or between improving habitats andstocking degraded habitats with GEOs that aremore stress tolerant. As with NIS, explicit articulationof such choices and the development ofclear policies is needed at a national level.CHAPTER REVIEWThis chapter examined how the Federal Governmentoversees the environmental release ofGEOs. Many low risk GEOs have been subject toa level of review never applied to potentiallyharmful NIS. However, other important issues—such as the need for better research on higher riskGEO releases and post-release monitoring-havereceived scant attention. The current Federalframework for regulating release of GEOs employslaws that were not designed for thispurpose. As for NIS, a patched-together approachhas resulted-one that leaves significant areasunaddressed and creates confusion for industry,academia, and government.The kinds of GEOs discussed here seemedfuturistic only a few years ago. In the nextchapter, OTA takes a closer look at the future andthe kinds of global changes that may further shapethe impacts of harmful NIS.

The Contextof the Future:InternationalLaw andGlobal Change 10Much of the debate about non-indigenous species (NIS)concerns the future-what trends related to themovement of species are inevitable and desirable.This debate takes place in the context of increasing‘‘globalization’ of national economies and environmental problems.In the face of these changes, many consider unilateralregulation of the movement of MS inadequate, especiallybecause international trade is among the most important pathwaysfor harmful introductions. This chapter broadens our pointof view by examining a few global socioeconomic and technologicaltrends related to harmful MS and evaluating pertinentinternational law. Then, the chapter highlights specific predictionsregarding the future status of MS, including scenariosrelated to species movement and global climate change.INCREASING GLOBAL TRADE AND OTHERSOCIOECONOMIC TRENDSFinding:As international trade relationships change, new pathwaysfor species exchange will open. Similarly, the increasingvolume of international commerce in biological commodities—in part because of liberalized trade—is likely to increase thenumber of new species entering the United States.Global social and economic trends have long affected thekinds, numbers, and pathways of MS that move around the world(ch. 3, table 3-5). Global population growth and economicexpansion contribute to ever-greater demands on natural ecosystems,on agriculture, and on governmental institutions. GreaterU.S. demand for particular kinds of foreign imports generates287

288 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 10-A-U.S. Exports of Non-indigenous Aquatic SpeciesThe United States, as a trading partner and home base to many travelers, exports as well as imports harmfulNIS. OTA has not systematically examined the United States’ role as an exporter. However, some scientists andofficials express concern that Federal and State authorities are not accountable for damaging species intentionallysent outside the United States.A number of harmful or accidental U.S. exports have occurred. The slipper limpet (Crepidula fornicata) wasinadvertently exported to Europe with a shipment of American oysters in the 1 880s; also Canadian scientists knowor suspect U.S. origins for coho salmon (Oncorhychus kisutch) in Nova Scotia, an oyster disease in Prince EdwardIsland, and a trout disease from certified idaho trout. Bonamia ostreae, aparasiteof European oysters, probablyoriginated in oysters shipped from California in the 1970s. R.L. Welcomme, of the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, lists 64 fish and other aquatic speciesthat were introduced to other countriesfrom the United States for ornamental, sport fisheries, aquaculture, or other purposes. Not all establishedreproducing populations; nor have all been harmful. According to his records, the United States accounted for 240of the 996 separate international introductions with known countries of origin.Other kinds of species have also been exported. A North American moth is defoliating trees in large partsof central China. A pine wood nematode (Bursaphelenchus lignicoius), probably from the Southeastern UnitedStates, is killing black pines (Pinus nigra) in Japan. And ragweed (Ambrosia spp.) is spreading on the Russiansteppes.SOURCES: R.A. EMon, “Effeotive Applications of Aquacdture Usease40ntroi Regulations: Recommendations From an IndustryViewpoint” D/spersd of LA4?g @nkwns {nto Aquatk EoosysWns, A Roeenfleki and R. Mann (ads.) (Oolfege Pa~ MD: Maryland SeaGrant, 1992), pp. 3S3-359; K. Langdon, Grsat Smoky Mountains National Pa~ U.S. Department ofths Intsdor, Gatlinburg, TN, personalcommunication to K.E. Barmen, Office of Twlmology Assessment, Aug. 17, 199S; DJ. Soarratt and R.E. Drinnan, “Canadian Strategiesfor Risk Reductions in Introductions and Transfers of Marine and Anad romous Spedae,” L%ywaal of LMng Ckganisms info Aquatk?Ecosystems, A. Rosenfiald and R. Mann (eds.) (Cottsga t%a~ MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992), pp. 377-3S!5; R.L Wlcornme, /ntsvnationalMuductkws of /n/andAquat/c SPsc/es, FAO Fishierlss Technioai Paper No. 294 (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, 19SS).new and more heavily used pathways for accidentalintroductions. Foreign demand stimulates U.S.exports of species (box 10-A). Socioeconomictrends also drive the processes by which ecosystemsbecome vulnerable to invasion. For instance,clearing land often eliminates indigenous vegetationand creates pathways for invaders; morerecreational visitors to natural areas increases thelikelihood that harmful NIS will invade them(105).From the standpoint of harmful NIS, thecontinuing increase in global trade is among themost significant trends of the 1990s. Harmful NISmove via intentional commercial imports of liveanimals, live plants, seeds, and plant products,together with unintended ‘‘hitchhikers” on theseproducts or in the ships, planes, and trucks thattransport them (ch. 3). The United States is amajor market for these biologically based prod-ucts, and imports of many are increasing. Theopening of trade relationships through free tradeagreements with Canada and Mexico and theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)will mean increased volumes of trade, as well asnew trade routes. Climatic and ecological similaritiesbetween regions of the United States, Russia,China, and Chile, for example, suggest greatpotential for species exchange as trade increases.The General Agreement on Tariffs andTradeThe United States recognizes the GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)--thepost-World War II agreement that liberalizedglobal trade. GATT’ set rules to eliminate nationalpractices that distort free global markets andprovided mechanisms for dispute settlement. Theparties to this Agreement have been renegotiating

Chapter 10-The Context of the Future: International Law and Global Change 289since 1986 (the ‘‘Uruguay round’ ‘), with no finalresolution yet.GATT declares trade restraints invalid if theydo not protect legitimate domestic interests.Article XX(b) acknowledges the need for partiesto protect themselves from harmful NIS in that itlegitimizes trade restraints, such as quarantineregulations, that are ‘‘necessary to protect human,animal, or plant life or health. ” However, somequarantines are alleged to be protectionist barriersdesigned to spare domestic products from foreigncompetition.Pacific Northwest apple growers contend thatJapan’s quarantine of their apples is an example,They claim to be shut out of the lucrative Japanesemarkets by a quarantine against the lesser appleworm (Enorminia prunivora) (1), a pest that isindigenous to the eastern United States. Theinsect exists in very low numbers in Northwestorchards; no outbreaks of quarantine significancehave occurred since the 1950s. According to aWashington State University agricultural economist,the Japanese quarantine is scientifically‘‘indefensible’ (71). Meanwhile, high-qualityapples sell in Japan’s markets for the equivalentof $7 or $8 each.Allegations have been raised by other countriesabout protectionist U.S. pest regulations as well.These include:●●●restrictions on imports of cut flowers andpotted plants from the Netherlands (2);a ban on seed potatoes from some Canadianprovinces (4); anda ban on imports of Mexican avocados (81),GATT has rarely been invoked to resolve thesesorts of allegations.Also, GATT authorities have only resolved afew disputes about whether environmental measuresviolate its norms of liberal trade (98). UnderGATT, trade restraints are not to be imposed bys TOPPLANT PROTECTION QUARANTINEINSPECTION ANDINSPECCION FUMIGACION FITOSANTARIAFUMIGATIONOBLIGATORY AND FREETO PREVENT THE INTRODUCTION OFm THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUITFLYATE WITH MEXICAN AGRICULTUREOBLIGATORIA Y GRATUITAIncreased trade is likely to distribute more harmfulnon-indigenous species among nations but thesechanges have received scant attention in free tradeagreements--like that proposed with Canada andMexico.one party to compel another to change itsenvironmental practices. In 1992, a GATT disputesettlement panel decided that provisions ofthe U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act l amountedto an unfair trade restraint (98). These provisionsbanned imports of Mexican tuna caught usingmethods that kill dolphins (34). Under GATT, theUnited States may impose bans on such importsonly if their very presence is harmful, that is, if theimports could introduce pests. However, GATTdoes not allow quarantines if they discriminateagainst foreign imports without scientific justification.Little systematic analysis of the environmentalimpacts of different trade patterns or policies hasbeen done (98). Some groups have proposed thatU.S. acceptance of future changes to GATT orother trade agreements be subject to formalenvironmental review. The applicability of theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 2 —the law that requires environmental impact as-1Marine Mammal protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U. S.C.A. 1361 et seq.)2NationaI Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U. S.C.A. 4321 et seq.)

290 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statessessments for Federal actions—to trade agreementsis not resolved legally. 3GATT’s solution to unfairly restrictive quarantinestandards is to encourage parties to ‘‘harmonize”their standard-setting criteria. All partiesneed not regulate the same pests. However, theyshould recognize common principles, adopt equivalentdefinitions of key terms like “economicpest, ’ and use comparable criteria for decidingwhether to quarantine imports (69). This wouldmake quarantine decisions more amenable toobjective scrutiny.Harmonization does not in and of itself lead tomore liberal importation. It could, however,reduce the cases of protectionism disguised asquarantine standards. Reaching agreements onacceptable levels of pest risk presents greatdifficulty in practice. The proposed harmonizedrisk analysis prepared for the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO)concedes this: ‘‘it is not possible to define a levelof risk that is acceptable for all situations” (69).Currently, determnining acceptable levels of risk isa sovereign decision made by individual governments(11). In addition, pest risk analysis oftenentails high uncertainty (ch. 4). Given theseobstacles to achieving international consensus,complete harmonization of pest risk standards isprobably not achievable, although agreeing onanalytical processes may be.Greater international harmonization raises twomain concerns. First, many developing countrieslack the resources or expertise for the sophisticatedrisk analyses that are feasible for developedcountries (63). Second, an overriding GATTapproach could preempt national, State, and localMS laws (84,107).The concern is whether the United Stateswould be obligated to strike down or preempt aState law that requires a more rigorous pest riskanalysis for imports than the international ‘ ‘harmonized’approach under GATT. GATT’s currentdraft language would support the State’scase, as long as its laws use ‘‘science-based’ riskanalysis (108). A State might, however, ban aclass of imports on the grounds that uncertaintyprevented determining which should be allowedand which prohibited. At the same time, Stateofficials might be unwilling or unable to undertakethe research necessary to remove thoseuncertainties. Then the foreign exporter couldargue that the State’s ban was not based onscientific evidence and therefore violated GATT. 4GATT’s current emphasis on harmonizationgenerally-including pesticide and food safetystandards-has been criticized by some legislatorsand environmental groups as sacrificingnational, State, and local environmental controlsfor the ideal of global free trade (78,98).Free Trade Agreements With Canada andMexicoCanada and Mexico are the top two suppliers ofU.S. agricultural imports (100). Considerableeffort has been expended to coordinate pestprevention approaches with both. The pestrelatedprovisions of the existing Canada-U.S.Trade Agreement (signed in 1988) constitutes acontinuation of these efforts (101). The proposedNorth American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),which would create a Canada-U.S.-Mexico freetrade bloc, includes language on harmonization ofpest risk approaches similar to that in the currentGATT draft (108).3On Sept. 15, 1992, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the Government’s lack ofenvironmental analysis under NEPA for the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement. Public Citizen, et al., v. O@ce of the UnitedStates Trude Representative, efal., Cause No. 92-2102. On June 30, 1993, the court ruled that NEPA applied. However, the United States filedan appeal on July 2, 1993, in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Public Citizen et al., v. Espy et al., Cause No. 93-5212, Theappeal has yet to be decided.d The issue of preemption of U.S. natio@ State, and local NM laws under GATT and the North American Free Trade Agreement isanalogous to constitutional preemption of State and local laws by Federal laws (see ch. 7) and their potential unconstitutionality under theInterstate Commerce Clause (see box 7-A on the key U.S. Supreme Court decisiou Maine v. Taylor).

Chapter 10–The Context of the Future: International Law and Global Change! 291NAFTA will increase the prospects of importingnew non-indigenous pests by increasing thevolume of agricultural and horticultural importsfrom Mexico (52). Programs to prevent pestexports traditionally have been weaker in Mexico,although the country recently strengthened itsapproach and capabilities (3, 11). By one estimate,Mexican agricultural exports to the United Stateswould increase by only a few percent (41). Byanother estimate, commercial truck traffic acrossthe U.S.-Mexico border could expand more thanfour-fold (to 8 million crossings) from 1990 andthe year 2000 (104).Extensive controversy and information havebeen generated regarding the environmental impactsof NAFTA. Little of this information relatesspecifically to the consequences of harmful NIS,however.I Other Socioeconomic TrendsAdditional socioeconomic trends are likely toshift the movements and impacts of harmful NIS(table 10-1). International travel is also expectedto increase and play a key role in the emergenceof new threats to human health (54), some ofwhich are carried by insects or other vectors thatare not indigenous to the United States.Both the biological control and aquicultureindustries are poised to expand (9,19,25,51).Rates of introduction linked to both of theseindustries are likely to increase in the future.Consumer demand exceeds the capacities ofcatch-fisheries. The proportion of aquatic organismsraised by aquiculture is expected to climbfrom 11 percent to 25 percent of the global harvestby the year 2000 (72). Likewise, sport fishing isprojected to double by the year 2030 (72),As the aquiculture industry expands—and asresearchers, commodity distributors, and the generalpublic also transport fish and shellfish—some fisheries experts expect that species movementsare likely to diversify, with the increasedrisk of spreading pathogens (3 1). On the otherhand, some observers envision that new introductionswill come to be judged by more consistentstandards and that aquiculture and nonindigenousfish will be managed “in a mannerthat preserves the biological integrity of nativeand desired naturalized fish communities” (42).Growing interest in environmentally soundmethods of pest control is spurring developmentof commercial biological control. Interest also isgrowing in applying biological control to newenvironments, for example, the use of blue crabs(Callinectes sapidus) to control zebra mussels(Dreissena polymorpha) in lakes and rivers (76).Biological control brings the risk of new speciesintroductions and unexpected effects. Biologicalcontrol agents, like other introductions, also cancarry associated pests unintentionally, althoughquarantines are in place to prevent this.Gardening is already the most popular leisureactivity in the United States—involving 1 in 3adults—and most surveys predict that gardeningwill grow. Nursery stock, seeds, equipment and soon amount to a $9 billion industry (109). Gardeners,in their search for plants that are novel, thatreflect particular cultures, or that reflect fashiontrends, are spurring changes in the seed and plantindustry (40). For example, demand for wildflowerseed is so keen that supplies do not meetdemand, and some seeds are imported fromEurope (40). Drought- and heat-tolerant speciesare especially popular. Gardening trends couldhave a variety of implications for NIS. Wildflowerseeds are a largely unregulated potentialsource for the unintentional import and interstatemovement of harmful NIS (ch. 1). Gardeners’demands could spur removal of technical andmarketing bottlenecks to the use of indigenousspecies and thus decrease demand for potentiallyrisky NIS imports.Predicting changes in species use is an uncertainproposition. Even the more exhaustive studiestend not to evaluate species use at this level ofdetail. For example, agricultural economist PierreCrosson’s (22) future scenarios for U.S. agriculturefocuses broadly on production of wheat,major grains, and soybeans. Other recent analyses

292 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 10-1—How Social and Economic Factors and Technological Innovations Could Change the Statusof Non-Indigenous Species in the FutureFactorsSeed exchanges between previously isolatedregions, e.g., Russia and the United StatesIncreased cross-border movement of material andrefugees due to regional warsDoubling of U.S. air passengers by the year 2000Broadened interest in ornamental uses ofindigenous plantsIncreased interest in smaller pets for urban areasIncreased interest in planting forage for wildlifeIncreased concerns regarding risks of chemicalpesticide useIncreased interest in protecting endangeredspeciesInnovationsFurther development of biological control for NISImprovements in pest eradication mentodsImprovements in detection equipment at ports ofentry, e.g., molecular probes and biomarkersUpgraded ballast water exchange systemsProgress in genetic engineeringDomestication of “microlivestock” such as the blackiguana (Ctenosaura spp.) and giant rat(Cricentmys gambianus, C. emini).Development of new plant species to replaceshrinking traditional supplies of woodUse of “constructed wetlands” for wastewater treatmentEnvironmental remediation using bacteria, algae,and fungiSocial and Economic FactorsPotential effectsCould increase international spread of pests and pathogensCould break down national inspection and quarantine systems andincrease the spread of NIS regionallyCould increase interstate spread of harmful speciesCould decrease incentives for foreign plant exploration andimportation; could spread non-indigenous plants of U.S. originthroughout the countryCould increase demand for non-indigenous fish and birdsCould increase introduction of non-indigenous plants to natural areasCould result in loss of some effective techniques to exclude, manage,or eradicate NISCould lead to relocations of species and additional introductionsPossible Technological InnovationsPotential effectsCould increase imports of control agentsCould cut needs for widespread pesticide spraying in urban areasCould increase interception of contaminated seed lots, microbes, andother small NISCould reduce likelihood of unintentional introductions of aquatic NISCould blur distinctions between indigenous and NIS astraits are tradedCould create new pathways for introductions and could spreadvertebrate diseasesCould cut imports of raw timber and associated pestsCould increase direct planting of otherwise harmful NIS, such as thewater hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)Could increase release of non-indigenous microbesSOURCES: Anonymous, “Wildlife Market On the Rise,” Seed i4br/d, November 1991, p. 26; M.J. Bean, ‘The Role of the U.S. Department of theInterior in Nonindigenous Spedes Issues,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, November 1991; G. Bria,“Newsletter Seeks Seed Swaps with Russians,” The Washington Post, Dec. 28, 1991, p. D3; A. Gibbons, “Smali is Beautiful,” science, vol. 253,No. 5018, Juiy 26, 1991, p. 378; L.A. Hart, Director, Human-Animal Program, University of California-Davis, cited in “Smalier Pets,” The Futurist,vol. 24, No. 2, March/Aprii 1990, p. 5; R. Keeler, “Bioremediation: Heaiing the Environment Naturaiiy,” R & D Magazine, July 1991, pp, 3440; D.Morris, “We Should Make Paper From Crops, Not Trees,” The Seattle Trnes, May 5, 1991, p. A12; National Research Council, Mkxolivestock:Litt/e-Krrown Sma//Anima/s Mth a Promising Ewnornic Future, Board on Science and Technology for International Development, N.D. Vietmeyer(cd.) (Washington, DC: Nationai Academy Press, 1991); Partnership for Improved Air Travel, Washington, DC, dted in “Ailing Aviation IntrastmctureThreatens U.S. Economy,” 7he Futurk#, vol. 23, No. 6, NovemberlDecember 1989, p. 7; S. Reed, “Constructed Wetlands for WastewaterTreatment,” Biocycie, vol. 32, January 1991, pp. 44-49.

Chapter 10-The Context of the Future: International Law and Global Change 293of the nursery, greenhouse, and turf grass industries;floriculture; and forestry do not distinguishbetween indigenous and non-indigenous species(10,46,92).TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGESFinding:Technological changes and other means willcontinue to add non-indigenous organisms tothe United States, sometimes by new pathways.At the same time, certain technological innovations,e.g., improved predictive models andmore biologically sophisticated pesticides, arelikely to provide more effective ways to detect,eradicate, and manage NIS.Technology, like social, economic, and politicalchanges, will continue to alter the movement,survival, and impacts of NIS (table 10-1). Indeed,experts predict that technical innovation willproceed at increasing rates (18,86) and providenew approaches to preventing and solving environmentalproblems (16,20). Based on past experience,breakthroughs in transportation, pest control,and information management are most likelyto affect NIS directly.More complex pest control methods seemvirtually certain as biotechnology expands (chs.5, 9). Phytotoxins—plant-damaging compoundsproduced biologically by microbes-may formthe next generation of herbicides; combinationsof other biological control methods, the use ofmodified cultivation practices, and lowered chemicalherbicide use may also be increasinglycommon (91 ). A host of new methods mightultimately be available to manage NIS moreeffectively. One biologist predicts: ‘‘ [i]t probablywill be possible to eliminate most exotic speciesin less than a decade after the initiation of aprogram’ with methods such as the release ofsterile males; genetically engineered, hostrestrictedpathogens; repression of pests immunesystems; manipulation of reproduction; and theuse of sexual attractants (86). Not all of these arenear-term possibilities, however. And insect pestsFlourishing air travel is likely to bring more harmfulnon-indigenous species to the United States and spurtechnological innovations in detection and baggagehandling that will have additional impacts.have proved to be difficult to eradicate, even withsophisticated technology (30), despite repeatedpredictions that better methods were on the way.Biotechnology will also shape the way indigenousand non-indigenous germ plasm is used andcombined (ch. 9). Conventional breeders andspecialists in biotechnology are increasingly turningtheir attention to fish. Fish with new adaptationsto specific environments can be expected,along with larger fish and the use of morecomplex reproductive technologies to isolate newstrains from indigenous species (72). Technologynow allows more fish and shellfish species to bemanipulated to limit their post-release reproduction—technologyunavailable even 10 yearsago (31). Likewise, plant breeders expect novel

294 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesadditions of genes through biotechnology (29,37).Management of some non-indigenous weeds willchange, for example, when genes for herbicideresistance are introduced into crops.Improved methods to assess risk and makedecisions are underway and likely to developfurther (ch. 4) (14). Other improved means ofgathering and managing information remain tantalizing,but remote, possibilities. For example,computerized systems might enable worldwidetracking of pests and other species. The NationalAeronautic and Space Administration uses extremelysensitive biomarkers to detect and identifymicrobes that might contaminatespace missions(68). These techniques might eventually beadaptable to detecting NIS at ports of entry,although they require complex and expensivelaboratory methods now. Medical technologymight have new applications, e.g., nuclear magneticresonance imaging (MRI) might be used toidentify and classify previously unknown species(86) but cost prohibits such uses currently.High-speed trains are already in service insome parts of the world and high-speed magneticlevitation systems are under development-otherexamples of technological innovation. In the past,higher speed transportation has increased thesurvival of intentionally and unintentionally transportedNIS (ch. 3). High-speed ground transportationcould accentuate this trend. Ultimately,experts envision that high-speed ground transportationwould interconnect with highways and airtravel (93). Difficulties in restricting NIS offoreign origin could increase if internationalairports become hubs for multiple high-speedground transportation systems that automaticallytransfer baggage.The caliber of international restrictions on themovement of harmful or potentially damagingNIS is significant, given the increasingly globalnature of the socioeconomic and technologicaltrends cited here. Many damaging NIS already inthe United States, such as zebra mussels, arrivedcircuitously, sometimes crossing several internationalborders. The United States has vast agriculturaland other natural resources that are vulnerableto damaging NIS. Thus, this country would bea major beneficiary of an international system thatis as effective as possible. In the next section,OTA examines how well international treatyobligations protect the United States and othersfrom damaging MS.TREATIES AND THE MOVEMENT OFHARMFUL NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIESFinding:Generally, the international regulation ofNIS is weak. Except for plant protection, nomultilateral treaty to which the United Statesis a party directly addresses the risks of NISimports, although the new Convention onBiological Diversity includes a weak provisionon NIS.International environmental laws have multipliedin the last 20 years but they remain weakcompared with national prerogatives, as the lawstend to lack enforceability (96). Internationallegal obligations can be important, however, andthey are becoming more comprehensive. 5 Anumber of treaties address harmful NIS directly,with specific provisions. Others deal with relatedenvironmental issues and indirectly affect NIS(box 10-B). Only the former are discussed indetail here.Some experts have called for more effectiveinternational laws regarding NIS, particularly toregulate aquatic releases (13,1 1 1). Of the threedirectly relevant multilateral treaties, one hasonly vague provisions on NIS (the Convention onBiological Diversity) and another has not beenratified by enough countries to take effect (theConvention on the Law of the Sea).S Additional international mechanisms also relate to NM. For example, the United States is a member of the International Council for theExploration of the Seas (ICES) and a signatory to its Code of Practice. The Code is not an intermtiorud law or regulation but a protocol and,thus, is discussed inch. 4.

Chapter 10-The Context of the Future: International Law and Global Change 295Box 10-B—Main International Treaties with Provisions Related to Non-Indigenous SpeciesMultilateral Treaties Directly Affecting NIS. International Plant Protection Convention, signed by the United States in 1972. Convention on Biological Diversity, signed by the United States in 1993. Convention on the Law of the Sea, United States has not signedBilateral Treaties Directly Affecting NIS. Convention on Prevention of Diseases in Livestock (U.S.-Mexico), signed in 1928. Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 (U.S.-Canada), in particular the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreementof 1978, as amended in 1987● Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries (U.S.-Canada), signed in 1954. Convention Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and their Environment (U.S.-U.S.S.R), signedin 1976Multilateral and Bilateral Treaties With Indirect Effects on NIS.These generally protect habitats or groups of indigenous species deemed to have major conservationsignificance.. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, signed in 1973. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), signed in1975; (see box 10-C).. Convention on Wetlands of International importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat signed in 1985. Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere, signed in 1942. Convention for Protection and Development of Marine Resources of the Wider Caribbean Region, signedin 1983. Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds (U.S.-Canada), signed in 1916. Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals (U.S.-Mexico), signed in 1936The bilateral migratory bird treaties focus on harvest restrictions and include general provisions to preserveimportant habitats. The United States would be obligated to protect such habitats if they were threatened by NIS.However, these older treaties tend to be less comprehensive and to lack adequate legal mechanisms to enforceobligations.NOTE: Dates given are for U.S. signature. Agreements were established and opened for signature either in the same year or up to severalyears earlier. The Conventicm on Biological Diversity haa not yet been ratified by the Senate.SOURCES: S. Lyster, International Wldife Law(Cambridge, England: Gmtius Publications, 19S5); U.S. Congress, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Tec/mo/ogias to A#ahtain Lho/ogica/ Diversify, OTA-F-330 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1987).The International Plant ProtectionConvention (IPPC)IPPC covers agricultural pests. Created underUnited Nations auspices, this major multilateraltreaty has been signed by 94 countries, includingthe United States in 1972. It establishes aframework for cooperation in agricultural pestregulation; lays out general and specific quarantineprinciples; standardizes terminology a n dpermits; and provides a process for resolvingdisputes (47). It aims to:● strengthen international efforts to preventthe introduction and spread of pests of plantsand plant products,● secure international cooperation to controlpests and to promote measures for pestcontrol, and• ensure adoption by each country of the legislative,technical, and administrative measuresto carry out the Convention’s provisions(15).

296 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesIPPC requires each signatory to establish aplant protection organization to undertake certification,inspection, control, and research; to conductsurveys; and to share information. This doesnot guarantee uniform performance by all parties.Training, equipment, and facilities differ amongthe parties and are lacking altogether in some(15).From the U.S. perspective, this unevennessmeans that agricultural agencies in many exportingcountries cannot be relied on to keep potentiallyharmful pests out of shipments. In somecases, it has been advantageous to assist developingcountries in improving their pest preventioninfrastructures, as with economically importantMexico.The Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO) administers IPPC withinput from regional plant protection organizations,such as the North American Plant ProtectionOrganization, to which the United Statesbelongs. Proposals for changes to IPPC include:the need for its own secretariat, separate from andstronger than the current FAO administration(48); and expanded coverage beyond commercialplants, that is, to explicitly protect indigenousplants in non-agricultural areas (12).No convention comparable to IPPC exists foranimals or their pests, but livestock diseaseprevention terminology and information is coordinatedby the International Office on Epizootics.Based in France, it is the international standardsetting organization for animal health.The Convention on Biological DiversityPlans for a global multilateral convention oninternational protection of biological diversityhave been discussed since 1982 (53). At therequest of the U.N. Environment Programme, theInternational Union for the Conservation ofNature and Natural Resources’s (IUCN) EnvironmentalLaw Centre prepared the initial draft (44).The goal was to present a convention at the U.N.Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992.Initially, a detailed “alien species” articlewould have obligated the parties to: preventintroductions harmful to biological diversity;attempt eradication of existing harmful introductions;and be attentive to the determinations of anew international expert body (to be created bythe Convention) as to harmful species, riskmanagement, and eradication. Several preparatorymeetings for UNCED considered the alienspecies article and weakened the IUCN draft,reducing the specificity of the obligations andeliminating the proposed expert body. In theversion of the “Convention on Biological Diversity”presented at Rio de Janeiro, and signed byalmost all counties except the United States, thealien species provision reads:Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possibleand appropriate: . . . (h) Prevent the introductionof, control or eradicate those alien species whichthreaten ecosystems, habitats or species (95).The initial obstacles to U.S. signature werefinancial and legal concerns concerning biotechnology;language regarding property rights; andinadequate provisions for financial oversight bydonors (103). The alien species provision did notcontribute to the U.S. refusal. The United Stateslater signed the Convention in June 1993 but theSenate has not yet acted on ratification.The Convention on Biological Diversity doesnot hold much promise for significantly reducingunwanted international exchanges. The alienspecies provision is vague and probably unenforceable.This approach contrasts significantlywith the detailed requirements of the Conventionon International Trade in Endangered Species ofWild Fauna and Flora (CITES), an important andrelatively successful treaty (57). Paul Munton,who chairs the Introductions Specialist Group forIUCN’s Species Survival Commission, suggestedthat CITES could serve as a model for internationalregulation of harmful non-agricultural NIS,i.e., those not covered by IPPC (67). However,

Chapter 10—The Context of the Future: International Law and Global Change 297CITES has both strengths and weaknesses as amodel (box 10-C). U.N. officials, other internationalexperts, and the U.S. International TradeCommission have suggested recently that monitoringcompliance with CITES and other internationalagreements needs more attention (96).Suggested improvements include monitoring effortslike those used by GATT, the InternationalLabor Organization, or other groups. 6The Convention on the Law of the SeaThe United States has not signed the solemultilateral convention with provisions specificto marine introductions, the Convention on theLaw of the Sea. Indeed, the Convention has nottaken effect because fewer than the requirednumber of countries have ratified it. The UnitedStates refused to sign the Convention primarilybecause of concerns over distribution of revenuesfrom deep sea-bed mining (53). However, theReagan administration did express its intent tovoluntarily comply with the non-mining provisions(102).The Convention proposes an international approachto marine introductions:States shall take all measures necessary toprevent, reduce, and control pollution of themarine environment resulting from the use oftechnologies under their jurisdiction or control, orthe intentional or accidental introduction ofspecies, alien or new, to a particular part of themarine environment, which may cause significantand harmful changes thereto (Article 196) (94).Articles 197 and 200 call for formulation ofstandards on a cooperative global or regionalbasis to prevent harmful introductions and toconduct coordinated research on ‘‘pathways,risks, and remedies. ’Bilateral TreatiesThe United States has adopted several bilateralagreements on agricultural quarantines and animalhealth with Canada and Mexico. These areagreements between corresponding agency departments,without treaty status. The UnitedStates and Mexico did sign a convention toprotect livestock in 1928 that has facilitatedmutually advantageous veterinary programs, suchas U.S. participation in the control of foot andmouth disease in Mexico in the 1940s and 1950s(66).The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 coversthe Great Lakes. The International Joint Commissionco-manages the treaty and has overseenagreements on NIS such as the zebra mussel (39).The invasion of the sea lamprey (Petromyzonmarinus) in the early 1900s, which devastatedindigenous fish populations, precipitated the establishmentof another treaty in 1955—the Conventionon Great Lakes Fisheries (33). The GreatLakes Fishery Commission administers this treatyand coordinates sea lamprey control. Also, theCommission coordinates fish stocking with suchNIS as Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.).Disputes among the parties (States, Provinces,and Federal Governments) regarding fish restorationwere anticipated by the Joint Strategic Planadopted in 1980 (38). The Plan calls for consensusbefore unilateral actions, and the Commissioncan arbitrate if a dispute cannot be resolvedotherwise.Outside the Great Lakes, disputes have occurredbetween individual States and the Canadianand Provincial governments over fish releases.North Dakota’s experimental release ofthe European zander (Stizostedion lucioperca)raised concerns not only because of uncertaintyover impacts from the fish itself, but also fromtwo potentially associated non-indigenous fishdiseases (5). No direct legal mechanism like the6 In January 1991, Senator Daniel Moynihan introduced Senate bill S .59, tie General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade for the EnvironmentAct of 1991. This bill proposed using GA~ to monitor and enforce international environmental agreements (96),

298 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 10-C-CITES as a Model for International Regulation of Non-Indigenous SpeciesThe Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and flora (CITES) is creditedwith saving many species from extinction and has been called the most successful international treaty concernedwith wildlife conservation. It has had its share of difficulties, too—many involving political disagreements. CITESregulates and monitors international wildlife trade, business that grosses between $5 billion and $17 billionannually.CITES detailed approach is quite different from that of the Convention on Biological Diversity and thusrepresents an alternate model for regulating those harmful NIS not already covered by the International PlantProtection Convention or other agreements. However, CITESisintended to prevent harm inthe exporting country.The major threat from trade in NIS is harm in the importing country. (Trade in some species, though, may causeharm for both parties. For example, exporting rare parrots can diminish South American fauna and threatenindigenous U.S. birds with disease if they escape here. Tree ferns are rare and protected in Australia, but theyare invasive (e.g., Cyathea cooperi) when imported in Hawaii.) Also, CITES regulates only intentional movements;unintentional movements are important pathways for harmful NIS.Positive features of CITES that are potentially applicable to trade in NIS are:• regularly updated lists of hundreds of species for which trade is prohibited and over 27,000 species forwhich trade is monitored by a permit system;. an independent secretariat, with staff and budget;● a trust fund to finance the secretariat and biennial meetings of the parties;. a network of national Management Authorities to address the mechanics of trade, and Scientific Authoritiesto address biological aspects, in most signatory countries; these commicate directly with each other andthe secretariat;● international forums for governments and non-governmental groups;● technical advice from various expert organizations, including the IUCN’s Wildlife Trade Specialist Group;and. facilitation of enforcement against CITES violators (including non-parties) via trade sanctions adopted bythe parties.(continued)reduced if appropriate screening and regula-tory programs are adopted and implemented.Great Lakes agreement, existed for Canada tochallenge the action by North Dakota.In sum, international agreements that controlthe movement of harmful NIS are quite limited.What kind of future can be predicted, given thecontinuing, and probably increasing, numbersand kinds of NIS in international transit?FROM TRENDS TO PREDICTIONSFinding:Many experts anticipate increasingly negativeimpacts from unintentional introductionsof NIS in the long term. OTA concurs thatthere is considerable cause for concern. At thesame time, future problems associated withintentional importations and releases could beA Pessimistic View of the FutureMany researchers are strikingly pessimisticabout slowing and managing harmful introductions.Some anticipate:a future ‘‘. , . with invasion sure to play anincreasingly important role in the ecology of thebiosphere . . .“ (106)‘‘continued mixing of the regions’ biotas . . .“(36)an “. . . inexorable invasion of all biotas byalien species from other regions, biomes andcontinents.” (87)

Chapter 10–The Context of the Future: International Law and Global Change! 299Negative features of CITES that detract from it as a model for international regulation of NIS are:. a narrow focus on trade, which excludes non-commercial pathways;. the tendency, by restricting all trade in a given species, to penalize the countries that manage speciescarefully along with those that manage carelessly;. creation of a harmful underground trade (approximately one-fourth to one-third of threatened andendangered species trade is estimated to be illegal);. lack of scientific knowledge and/or political will in many countries to make appropriate listings and toenforce permits;• the opportunity for countries that disagree with CITES on particular listings to exempt themselves byentering “reservations;”. limited compliance with reporting requirements and lack of enforcement measures specified in the treatyitself; and. lack of uniform documentation for importing and exportingcountries, making misrepresentation and forgeryeasier;For the United States, in particular, CITES’ weaknesses include: insufficient importation inspection capability,lack of information on enforcement, excessive allowance of imports through non-designated ports, and inadequateassessment and collection of penalties.SOURCES: C. Beasley, Jr., “Live and M Die,” B uzzwwrn, vol. 4, July-August 1991, p, 2S-SS; F. Campbell, Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, Washington, DC, personal communication to the Office of T=hnology Assessment, Dec. 24, 1992; G. Hemley, “internationalWildlife Trade,” Audubon Wi/d/itb Report 198S/19S9 (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 19SS); S. Lyster, /nterrrat&na/ IMlditk! Law(Cambridge, England: Grotius Publications, 1SSS); J.A. MoNeefy et al., Conserving the IMrfd’s Bkdogkxd Divers/ty(Giand, Switzerland:IUCN et al., 1990); P. Munton, “Problems Aasoaated With Introduced Species,” paper presented at the YWkshop on Feral Animals at theThird International Theriological Conference, Helsinki, Finland, August 1982; U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, /nternatrbrrsdEnvironment: /nternationa/ Agreements are Not Ws//h4onitored, GAO/RCED-92-32 (Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General Accounting Offioe,January, 1992); Wxkhvatch Institute, State of the Mvfd -1992 (New York, NY: W.W. Norton Co., 1992).I“In the face of ongoing habitat alteration andfragmentation, this implies a biota increasinglyenriched in wide-spread, weedy species-rats,ragweed and cockroaches . . , .’ (45)“. . . that the circumstances conducive to theinvasion of introduced species will become morewidespread in the future, not less widespread. ”(59)“Because of increasing contact and exchangethroughout the world, introductions of exoticpests will take place with increasing frequency. . . “ (23).“ . . . as species are introduced or move inresponse to environmental changes, some oftoday’s desirable species may become pests intheir new environmental context, while somepests may become more pernicious. ” (56)‘ ‘If we look far enough ahead, the eventualstate of the biological world will become notmore complex but simpler—and poorer. Insteadof six continental realms of life with all theirminor components of mountain tops, islands andfresh waters, separated by barriers to dispersal,there will be only one world, with the remainingwild species dispersed up to the limits set by theirgenetic characteristics, not to the narrower limitsset by mechanical barriers as well. ” (32)When people speculate about the future, theytend to be predominantly pessimists or optimists;the work of futurists has even been categorized onthat basis (62). Whether these experts are undulypessimistic or not, they picture a serious problemthat is getting worse. One prominent conservationbiologist sees the spread of NIS as the only highimpact threat to biological diversity that affectsboth richer and poorer countries at every level ofbiological organization-from single genes towhole landscapes (88). In order to supplementthese views, OTA asked its Advisory Panel toenvision the world’s future regarding NIS also.

300 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesBox 10-D-OTA’s Advisory Panel Envisions the FutureOTA’s Advisory Panelists (p. iv) have been dealing with NIS for much of their professional Iives and are moreexpert than most in assessing what the future might hold. Fallowing are some of the fears and hopes they identifiedwhen asked to ponder the best and worst that might be ahead.Life Out of Bounds . . .“The future will bring more reaction to zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and inaction to the massivealteration of natural habitats and natural flora and fauna . . . By the mid-21st Century, biological invasions becomeone of the most prominent ecological issues on Earth . . . A few small isolated ecosystems have escaped the handof [humans] and in turn NIS. . . One place looks like the next and no one cares . . . The homogeneity may notbe aesthetically or practically displeasing, but inherently it diminishes the capacity of the biotic world to respondto changing environments such as those imposed by global warming . . . The Australian melaleuca tree(Melaleuca quinquenervia) continues its invasive spread and increases from occupying half a million acres in thelate 1980s to more than 90 percent of the Everglades conservation areas.”. . . Or Life In Balance“An appropriate respect for preserving indigenous species becomes a national goal by consensus . . . Allunwanted invasions are treated with species-specific chemicals or by vast releases of 100 percent sterile triploids(created quickly) that depress the exotic populations. Invasions slow to a trickle and fade away like smallpox . . .Jobs for invasion biologists fade away . . . [There is] an effective communication network, an accessibleknowledge base, a planned system of review of introductions, and an interactive, informed publlc . . . Native[species] are still there in protected reserves . . . The contribution of well-mannered NlS-for abuse-tolerant urbanlandscaping, for ornamental in gardens, for biological control of pests, for added interest, for increasedbiodiversity, for new food and medicine-is appreciated. The overarching criterion for judging the value of aspecies is its contribution to the health of its host ecosystem.”SOURCE: Adviaory Panel Meeting, Offi~ of Technology Assessment, July 29-30,1992, Washington, DC.Their worst case scenarios are similar to thoseexcerpted above (box 10-D).Such scenarios would have substantial financial,as well as environmental, costs. The worstcase scenarios of future U.S. economic lossesfrom 15 harmful NIS could total $134 billion 7(table 10-2). These figures are based on availableeconomic projections, ranging from 1 to 50 years.However, far more than these 15 harmful NIS arelikely to create losses in the future (ch. 2, 3). Forexample, if leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) isallowed to spread unrestricted throughout Montana,South Dakota, and Wyoming, annual impactscould reach $46 million by 1995 (6). Similarcost estimates are not available for most harmfulMS, however. Nor do these projections accountfor analogs to the zebra mussel—those surprisespecies that radically and rapidly alter economicoutlooks.Island species, as well as those inhabitinglong-isolated bodies of freshwater, will remain athigh environmental risk from non-indigenouspredators, diseases, and competitors from continentalregions (ch. 8) (86). Generally, however,island-like continental areas (such as isolatedmountains) have not experienced the same degreeof evolutionary isolation and thus are less likelyto be as vulnerable to MS-caused extinctions asoceanic islands are (59).In the future, larger proportions of harmfulintroductions will be unplanned as controls arelikely to tighten on intentional ones. Most ani-7Past economic losses are provided in ch, 3.

Chapter 10-The Context of the Future: International Law and Global Change 301Table 10-2—Worst Case Scenarios: Potential Economic Losses From 15 Selected Non-lndigenous Species aCumulative loss estimatesGroup Species studied (in millions, $1991) bPlants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . melaleuca, purple Ioosestrife, witchweed 4,588Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . African honey bee, Asian gypsy moth, boll weevil, 73,739Mediterranean fruit fly, nun moth, spruce bark beetlesAquatic invertebrates. . . . . . . . . . zebra mussel 3,372Plant pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . annosus root disease, larch canker, soybean rust fungus 26,924Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . foot and mouth disease, pine wood nematodes 25,617Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 species 134,240a See index for scientific names.b Estimates are net ~re~entvalue~ ~femnomic loss ~rojxtion9 obt~ned from vafious studies and reportson selected potentially harmful NIS. Manyof the economic projections are not weighted by the probability that the invasions would actually occur. Thus, the figures represent worst casescenarios. The periods of the projections range from 1 to 50 years.SOURCE: M. Cochran, “Non-Indigenous Species in the United States: Economic Consequences,” contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, March 1992.mals are intentionally imported and released andheightened awareness should limit further releasesof harmful entries (59) (box 3-b).Some observers expect that weed problems arelikely to become greater and more complex(35,59). The significance of woody weeds islikely to increase in Mediterranean-like regions ofthe world, including California, while bettermanagement may cause other types to decline(36). Many U.S. weeds have close relativesoverseas. As more of these weeds reach theUnited States, hybridization could sufficientlyalter the non-indigenous weeds to make identificationof their natural enemies difficult; as aresult, biological control would progress moreslowly (30),Likewise, some forests may experience moresevere insect and disease outbreaks as new pestsadd to the cumulative damage of current ones (7).One prominent conservation biologist expectscontrol of various NIS to be a growth industry andanticipates calls for massive spraying of pesticides(87).The Next PestsOTA identified 205 foreign species that wereintroduced or detected in the United Statesbetween 1980 and 1993; 59 are known to beharmful (table 3-l). For those that becomeestablished, impacts are likely to increase as theirranges expand. This kind of data could alertmanagers to new and potentially damaging NIS.However, such information is scattered and ofhighly variable quality.USDA’s APHIS tracks certain overseas pestsand diseases. This is a daunting task. Thousandsof organisms are potential pests, but a smallernumber are most likely to reach the United Statesand become established. The USDA VeterinaryService identified 61 diseases of livestock andpoultry and 4 fish diseases of particular concern;veterinarians receive these reports and are askedto look out for new diseases (52). The most recent,comprehensive assessment of future plant pestsfor the United States identified 1,200 species stillrestricted to other countries (75). Plants worthwatching include:●●23 species plus 8 multispecies genera ofaquatic, parasitic, or terrestrial plants prohibitedfrom entry by the Federal NoxiousWeed Act (FNWA); and29 species, 10 genera, plus 6 families ofweedy plants that are not listed on theFNWA (60).Preventing damage by the first group dependson the effectiveness of the system back stoppingthe Federal Noxious Weed Act. The second groupof plants also poses significant economic andecological hazards, but the FNWA provides no

302 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesprotection from them. Many species in this grouphave close relatives in the United States that arealready troublesome weeds (60). Another 29species and one genus of non-indigenous weedyplants are present in the United States but not yetwidespread. Examples of the most significant ofthese 3 categories of potential U.S. weeds appearin table 10-3.Neither the Federal Government nor most StateGovernments make systematic efforts to evaluatesuch imminent problems. Within USDA, supporthas been sporadic for the databases that wouldprovide early warnings (ch. 5). On the other hand,Minnesota recently completed an assessment ofthreats from MS; 11 plant, 8 insect, 5 fish, 2invertebrate, and 7 vertebrate species were identifiedas potential pests not known to occur inMinnesota as of January 1991 (65). Also, theFederal interagency Aquatic Nuisance SpeciesTask Force is developing an information systemon non-indigenous aquatic species and theireffects. This part of the Task Force’s proposedAquatic Nuisance Species Program is intended toprovide timely notification of the detection anddispersal of these organisms.Climate Change: the Wild Card inPredictionsFinding:Projected ecological disruption from climatechange would increase the probability ofinvasions by NIS. Also, it would inject greatcomplexity into defining what is and is notindigenous and cause even more policymakingdifficulty than currently exists. Inparticular, new policies would be needed toaddress whether movements by populations inresponse to climate change should be treatedpassively—as if they were natural-or actively.Scientists are confident that human activity isdramatically changing the chemical makeup ofthe Earth’s atmosphere (97). Atmospheric concentrationsof the greenhouse gases that trap heatin the atmosphere-carbon dioxide, methane,nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons-haveincreased rapidly over the last 100 years, generallyas a result of human activity. The IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change concludedthat the global mean temperature could increasefrom today’s level by roughly 2.2 o F (1.0 ‘C) by2030 and 6.6 o F (3.0 ‘C) by 2100 if presentemission levels continue (43). Because greenhousegases may persist in the atmosphere for upto a century, some amount of global warmingappears unavoidable even if countries take stringentmeasures to limit further emissions today(43).Temperature changes of this magnitude wouldhave significant effects on the distribution ofindigenous and non-indigenous species. Anypredictions about the future status of harmful NISneed to account for the possibility of globalclimate change.Many uncertainties surround predictions ofclimate change. However, 100-year increases of1.5 to 5.5 o C fall in the middle range of mostmodels’ predictions. If realized, these levelswould make the Earth warmer than at any time inthe past 200,000 years (1 10), with temperaturesrising at a rate perhaps 15 to 40 times as fast aspast natural changes (80).Living organisms are quite sensitive to temperatureand temperature-related parameters such asprecipitation, humidity, and soil moisture. To findthe same temperature, a 3 o C increase requires anorthward shift of 250 kilometers or an upwardelevational movement of 500 meters (58). Differentspecies will shift ranges at different rates.Estimates for individual species project largerrange shifts: 350 km northward for loblolly pine(Pinus taeda) (64) and 500 to 1,000 km for 4common North American trees 8 (24). Such speciesrelocation may be possible for highly mobileorganisms or for those that readily colonize newa Beech (Fagus grandifolia), yellow birch (Betu/u alleghaniensis), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and sugar maple (ker saccharum).

Chapter 10-The Context of the Future: International Law and Global Change 303Table 10-3—Examples of Weedy Plants With Potential for Significant Economic or Ecological HarmCommon (when available) and scientific namesCommentsWeedy plants not established in the United States and prohibited from entry by the Federal Noxious Weed Act (FNWA)Monochoria vaginalisaquatic weed of rice fields throughout AsiaAfrican payal (Salvinia auriculata)South American aquatic weed now troublesome in Africa; closelyrelated to one of world’s worst weeds (S. mdesta)Dodders (Cuscuta spp.)parasitic plant of many crops; worldwide problem (some species inwarmer parts of United States)Broomrapes (Orobanche spp.)parasitic plant of many crops; worldwide problemWitchweeds (Striga spp.)parasite mostly of grasses; widespread in India, AfricaCouchgrasses (Digitaria spp.)terrestrial weed of fields, disturbed areas in AfricaAfrican boxthorn (Lycinum ferocissimum)terrestrial hedge plant--escaping; serious weed of natural areas andfields in South Africa, Australia New ZealandSerrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma)terrestrial weed of fields, waste places; one of worst weeds in NewZealandWeedy plants not established in the United States and not listed by the FNWATutsan (Hypericum androsaemum)close relative to already troublesome U.S. weed; found in roadsides,damp places in Europe, North Africa, Australia(Oxylobium parviflorum)one of worst poisonous plants; found in western AustraliaBromegrasses (Bromus spp.)close relatives to already troublesome U.S. weed; weeds of arid sitesin central Asia, Russia, Mediterranean region(Avena strigosa)close relative to already troublesome U.S. weed; weed in corn andoats fields in central Europe and Mediterranean regionPanic grasses (Panicum spp.)climbs over vegetation; problem in tropical Africa and AsiaSedges (Cyperaceae)weeds of waste places, cultivated fields, and wet areas near ponds,streams, rivers; worldwide; multiple generaWeedy plants in the United States but not yet widespreadCommon crupina (Crupina vulgaris)listed under FNWA; problem along roadsides and in waste places inIdaho; eradicated in CaliforniaCatclaw mimosa (Mimosa pigra var. pigra)listed under FNWA; wide-spread in tropical Africa; quarantined inAustralia; present in FloridaPersian darnel (Lolium persicum)not listed under FNWA; weed of fields and waste places in NorthDakotaCudweed (Filago arvensis)not listed under FNWA; weed of fields, waste places, overgrazedrangeland in Washington and OregonTall fescue (Festuca arundinacea)not listed under FNWA; poisonous to livestock; found in roadsides,(Thladiantha dubia)gullies, canals in Florida and the Pacific Northwestnot listed under FNWA; vine that climbs over vegetation; found in NewHampshire and MinnesotaRaoul grass (Rottboellia exaltata)listed under FNWA; invading sugarcane fields in Florida andLouisiana(Medicago polymorpha)not listed under FNWA; weed of cultivated areas and waste places;found in Hawaii and almost worldwideSOURCES: R.N. Mack, “Additional Information on Non-Indigenous Plants in the United States,” contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, October 1992. Compiled from: R.D. Blackburn, L.W. Weldon, R.R. Yeo, and T.M. Taylor, “Identification and Distributionof Certain Similar-Appearing Submersed Aquatic Weeds in Florida,” Hyacinth Contro/ Journa/, vol. 8, 1969, pp. 17-21; R.A. Creager, “SeedGermination, Physical and Chemical Control of Catclaw Mimosa (Mimosa pigra var. pigra), k%ed Technology, vol. 6, 1992, pp. 864-891; T. Millerand D. 20Thill, “Today’s Wead: Common Crupine (Crupina wlgarr”s), W-beds Today, vol. 14, 1983, pp. 10-1 1; C.F. Reed and R.O. Hughes,Ecorrornicaly hnporfant Foreign Weeds, Agriculture Handbook Number 498 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1977); R.G.Westbrooks, “Introduction of Foreign Noxious Plants into the United States,” W#JdS TO&Y, VOi. 12, 1981, ~. 16-17.

304 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesareas. Some evidence indicates that northwardrange shifts are already happening (79).Species that cannot relocate fast enough maybe able to adapt genetically to climate changes.However, most species’ physiological adaptationsto climate are highly conservative. They areunlikely to evolve fast enough to fit such rapidlychanging conditions and extinctions of populationsand species can be expected (74).Also, biological, geographic, or human-causedfactors such as habitat destruction may preventmany species from adjusting their ranges orotherwise responding successfully. Even thosespecies capable of spreading rapidly to coolersites may not flourish given new soil conditions,changes in day length, or different food sourcesand they may also be extirpated (74). Indeed, themost successful species are likely to be thoseadept at invading new habitats, including manycurrent pests and pathogens (26).New species may arrive from overseas orspread north from Mexico, the Caribbean, or fromthe southern United States. For example, modelspredict that at least a few agricultural pests andpathogens, such as the potato leafhopper (Emposascafabae), which feeds on soybeans andother crops, are likely to experience expandedareas in which they can survive winter temperatures(90). The species compositions of aquaticcommunities will change with increasing watertemperatures. Many water bodies, such as theChesapeake Bay, will probably become poorer interms of diversity and size of harvest (50). Otherwater bodies could become more productive, e.g.,populations of warm-, cool-, and cold-water fishin the Great Lakes are expected to increasebecause of longer growing seasons, althoughbiological diversity overall could decline (61).Forest pests and pathogens may spread (74).Tropical livestock diseases, such as Rift Valleyfever and African swine fever, will be more likelyto spread (73).Increases in the incidence of several humandiseases and parasites could result from thenorthward movement of their vector species in theUnited States. These include:1.2.3.4.5.ascariasis, caused by the nematode Ascarislumbricoides;Chagas’ disease, caused by a protozoanparasite (Trypanosoma cruzi) transmittedby temperature-sensitive insects (Triatomasp.) (28);dengue, caused by a virus carried by thetemperature-sensitive mosquitoes (Aedesaegypti, A. albopictus, and A. triseriatus);malaria, caused by Plasmodium spp., withmosquito vectors (Anopheles spp.); andarthropod-borne encephalitis, a group ofviral diseases carried by a variety of mosquitoes(55).Rapid ecological changes set the stage for speedingup the process by which new diseases emergeor by bringing humans in contact with new agents(83).Today’s biological communities will breakapart as some species relocate or are lost andothers are added (74). These newly re-sortedbiological groups could be more vulnerable tofurther invasions by NIS (49). Some observerspredict that climate change could become thedominant driving force for new biological invasionsin the next century (26). Assuming climatechange occurs, and significantly affects NorthAmerica, the changing biological communitieswill greatly complicate issues relating to NIS,compelling increasingly difficult decisions (21).Understanding the complex forces that drivelarge-scale movements of animal and plant populationswill be critical to unraveling particularinvasions (56). But, in one scientist’s view, ‘‘it ishopelessly optimistic to expect that the scientificunderstanding that can be obtained over the next100 years will enable us to predict the kind andextent of changes in the distribution and abundanceof dominant plant species’ (21). Others areless pessimistic regarding biologists’ predictivecapabilities (49). Several studies outline at least

Chapter 10-The Context of the Future: International Law and Global Change! 305Understanding the rapid spread of non-indigenousspecies such as dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria) mighthelp predict and manage the biological shifts thatwould accompany global climate change.the general effects of unprecedented warming onfuture species ranges and different ecosystems(99,1 13) $Global climate change would also scramblepolicies related to NIS. Under the commonly usedhistorical definition of indigenous or its equivalents,a individual becomes non-indigenous whenit leaves its species’ range at some particular pointin time. That time would need to be steadilyreassessed for this definition to remain meaningfulduring climate changes. Otherwise, an increasingproportion of species would be considerednon-indigenous, ‘‘exotic, ’ or “alien’ andsubject to the statutes, regulations, and policiesthat use these terms.Under OTA’s definition (ch. 2), an individualremains indigenous as long as it is within itsspecies’ natural range or natural zone of potentialdispersal—areas determined in the absence of‘‘significant human influence. ’ Natural rangesand zones can and do change over ecological andevolutionary time. Climate change would alterthe specific location of species’ ranges anddispersal zones but species would retain theirdesignation as indigenous if their movementswere treated as ‘‘natural. For this definition toremain meaningful, there must be some way todistinguish between phenomena that involvelesser and greater human intervention. This isincreasingly difficult.In time, global climate change could renderboth definitions obsolete, along with policiesbased on them. Therefore, management andpolicy flexibility is likely to be increasinglyimportant. A number of options regarding speciesmovement have been suggested. Each presentsdifficult, and often expensive, choices. Manylessons learned from managing harmful NIScould inform such choices. These include decisionsto:1. Block Species’ Movements---Managers mightwant to block movements of particularly harmfulspecies. However, USDA’s $6 million attempt toslow the African honey bee’s (Apis melliferascutellata) advance in southern Mexico has provenimpractical (77). It is not clear whether other suchefforts would be more successful.2. Conduct Intensive Habitat Creation orRestoration—Managers might try to create artificialhabitats for some species unable to adjust ontheir own (8). This could also entail controllinginvaders from the south or lower elevations (70).However, the science of ecological restoration isin its infancy (ch. 5), managers would face greatdifficulty in anticipating changes and implementingplans (21), and some sites may change somuch that habitat restoration or creation isimpossible,3. Provide Movement Corridors and NewProtected Areas--Farmland, highways, cities,forest clear cuts, and other human-made areas caninterrupt the movement of populations adjustingto climate change. Managers might acquire andmaintain either movement corridors through theseareas or new protected areas (74). Movementcorridors might provide new pathways for harmfulspecies as well (85), however. The practicalityof corridors is not known because few have beenintentionally created and studied. Data on pathwaysfor harmful NIS might suggest plausibleapproaches,

306 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States4. Translocate Species-Impassable barriersto population movements may compel managersto physically move individual organisms, or theirgerm plasm (70). Perhaps only a few commercial,recreational, or otherwise popular species wouldreceive the political and financial support for suchexpensive efforts. Unanticipated ecological andeconomic consequences could result from releasesinto new environments, as have otherreleases discussed in this report. Large-scalespecies translocations to prevent extinction remainlargely theoretical.5. Emphasize Ecosystem Functions-Managersmight aim to preserve desirable ecosystemservices-such as erosion control or providingforage, timber, or other commodities-ratherthan preserving particular species or communities(89). In some cases, NIS maybe the only speciescapable of providing these services during climatechange. However, little is known about thefictional substitutability of species, in partbecause many critical species are decomposemicrobes and soil invertebrates (112).Expanding international trade and other 20thCentury changes have increased the numbers ofspecies being moved worldwide. Climate changewould be likely to accelerate these trends further.Many more species would be shifting ranges andpeople could have additional reasons to importand release species into new areas. Climatechange is the wild card in predicting the futurestatus of NIS.WRAP-UP: THE CHOICES BEFORE USCertainly parts of the future pictured in thischapter will come to pass—the trends toward lossof indigenous species and greater global movementof non-indigenous ones are firmly in place.These trends may be slowed but they would bevery difficult and costly to reverse. As a result,some observers find that a profound transition isunder way. The metaphors that guide naturalresource management are shifting-from theself-sustaining wilderness to the managed garden(27. The world is being defined more in terms ofthe “unnatural” rather than the “natural” (82).This change is just one part of a general trendtoward a more managed globe, whether suchmanagement relates to trade, pollution, telecommunications,or international conflict (17). Tosome, this shift represents a grave loss. To others,it represents greater willingness to undertakeresponsible action. Issues regarding indigenousand non-indigenous species underscore thesedifferent points of view.In thinking about the future, the distinctionbetween forecasts and visions is significant.Forecasts are concerned with the probable andpossible. Much of this chapter, and this report,resides in that analytical realm. Visions, however,appraise the desirable, the imagined, the intended,and compelling (1 14). In their best-case scenarios,OTA’s Advisory Panelists envisioned afuture in which beneficial MS contributed a greatdeal to human well-being, indigenous specieswere preserved, and harmful MS were broughtunder control (box 10-D). Much of this report isdesigned to provide the background and meansfor Congress to achieve such a vision. Butdeciding the vision’s worthiness-and choosingwhether to pursue it—are not choices that sciencecan make. Nor does nature provide answers.Which species to import and release, which toexclude, and which to control are ultimatelycultural and political choices--choices about thekind of world in which we want to live.

Appendix A:List ofBoxes,Figures,and Tables1Boxesl-A.l-B,l-c.l-D.l-E.l-F.l-G.l-H.Figure1-1.Tables1-1.1-2.1-3.1-4.SUMMARY, ISSUES, AND OPTIONSA Road Map to the Full Assessment, 2Failure and Success: Lessons from the FireAnt and Boll Weevil Eradication Programs,10OTA’s Advisory Panel Envisions theFuture, 16The National Environmental Policy Act andNon-Indigenous Species, 18How New Zealand Addresses Non-Indigenous Species, 20How to Improve the Lacey Act, 23National Minimum Standards for State Fishand Wildlife Laws, 26How to Improve the Federal Noxious WeedAct. 29State-by-State Distribution of Some HighImpact Non-Indigenous Species, 4Estimated Numbers of Non-IndigenousSpecies in the United States, 3Estimated Cumulative Losses to the UnitedStates From SelectedHarmful Non-Indigenous Species-1906-1991, 5Worst Case Scenarios: Potential EconomicLosses From 15 Selected Non-IndigenousSpecies, 6Lag Times Between Identification of1-5.1-6.1-7.2Boxes2-A.2-B.2-c.2-D.Figures2-1.2-2.2-3,2-4.2-5.Species’ Pathway and Implementation ofPrevention Program, 8Examples of Control Technologies for Non-Indigenous Species, 9Areas of Federal Agency Activity Related toNIS, 12Basic Legal Approaches Used by States forFish and Wildlife Importation and Release,14THE CONSEQUENCES OF HARMFULNON-INDIGENOUS SPECIESTerms Used By OTA, 53The Case of the Brown Trout: OpposingViews of Fish Introductions, 64Economic Losses Caused by Non-Indigenous Weeds, 66Case Study of An Affected Industry: The“One-Two Punch” of Asian Clams andZebra Mussels on the Power Industry, 68Scope of Study, 52How Frequent Are High-Impact Non-Indigenous Species?, 58State by State Distribution of Some High-Impact Non-Indigenous Species, 59Reported Effects of Non-IndigenousSpecies in the United States, 60How Often Do Intentional VersusUnintentional Introductions Have HarmfulEffects?, 62307

308 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTables2-1.2-2.2-3.2-4.3Boxes3-A.3-B.3-c.Figures3-1.3-2.3-3.3-4.Tables3-1.3-2.3-3.34.3-5.Groups of Organisms Covered by OTA’sContractors, 55Estimated Cumulative Losses to the UnitedStates From Selected Harmful Non-Indigenous Species, 1906-1991,69Contribution of Non-Indigenous Species toThreatened and Endangered SpeciesListings by the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, 72Examples of Non-Indigenous SpeciesProblems in the National Parks, 75THE CHANGING NUMBERS, CAUSES,AND RATES OF INTRODUCTIONSThe Unwelcome Arrival of the Asian TigerMosquito, 81Importations for Fish and WildlifeManagement Have Decreased, 99Dry Ballast Has Ceased to be a Pathway,100Generic Pathways of Species Entry andSpread, 78State by State Spread of Four HarmfulNon-Indigenous Species, 86-87Estimates of the Cumulative Numbers ofNon-Indigenous Species of Foreign Originin the United States, 94Numbers of New Insect and OtherInvertebrate Species Establishedin California, 1955-1988, 97Some Species of Foreign Origin Introducedor First Detected in the United States From1980 to 1993, 101-106Estimated Numbers of Non-IndigenousSpecies in the United States, 92-Estimated Numbers of Non-IndigenousSpecies in Selected States, 95Number of New Species of Foreign OriginEstablished Per Decade, 96Factors Affecting Species Movements, 984Boxes4-A.4-B.4-c.4-D.4-E.4-F.Figures4-1.4-2.4-3.4-4.Tables4-1.4-2.4-3,4-4.5Boxes5-A.THE APPLICATION OFDECISIONMAKING METHODSHistory of Fish and Wildlife ServiceAttempts To Implement Clean Lists underthe Lacey Act, 111Siberian Timber Imports: A PotentiallyHigh-Risk Pathway, 118-119Macroeconomics and Non-IndigenousSpecies, 124outline of Steps for Benefit/Cost Analysisof Non-Indigenous Species 128The IUCN Position Statement onTranslocation of Living Organisms, 129Prominent Decisionmaking Protocols, 130Application of the APHIS Generic Pest RiskAssessment Process, 116Relative Extents to Which Effects ofIndigenous and Non-Indigenous Species areAmenable to Economic Quantification, 123National Costs and Benefits of DetectingForest Pest Introductions in New Zealand,125The Major Interests Involved in ShapingNon-Indigenous Species Policy, 133General Approaches to Making DecisionsAbout Non-Indigenous Species, 108Examples of Clean and Dirty Lists inStatutes or Regulations, 109Relative Technical Feasibility ofComprehensive Clean Lists for RegulatingImportation of Major Groups of Non-Indigenous Species, 110Documented Benefit/Cost Ratios forEradication, Control, or Prevention ofSelected Non-Indigenous Species, 126-127TECHNOLOGIES FOR PREVENTINGAND MANAGING PROBLEMSFailure and Success: Lessons From the FireAnt and Boll Weevil Eradication Programs,149

Appendix A: List of Boxes, Figures, and Tables 3095-B.5-c.Tables5-1.5-2.5-3.5-4.5-5,6Boxes6-A.6-B.6-C.Figures6-1.6-2.Tables6-1,6-2.6-3.64.6-5.Ecological Restoration in the Hole-in-the-Donut, Everglades National Park, Florida,159The Loss of Chemical Pesticides: A RealExample, 161Examples of Treatment Technologies forImporting Commodities, 140Lag Times Between Identification ofSpecies’ Pathway and Implementation ofPrevention Program, 144Examples of Control Technologies for Non-Indigenous Species, 152Examples of Registered MicrobialBiological Control Agents, 154Examples of Technologies Used in ZebraMussel (Dreissena polymorpha) EducationPrograms, 158A PRIMER ON FEDERAL POLICYA Locator for Federal Agencies Discussedin Chapter 6, 164Executive Order 11987—May 24, 1977,Exotic Organisms, 167Introduction of Non-Indigenous Species inthe National Parks, 190Account Receipts of the FWS Federal Aidto States Program, 186Growing Distributions of Three NoxiousWeeds in the Northwest, 191Delivery of Requirements Under theNonindigenous Aquatic NuisancePrevention and Control Act, 169Areas of Federal Agency Activity Related toNIS, 171Federal Coverage of Different Groups ofOrganisms, 172APHIS’s Pest and Disease ExclusionActivities, 174Microbial Pesticides Registered by EPA,1987Boxes7-A.7-B.7-c.7-D.7-E.Tables7-1.7-2.7-3.7-4.7-5.7-6.8Boxes8-A.8-B.8-C.8-D.STATE AND LOCAL APPROACHES FROMA NATIONAL PERSPECTIVEMaine v. Taylor: A Key ConstitutionalDecision, 202When Federal and State Interests Collide:Control of Harmful NIS In and AroundProtected Lands, 205Views from the State Fish and WildlifeAgencies, 210-211Washington State’s New Quarantines onNatural Area Weeds, 226-227Illinois Shifts to Indigenous Plants, 228Basic Legal Approaches Used by States forFish and Wildlife Importation and Release,212Numbers of Species or Groups Prohibitedfrom Importation and/or Release by States,213Gaps in Legal Authority, 214Decisionmaking Standards Used by States,215Non-Indigenous Species DecisionmakingStandards in Relationto State Environmental Policy Acts, 216References to Key State Statutes andRegulations on Importation and Release ofFish and Wildlife, 222-223TWO CASE STUDIES: NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES IN HAWAll ANDFLORIDACosts of Hawaii’s Major Fruit Fly Pests andTheir Eradication, 244The Potential Invasion and Impact of theBrown Tree Snake in Hawaii, 247-248A View from Hawaii: Recommendations ofthe Nature Conservancy and NaturalResources Defense Council, 255Non-Indigenous Species and the Effects ofHurricane Andrew, 259

310 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesFigures8-1.8-2.Tables8-1.8-2.8-3.8-4.8-5.9Boxes9-A.9-B.9-c.9-D.9-E.Tables9-1.Perceived Importance of Pathways in theIntroduction of Insect Pests and IllegalAnimals in Hawaii, 245Protected Areas in Southern Florida, 256Past and Present Status of NonmarineSpecies in Hawaii, 235Significant Non-Indigenous Pest Species inHawaii, 237Non-Indigenous Species in Hawaii: Rolesof Federal and State Agencies, 241Research Costs for Sugar Cane Pest Controlin Hawaii, 1986-1992, 243Estimated Numbers of Non-IndigenousSpecies in Florida, 257GENETICALLY ENGINEEREDORGANISMS AS A SPECIAL CASEWhat Do You Call an Organism With NewGenes?, 268The Risks of Genetically EngineeredOrganisms: Lessons From Non-IndigenousSpecies, 271Which Categories of GEOs APHISRegulates as “Plant Pests,” 273Transgenic Fish: Events Surrounding theAuburn Experiments, 278Controversy Erupts as Upjohn’s TransgenicSquash (“ ZW-20’ Moves TowardsCommercialization, 282-283Federal Policies and Regulations Related tothe Environmental Release of GEOs Since1984,2699-2.9-3.94.9-5.10Boxes1O-A.1O-B.l0-C.10-D.Tables10-1.10-2.10-3.Who Regulates Which GEO Releases?, 272Current and Potential Future Releases ofGEOs, 275Selected Recent Discussions of theEnvironmental Effects of Releasing GEOs,280Federal Pre-Release Requirements forSmall-Scale Releases of Certain Non-IndigenousSpecies (NIS) and GEOs, 281THE CONTEXT OF THE FUTURE:INTERNATIONAL LAW AND GLOBALCHANGEU.S. Exports of Non-Indigenous AquaticSpecies, 288Main International Treaties with ProvisionsRelated to Non-Indigenous Species, 295CITES as a Model for InternationalRegulation of Non-Indigenous Species, 298-299OTA’s Advisory Panel Envisions theFuture, 300How Social and Economic Factors andTechnological Innovations Could Changethe Status of Non-Indigenous Species in theFuture, 292Worst Case Scenarios: Potential EconomicLosses From 15 Selected Non-IndigenousSpecies, 301Examples of Weedy Plants With Potentialfor Significant Economic or EcologicalHarm, 303

Appendix B:Authors, WorkshopParticipants,Reviewers, andSurvey RespondentsI Part 1. The Assessment’s Contractors’Reports and Their ReviewersPathways and Consequences of the Introduction ofNon-Indigenous Species in the United StatesReport: Pathways and Consequences of theIntroduction of Non-Indigenous Freshwater,Terrestrial and Estuarine Mollusks in the UnitedState-October 1991Author: Joseph C. Britton, Department of Biology,Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TXAdvisory panel reviewers: William B. Kovalak andRudolph A. Rosenoutside reviewers:Robert Hershler, Department of Invertebrate Zoology,Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DCRobert F. McMahon, Department of Biology,University of Texas, Arlington, TXBarry Roth, Consultant, San Francisco, CAReport: Pathways and Consequences of theintroduction of Non-Indigenous Plants in theUnited States-September 1991Author: Richard N. Mack, Department of Botany,Washington State University, Pullman, WAAdvisory panel reviewers: Faith T. Campbell, JohnD. Lattin, Don C. Schmitz, Howard M. Singletary,Jr., and Clifford W. SmithOutside reviewers:Richard R. Old, Department of Plant, Soil andEntomological Sciences, University of Idaho,Moscow, IDMarcel Rejmanek, Department of Botany, Universityof California, Davis, CAKevin J. Rice, Department of Agronomy and RangeScience, University of California, Davis, CAReport: Pathways and Consequences of theIntroduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes in theUnited States-August 1991Author: Walter R. Courtenay, Jr., Department ofBiological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University,Boca Raton, FLAdvisory panel reviewers: William B. Kovalak andRudolph A. RosenOutside reviewers:James E. Deacon, Department of Biological Sciences,University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NVChristopher C. Kohler, Cooperative FisheriesResearch Laboratory, Southern Illinois University,Carbondale, ILJames A. McCann, National Fisheries ResearchCenter, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, Gainesville, FLPeter B. Moyle, Department of Wildlife and FisheriesBiology, University of California, Davis, CA311

312 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesRichard T. Noble, Departments of Zoology andForestry, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,NCBruce R. Schmidt, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources,Department of Natural Resources, SaltLake City, UTReport: Pathways and Consequences of the Introductionof Non-Indigenous Plant Pathogens in theUnited States-December 1991Author: Calvin L. Schoulties, Regulatory and PublicService Program, Clemson University, Clemson,SCAdvisory panel reviewers: Faith T. Campbell, RobertP. Kahn, and Clifford W. SmithOutside reviewers:Stella Melugin Coakley, Department of Botany andPlant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis,ORConrad J. Krass, Division of Plant Industry, CaliforniaDepartment of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento,CAKurt J. Leonard, Cereal Rust Laboratory, University ofMinnesota, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, MNGeorge A. Zentmyer, Department of Plant Pathology,University of California, Riverside, CAReport: Pathways and Consequences of the Introductionof Non-Indigenous Insects and Arachnids inthe United States---December 1991Authors: Ke Chung Kim and A.G. Wheeler, Jr,, FrostEntomological Museum, Department of Entomology,Pennsylvania State University, UniversityPark, PAAdvisory panel reviewers: Faith T. Campbell, LesterE. Ehler, Robert P. Kahn, John D. Lattin, Jerry D.Scribner, Clifford W. Smith, William S. Wallace,and Reggie WyckoffOutside reviewers:James R. Carey, Department of Entomology, Universityof California, Davis, CAErnest S. Delfosse, National Biological Control Institute,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MDMark A. Deyrup, Archbold Biological Station, LakePlacid, FLRonald L. Johnson, Plant Protection and Quarantine,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Morestown, NJDouglass R. Miller, Agricultural Research Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MDReport: Pathways and Consequences of the Introductionof Non-Indigenous Vertebrates in the UnitedStates-October 1991Authors: Stanley A. Temple and Dianne M. Carroll,Department of Wildlife Ecology, University ofWisconsin, Madison, WIAdvisory panel reviewers: J, Baird Callicott andFaith T. CampbellOutside reviewers:Thomas H. Fritts, National Museum of Natural History,Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DCMichael P. Moulton, Department of Biology, GeorgiaSouthern University, Statesboro, GAGordon H. Orians, Department of Zoology, Universityof Washington, Seattle, WACharles van Riper, III, Cooperative National ParkResources Studies Unit, National Park Service,U.S. Department of the Interior, Flagstaff, AZDecisionmaking ModelsReport: Risk Analysis As a Tool for Making DecisionsAbout the Introduction of Non-Indigenous SpeciesInto the United States-July 1991Authors: Peter Kareiva, Martha Groom, Ingrid Parker,and Jennifer Ruesink, University of Washington,Seattle, WAAdvisory panel reviewers: Faith T.Campbell, LesterE. Ehler, Robert P. Kahn, John D. Lattin, andClifford W. SmithOutside reviewers:Ronald D. Hiebert, National Park Service-Midwest,U.S. Department of Interior, Omaha, NEGary H. Johnston, Wildlife and Vegetation Division,U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DCMatthew H. Royer, Plant Protection and Quarantine,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MDDaniel Simberloff, Department of Biological Sciences,Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL

Appendix B: Authors, Workshop Participants, Reviewers, and Survey Respondents 313Report: The Role and Limits of Economics in Deci -sionmaking Regarding Non-Indigenous Species—August 1991Authors: Alan Randall and Michael H. Thomas,Department of Agricultural Economics and RuralSociology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OHAdvisory panel reviewers: J. Baird Callicott andKatherine H. ReichelderferOutside reviewers:Richard C. Bishop, Department of Agricultural Economics,University of Wisconsin, Madison, WIGardner Brown, Economics Department, University ofWashington, Seattle, WARichard B. Norgaard, Energy and Resources Group,University of California, Berkeley, CARichard C. Ready, Department of Agricultural Economics,University of Kentucky, Lexington, KYMark Sagoff, Institute for Philosophy and PublicPolicy, University of Maryland, College Park MDReports:A.B.c.D.A Framework for Special Accounting of theEffects of Introductions of Non-Indigenous Spe -cies-March 1992The Application of Benefit Cost Analysis toSocial Accounting of Non-Indigenous SpeciesIntroductions-March 1992Economic Impact Tables-March 1992Two Case Studies Applying the General Frameworkfor Benefit Costs Analysis on Non-Indigenous Species:1: Melaleuca-March 19922: Sea Lumprey-March 1992Author: Mark J. Cochran, Department of AgriculturalEconomics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,ARAdvisory panel reviewer: Katherine H, ReichelderferOutside reviewers:William G. Boggess, Food and Resource EconomicsDepartment, University of Florida, Gainesville, FLCraig Osteen, Economic Research Service, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Washington, DCAlan Randall, Department of Agricultural Economicsand Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus,OHMicheal E. Wetzstein, Department of AgriculturalApplied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens,GAFederal Policy Regarding Non-Indigenous SpeciesReport: Federal Policy on Non-Indigenous Species:The Role of the United States Department ofAgriculture’s Animal and Plant Health InspectionService---December 1991Author: Donald H. Kludy, Consultant, Richmond,VAAdvisory panel reviewers: Faith T. Campbell, WilliamFlemer, III, Robert P. Kahn, Jerry D. Scribner,and William S. Wallaceoutside reviewer:Craig J. Regelbrugge, Regulatory Affairs and GrowerServices, American Association of Nurseryman,Washington, DCReport: The Role of the United States Department ofthe Interior in Non-Indigenous Species Issues—November 1991Author: Michael J. Bean, Environmental DefenseFund, Washington, DCAdvisory panel reviewers: Faith T. Campbell, LynnGreenwalt, Gary H. Johnston, and Clifford W.SmithOutside reviewers:R. Joseph Abrell, Great Smoky Mountain NationalPark Headquarters, National Park Service, U.S.Department of the Interior, Gatlinburg, TNDonald J. Barry, Land and Wildlife, World WildlifeFund, Washington, DCDavid Nottingham, Ecology and Conservation Office,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DCGary B. Edwards, Fisheries Division, Fish and WildlifeService, U.S. Department of the Interior,Washington, DCAmos S. Eno, Conservation Programs, National Fishand Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DCDennis Lassuy, Fisheries Division, Fish and WildlifeService, U.S. Department of the Interior, Arlington,VALewis H. Waters, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.Department of the Interior, Washington, DC

314 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesReport: Federal Policy on Non-Indigenous Species:An Overview of the U.S. Department of Agriculture-December 1991Author: John Schnittker, Schnittker Associates, SantaYnez, CAAdvisory panel reviewers: Robert P. Kahn, KatherineH. Reichelderfer, William S. Wallace, and MelvynJ. WeissOutside reviewers:Ray Brush, Ray Brush Horticultural Consulting Services,Madison, VADan Laster, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center,Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Clay Center, NESpecial TopicsReport: Bioengineered Organisms and Non-IndigenousSpecies-November 1991Authors: Sheldon Krimsky, Department of Urban andEnvironmental Policy, Tufts University, Medford,Richard Wetzler, Center for Environmental Management,Tufts University, Medford, MAAdvisory panel reviewers: Robert P. Kahn, Philip J.Regal, and William S. WallaceOutside reviewers:Norman C. Ellstrand, Department of Botany and PlantSciences, University of California, Riverside, CARebecca Goldburg, Environmental Defense Fund,New York, NYEric M. Hallerman, Department of Fisheries andWildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Instituteand State University, Blacksburg, VAGreg Simon, United States Senate,Office of the Honorable Albert Gore, Washington, DCReport: Ecological Restoration and Non-IndigenousSpecies-August 1991Authors: John J. Berger, Restoring the Earth,Berkeley, CA and Lawrence A. Riggs, GENREC,Oakland, CAAdvisory panel reviewers: William Flemer, III, DonC. Schmitz, Clifford W. SmithOutside reviewers:Robert F. Doren, Everglades National Park and FortJefferson National Monument, National Park Service,U.S. Department of the Interior, Homestead, FLJohn M. Randall, Nature Conservancy, ConsumnesRiver Preserve, Gait, CAReport: Non-Indigenous Species in Hawaii—January1992Author: Christine Mlot, Milwaukee, WIAdvisory panel reviewer: Clifford W, SmithOutside reviewers:Michael G. Buck, Department of Land and NaturalResources, State of Hawaii, Honolulu, HIThomas Fritts, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, Washington, DCAlan Holt, Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, Honolulu,HICharles H. Lamoureux, Harold L. Lyon Arboretum,University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HILloyd L. Loope, Haleakala National Park, NationalPark Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,Makawao, HIAhser K. Ota, Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association,Aiea, HIIlima Piianaia, Hawaii Department of Agriculture,Honolulu, HICharles P. Stone, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park,National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior,Hawaii National Park, HIRoger I. Vargas, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Honolulu, HIReport: Non-Indigenous Species in Florida: A Surveyof Pathways, Consequences, and Economic andEnvironmental Impacts-December 1991Author: David W. Johnston, Fairfax, VAAdvisory panel reviewer: Don C. SchmitzOutside reviewers:Mark A. Deyrup, Archbold Biological Station, LakePlacid, FLRobert F. Doren, Everglades National Park and FortJefferson National Monument, National Park Service,U.S. Department of the Interior, Homestead, FLBrian A. Millsap, Nongame Wildlife Section, FloridaGame and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee,FL

Appendix B: Authors, Workshop Participants, Reviewers, and Survey Respondents 315Report: Selected Analysis of Introduced AnimalSpecies Survey Data-December 1991Author: Peter T. Schuyler, Division of Forestry andWildlife, Honolulu, HIoutside reviewers:Gary M. Fellers, Point Reyes National Seashore,National Park Service, U.S. Department of theInterior, Point Reyes, CAReport: Public Educational Efforts in the UnitedStates Regarding Prevention and Management ofNon-Indigenous Species-December 1991Authors: Andrea Shotkin and Edward J. McCrea,North American Association for EnvironmentalEducation, Washington, DCAdvisory panel reviewers: John D. Lattin and CliffordW. SmithOutside reviewers:John F. Disinger, School of Natural Resources, OhioState University, Columbus, OHDiana L. King, Hawaii Nature Center, Honolulu, HIR. Ben Peyton, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,Michigan State University, East Lansing, MIReport: Additional Information on Non-IndigenousPlants in the United States-October 1992Author: Richard N. Mack, Department of Botany,Washington State University, Pullman, WAReport: Addendum to Report: Bioengineered Organismsand Non-Indigenous Species-March 1992Authors: Sheldon Krimsky, Department of Urban andEnvironmental Policy, Tufts University, Medford,Richard Wetzler, Center for Environmental Management,Tufts University, Medford, MAReport: Additional Information on Recently DetectedNon-Indigenous Insects-June 1993Author: E. Richard Hoebeke, Department of Entomology,Cornell University, Ithaca, NYReport: Review of OTA’s Script for Scenarios Exercise-July1992Author: Ann Z. Kulp, Annandale, VAThe following individuals provided additional reviewson certain papers:Advisory Panel Reviewers:Marion Cox, William Flemer, III, Joseph P. McCraren,and Howard M. Singletary, Jr.Outside Reviewers:John O. Browder, Department of Urban Affairs andPlanning, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity, Blacksburg, VATed Center, Aquatic Plant Management Laboratory,Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Ft. Lauderdale, FLMichael J. Crawley, Department of Biology, ImperialCollege at Silkwood Park, U.K.Luther Val Giddings, Biotechnology Biologics andEnvironmental Protection, Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Hyattsville, MDFrancis G. Howarth, Department of Entomology,Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HIPart 2: Workshop Participants: Workshopon Management and Policy DecisionmakingR. Joseph Abrell, Great Smoky Mountain NationalPark Headquarters, National Park Service, U.S.Department of the Interior, Gatlinburg, TNFaith Thompson Campbell, Natural ResourcesDefense Council, Washington, DCMark J. Cochran, Department of AgriculturalEconomics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,ARM. Lynne Corn, Environment and Natural Resources,Congressional Research Service, Library ofCongress, Washington, DCPeter Kareiva, Department of Zoology, University ofWashington, Seattle, WAStephen R. Kellert, School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven,CTLynn A. Maguire, School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies, Duke University, Durham,NCMarshall Meyers, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council,Washington, DC

316 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesAlan Randall, Department of Agricultural Economicsand Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus,OHCraig J. Regelbrugge, Regulatory Affairs and GrowerServices, American Association of Nurseryman,Washington, DCMatthew H. Royer, Plant Protection and Quarantine,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MDMark Sagoff, Institute for Philosophy and PublicPolicy, University of Maryland, College Park MDMichael Shannon, Plant Protection Quarantine, Animaland Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MDTerry R. Steinwand, North Dakota Department of StateGame and Fish, Bismarck, NDPart 3: The Assessment’s ReviewersThis assessment was reviewed either totally or inpart by the study’s Advisory Panel (listed on p. iv);certain authors of its contractor reports; andanother group of external experts.These authors took part(see Part 1 for affiliations):Michael J. BeanJoseph C. BrittonMark J. CochranWalter R. Courtenay, Jr.Peter KareivaKe Chung KimDonald H. KludySheldon KrimskyRichard N. MackAlan RandallJohn SchnittkerCalvin L. SchoultiesStanley A. TempleRichard WetzlerAlso, the following people contributed reviews:Fred S. Betz, Environmental Fate and Effects Division,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, DCMichael E. Buck, Division of Forestry and Wildlife,Department of Land and Natural Resources, Stateof Hawaii, Honolulu, HID. Scot Campbell, International Services, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Hyattsville, MDJoseph F. Coates, Coates and Jarratt, Inc., Washington,DCDavid Nottingham, Ecology and Conservation Office,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DCMichael J. Crawley, Department of Biology, ImperialCollege at Silwood ParkAscot, Berksire, U.K.Albert Cutress, Ministry of Forestry, Wellington, NewZealandGary B. Edwards, Fisheries Division, Fish andWildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,Washington, DCRobert E. Eplee, Whiteville Plant Methods Center,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Whiteville, NCDavid E. Giamporcaro, TSCA BiotechnologyProgram, Chemical Control Division, Office ofPollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,DCRebecca Goldburg, Environmental Defense Fund,New York, NYEric M. Hallerman, Department of Fisheries andWildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Instituteand State University, Blacksburg, VACharles A. Havens, Plant Protection and Quarantine,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MDGinette Hemley, World Wildlife Fund, Washington,DCFrancis G, Howarth, Department of Entomology,Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HIWill Kissinger, Plant Industry Division, MontanaDepartment of Agriculture, Helena, MTDennis Lassuy, Fisheries Division, Fish and WildlifeService, U.S. Department of the Interior, Arlington,VA

Appendix B: Authors, Workshop Participants, Reviewers, and Survey Respondents I 317Lloyd L. Loope, Haleakala National Park, NationalPark Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,Makawao, HILynn A. Maguire, School of the Environment, DukeUniversity, Durham, NCJames A. McCann, National Fisheries ResearchCenter, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, Gainesville, FLElizabeth Milewski, Office of Prevention, Pesticidesand Toxic Substances, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington, DCEdward L. Mills, Biological Field Station, Departmentof Natural Resources, Cornell University,Bridgeport, NYAbdul Moeed, Ministry for the Environment,Wellington, New ZealandBarbra Mullin, Agricultural and Biological SciencesDivision, Montana Department of Agriculture,Helena, MTJohn G. Nickum, Division of Fish Hatcheries, Fish andWildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior,Washington, DCJohn M. Randall, Nature Conservancy ConsumnesRiver Preserve, Galt, CAMark J. Reeff, International Association of Fish andWildlife Agencies, Washington, DCCraig J. Regelbrugge, Regulatory Affairs and GrowerServices, American Association of Nurseryman,Washington, DCJay Rendall, Minnesota Interagency Exotic SpeciesTask Force, Division of Fish and Wildlife,Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MNMatthew H. Royer, Plant Protection and Quarantine,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MDMark Sagoff, Institute for Philosophy and PublicPolicy, University of Maryland, College Park MDWilliam Schneider, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,DCW. Curtis Sharp, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCStanwyn G. Shetler, National Museum of NaturalHistory, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DCCalvin R. Sperling, Agricultural Research Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MDTimothy A. Sullivan, World Conservation Union,Species Survival Commission, Brookfield, ILLewis H. Waters, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.Department of Interior, Washington, DCRandy G. Westbrooks, Whiteville Plant MethodsCenter, Animal and Plant Health InspectionService, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Whiteville, NCPart4: State Officials Who Reviewed StateLaws and Regulations and Who Respondedto the OTA Survey (alphabetically by State)Kathleen Meddleton, Wildlife Biologist-PermitSection, Division of Wildlife Conservation,Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AKCharles D. Kelley, Director, Division of Game andFish, Department of Conservation and NaturalResources, Montgomery, ALSteve N. Wilson, Director, Arkansas Game and FishCommission, Little Rock, ARDuane L. Shroufe, Director, Game and FishDepartment, Phoenix, AZRichard Kahn, Senior Biologist, Division of Wildlife,Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO(now retired)Robert M. Brantly, Executive Director, Game andFresh Water Fish Commission, Department ofNatural Resources, Tallahassee, FLBill Fletcher, Regional Game ManagementSupervisor, Game and Fish Division, Departmentof Natural Resources, Gainesville, GACalvin Lure, Animal Industry Administrator, HawaiiDepartment of Agriculture, Honolulu, HILarry M. Nakahara, Manager, Plant QuarantineBranch, Division of Plant Industry, HawaiiDepartment of Agriculture, Honolulu, HIRick McGeough, Bureau Chief, Department of NaturalResources, Des Moines IALloyd Oldenburg, Wildlife and Research Manager,Bureau of Wildlife, Fish and Game Department,Boise, IDJohn Tranquilly, Director, Office of ResourceManagement, Department of Conservation,Springfield, IL

318 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesGregg McCollam, Chief of Administrative Services,Division of Fish and Wildlife, Department ofNatural Resources, Indianapolis, INBill D. Hlavachick, Chief, Wildlife ManagementSection, Fish and Wildlife Division, Department ofWildlife and Parks, Pratt, KSHugh A. Bateman, Administrator, Wildlife Division,Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge,LAThomas W. French, Assistant Director, Division ofFisheries, Natural Heritage and EndangeredSpecies program, Boston, MAMary Jo Scanlan, Wildlife Permits Coordinator,Wildlife Division, Department of NaturalResources, Annapolis, MDR. Steven Early, Assistant to the Director, FisheriesDivision, Department of Natural Resources,Annapolis, MDHenry Hilton, Staff Wildlife Biologist, Department ofInland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta, MEJay Rendall, Exotic Species Coordinator, MinnesotaInteragency Exotic Species Task Force, Division ofFish and Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources,St. Paul, MNOllie Torgerson, Chief, Wildlife Division, Departmentof Conservation, Jefferson City, MOBill Thomason, Chief of Game, Department of Wildlife,Fisheries and Parks, Jackson, MSHeidi Youmans, Special Projects Coordinator, Departmentof Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena, MTGary Burke, Special Investigations Unit, Departmentof Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena, MTR.B. Hamilton, Assistant Director, Wildlife ResourcesCommission, Raleigh, NCRex Sohn, Disease Research Supervisor, Departmentof Game and Fish, Bismarck, NDKen Johnson, Chief, Wildlife Division, Game andParks Commission, Lincoln, NENancy L. Girard, Legal Coordinator, Fish and GameDepartment, Concord, NHRobert McDowell, Director, Fish, Game and WildlifeDivision, Environmental Protection Department,Trenton, NJPatrick P. Martin, Senior Wildlife Biologist, NewYork State Department of Environmental Conservation,Albany, NYRichard T. Scott, Executive Administrator, Law Enforcement,Division of Wildlife, Department ofNatural Resources, Columbus, OHLarry Taylor, Chief, Law Enforcement, Department ofWildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, OKJ.R. Fagan, Director, Law Enforcement, PennsylvaniaGame Commission, Harrisburg, PAMichael Lapisky, Deputy Chief, Wildlife Division,Department of Environmental Management, Fish,and Wildlife, Wakefield, RIRon Fowler, Game Staff Specialist, Game, Fish andParks Department, Pierre, SDWalter Cook, Wildlife Officer II, Tennessee WildlifeResources Agency, Nashville, TNRandy Radant, Chief, Nongame Management, Divisionof Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UTTimothy VanZandt, Commissioner, Department ofFish and Wildlife, Agency of Natural Resources,Waterbury, VTS. Shapiro Hurley, Wildlife Health Specialist, Departmentof Natural Resources, Madison, WIJames Ruckel, Assistant Chief, Division of NaturalResources, Charleston, WVFrancis Petera, Director, Department of Game andFish, Cheyenne, WY

Appendix C:ReferencesCHAPTER 1: SUMMARY, ISSUES, AND OPTIONS1. Alfieri, S. A., Jr., Assistant Director, Division ofPlant Industry, Florida Department of Agricultureand Consumer Services, Tallahassee FL,“Regulatory Pest Control Philosophy: Viewsand Assessment, ” paper presented at the meetingof the National Plant Board, Kalispell, MT,August 1991.2. Arner, D. H., Jones, J., and Bucciantini, C.,“Carolina Clover: High Prospect for the ConservationReserve Program, ’ Journal of Soil andWater Conservation, vol. 47, No, 4, July-August1992, pp. 292-293.3. Asbury, C. H., “The Orphan Drug Act,” Journalof the American Medical Association, vol. 265,No. 7, Feb. 20, 1991, pp. 893-897.4. Backiel, A. et al., “The Major Federal LandManagement Agencies: Management of OurNation’s Lands and Resources,’ CRS Report forCongress, 93-197 ENR, Congressional ResearchService, Library of Congress, Washington, DC,Feb. 8, 1993.5. Barnard, J., “Forest Slams Shut Wolf-trappingPlans,” Seattle Times, Jan. 19, 1990.6. Bean, M. J., “TheRoleoftheU.S. Department ofthe Interior in Non-Indigenous Species Issues,”contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, November 1991.7, Bergsman, J., “Changes in Pet RegulationsRaise Howls,” Seattle Times, May 12, 1992, p.c-1.8. Britton, J. C., “Pathways and Consequences ofthe Introduction of Non-Indigenous Freshwater,Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in the UnitedStates, ’ contractor report prepared for the Officeof Technology Assessment, October 1991.9. Brown, L. L., ‘‘A hgislative History of OutdoorRecreation User Fees,” CRS Report for Congress,92-645 ENR, Congressional ResearchService, The Library of Congress, Washington,DC, Aug. 14, 1992.10, Browning, H.R. and Charudattan, R., ExecutiveSummary of the National Workshop on RegulatoryIssues,’ Regulations and Guidelines: CriticalIssues in Biological Control-Proceedingsof a USDAICSRSNational Worbhop, R. Charudattanand H.W. Browning (eds.) (Gainesville, FL:Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,University of Florida, 1992), pp. 199-201.11. California Department of Food and Agriculture,Division of Plant Industry, “Annual Report,”Sacramento, CA, 1990, pp. 16-17.12. Carr, D. A., “Prosecutors Out of Control,” ECO,vol. 1, No. 1, June 1993, pp. 56, 58.13. Carter, P. C. S., “Risk Assessment and PestDetection Surveys for Exotic Pests and DiseasesWhich Threaten Commercial Forestry in NewZealand,” New Zealand Journal of ForestryScience, vol. 19, Nos. 2/3, 1989, pp. 353-74.14. Chadwell, J., “Marshall Meyers: The Environmentand the Pet Industry,’ Pet Product News(Mission Viejo, CA), vol. 47, No. 5, May 1993,pp. 6-8.15. Comp, T.A. (ed.), Blueprint for the Environment-A Plan for Federal Action (Salt Lake City, UT:Howe Brothers, 1989).319

320 I Harmful Non-indigenous Species in the United States16.17,18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.Cook A., ‘Grub Attack Refund, ’ The WashingtonPost, Home Section, June 4, 1992, p. 4.Nottingham, D., Director, Ecology and ConservationOffice, National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, U.S. Department of Commerce,Washington, DC, letter to P.N. Windle, Office ofTechnology Assessment, July 31, 1992.Nottingham, D., Director, Ecology and ConservationOffice, National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, U.S. Department of Commerce,Washington, DC, memorandum for agency distribution,Jan. 6, 1993.Coulson, J.R. and Soper, R. S., ‘Protocols for theIntroduction of Biological Control Agents in theUnited States, ” Plant Protection and Quarantine.Volume III. Special Topics, R.P. Kahn (cd.)(Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc, 1989), pp.1-35.Council for Agricultural Science and Technology,“Ecological Impacts of Federal Conservationand Cropland Reduction Programs,” TaskForce Report No. 117, Ames, IA, September1990.Counts, C.L. III, “The Zoogeography and Historyof the Invasion of the United States byCorbicula Fluminea (Bivalvia: Corbiculidae),American Malacological Bulletin, Special EditionNo. 2, 1986, pp. 7-39.Courtenay, W. R., Jr., “Fish Introductions andTranslocations, and Their Impacts in Australia,’Introduced and Translocated Fishes and TheirEcological Eflects, Proceedings No. 8, AustralianSociety for Fish Biology Workshop, MagneticIsland, Aug. 24-25, 1989, D.A. Pollard(cd.) (Canberra: Australian Government PublishingService, 1990), pp. 171-179.Courtenay, W. R., Jr., ‘‘Pathways and Consequencesof the Introduction of Non-IndigenousFishes in the United States,” contractor reportprepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,September 1991.Courtenay, W. R., Jr., Professor of Zoology,Department of Biological Sciences, Florida AtlanticUniversity, letter to P.N. Windle, Office ofTechnology Assessment, July 27, 1992.Craighead, F. C., Jr. and Dasmann, R. F., “ExoticBig Game on Public Lands” (Washington, DC:26,27.28.29.30.31.32.33.34.U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement, 1966).Doren, R.F. and Whiteaker, L, D., “The ExoticPest Plant Council: An Example of InteragencyCooperation To Solve Resource Related Problems,”Proceedings of the Symposium on ExoticPest Plants, TD. Center et al. (eds.), TechnicalReport NPS/NREVER/NRTR-91 /-6 (Washington,DC: NationaI Park Semice, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, September 1991), pp. 111-114.Dottavio, F.D. et al. (eds.), Protecting BiologicalDiversity in the National Parks: WorkshopRecommendations, Transactions and ProceedingsSeries No. 9 (Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof the Interior, National Park Service,1990).Doyle, P., States as Water Quality Financiers:tigislative Options for the 1990s (Denver, CO:National Conference of State Ugislatures, May1991).Drost, C.A. and Fellers, G. M., National ParkService, U.S. Department of the Interior, “DraftHandbook for the Removal of Non-Native Animals,”Point Reyes, CA, 1992,Edwards, G. E,, Assistant Director, Fisheries,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communicationto Office of Technology Assessment,letter to P.N. Windle, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Aug. 7, 1992.Elston, R. A., ‘Effective Applications of AquicultureDisease-Control Regulations: RecommendationsFrom an Industry Viewpoint, Dispersal ofLiving Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems, A.Rosenfield and R. Mann (eds.) (College Park,MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992), pp. 353-359.Environmental Law Review Committee, “EnvironmentalLegislation: The Increasing Costs ofRegulatory Compliance to the City of Columbus,”report to the Mayor and City Council ofthe City of Columbus, OH, May 13, 1991.Fleming, P., Rock Creek Park, National ParkService, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,DC, personal communication to Office ofTechnology Assessment, Oct. 9, 1991.Gallagher, J.E. and Hailer, W. T., “History andDevelopment of Aquatic Weed Control in theUnited States,” Review of Weed Science, vol. 5,December 1990, pp. 115-192.

Appendix C: References 132135.36.37.38.39.40.41.42.43.Geist, V., “Endangered Species and the Law,”Nature, vol. 357, No, 6376, May 28, 1992, pp.274-276.Glosser, J. W., Administrator, USDA Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, testimony at hearings beforethe Senate Subcommittee on AgriculturalResearch and General Legislation, Committeeon Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, “Preparationfor the 1990 Farm Bill: Noxious Weeds, ’Mar. 28, 1990, pp. 350-354,376-379.Glosser, J. W., Director, Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,testimony at hearings before the U.S. HouseCommittee on Appropriations, Subcommittee onAgriculture, Rural Development, and RelatedAgencies, Hearings on Agriculture, Rural Devel -opment and Related Agencies Appropriationsfor 1992: Part 4, Serial No. 43-1710 (Washington,DC: Government Printing Office, May1991), pp. 271-467.Hallerman, E. R,, Assistant Professor, Departmentof Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and State University,Blacksburg, Virginia, personal communicationto the Office of Technology Assessment, Mar. 7,1991.Harty, F. M., “How Illinois Kicked the ExoticHabit,’ conference on Biological Pollution: theControl and Impact of Invasive Exotic Species,Indiana Academy of Sciences, Indianapolis, IN,Oct. 26, 1991.Havens, C., Chief Operations Officer, Animaland Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD, personalcommunication to S.M. Fondriest, Officeof Technology Assessment, July 23, 1992.Hester, F. E,, “The U.S. National Park ServiceExperience With Exotic Spaies, ’ Natural AreasJournal, vol. 11, No, 3, July 1991, pp. 127-128,Howarth, F.G. and Medeiros, A. C,, “Non-Native Invertebrates,” Conservation Biology inklawai’i, C.P. Stone and D.B. Stone (eds.)(Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii CooperativeNational Park Resources Studies Unit,1989), PP. 82-87.Hubbell, S., ‘‘Ladybugs, “ The New Yorker, Oct.7, 1991, pp. 103-111.44. International Union for the Conservation ofNature and Natural Resources, Species SurvivalCommission in collaboration with the Commissionon Ecology and the Commission on EnvironmentalPolicy, Law and Administration, ‘‘TheIUCN Position Statement on Translocation ofLiving Organisms Introductions, Re-Introductionsand Re-Stocking ” (Gland, Switzerland:IUCN, 1987).45. Johnson, G., National Park Service, Washington,DC, letter to E.A. Chornesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Sept. 27, 1991.46, Kareiva, P. et al., “Risk Analysis as a Tool forMaking Decisions About the Introduction ofNon-Indigenous Species Into the United States,’contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, July 1991.47. Keystone Center, Final Consensus Report of theKeystone Policy Dialogue on Biological Diversityon Federal Lunak (Keystone, CO: TheKeystone Center, April 1991).48, Kim, K.C. and Wheeler, A. G., Jr., “Pathwaysand Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and Arachnids in the UnitedStates, ’ contractor report prepared for the Officeof Technology Assessment, December 1991.49, Kludy, D. H., ‘ ‘Federal Policy on Non-Indigenous Species: The Role of the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture’s Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, ” contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, Washington, DC, December 1991.50. Kludy, D.H., Consultant, Richmond, VA, letterto P.N, Windle, July 30, 1992.51. Kohler, C.C. and Courtenay, W. R., Jr., “AmericanFisheries Society Position on Introductionsof Aquatic Species, ’ Fisheries, vol. 11, No. 2,March/April 1986, pp. 39-42.52. Keller, G., ‘‘Native Dictates,” Arnoldia, vol. 52,No. 4, winter 1992, pp. 23-32.53. Keller, G,, Senior Horticulturist, Arnold Arboretum,personal communication to K.E. Bannon,Office of Technology Assessment, June 2, 1993.54. Kucewicz, W. P., “Grime and punishment,”ECO, vol. 1, No. 1, June 1993, pp. 50-55.55, Kurdila, J., “The Introduction of Exotic Speciesinto the United States: There Goes the Neighbor-

322 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States56,57.58.59.60.61,62.63.64.65.66,hood!” Boston College Environmental AflairsLaw Review, vol. 16, No. 1, 1988, pp. 95-118.Langston, A., Animal and Plant Health InspectionService, Hyattsville, MD, personal communicationto E.A. Chornesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, May 6, 1991,Lattin, J., Professor of Entomology, OregonState University, Corvallis, OR, memorandum toBill Wright, Administrator, Plant Division, OregonDepartment of Agriculture, Salem, OR,NOV. 26, 1991.Lederberg, J., Shope, R. E., and Oaks, S. C., Jr.(eds.), Emerging Infectiondicrobial Threatsto Health in the United States (Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1992).Macdonald, I.A.W. et al., “Wildlife Conservationand the Invasion of Nature Reserves byIntroduced Species: Global Perspective,” BiologicalInvasions: A Global Perspective, J.A,Drake et al. (eds) (New York, NY: John Wileyand Sons, 1989), pp. 215-255.Mack, R. N., “Pathways and Consequences ofthe Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plants in theUnited States,” contractor report prepared forthe Office of Technology Assessment, September1991.Mack, R. N., Professor and Chair, Department ofBotany, Washington State University, Pullman,WA, letter to P.N. Windle, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Aug. 4, 1992.Mack, R. N., “Additional Information on Non-Indigenous Plants in the United States,’ contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, October 1992.McCann, J., Center Director, National FisheriesResearch Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Gainesville, FL, letter to P.N. Windle, Office ofTechnology Assessment, Aug. 3, 1992.McGregor, R. C., The Emigrant Pests, a report toF.J. Mulhern, Administrator, Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, May 1973.Mech, L.D., “WolflDog Hybirds,” Species—Newsletter of the Species Survival Commission(International Union for the Conservation ofNature), No. 15, December 1990, pp. 66-67.Metterhouse, W. M., “Biological Control: StateRegulatory View Point,’ Regulations and Guide-67.68,69.70.71.72.73.74.75.76.lines: Critical Issues in Biological Control--Proceedings of a USDAJCSRS National Workshop,R. Charudattan and H.W. Browning (eds.)(Gainesville, FL: Institute of Food and AgriculturalSciences, 1992).Meyers, M., General Counsel, Pet Industry JointAdvisory Council, Washington, DC, letter toP.T Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment,July 29, 1992.Miller, D., Research Leader, Systematic EntomologyLaboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Agricultural Research Service, Hyattsville, MD,personal communication to E.A. Chornenslq,Office of Technology Assessment, Apr. 16,1991.Miller, M. and Aplet, G., “Biological Control: ALittle Knowledge Is a Dangerous Thing,”Rutgers Law Review, vol. 45, No. 2, winter 1993,pp. 285-334.Minnesota Exotic Species Interagency TaskForce, Report and Recommendations (St. Paul,MN: State of Minnesota, Department of NaturalResources, July 1991).Moody, M.E. and Mack, R. N., “Controlling theSpread of Plant Invasions: the Importance ofNascent Foci, ’ The Journul of Applied Ecology,vol. 25, 1988, pp. 1009-1021.Nagel, S. S,, “Projecting Trends in Public Policy,’Policy Theory and Policy Evaluation, S.S.Nagel (cd.) (WestPort, CT Greenwood Press,1990), pp. 161-204.National Association of State Departments ofAgriculture, ‘Honey Bee Pests—A Threat to theVitality of U.S. Agriculture, ’ Washington, DC,February 1991.National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service. Fiscal Year 1992 Wildlifeand Fisheries Assessment, Washington, DC,April 1991.National Parks and Conservation Association, ARace Against Time: Five Threats EndangeringAmerica’s National Parks and the Solutions toAvert Them (Washington, DC: National Parksand Conservation Association, Aug. 20, 1991).National Research Council, Science and theNational Parks (Washington, DC: National AcademyPress, 1992).

Appendix C: References 32377.78.79.80.81.82.83.84.85.86.Nature Conservancy of Hawaii and the NaturalResources Defense Council, “The Alien PestSpecies Invasion in Hawaii: Background Studyand Recommendations for Interagency Planning,”July 1992.Neesen, J., U.S. Department of Agriculture,Animals and Plant Health Inspection Service,Budget and Accounting Division, personal communicationto Office of Technology Assessment,Nov. 9, 1992.North American Native Fishes Association, IntroductionsCommittee, memorandum to D. Lassuy,Intentional Introductions Review Committee,U.S. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force,Jan. 25, 1992.Noxious Weed Technical Advisory Group, ‘‘TheFederal Noxious Weed Program Evaluation andRecommendations, report to Deputy Administrator,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Semice,U.S. Department of Agriculture, Nov. 16,1983.Oberheu, J., Staff Specialist, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, testimony at hearing on ProposedInjurious Wildlife Regulations before theHouse Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife,Dec. 12, 1974, p. 108.O’Brien, S. J., ‘‘Bureaucratic Mischief: RecognizingEndangered Species and Subspecies, ’ Science,vol. 251, No. 4998, Mar. 8, 1991, pp.1187-1188Peoples, R. A., Jr., McCam, J. A., and Starnes,L. B., ‘Introduced Organisms: Policies and Activitiesof the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ’Dispersal of Living Organisms Into AquaticEcosystems, A. Rosenfield and R. Mann (eds.)(College Park MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992),pp. 325-352.Reichelderfer, K. H., “The Expanding Role ofEnvironmental Interests in Agricultural Policy,’Resources, No. 102, winter 1991, pp. 4-7.Repetto, R. et al., Green Fees: How a Tax ShifiCan Work for the Environment and the Economy(Washington, DC: World Resources Institute,November 1992).Schmitz, D. C., Florida Department of NaturalResources, Tallahassee, FL, statement submittedat hearings before the Senate Subcommittee onAgricultural Research and General Legislation,87.88.89.90.91.92.93.94.95.96.Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,“Preparation for the 1990 Farm Bill:Noxious Weeds,’ ‘ Mar. 28, 1990, pp. 357-364.Schmitz, D. C., Department of Natural Resources,State of Florida, Tallahassee, FL, personal communicationto P.N. Windle, Office of TechnologyAssessment, June 14, 1993.Schneider, K., ‘‘Where We Went Wrong onRegulation,” Eco, June 1993, pp. 16-22.Schoulties, C. L., “Pathways and Consequencesof the Introduction of Non-Indigenous PlantPathogens in the United States,” contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, Washington, DC, December 1991.Schoulties, C. L., Director, Division of Regulatoryand Public Service Programs, ClemsonUniversity, Clemson, SC, personal communicationto Office of Technology Assessment, July31, 1992.Schoulties, C. L., Director, Division of Regulatoryand Public Service Programs, ClemsonUniversity, Clemson, SC, personal communicationto P.N. Windle, Office of TechnologyAssessment, June 14, 1993.Schuyler, P. T., Introduced Animl Species Issues:Current Status and Problems Including aFeasibility Study for the Establishment of aMulti-Disciplinary Introduced Animal SpeciesCenter, TRI Working Papers No. 56, 56A (NewHaven, CT: Yale University School of Forestryand Environmental Studies, 1991).Schuyler, P.T., “Non-Indigenous Species in theUnited States: Selected Analysis of IntroducedAnimal Species Survey Data, ’ contractor reportprepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,Washington, DC, December 1991.Sellars, R., “The Roots of National Park Management,”Journal of Forest~, vol. 90, January1992, pp. 16-19.Shields, E., Funding Environmental Programs:An Examination of Alternatives (Washington,DC: National Governors’ Association, 1989).Shotkin, A. and McCrea, E. J., “Public EducationalEfforts in the United States RegardingPrevention and Management of Non-IndigenousSpecies, ’ contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, December1991.

324 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States97. Siddiqui, I. A., Assistant Director, CaliforniaDepartment of Food and Agriculture, testimonyat hearings before the Senate Subcommittee onFederal Services, Post Office, and Civil Service,Committee on Governmental Affairs, “Oversightof the Agricultural Quarantine EnforcementAct (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, June 5, 1991), pp. 36-39, 107-111.98. Singletary, H.M., Director, Plant Industry Division,North Carolina Department of Agriculture,Statement submitted with testimony at hearingsbefore the Senate Subcommittee on AgriculturalResearch and General Legislation, Committeeon Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Mar. 28,1990, pp. 354-356, 380-382.99. Smart, B. (cd.), “XII. A Look Into the Future,”Beyond Complianct++l New Industry View ofthe Environment (Washington, DC: World ResourcesInstitute, 1992), pp. 235-245.100. Smith, C., Unit Leader, Cooperative NationalParks Resources Studies Unit, University ofHawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, letter to Officeof Technology Assessment, July 1992.101. Sprengehneyer, E., “Killing to Preserve,” SantaFe Reporter, Feb. 10-16, 1993, pp. 17-19.102. Steering Committee for the 75th Symposium,Report of National Parks for the 21st Centu~The Vail Agenda, Report and Recommendationsto the Director of the National Park Service,National Park Service Document No. D-726,1992.103. Temple, S. A., “The Nasty Necessity: EradicatingExotics,” Conservation Biology, vol. 4, No.2, pp. 113-115, June 1990.104. Temple, S.A. and Carroll, D. M., “Pathways andConsequences of Introduction of Non-Indigenous Vertebrates in the United States,”contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, Washington, DC, October1991.105. Thomas, C., “Reorganizing Public Organizations:Alternatives, Objectives, and Evidence, ”unpublished report prepared for the Secretary ofEnergy Advisory Board, U.S. Department ofEnergy, Washington, DC, August 1992.106. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Developmentand Related Agencies, Hearings onAgriculture, Rural Development and RelatedAgencies AppropriatiorN for 1991: Part 4, SerialNo. 43-1710, May 1, 1991,107. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,Subcommittee on the Department of theInterior and Related Agencies, Hearings onDepartment of the Interior and Related AgenciesAppropriations for 1992, Part 1, Justification ofthe Budget Estimates (Washington, DC: U.S.Goverrnent Printing Office, 1991).108. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Parkxand Recreation.” Recreation Fee Authorizations,Prohibitions, and Limitations, GAOBCED-86-149 (Washington, DC: GAO, 1986).109. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Wi/dlifeProtection: Enforcement of Federal LawsCouldBe Strengthened, GAO/RCED-9144 (Washington,DC: GAO, April 1991).110. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Pesticides:USDA’s Research To Support Registrationof Pesticides for Minor Crops, GAO/RCED-92-190BR (Washington, DC: GAO, June 1992).111. U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation,Present Law and Background Relating to FederalEnvironmental Tm Policy, JCS-6-90 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,Mar. 1, 1990).112, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture,Nutrition, and Forestry, Subcommittee onAgricultural Research and General Legislation,Preparation for the 1990 Farm Bill (Washington,DC: Mar. 28, 1990), pp. 349436.113. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,The Report: A Forum for Cooperation, NoxiousWeed Workshop, Billings, MT, Feb. 14-17,1989 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, May 1989).114. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement, Vegetation Diversity Project: AResearch and Demonstration Program Plan.Restoration and Maintenance of Native PlantDiversity on Deteriorated Range lands. GreatBasin and Columbia Plateau (Portland, OR:U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement, Oregon State Office, May 1990).115. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement, draft report, “Evaluation: Bu-

Appendix C: References I 325116.117.118.119.120.121.122.123.124.125.126.127.reauwide Noxious Weed Program, ’ Washington,DC, December 1991.U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, internal memorandum from Directorto Regional Directors 1-8, Washington, DC,Oct. 20, 1987.U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService, State of the Parks 1980: A Report toCongress (Washington, DC: Office of Scienceand Technology, May 1980).U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService, and U.S. Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service, Native P/an~s forParks, D-425 (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1989).U.S. Department of the Intenor, National ParkService, Federal Recreation Fee Report to Congress1992, Washington, DC, 1992.U.S. Department of the Interior, Office ofInspector General, Semiannual Report, Washington,DC, April 1992.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law EnforcementAdvisory Commission, Report of Findings andRecommendations, Washington, DC, June 15,1990.U.S. Interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species TaskForce, Washington, DC, Proposed Aquatic NuisanceSpecies Program, Sept. 28, 1992.Van’t Woudt, B. D., “Roaming, Stray, and FeralDomestic Cats and Dogs as Wildlife Problems,’Proceedings of the 14th Vertebrate Pest Conference,L.R. Davis and R.E. Marsh (eds. ) (Davis,CA: University of California, 1990), pp. 291-295.Washington State Department of Agriculture,Plant Services Division, Plant Quarantine Manual,Seattle, WA, 1992.Waterworth, H. E., “Our Plants’ Ancestors Immigrated,Too, ’ Bioscience, vol. 31, No. 9,October 1981, p. 698.West, A. J., Deputy Chief, State and PrivateForestry, USDA Forest Service, Washington,DC, personal communication to Office of TechnologyAssessment, Aug. 24, 1992.Westbrooks, R. G., “Interstate Sale of AquaticFederal Noxious Weeds as Omamentals in theUnited Sates,” Aquatics, June 1990, pp. 16-24.128,129.130

326 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.Brenchley, G.A. and Carlton, J.T., “CompetitiveDisplacement of Native Mud Snails by IntroducedPeriwinkles in the New England IntertidalZone, ” Biological Bulletin, vol. 165, December1983, pp. 543-558,Britton, J. C., “Pathways and Consequences ofthe Introduction of Freshwater, Terrestrial, andEstuarine Mollusks in the United States,” contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, October 1991.Cochran, M. J., “Non-Indigenous Species in theUnited States: Economic Consequences,’ contmctorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, March 1992.Conant, S., “Saving Endangered Species byTranslocation-Are we Tinkering with Evolution?”Bioscience, vol. 38, No. 4, 1988, pp.254-57.Courtenay, W., ‘‘Pathways and Consequences ofthe Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes in theUnited States,” contractor report prepared forthe Office of Technology Assessment, September1991.D’Antonio, C.M. and Vitousek, P. M., “BiologicalInvasions by Exotic Grasses, the Grass/FireCyclel, anfl Global Change,” Annual Review ofEcology and Systernatics, vol. 23, 1992, pp.63-87.Dickerson, W. A,, ‘Gypsy Moth in the SoutheasternUnited States, ’ North Carolina Departmentof Agriculture report, Raleigh, NC, Apr. 16,1991,Dowling, TE. and Childs, M.R., “Impact ofHybridization on a Threatened Trout of theSouthwestern United States,’ Conservation Biology,vol. 6, No. 3, September 1992, pp. 355-364.Edwards, G.B. and Nottingham, D., Co-Chairs ofthe Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, letterto E,A. Chornes&, Office of Technology Assessment,Nov. 25, 1992.Engbring, J. and Fritts, TH., “Demise of anInsular Avifauna: The Brown Tree Snake onGuam,” Transactions of the Western Section ofthe Wildlife Society, vol. 24, 1988, pp. 31-37.Ervin, K., “The Brink of Extinction, ” TheSeattle TimeslSeattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov.25, 1990, pp. Al, A16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.27.Evangelou, P., Agricultural Economist, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service, letters to Office ofTechnology Assessment, Dec. 9, 1991 and Jan.7, 1992, with attachment summarizing informationfrom the APHIS Fiscal Year 1990 BudgetWitness Book.Fergus, C., “The Florida Panther Verges onExtinction,” Science, vol. 251, Mar. 8, 1991, pp.1178-1180.Fey, C.L. et al., “History of Weed Introductions,” Exotic Plant Pests and North AmericanAgriculture, C,L. Wilson and C.L. Graham (eds.)(New York, NY: Academic Press, 1983), pp.65-92.Gallagher, J.E. and Hailer, W. T., “History andDevelopment of Aquatic Weed Control in theUnited States,” Review of Weed Science, vol. 5,1990, pp. 115-192,Gangstad, E.O. and Cardarelli, N. F., “The RelationBetween Aquatic Weeds and PublicHealth,” Aquatic Weeds: The Ecology andManagement of Nuisance Aquutic Vegetation,A.H. Pieterse and K.J. Murphy (eds.) (NewYork NY: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp.85-90.Ganzhorn J. et al., “Dissemination of MicrobialPathogens Through Introductions and Transfersof Fish fish,’ Dispersal ofLiving Organisms IntoAquatic Ecosystems, A. Rosenfield and R. Mann(eds.) (College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant,1992), pp. 175-192.Goodman, B., “Keeping Anglers Happy Has aPrice,” Bioscience, vol. 41, No. 5, May 1991, pp.294-299.Great Lakes Fishery Commission, ‘‘Ruffe in theGreat Lakes: A Threat to North AmericanFisheries,’ Report of the Ruffe Task Force, AnnArbor, MI, March 1992.Hadfield, M.G. and Miller, S.E., “Alien Predatorsand Decimation of Endemic Hawaiian TreeSnails,” Pac~ic Science, vol. 46, No. 3, 1992, p.395.Haughton, C. S., Green Immigrants: The Plantsthat Transformed America (New York, NY:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978).Hester, F. E., “The U.S. National Park ServiceExperience with Exotic Species, Natural Areas

Appendix C: References ! 32728.29.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38.Journal, vol. 11, No. 3, July 1991, pp. 127-128.Horbold, B. and Moyle, P. B., ‘‘Introduced Speciesand Vacant Niches, The American iVaturali~t,vol. 128, No. 5, November 1986, pp.751-760.Howarth, F.G. and Rarnsay,G,W.,‘‘The Conservationof Island Insects and Their Habitats, ” TheConservation of Insects and Their Habitats,N.M. Coliins and J.A. Thomas (eds.) (New York,NY: Academic Press, 1991), pp. 71-107.Johnston, G. H., Chief of Wildlife and VegetationDivision, Natural Resources Program Branch,National Park Service, U.S. Department of theInterior, personal communications to Office ofTechnology Assessment, July 10, 1991 and Mar.13, 1992.Kass, H., “Once a Savior, Moth is Now aScourge, Plant Conservation, vol. 5, No. 2,summer 1990, p. 3.Kay, S. H., “Hydrilla, a Rapidly SpreadingAquatic Weed Problem in North Carolina, ”Agriculture Bulletin—AG-449, North CarolinaCooperative Extensive Service (Raleigh, NC:North Carolina State University, May 1992).Kim, K.C. and Wheeler, A. G., Jr., ‘‘Pathwaysand Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and Arachnids in the UnitedStates, contractor report prepared for the Officeof Technology Assessment, December 1991.Klassen, W., ‘‘Eradication of Introduced ArthropodPests: Theory and Historical Practice,”Entomological Society of America, A4iscellane -ous Publ~cations, vol. 73, 1989, pp. 1-29,Langdon, K.R. and Johnson, K. D., ‘Alien ForestInsects and Diseases in Eastern USNPS Units:Impacts and Interventions,’ The George WrightForum, vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, pp. 2-14.Lanka, B., ‘ ‘Analysis and Recommendations onthe Applications by Mr. John T. Dorrence III toImport and Possess Native and Exotic Species, ’Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne,Wyoming, Mar. 1, 1990,Leonard, K., Director, Cereal Rust Lab, Universityof Minnesota, U.S. Department of Agriculture,St. Paul, MN, letter to P.N. Windle, Officeof Technology Assessment, Jan. 3, 1992,Lodge, D. M., “Species Invasions and Deletions:Community Effects and Responses to Climate39.40,41.42,43.44.45.46.47.48.49.and Habitat Change, ’ Biotic Interactions andGlobal Change (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer andAssoc., 1993).Imope, L.L. and Sanchez, P. G., “BiologicalInvasions of Arid Land Nature Reserve,’ BiologicalConservation, vol. 44, 1988, pp. 95-118.Luoma, J. R., “Boon to Anglers Turns Into aDisaster for Lakes and Streams,” New YorkTimes, Nov. 17, 1992.Macdonald, I.A.W. et al., “Wildlife Conservationand the Invasion of Nature Reserves byIntroduced Species: Global Perspective,” BiologicalInvasions: A Global Perspective, J.A.Drake et al. (eds.) (New York, NY: John Wileyand Sons, Ltd., 1989), pp. 215-255.Mace, G.M. and Lande, R., “Assessing ExtinctionThreats: Toward a Reevaluation of IUCNThreatened Species Categories, ” ConservationBiology, vol. 5, No. 2, June 1991, pp. 148-157.Mack, R. N., “Pathways and Consequences ofthe Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plants in theUnited States,” contractor report prepared forthe Office of Technology Assessment, September1991.Mack, R. N., Chairman, Department of Botany,Washington State University, Pullman, WA,personal communication to P.N. Windle, Officeof Technology Assessment, Aug. 4, 1992.Marsh, P.C. and Langhorst, D. R., “Feeding andFate of Wild Larval Razorback Sucker,’ EnvironmentalBiology of Fishes, vol. 21, No. 1, 1988,pp. 59-67.Master, L., “Aquatic Animals: EndangermentAlert,” Nature Conservancy, March/April 1991,pp. 26-27.Mayer, J,J. and Brisbin, I. L., Jr., Savannah RiverEcology Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina,“Wild Pigs in the United States: Their History,Comparative Morphology, and Current Status”(Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1991).McCann, J. A., “Involvement of the AmericanFisheries Society with Exotic Species, 1969-1982,” Distribution, Biology, and A4anugementof Exotic Fishes, W.R. Courtenay, Jr. and J.R.Stauffer, Jr. (eds.) (Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins University Press, 1984), pp. 1-7,McCrea, E.J. and Shotkin, A., “Public EducationalEfforts in the United States Regarding

328 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesPrevention and Management of Non-IndigenousSpecies,’ contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, December1991.50. McKey, D.B. and Kaufmann, S. C., “Naturalizationof Exotic Ficus Species (Moraceae) in SouthFlorida,” Department of the Interior, NationalPark Service, Technical Report NPS/NREVER/NRTR-91/06, September 1991.51. McNab, W. H., “Oriental Bittersweet: AnotherKudzu?” Proceedings of the 16th Annual HardwoodSymposium (Cashiers, NC: HardwoodResearch Council, 1988), pp. 190-191.52. Mech, L. D., “Wolf/Dog Hybrids,” Species (Newsletterof the Species Survival Commission ofIUCN-World Conservation Union), Brookfield,IL, No. 15, December 1990, pp. 66-67.53. Minnesota Interagency Exotic Species TaskForce, “Report and Recommendations,” submittedto the Natural Resources Committees ofthe Minnesota House and Senate, St. Paul, MN,July 1991.54. Missouri Department of Natud Resources, “Challengeof the ‘90s: Our Threatened State Parks,”Jefferson City, MO, October 1991.55. Mitchell, C.J. et al., “Isolation of Eastern EquineEncephalitis Virus From Aedes albopic[us inFlorida,” Science, vol. 257, July 24, 1992, pp.526-527.56. Mooney, H,A. and Drake, J. A., “BiologicalInvasions: a SCOPE Program Overview, ” BiologicalInvasions: A Global Perspective, J.A.Drake et al. (eds.) (New York, NY: John Wileyand Sons, 1989), pp. 491-506.57. Moyle, P. B., Li, H.W., and Barton, B.A. “TheFrankenstein Effect: Impact of Introduced Fisheson Native Fishes in North America, ” FishCulture in Fisheries Management, R.H. Stroud(cd.) (Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society,1986), pp. 415-426.58. Moyle, P.B. and Williams, J. E., “BiodiversityImss in the Temperate Zone: Decline of theNative Fish Fauna of California,” ConservationBiology vol. 4, No. 3, September 1990, pp.275-284.59. National Association of State Departments ofAgriculture, ‘Honey Bee Pests—A Threat to theVitality of U.S. Agriculture, ” Washington, DC,February 1991.60. Nature Conservancy of Hawaii and the NaturalResources Defense Council, “The Alien PestSpecies Invasion in Hawaii: Background Studyand Recommendations for Interagency Planning,”July 1992.61. Neill, W.M., ‘‘The Tarnarisk Invasion of DesertRiparian Areas,’ CalEPPC News, vol. 1, No. 1,winter 1993, pp. 6-7.62. O’Brien, S.J., ‘‘Bureaucratic Mischief: RecognizingEndangered Species and Subspecies, ’ Science,vol. 251, Mar. 8, 1991, pp. 1187-88.63. Paul, J., Communications Director, National PestControl Association, personal communication,Oct. 30, 1992.64. Peine, J.D. andFarrner, J.A., “WildHogM anagementProgram at Great Smoky Mountains NationalPark’ Proceedings of the 14th VertebratePest Conference, L.R. Davis and R.E. Marsh(eds.) (Davis, CA: University of California,1990), pp. 221-227.65. Perdue, R. E., Jr. and Christenson, G. M., “PlantExploration, ” Plant Breeding Reviews: Volume7 The National Plant Germplasm System of theUnited States, J. Janick (cd.) (Portland, OR:Timber Press, 1989), pp. 67-94.66. Pimentel, D.H. et al., “Environmental and EconomicEffects of Reducing Pesticide Use, ’Handbook on Pest Management in Agriculture,D.H. Pimentel (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRCPress, 1991).67. Sailer, R. I., “History of Insect Introductions, ”Exotic Plant Pests and North American Agriculture,C.L. Wilson and C.L. Graham (eds.) (NewYork NY: Academic Press, 1983), pp. 15-38.68. Savidge, J.A., “Extinction of an Island ForestAvifauna by an Introduced Snake,” Ecology,VO1. 68, No. 3, 1987, PP. 660-668.69. midt, B. R., Chief of Fisheries, Division ofWildlife Resources, Utah Department of NaturalResources, Salt Lake City, ~, letter to P.N.Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, Dec.16, 1991.70. Schrnitz, D.C. et al., ‘‘The Ecological Impact ofThree Invasive Alien Plant Species in Florida: AReview,’ unpublished manuscript.

Appendix C: References 132971. Schoener, A. A., “TheRole of Competition in theReplacement of Native Fishes by IntroducedSpecies, ’ Fishes in North American Deserts,R.J. Naiman and D.L, Soltz (eds.) (New York,NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1981), pp. 173-203,72. Schoulties, C. L., “Pathways and Consequencesof the Introduction of Non-Indigenous PlantPathogens in the United States,” contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, Washington, DC, December 1991.73. Showier, A.T. and Reagan, T. E,, “EcologicalInteractions of the Red Imported Fire Ant in theSoutheastern United States,’ J. Entomol. Sci.Suppi., VO]. 1, 1987, pp. 52-64.74. Soul&, M. E., “Conservation: Tactics for a ConstantCrisis,” Science, vol. 253, Aug. 16, 1991,pp. 744-750.75. Spaulding, W. M., Jr. and McPhee, R. J.—Bi-National Evaluation Team (submitted by), ‘‘TheReport of the Evaluation of the Great LakesFishery Commission by the Bi-National EvaluationTeam: Volume 2, An Analysis of theEconomic Contribution of the Great Lakes SeaLamprey Program’ (,Twin Cities, MN: U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Nov. 28, 1989).76. Spencer, C.N. et al., “Shrimp Stocking, SalmonCollapse, and Eagle Displacement,’ Bioscience,vol. 41, No. 1, January 1991, pp. 14-21.77. Struzik, E., “The Game Ranch, ” InternationalWildlfe, vol. 22, July/August 1992, pp. 18-20,22-24.78. Taylor, O. R., Jr., “African Bees: Potential Impactin the United States,” Bulletin of theEntomological Society of America, winter 1985,pp. 14-24.79. Temple, S.A. and Carroll, D. M., “Pathways andConsequences of Introduction of Non-Indigenous Vertebrates in the United States,”contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, October 1991,80. Terborgh, J., “Why American Songbirds areVanishing,’ Scientl~ic American, May 1992, pp.98-104.81. Texas Department of Agriculture, AgricultureDevelopment Program, ‘‘Exotic Game in Texas:An Overview of Commercial Potential, ’ Austin,TX, February 1989.82. Thomas, L. K., Jr., ‘‘The Impact of Three ExoticPlant Species on Potomac Island, ” U.S. Departmentof the Interior, National Park ServiceScientific Monograph Series, No. 13, Washington,DC, 1980.83. Thompson, D,Q. et al., “Spread, Impact, andControl of Purple Loosestrife (Ly(hrurn salicaria)in Noflh American Wetlands, UnitedStates Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,DC, 1987,84. Toland, B., “Use of Forested Spoil Islands byNesting American Oystercatchers in SoutheastFlorida,” Journal of Field Ornitho[og]’, vol. 63,No. 2, spring, 1992, pp. 155-158.85. Thrner, C. E., “Conflicting Interests and BiologicalControl of Weeds, ’ Proc. IV lnt. Syrnp. Bio/.Contr. Weeds, August 1984, pp. 203-225.86. U.S. Congress, GeneralAccounting Office, “GreatLakes Fishery Commission—Actions Needed toSupport an Expanded Program, ” NSIAD-92-108 (Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General AccountingOffice, March 1992).87. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Technologies To Maintain BiologicalDiversity, OTA-F-330 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, March 1987),88. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Bioremediation for Marine Oil Spills-Background Paper, OTA-BP-O-70 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May1991).89. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Kudzu forErosion Control in the Southeast,” Farmer’sBulletin No. 1840, 1944.90. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, “Imported FireAnt: A Guide for Nursery Operators, ” programaid no. 1420, 1989.91, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,“Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation ofLarch from Siberia and the Soviet Far East,”Miscellaneous Publication Nc. 1495, September1991.92. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,“Forest Semice Manual 2600-Wildlife, Fish,and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management WOAmendment 2600-91 -6,” Sept. 24, 1991.

330 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States93. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil ConservationService, “Improved Conservation PlantMaterials Released by the SCS and CooperatorsThrough December 1990,” 1990.94. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau ofReclamation, Lower Colorado Region, “VegetationManagement Study-Imwer ColomdoRiver,’Phase I, September 1992.95. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, Restoring Arnerica’s Wildlife, (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,1987).96. von Broembsen, S. L., “Invasions of NaturalEcosystems by Plant Pathogens,” BiologicalInvasions: a Global Perspective (New York,NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1989), pp. 77-83.97. Webb, D. A., ‘‘What Are the Criteria for PresumingNative Status?, Watsonia, vol. 15,1985, pp.231-236.98. Westbrooks, R. G., Poisonous Plants of EasternNorth America (Columbia, SC: University ofSouth Carolina Press, 1986).99. Westman, W. E., “Managing for Biodiversity—Unresolved Science and Policy Questions,”Bioscience, vol. 40, No. 1, 1990, pp. 26-33.100. Whitson, T.D. et al., Weeds of the West (Jackson,WY: Pioneer of Jackson Hole, January 1991).101. Williams, M. C., “Purposefully IntroducedPlants that Have Become Noxious or PoisonousWeeds,’ ‘ Weed Science, vol. 28, No. 3, May1980, pp. 300-305.102. Young, J. A., “Tumbleweed,” Scientific American,March 1991, pp. 82-87,CHAPTER 3: THE CHANGING NUMBERS, CAUSES,AND RATES OF INTRODUCTIONS1. American Fisheries Society, Southern Division,‘‘ Newsletter,’ Virginia Polytechnic Instituteand State University, Blacksburg, VA, February1991.2. Anonymous, “Hazards of Travel,” WashingtonPost, Dec. 31, 1991, p. C2.3. Anonymous, ‘Around the States: Florida,’ EcologyUSA, vol. 21, No. 7, Apr. 6, 1992, p. 67.4. Anonymous, ‘Search On for Snail That Eats UpLawns, ” Washington Times, May 15, 1992, p.B3.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.Bandel, D. M., Chief, Natural and Cultural ResourcesDivision Directorate of Public Works,Department of the Army, Fort Belvoir, VA,memorandum to the Executive Director, ArmedForces Pest Management Board, Forest GlenSection, Feb. 4, 1992.Bangsund, D.A. and Uistritz, F.L., “EconomicImpacts of lafy Spurge on Grazing Lands in theNorthern Great Plains,’ Department of AgriculturalEconomics, Agricultural Experiment Station,North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND,Agricultural Economics Report No. 275-S, November1991.Barton, B. J., Gardening by Mail: a Source Book(Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1990).Beauchamp, R. M., President, Pacific SouthwestBiological Services, Inc., letter to P.T. Jenkins,Office of Technology Assessment, Dec. 27,1991.Be&mah, D.J., ‘The Complex Ecology of Weeds,Grazing, and Wildlife,’ Western Wi/dlands, vol.18, No, 2, summer 1992, pp. 6-11.Bossard, C., “The Establishment and Dispersalof Cytisus scoparius (Scotch Broom) in CaliforniaSierra Nevada Foothill and Northern CoastalHabitats,” Proceedings of the Symposium onExotic Pest Plants, ID. Center et al. (eds.)(Denver, CO: National Park Service, NaturalResources Publication Office, 1991), pp. 35-55.Boyce, J. S., Forest Pathology (New York NY:McGraw-Hill Book Co., hlC., 1961).Britton, J. C., “Pathways and Consequences ofthe Introduction of Non-Indigenous Freshwater,Terrestrial, and Estuarin e Mollusks in the UnitedStates,’ contractor report prepared for the Officeof Technology Assessment, October 1991.Burkhead, N.M. and Williams, J. D., “An IntergenicHybrid of a Native Minnow, the GoldenShiner, and an Exotic Minnow, the Rudd,”Transactions of the American Fishery Society,vol. 120, 1991, pp. 781-795, as cited in Mills,E.L. et al., 1993 (#71).California Exotic Plant Pest Council, Ca/EPPCNews, vol. 1, No. 1, winter 1993, p. 5.California Forest Pest Council, “Forest PestConditions in Califomia-1991,” Sacramento,CA, Feb. 28, 1992.

Appendix C: References ! 33116,17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.Cardoza, J.E. et al., “A Compilation of theHistory and Status of Exotic Vertebrates ofMassachusetts,” Fauna of Massachusetts Series,No. 6, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries andWildlife, Westborough, MA, September 1992.Carlton, J. T,, “Introduced Invertebrates of SanFrancisco Bay,’ San Francis coBay: The UrbanizedEstuary (San Francisco, CA: Pacific Divisionof the American Association for the Advancementof Science, 1979), pp. 427444.Carlton, J. T., Director, Maritime Studies Program,Williams College, Mystic, ~, personalcommunication to E.A. Chornesky, Office ofTechnology Assessment, December 1990.Carlton, J. T., “Dispersal of Living Organismsinto Aquatic Ecosystems as Mediated by Aquicultureand Fisheries Activities, ’ Dispersal ofLiving Organisms Into Aquatic Ecosystems, A,Rosenfield and R. Mann (eds.) (College Park,MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992), pp. 13-46.Carlton, J. T., “Marine Species Introductions byShip’s Ballast Water: An Overview,’ introductionsand Transfers of Marine Species yM,R.DeVoe (cd.) (Charleston, SC: South CarolinaSea Grant, 1992), pp. 23-29.Carlton, J,T. et al., ‘‘Remarkable Invasion of SanFrancisco Bay (California, USA) by the AsianClam Potamocorbula amurensis. I. Introductionand Dispersal, ’ Marine Ecology Progress Series,vol. 66, 1990, pp. 81-94.Carlton, J.T and Geller, J. B., “Ecological Roulette:The Global Transport of NonindigenousMarine Organisms, ” Science, vol. 261, July 2,1993, pp. 78-82.Center for Conservation Biology, Center forConservation Biology Update, Stanford University,Stanford, CA, vol. 6, No. 2, winter 1993, p.12.Cochran, M. J., ‘‘Non-Indigenous Species In theUnited States: Economic Impact Tables,” contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, March 1992.Counts, C.L. III, “The Zoogeography and Historyof the Invasion of the United States byCorbicula Fluminea (Bivalvia: Corbiculidae),”American Malacological Bulletin, Special EditionNo. 2, 1986, pp. 7-39,26, Courtenay, W. R., ‘‘Pathways and Consequencesof the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes inthe United States,” contractor report preparedfor the Office of Technology Assessment, September1991.27, Courtenay, W.R., Professor of Zoology, FloridaAtlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, FAX toE.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment,Apr. 13, 1993.28. Courtenay, W.R. and Robins, C.R., “Fish Introductions:Good Management, Mismanagement,or No Management,’ Critical Reviews in AquaticSciences, vol. 1, No. 1, 1989, pp. 159-172.29. Courtenay, W.R. and Williams, J. D., “Dispersalof Exotic Species From Aquiculture Sources,With Emphasis on Freshwater Fishes,” Dispersalof Living Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems,A. Rosenfield and R. Mam (eds.) (CollegePark, MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992), pp.49-81.30. Craven, R.B. et al., “Importation of Aedesalbopictus and Other Exotic Mosquito Speciesinto the United States in Used Tires From Asia, ’Journal of the American Mosquito ControlAssociation, vol. 4, No. 2, 1988, pp. 138-142.31. Deitnch, B., “State Girds To Battle AlienInvader: A Moth,” Seattle Times, Nov. 19,1991,p. A-1.32. Dickerson, W. A., ‘‘Gypsy Moth in the SoutheasternUnited States, ’ North Carolina Departmentof Agriculture, Raleigh, NC, Apr. 16, 1991.33. Dold, C., ‘ ‘Exotic Birds, at Risk in Wild, MaybeBanned as Imports to U.S.,” The New YorkTime~, Oct. 20, 1992.34. Dowell, R.V. and Gill, R., “Exotic Invertebratesand Their Effects on California, ’ Pan-PaczjlcEntomologist, vol. 65, No. 2,1989, pp. 132-145.35. Dowell, R. V., State Entomologist, CaliforniaDepartment of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento,CA, FM to E.A. Chornesky, Ol%ce ofTechnology Assessment, Apr. 12, 1993.36. Ebinger, J,E. and McClain, W. E., “NaturalizedAmur Maple (Acer ginnala Maxim.) in Illinois,’Nauwal Areas Journal, vol. 11, No. 3, 1991, pp.170-171.37. Ezzell, C., ‘ ‘Strangers in Paradise, ” ScienceN~/s, Vol. 142, No. 45, Nov. 7, 1992, pp.314-319.

332 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States38.39.40.41.42.43.44.45.46.47.Fisher, TW., personal communication to J.C.Britton, as cited in Britton, J. C., 1991 (#12).Fleming, P. and Kanal, R., “Newly DocumentedSpecies of Vascular Plants in the District ofColumbia,’ Castanea, vol. 57, No. 2, June 1992,pp. 132-146,Frankie, G.W. et al. “Some Considerations forthe Eradication and Management of IntroducedInsect Pests in Urban Environments,” S.L.Batten field (cd.) Proceedings of a Symposium onthe Imported Fire Ant, Atlanta, GA, June 7-10,1982 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Animal and Plant Health InspectionService/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,1982) as cited in K.C, Kim and A.G. Wheeler,Jr., 1991 (#53).Fritts, T. H., “The Brown Tree Snake, Boigairregulars, A Threat to Pacific Islands, ” U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, vol.88, No. 31, September 1988.Ganzhorn, J. et al., ‘‘Dissemination of MicrobialPathogens Through Introductions and Transfersof Fin fish,’ Dispersal of Living Organisms intoAquatic Ecosystems, A. Rosenfield and R. Mann(eds.) (College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant,1992), pp. 175-192.Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ruffe TaskForce, “Ruffe in the Great Lakes: A Threat toNorth American Fisheries, ” Ann Arbor, MI,March 1992.Greathead, D.J. and Greathead, A. H., ‘ ‘BiologicalControl of Insect Pests by Insect Parasitoidsand Predators: the BIOCAT Database, ’ BiocontrolNews and Information 1992, vol. 13, No. 4,1992, PP. 61 N-68N.Gregg, M., Administrator, Metro Parks NaturalAreas Management, State of Florida, memo to K.Hale, Director, Office of Emergency Management,Oct. 11, 1992.Hanna, G. D., “Introduced Mollusks of WesternNorth America,” Occasional Papers of theCa[#ornia Academy of Sciences, No. 48, 1966,as cited in Britton, J. C., 1991 (#12).Hobbs, R.J. and Huenneke, L. F., “Disturbance,Diversity, and Invasion: Implications for Conservation,’ Consen’ation Biology, vol. 6, No, 3,September 1992, pp. 324-337.48.49,50.51.52.53.54.55,56.57.Hoffman, G. L., ‘‘The Asian Tapeworm, Bothriocephalusgowkongensis, in the United States, andResearch Needs in Fish Parasitology,’ Proceedingsof the 1976 Fish Farming Conference andAnnual Convention of Catfish Farmers of Texas,Texas A&M University, College Station, TX,July 20-21, 1976, pp. 84-90.Hofstetter, RH., “The Current Status of Mekdeucaquinquenervia in Southern Florida,” Proceedingsof the Symposium on Exotic Pest Plants,TD. Center et al. (eds.) (Denver, CO: NationalPark Service, Natural Resources PublicationOffice, 1991), pp. 159-176.Howard, L.O., “Gipsy Moth in America: ASummary Account of the Introduction andSpread of Porthetria dispar in Massachusettsand of the Efforts Made by the State to Repressand Exterminate It,” U.S. Department of Agriculture,Division of Entomology, Bulletin No.n-New Series, 1897, pp. 1-39.Hubbell, S., “A Reporter at Large: Ladybugs,”The New Yorker, Oct. 7, 1991, pp. 103-111.Kaplan, J. K., ‘‘Africanized Honey Bees,’ AgriculturalResearch, vol. 38, December 1990, pp.4-11,Kim, K.C. and Wheeler, A. G,, “Pathways andConsequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and Arachnids in the UnitedStates,’ contractor report prepared for the Officeof Technology Assessment, December 1991.Kindler, S.D. and Springer, T. L., “AlternateHosts of Russian Wheat Aphid (Homoptera:Aphididae),’ Journal of Economic Entomology,vol. 82, No. 5, 1989, pp. 1358-1362.Kohler, C,C. and Courtenay, W., Jr,, “AmericanFisheries Society Position on Introductions ofAquatic Species, ” Fisheries, vol. 11, No. 2,March-April 1986, pp. 39-42.Langdon, K.R. and Johnson, K. D., ‘Alien ForestInsects and Diseases in Eastern USNPS Units:Impacts and Intementions,’ The George WrightFORUM , VOI. 9, No. 1, 1992, pp. 2-14.Lanka, B, et al., “Analysis and Recommendationson the Application by Mr. John T. DorranceIII to Import and Possess Native and ExoticSpecies,” Exotic Species Committee, GameDivision, Wyoming Game and Fish Department,Cheyenne, WY, Mar. 1, 1990,

Appendix C: References I 3335859 %60.61.62,63.64.65.66,67,Lewis, V.R. et al., “Imported Fire Ants: PotentialRisk to California, ’ California Agriculture,vol. 46, No. 1, January-February 1992, pp.29-31.Lieberman, S. S., “Awareness Grows on theProblems of Trading Live Birds and Other LiveWildlife, ’ Endangered Species Technical Bulletin,vol. 15, No. 11, 1990, pp. 13-14.Lightner, D.V. et al., ‘‘Geographic Dispersion ofthe Viruses IHHN, MBV, and HPV as a ~onsequenceof Transfers and Introductions of PenaeidShrimp to New Regions for Aquiculture Purposes,” Dispersal of Living Organisms intoAquatic Ecosystems, A. Rosenfield and R. Mann(eds.) (College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant,1992), pp. 155-173.Immbardi, A. K., Director, Office of Cargo Enforcementand Facilitation, Department of Customs,U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington,DC, personal communication to Office ofTechnology Assessment, Jan, 24, 1992.Mack, R. N., “Catalog of Woes,” Natural History,March 1990, pp. 44-53.Mack, R. N., “Pathways and Consequences ofthe Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plants in theUnited States,” contractor report prepared forthe Office of Technology Assessment, September1991.Mack, R. N., “The Commercial Seed Trade: AnEarly Disperser of Weeds in the United States,”Economic Botany, vol. 45, No. 2, 1991, pp.257-273.Mack, R. N., “Additional Information on Non-Indigenous Plants in the United States,’ contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, October 1992.McCann, J. A., “Involvement of the AmericanFisheries Society With Exotic Species, 1969-1982, ” Distribution, Biology, and Managementof Exotic Fishes, W,R. Courtenay and J.R.Stauffer, Jr, (eds.) (Baltimore, MD: The JohnsHopkins University Press, 1984), pp. 1-7.McCann, J. A., Director, National Fisheries ResearchCenter, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.Department of the Interior, Gainesville, FL,personal communication to Office of TechnologyAssessment, Apr. 17, 1991.68. McClintock, E., ‘‘Escaped Exotic Weeds inCalifornia, ” Fremontia, vol. 12, No. 4, January1985, pp. 3-6.69. McCoid, M. and Fritts, TH., “Growth andFatbody Cycles in Feral Populations of theAfrican Clawed Frog, Xenopus laevis (Pipidae),in California With Comments on Reproduction,”The Southwestern Naturalist, vol. 34, No.4, December 1989, pp. 499-505.70. McMullen, M. M., Inspector-Program Officer,Office of Cargo Enforcement and Facilitation,Department of Customs, U.S. Department of theTreasury, Washington, DC, personal communicationto Office of Technology Assessment, Jan.24, 1992.71. Mills, E.L. et al., “Exotic Species in the GreatLakes: A History of Biotic Crises and AnthropogenicIntroductions,” Journal of Great LukesResearch, vol. 19, No. 1, 1993, pp. 1-54.72. Morrison, J., “Cockroaches on the Move, ”Agricultural Research, vol. 35, No. 2, February1987, pp. 6-9.73, Moyle, P. B., “Fish Introductions in California:History and Impact on Native Fishes,’ BiologicalConservation, vol. 9, No. 2, 1976, pp.101-118,74. National Association of State Departments ofAgriculture, Washington, DC, ‘Honey Bee Pests—A Threat to the Vitality of U.S. Agriculture: ANational Strategy,” February 1991.75. Nichols, F.I-I. et al., “Remarkable Invasion ofSan Francisco Bay (California, USA) by theAsian ClarnPotamocorbula amurensis; II. Displacementof a Former Community, Marine Ecolo~Progress Series, vol. 66, 1990, pp. 95-101,76. Nuzzo, V. A., ‘‘Current and Historic Distributionof Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) in Illinois,’ report prepared for the Illinois Departmentof Conservation, Springfield, IL, July1991.77. Randall, J., Invasive Weed Specialist, ConsumnesRiver Preserve, The Nature Conservancy,Gait, CA, letter to P,N, Windle, Office ofTechnology Assessment, July 23, 1992.78. Regelbrugge, C. J., Director of Regulatory Affairsand Grower Services, American Associationof Nurserymen, Washington DC, letter to

334 Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesP.N. Windle, Office of Technology Assessment,Aug. 10, 1992.79. Rosenberry, B., “Shrimp Farming in the UnitedStates,” Aquiculture Digest, February 1988.80. Sailer, R. I., “History of Insect Introductions,”Exotic Plant Pests and North American Agriculture,C. Wilson and C.L. Graham (eds.) (NewYork NY: Academic Press, 1983), pp. 15-38.81. Schafland, P. L., “A Proposal for IntroducingPeacock Bass (Cidda spp.) in Southeast FloridaCanals,” Contribution No. 40, Non-Native FishResearch Laboratory, Florida Game and FreshWater Fish Commission, Boca Raton, FL, 1984.82. Schoulties, C. L., “Pathways and Consequencesof the Introduction of Non-Indigenous PlantPathogens in the United States, ” contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, December 1991.83. Schmitz, D. C., Biological Scientist III, PermittingSection, Florida Department of NaturalResources, Tallahassee, FL, memorandum toRob Kipker, June 28, 1990.84. Schwegman, J. E., “Newsletter of the IllinoisNative Plant Conservation Program Division ofNatural Heritage, Illinois Department of Conservation,”lllinoisensis, vol. 7, No. 2, July 1991.85. Schwegman, J. E., Plant Conservation Manager,Illinois Department of Conservation, Springfield,IL, letter to P.T Jenkins, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Apr. 6, 1992.86. Seed World, “Wildlife Market on the Rise,”Seed World, November 1991, p. 26.87. Sharp Bros. Seed Co., “Buffalo Brand: SelectNative Grasses” (seed catalog), Healy, KS,1989.88. Shelton, A.M. and Wyman, J. A., “InsecticideResistance of Diamondback Moth in NorthAmerica, ” Journal of Economic Entomology,VOI. 79, No. 1, 1986, pp. 11-19.89. Shelton, W.L. and Smitherman, R. O., “ExoticFishes in Warmwater Aquiculture, ” Distribution,Biology, and Management of Exotic Fishes,W,R. Courtenay and J.R. Stauffer (eds.) (Baltimore,MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press,1984), pp. 262-301.90. Shotts, E. B., Jr. and Gratzek, J. B., “Bacteria,Parasites, and Viruses of Aquarium Fish andTheir Shipping Waters, ” Distribution, Biology,andiklanagement of Exotic Fishes, W.R. Courtenay,Jr. and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. (eds.) (Baltimore,MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), pp.215-232.91. Siddiqui, I. A., Assistant Director, CaliforniaDepartment of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento,CA, testimony at hearings before theSenate Committee on Governmental Affairs,Subcomitteee on Federal Services, Post Offices,and Civil Services, Postal Implementation of theAgricultural Quarantine Enforcement Act, June5, 1991.92. Sugg, I. C., “To Save an Endangered Species,Own One,” The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 31,1992, p. A1O.93. Taylor, D. W., “An Eastern American FreshwaterMussel, Anodonta, Introduced into Arizona,The Veliger, vol. 8, No. 3, 1966, pp. 197-198.94. Teer, J. G., “Non-Native Large Ungulates inNorth America, ” Wildlife Production: Conservationand Sustainable Development, L.A. Reneckerand R.J. Hudson (eds.) (Fairbanks, AK:Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station,1991), pp. 55-66.95. Temple, S.A. and Carroll, D. M., “Pathways andConsequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Vertebrates in the United States,”contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, October 1991.96. Torchio, P.F. et al,, “Introduction of the EuropeanBee, Osmia cornuta, into California AlmondOrchards (Hymenopteran: Megachilidae), ’Environmental Entomology, vol. 16, No. 3, June1987, pp. 664-667,97. Turb~ G., “A Pleasant Bird is the Pheasant,”National Wildlife, vol. 30, October/November,1992, pp. 14-20.98. Tyser, R.W. and Worley, C. A., “Alien Flora inGrasslands Adjacent to Road and Trail Corridorsin Glacier National Park, Montana (U. S. A.),”Conservation Biology, vol. 6, No. 2, June 1992,pp. 253-262.99. U.S. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force,‘‘proposedAquatic Nuisance Species Program, ’draft report to the U.S. Congress, Sept. 28,1992.100. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor,PA, “Gypsy Moth Research and Develop-

Appendix C: References 1335101,102.103,104.105.106.107.108.109.110.111.112.ment Program’ (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, October 1990).U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,“Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation ofLarch from Siberia and the Soviet Far East,”Miscellaneous Publication No. 1495, September1991.U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, Restoring Americans Wildl$e (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,1987).U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, ‘MemorandumOpinion in Pennington Enterprises,Inc. v. United States,” Civil Action No. 90-1067, filed Mar. 31, 1992.U.S. Federal Coordinating Council on Science,Engineering, and Technology, Joint Subcommitteeon Aquiculture, ‘‘National Aquiculture DevelopmentPlan: Volume II, ’ Washington, DC,September 1983.Westbrooks, R. G., “Interstate Sale of AquaticFederal Noxious Weeds as Ornamental in theUnited States,” Aquatics, vol. 2, No. 3, June1990, pp. 16-24.Westbrooks, R. G., U.S. Department of Agriculture,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Semice,“Federal Noxious Weed Inspection Guide:Noxious Weed Inspection System, ” September1991, pp. 3.5.1-4.1.5.Whitson, TD. et al., Weeds of the West (Jackson,WY: Pioneer of Jackson Hole, January 1991).Wildlife Nurseries, Inc., “What Brings ThemIn’ (catalogue of animals and plants for wildlifehabitat) (Oshkosh, WI: 1989).Wildseed Farms, “Wildflowers: 1992 Seed Catalogue”(Eagle Lake, TX: 1992).Williams, J., Project bader, National FisheriesResearch Center, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.Department of the Interior, personal communicationto E.A. Chornesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Apr. 16, 1993.Williams, M. C., “Purposefully IntroducedPlants that Have Become Noxious or PoisonousWeeds, ’ ‘ Weed Science, vol. 28, No. 3, May1980, pp. 300-305.Yee, R. S. N., personal communication to R.N.Mac~ as cited in Mack, R. N., 1991 (#63).113.Zamora, D.L. et al., “An Eradication Plan forPlant Invasions,” Weed Technology, vol. 3, No.1, January/March 1989, pp. 2-12.CHAPTER 4: THE APPLICATION OFDECISIONMAKING METHODS1. Associated Press, ‘Forest Bugaboo-Alarm OverDiscove~ of Asian Gypsy Moths, ” SeattleTimes/Post Intelligence, Nov. 24, 1991, p. B-8.2. Blockstein, D., Executive Director, Committeefor the National Institute for the Environment,Washington, DC, ‘‘Sample Guidelines for Considerationof Biological Diversity in EnvironmentalImpact Statements, ’ draft unpublishedmemorandum, 1989.3, Bullis, C.A. and Kennedy, J. J., “Values Conflictsand Policy Interpretation, ” Policies Studies.lourrud, vol. 19, No. 34, 1991, pp. 542-552.4. Bullock, G., “A Love Affair with ExoticPlants,” Bulletin of the Pacific Tropical BotanicalGarden, vol. 18, No. 2-3, April/July, 1988,pp. 58-9,5. Cadton, J. T., ‘ ‘Man’s Role in Changing the Faceof the Ocean, ’ Conservation Biology, vol. 3, No.3, 1989, pp. 270-272.6. Cmter, P. C. S., ‘‘Risk Assessment and PestDetection Surveys for Exotic Pests and Diseaseswhich Threaten Commercial Forestry in NewZealand,” New Zealand Jourrwl of ForestryScience, vol. 19, Nos. 2/3, 1989, pp. 353-374.7. Clark A., Program Supervisor, Pest ExclusionBranch, California Department of Agriculture,Sacramento, CA, personal communication toP,T. Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment,Feb. 14, 1991.8. Coates, J. F., “Factors Shaping and Shaped bythe Environment: 1990-2010,’ Futures ResearchQuarterly, vol. 7, No. 3, 1991, pp. 5-55.9. Cochran, M., “Non-Indigenous Species in theUnited States: Economic Consequences,” contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, March 1992.10, Coulson, J.R. and Soper, R. S., ‘‘Protocols for theIntroduction of Biological Control Agents in theU.S.,” Plant Protection and Quarantine—Vol.111, R.P. Kahn (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press,1989), pp. 1-35.

336 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States11. Courtenay, W. R., ‘‘Pathways and Consequencesof Introductions of Non-Indigenous Fishes in theUnited States, ” contractor report prepared forthe Office of Technology Assessment, August1991.12. Crawley, M. J., “What Makes A CommunityInvisible?’ Colonization, Succession andStability,A.J. Gray et al. (eds.) (Oxford, England:Blackwell Scientific Publ., 1987), pp. 429453.13. Cropper, M.L. and Oates, W. E., ‘EnvironmentalEconomics: A Survey,” Journal of EconomicLiterature, vol. 30, June 1992, pp. 675-740.14. DeFazio, P., Member of U.S. House of Representativeset al., letter to Clayton K. Yeutter,Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dec.5, 1990.15. Drost, C.A. and Fellers, G. M., National ParkService, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,DC, ‘‘Draft Handbook for the Removalof Non-Native Animals,” 1992.16. Edelson, D., Staff Attorney, Natural ResourcesDefense Council, San Francisco, CA, personalcommunication to P.T. Jenkins, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Feb. 5, 1991.17. Edwards, G. B., Assistant Director, FisheriesDivision, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, Washington, DC, testimonyat hearings before the House Committeeon Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Subcommitteeon Oversight and Investigations, July 12,1991, Serial No. 102-28, pp. 32-33.18. Environmental Law Institute, Law of EnvironmentalProtectio~Vol. I (New York, NY: ClarkBoardman Co., 1990), p. 6-24.19. Gleick, J., Chaos. Making a New Science (NewYork, NY: Viking Press, 1987).20. Gregory, R,, ‘‘A Decision Framework for Managingthe Risks of Deliberate Releases of GeneticMaterials,’ Dispersal of Living Organisms intoAquatic Ecosystems, A. Rosenfeld and R. Mann(eds.) (College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant,1992), pp. 421-434.21. Grego~, R. et al., ‘‘Adapting the EnvironmentalImpact Statement Process to Inform DecisionMakers,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,vol. 11, No. 1, 1992, pp. 58-75.22. Harding, M., Arizona Department of Game andFish, Phoenix, AZ, ‘ ‘Public Interest in Conservation:Perceptions of Native Fishes in Arizona-A Report to the Nongame Branch of the ArizonaDepartment of Game and Fish,” June 1991.23. Hiebert, R. D., Chief Scientist, National ParkService-Midwest Region, U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Omaha, NE, personal communicationto P.T. Jenkins, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Sept. 27, 1991.24. Kahn, R. P., “Quarantine Significance: BiologicalConsiderations,’ Plant Protection andQuarantine—Vol.}, R.P. Kahn (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press, 1989), pp. 201-216.25. Kahn, R. P., Consultant, Rockville, MD, letter toP.N. Windle, Office of Technology Assessment,Dec. 2, 1991.26. Kareiva, P., Groom, M., Parker, I., and Ruesink,J., “Risk Analysis as Tbol for Making Decisionsabout the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Speciesinto the United States, ” contractor reportprepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,July 1991.27. Kareiva, P., Professor, Department of Zoology,University of Washington, contract paper preparedfor OTA Workshop on Management andPolicy Decisionmaking for Non-Indigenous Speciesin the United States, Washington, DC, Nov.13-14, 1991.28. Kellert, S. R., Knowledge, Affection and BasicAttitudes toward Animals in American Society(Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1980).29. Kellert, S.R. and Clarlq T.W., “The Theory andApplication of a Wildlife Policy Framework”Public Policy Issues in Wildl&e Management,W.R. Mangun (cd.) (New York, NY: GreenwoodPress, 1991), pp. 17-38.30. Klingman, D.L, and Coulson, J. R., “Guidelinesfor Introducing Foreign Organisms into theUnited States for the Biological Control ofWeeds,” Bulletin of the Entomological Societyof America, vol. 19, No. 3, 1983, pp. 55-61.31. Kohler, C. C., ‘‘Toward a Reasoned Approach toIntroduced Aquatic Organisms,” Dispersal ofLiving Organisms into Aquutic Ecosystems, A.Rosenfeld and R. Mann (eds.) (College Park,MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992), pp. 393+M.32. Kuchler, F. and Duffy, M., U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Economic Research Service, ‘‘Con-

Appendix C: References I 33733.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.41.42.trol of Exotic Pests—Forecasting EconomicImpacts, ” Agricultural Economic Report No.518, 1984.Kurdila, J,, “The Introduction of Exotic Speciesinto the United States: There Goes the Neighborhood!”Boston College Environmental AflairsLaw Review, vol. 16, No, 1, 1988, pp. 95-118.Lassuy, D., Fish and Wildlife Biologist, FisheriesDivision, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.Department of the Interior, Arlington, VA,personal communication to E.A, Chornes@,Office of Technology Assessment, Apr. 7, 1993.Lattin, J. D., Professor of Entomology, OregonState University, memorandum to Bill Wright,Administrator, Plant Division, Oregon Departmentof Agriculture, Salem, OR, Nov. 1, 1990.Lattin, J, D., Professor of Entomology, OregonState University, Corvallis, OR, personal communicationto P.T. Jenkins, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Jan. 31, 1991.Lattin, J. D., Professor of Entomology, OregonState University, Corvallis, OR, letter to KathleenJohnson, Oregon Department of Agriculture,Feb. 20, 1991.Lawton, J. H., “Annual Report: 1 April 199P31 March 1991,’ Center for Population Biology,Imperial College at Silwood Park, Berkshire,England, June 14, 1991.bvin, S. A., ‘‘Analysis of Risk for Invasions andControl Programs, ” Biological Invasions: aGlobal Perspective, J.A. Drake et al. (eds.) (NewYork, NY: Wiley & Sons, 1989), pp. 425435.Mack, R. N., ‘‘Pathways and Consequences ofIntroductions of Non-Indigenous Plants in theUnited States,” contractor report prepared forthe Office of Technology Assessment, September1991.Mack, R. N., “Pathways and Consequences ofIntroductions of Non-Indigenous Plants in theUnited States-Additional Information,’ supplementalcontractor report prepared for the Officeof Technology Assessment, October 1992.Maguire, L. A., Professor, School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies, Duke University, presentationat OTA Workshop on Management andPolicy Decisionmaking for Non-Indigenous Speciesin the United States, Washington, DC, Nov.13-14, 1991.43. Maguire, L.A. and Servheen, C., “IntegratingBiological and Sociological Concerns in EndangeredSpecies Management: Augmentation ofGrizzly Bear Populations,’ Conservation Biology,vol. 6, No. 3, September 1992, pp. 426-432.44. Mann, R., “Exotic Species in Aquacukure: AnOverview of When, Why and How,” Proceedingsof a Symposium on Exotic Species inMariculture, Woods Hole, MA, Sept. 18-20,1978, pp. 331-53.45. McCrea, E.J. and Shotkin, A., “Public EducationalEfforts in the United States RegardingPrevention and Management of Non-IndigenousSpecies,’ contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, December1991.46. Minnesota Interagency Exotic Species TaskForce, St. Paul, MN, ‘Report and Recommendations,’ submitted to the Natural ResourcesCommittees of the Minnesota House and Senate,July 1991.47. Moody, M.E, and Mack, R. N., “Controlling theSpread of Plant Invasions: the Importance ofNascent Foci,” Journal of Applied Ecology, vol.25, 1988, pp. 1009-1021.48. Mooney, H.A. and Drake, J. A., “The Release ofGenetically Designed Organisms in the Environment:Lessons from the Study of Ecology ofInvasions,’ Introduction of Genetically ModifiedOrganisms into the Environment, H.A.Mooney and G. Bernardi (eds,) (New York, NY:Wiley and Sons, 1990), pp. 117-129.49, Morris, R., Division Resources Manager, Imuisiana-Pacific Corp., Samoa, CA, internal memorandumto Bill Phillips, Dec. 19, 1990.50. Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI,and the Natural Resources Defense Council,Honolulu, HI, “The Alien Pest Species Invasionsin Hawaii: Background Study and Recommendationsfor Interagency Planning, ” July1992.51. Noble, R., Professor, Fisheries and WildlifeSciences, North Carolina State University,Raleigh, NC, personal communication to P.N.Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, May31, 1991.52. Norgaard, R.B. and Howarth, R. B,, ‘‘The Rightsof Future Generations and the Role of Benefit-

338 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesCost Analysis in the Policy Process,” paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the Associationfor Public Policy Analysis and Management,San Francisco, CA, October 1990.53. Orr, R. L., Entomologist, and Cohen, S. D., PlantPathologist, Animal and Plant Health InspectionService, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “GenericPest Risk Assessment Process-For Estimatingthe Pest Risk Associated with ImportationofForeign Plants and Plant Products (Draft),”Nov. 20, 1991.54. Peoples, R.A, et al., “Introduced Organisms:Policies and Activities of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, ” Dispersal of Living Organismsinto Aquatic Ecosystems, A. Rosenfeldand R. Mann (eds.) (College Park, MD: MarylandSea Grant, 1992), pp. 325-352.55. Randall, A., Professor of Economics, Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus, OH, letter to P.T. Jenkims,Office of Technology Assessment, Sept.28, 1992.56. Randall, A. and Thomas, M., “The Role andLimits of Economics in Decisionmaking RegardingNon-Indigenous Species, ’ contractor reportprepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,August 1991.57. Royer, M. H., “Global Pest Information Systems-Can We Make Them Work?” Plant Protectionand Quarantine-Vol. III, R.P. Kahn (cd.) (BocaRaton, FL: CRC Press, 1989), pp. 37-57.58. Sagoff, M., “Some Problems with EnvironmentalEconomics,’ Environmental Ethics, vol.10, spring, 1988, pp. 55-74.59. Sagoff,M., ‘‘On Making Nature Safe for Biotechnology,”Assessing Ecological Risks of Biotechnology,L. Ginsburg (cd.) (Boston, MA: Butterworth,1991), pp. 341-365.60. Schaffer, W. M., ‘‘Order and Chaos in EcologicalSystems,” Ecology, vol. 66, No. 1, 1985, pp.93-106.61. Schuyler, P. T., ‘‘Selected Analysis of IntroducedAnimal Species Survey Data,’ contractor reportprepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,December 1991.62. Scnbner, J. D., Attorney, Sacramento, CA, letterto P.N. Windle, Office of Technology Assessment,Feb. 3, 1992,63. Scribner, J. D., Attorney, Sacramento, CA, personalcommunication to Office of TechnologyAssessment, July 30, 1992.(M. Shannon, M., Chief Operating Officer for Planningand Design, Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Hyattsville, MD, personal communicationto P,T. Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment,Feb. 5, 1991.65. Shannon, M., Assistant Director for Planningand Design, Animal and Plant Health InspectionService, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Hyattsville, MD, personal communication toP.T Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment,Nov. 13, 1991.66, Shannon, M,, Assistant Director for Planningand Design, Animal and Plant Health InspectionService, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Hyattsville, MD, personal communication toP.T Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment,Mar. 2, 1992.67. Shelton, W.L., “Strategies for Reducing Risksfrom Introductions of Aquatic Organisms: AnAquiculture Perspective,” Fisheries, vol. 11,No. 2, 1986, pp. 16-18.68. Starfield, A.M. and Herr, A. M., “A Response toMaguire,’ letter to the editors, ConservationBiology, vol. 5, No. 4, 1991, p. 435.69, Stone, C. P., “Humane Natural Area Managementin Hawai’i,” The George Wright Forum,vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, pp. 32-35.70. Suter, G., ‘‘Exotic Organisms,’ Ecological RiskAssessment, G.W. Suter II (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL:Lewis Publishers, 1993), pp. 391401.71, Suter, G. and Barnthouse, L,, “AssessmentConcepts,” Ecological Risk Assessment, G.W.Suter II (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers,1993), pp. 21-47.72. Tiedje, J.M. et al., “The Plamed Introduction ofGenetically Engineered Organisms: EcologicalConsiderations and Recommendations,” Eco/-0#, vol. 70, No. 2, 1989, pp. 298-315.73. Towns, D.R, et al., ‘‘Protocols for Translocationof Organisms to Islands, ” Ecological Restorationof New Zealand Islands, D.R. Towns et al.(eds.) (Wellington, New Zealand: Department ofConservation, 1990).

Appendix C: References I 33974.75.76.77.78.79.80.81.82.83.84.U.S. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force,Intentional Introductions Policy Committee, ‘OptionsPaper—Intentional Introductions PolicyReview, ” May 1992.U.S. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force,‘‘Proposed Aquatic Nuisance Species Program, ’Sept. 28, 1992.U.S. Congress, House Committee on MerchantMarine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Fisheriesand Wildlife Conservation and the Environment,Hearing on Proposed Injurious WildlifeRegulations, Dec. 12, 1974.U.S. Congress, House Committee on MerchantMarine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Oversightand Investigations, Hearings on the Introductionof Non-Indigenous Species into ExistingEcosystems, Serial No. 102-28, July 12, 1991.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, Washington,DC, press release entitled “USDA Places TemporaryProhibition on Entry of Siberian LogsBecause of Pests,” Dec. 20, 1990.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, Washington,DC, “An Efficacy Review of Control Measuresfor Potential Pests of Imported Soviet Timber, ’Miscellaneous Publication No. 1496, September1991.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, “Review ofOTA’S Draft Document: Non-Indigenous Speciesin the United States,” July 30, 1992.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,“Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation ofLarch from Siberia and the Soviet Far East, ”Miscellaneous Publication No. 1495, September1991.U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of SportsFisheries and Wildlife, “Draft EnvironmentalStatement on Proposed Importation Regulations-Injurious Wildlife,” DES 74-64, 1974.U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, Washington, DC, “Policies forReducing Risks Associated with Introductions ofAquatic Organisms,” executive summary ofdiscussion paper, Oct. 14, 1987.Welcomme, R. L., “International Measures forthe Control of Introduction of Aquatic Orga-nisms, ’ Fisheries, vol. II, No. 2, April-May1986, pp. 4-9.85. Whiteaker, L.D. and Doren, R. F., SoutheastRegional Office, National Park Service, U.S.Department of the Interior, “Exotic Plant SpeciesManagement Strategies and List of ExoticSpecies in prioritized Categories for EvergladesNational Park,” Research/Resources ManagementReport SER-89/04, 1989,86. Wood, D. L., Professor of Entomology, andCobb, F. W., Jr., Professor of Plant Pathology,Univ. of California, Berkeley, letter to DeanCromwell, California State Board of Forestry etal., Sacramento, CA, Dec. 11, 1990.87, Yang, X.B. et al., “Assessing the Risk andPotential Impact of an Exotic Plant Disease, ”Plant Disease, vol. 75, No. 10, 1991, pp. 976-82.CHAPTER 5: TECHNOLOGIES FOR PREVENTINGAND MANAGING PROBLEMS1. Anonymous, “Insect Aside: Beware of the FireDown Below. Stinging Ants From Farther SouthHave Begun to Make Inroads in Virginia,Maryland,” Washington Post, June 2, 1992, pp.B3.2. Anonymous, ‘Entomology: Destructive Fly MayBe New Species,” Washington Post, Jan. 4,1993, pp. M.3. Anonymous, “Science Update, ” AgriculturalResearch, February 1993.4. Aspelin, A. L., Grube, A. H., and Kibler, V.,Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofPesticide Programs, “Pesticide Industry Salesand Usage: 1989 Market Estimates,’ Washington,DC, July 1991.5. Berger, J.L. and Riggs, L. A., “EcologicalRestorationand Non-Indigenous Species, ” contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, August 1991.6. Butler, L., “Non-target Impact of Din-din andBacillus thuringiensis,’ @PSY Moth News, February1992, pp. 4-5.7. California Department of Food and Agriculture,Division of Plant Industry, “ 1990 Annual Report,” Sacramento, CA, 1990.8. California Department of Food and Agriculture,Divison of Plant Industry, Pest Exclusion, ‘Cali-

340 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesfornia Plant Pest Distribution Report,” vol. 9,1990, pp. 63-66.9. Carey, J. R., “The Mediterranean Fruit Fly inCalifornia: Taking Stock,” California Agriculture,Jan. -Feb. 1992, pp. 12-17,10. Charudattan, R. et al., Special Problems Associatedwith Aquatic Weed Control, ” New Directionsin Biological Control: Alternatives forSuppressing Agricultural Pests and Diseases,R.R. Baker and P.E. Dunn (eds.) (New York,NY: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1990).11. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology(CAST), Pests of Plant and Animals: TheirIntroduction and Spread, report No, 112, Ames,IA, March 1987.12. Courtenay, W. R., ‘‘Pathways and Consequencesof the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Fishes inthe United States, ” contractor report preparedfor the Office of Technology Assessment, August1991.13. Cowley, J. M., “A New System of Fruit FlySurveillance Trapping in New Zealand,” NewZealand Entomologist, vol. 13, 1990, pp. 81-84.14. Crooks, E. et al., ‘‘Stopping Pest Introductions,’Exotic Plant Pests and North American Agriculture,C.I. Wilson and C.L. Graham (eds.) (Imndon,U. K.: Academic Press, Inc., 1983), pp.239-259.15. Crozier, YC., Koulianos, S., and Crozier, R. H.,“An Improved Test for Africanized HoneybeeMitochondrial DNA,” Experiential, vol. 47,1991, pp. 968-969.16. DeBach, P. and Rosen, D., Biological Control byNatural Enemies (Cambridge, U. K.: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991).17. Delfosse, E. S., Director, National BiologicalControl Institute, Animal and Plant Health InspectionService, U.S. Department of Agriculture,letter to P.N. Windle, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Aug. 31, 1992,18. DeI.mach, C.J., “Past Successes and CurrentProspects in Biological Control of Weeds in theUnited States and Canada,” Natural AreasJournal, vol. 11, No. 3, 1991, pp. 129-142.19. Drost, C.A. and Fellers, G. M., “Handbook forthe Removal of Non-native Animals, ” draft,1992.20. Ehler, L.E., “Revitalizing Biological Control,”Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 7, No. 1,fall 1990, pp. 91-%.21. Ehler, L,E. and Endico~ P. C., “Effect of Malathion-Bait Sprays on Biological Control of Insect Pestsof Olive, Citrus, and Walnut, ” Hilgardia, vol.52, No. 5, 1984, pp. 1-47.22. Ehler, L.E. et al., “Medfly Eradication in California:Impact of Malathion-Bait Sprays on anEndemic Gall Midge and Its Parasitoids,’ EntomologicalExperiments and Applications, vol.36, 1984, pp. 201-208.23. Ehrenfeld, D., “Conservation and the Rights ofAnimals,” conservation Biology, vol. 5, No. 1,March 1991, pp. 1-3.24. Fagerstone, K. A,, Bullard, R. W., and Ramey,C. A., “Politics and Economics of MaintainingPesticide Registrations,” Proceedings of the14th. Vertebrate Pest Conference, L.R. Davisand R.E. Marsh (eds.) (Davis, CA: University ofCalifornia at Davis, 1990).25. Fritts, T.H., Scott, N.J., Jr., and Smith, B. E.,“Trapping Boiga irregulars on Guam UsingBird Odors,” Journal of Herpetology, vol. 23,No. 2, 1989, PP. 189-192.26. Gallagher, J.E. and Hailer, W.T., “History andDevelopment of Aquatic Weed Control in theUnited States,” Review of Weed Science, vol. 5,1990, pp. 115-192.27. Geist, V., “Endangered Species and the Law,”Nature, vol. 357, May 28, 1992, pp. 274-276.28. Greathead, D.J. and Greathead, A. H., “BiologicalControl of Insect Pests by Parasitoids andPredators: the BIOCAT Database,” BiocontrolNews and Information, vol. 13, No. 4, 1992, pp.61 N-68N.29. Hansen, J.D. et al., “Efficacy of HydrogenCyanide Fumigation as a Treatment for Pests ofHawaiian Cut Flowers and Foliage after Harvest,”Journal of Economic Entomology, vol.84, No. 2, 1991, pp. 532-536.30. Harris, P., “Environmental Impacts of Weed-Control Insects. Weed Stands have been Replacedby Diverse Plant Cornrnunities,” Bioscience,vol. 38, No. 8, September 1988, pp.542-548.31. Hester, F. E., “The U.S. National Park ServiceExperience with Exotic Species,’ NationulAreas

Appendix C: References 134132.33.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.41.Journal, vol. 11, No. 3, 1991, pp. 127-128.Holt, M. and Radzanowski, D., Library ofCongress, CmgressionalResearch Semice, “Memorandumon Potential Environmental Characteristicsand Monitoring Technologies CurrentlyUsed by Federal Agencies, ” Dec. 5, 1991.Hopper B.E. and Campbell, W. P., ‘‘Crop ProtectionInformation Needs: A NAPPO Perspective,’ Crop Protection Information: An InternationalPerspective, Proceedings of the InternationalCrop Protection Information Workhop,1989, K.M Harris and P.R. Scott (eds.) (Wal-Iingford, Oxon, U. K.: CAB International, 1989),pp. 225-233.Howarth, F. G., ‘‘Environmental Impacts of ClassicalBiological Control, ’ Annual Review ofEntomology, vol. 36, 1991, pp. 485-509.Jennings, P. and McCann, J, A., U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, National Fisheries ResearchCenter, “Research Protocol for Handling Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species, ” Gainesville, FL,April 1991.Joslin, P., ‘‘The Genetic Test that Can RecognizeWolves, Dogs, and Hybrids from Each Other, ”Woljlracks (newsletter by Wolf Haven International,Tenino, WA), vol. 8, No. 4, 1991, p. 6.Jutsum, A, R., ‘‘Commercial Application of BiologicalControl: Status and Prospects, ” Phil.Trans. R. Soc. Imnd. B, vol. 318, BiologicalControl of Pests, Pathogens and Weeds: Developmentand Prospects, R.K. S. Wood, F. R, S,, andM.J. Way (eds.) 1988, pp. 357-376.Kahn, R. P., “Exclusion as a Plant DiseaseControl Strategy, ” Annual Review of Phytopa -thology, vol. 29, 1991, PP. 219-246.Kareiva, P. et al., ‘‘Risk Analysis as a Tool forMaking Decisions about the Introduction ofNon-Indigenous Species into the United States,’contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, July 1991.Kim, K.C. and Wheeler, A. G., Jr., “Pathwaysand Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and Arachnids in the UnitedState s,’ contractor report prepared for the Officeof Technology Assessment, December 1991.Kirkpatrick, J. F., “Wildlife Contraception. ANew Way of Looking at Wildlife Management, ’42.43.44.45,46.47.48.49.50.Humane Society of the United States News, fall,1991, pp. 22-25.Klassen, W., ‘‘Eradication of Introduced ArthropodPests: Theory and Historical Practice,”Entomological Society of America, MiscellaneousPublications, No. 73, November 1989.Kludy, D. H., ‘ ‘Federal Policy on Non-Indigenous Species: The Role of USDA’s Animaland Plant Health Inspection Semice, ’ contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, December 1991.LaMadeleine, L. A., U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Se~ice, “Non-Indigenous Speciesin the United States-Gypsy Moth Eradication-Utah,” Ogden, UT, May 13, 1991.Lambert, B. and Peferoen, M., “InsecticidalPromise of Bacillus thuringiensis,’ Bioscience,vol. 42, No. 2, February 1992, pp. 112-122.Lanier, G. N., ‘ ‘Principles of Attraction-Annihilation: Mass Trapping and Other Means,’Behavior- modi~ing Chemicals for Insect Management:Applications of Pheromones and OtherAttractants, R.L. Ridgway, R.M. Silverstein,R.M. Inscoe (eds.) (New York, NY: MarcelDekker, Inc., 1990), pp. 25-45.Lanka, B. et al., Game Division, Wyoming Gameand Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY, ‘ ‘Analysisand Recommendations on the Applicationsby Mr. John T. Dorrance III to Import andPossess Native and Exotic Species,’ Mar. 1,1990.Lindsey G. and Novak, K., “Developments inInformation Dissemination Techniques: Directionsfor International Agricultural ResearchCenters, ’ Crop Protection Information: andInternational Perspective: Proceedings of theInternational Crop Protection l~lformation Workshop,1989, K.M. Harris and P.R. Scott (eds.)(Wallingford, U. K.: CAB International, 1989),pp. 27-48.Mack, R. N., “Pathways and Consequences ofNon-Indigenous Plants in the United States,”contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, September 1991.Mallet, J, and Porter, P., “Preventing InsectAdaptation to Insect-Resistant Crops: Are SeedMixtures or Refugia the Best Strategy?’ Proceed-

342 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesings of the Royal Society of London, Series B,vol. 250B, 1992, PP. 165-169.51. Mastro, V. C., Schwalbe, C. P,, and O’Dell, TM.,“Sterile-Male Technique,” The Gypsy Moth:Research Toward Integrated Pest Management,C.C. Deane andM.L. McManus (eds.) (Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1981),pp. 669-679.52. Mathys, G. and Baker, E. A., “An Appraisal ofthe Effectiveness of Quarantine,” Annua2 Reviewof Phytopathology, vol. 18, 1980, pp.85-101.53. McGaughey, W,H. and Whalen, M. E., “ManagingInsect Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensisToxins,” Science, vol. 258, Nov. 27, 1992, pp.1451-1455.54. McGregor, R. C., “TheEmigrantPests,” areportto Dr. F.J. Mulhern, Administrator, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Washington, DC, May1974.55. McMahon, R.F. and Tsou, J, L., “Impact ofEuropean Zebra Mussel Infestation to the ElectricPower Industry, ” paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the American Power Conference,Chicago, IL, Apr. 23-25, 1990, pp. 1-9.56. Meehan, B. W., Carlton, J.T, and Wenne, R.,“Genetic Affinities of the Bivalve it4acomabalthica from the Pacific Coast of North America:Evidence for Recent Introduction and HistoricalDistribution, ’ Marine Biology, vol. 102,1989, pp. 235-241.57. Meeusen, R.L. and Warren, G., “Insect Controlwith Genetically Engineered Crops, ’ AnnualReview of Entomology, vol. 34, 1989, pp. 373-381.58. Melching, J. S,, Bromfield, K. R., and Kingsolver,C. H., ‘The Plant Pathogen Containment Facilityat Frederick, Maryland,’ Plant Disease, vol. 67,No. 7, July 1983, pp. 717-722.59. Meyers, J, H., Higgins, C., and Kovacs, E., “HowMany Insect Species are Necessary for theBiological Control of Insects?” EnvironmentalEntomology, vol. 18, No. 4, 1989, pp. 541-547.60. Micales, J. A., “The Use of Isozyme Analysis inFungal Tlixonomy and Genetics,” A4ycotaxon,vol. 27, October-December 1986, pp. 405449.61. Mik, N.J., “Biological Control, A Century ofPest Management,” Bulletin of EntomologicalResearch, vol. 80, 1990, pp. 359-362.62, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,Exotic Species Programs and Bureau of Informationand Education, Exotic Species Handbook(St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of NaturalResources, 1992).63. Morrissey, W. A., Library of Congress, CongressionalResearch Service, ‘‘Methyl Bromide andStratospheric Ozone Depletion: Scientific Basisfor Regulation?’ Report for Congress, Aug. 14,1992.64, Murphy, K.J. and Pieterse, A.H,, “Present Statusand Prospects of Integrated Control of AquaticWeeds,” Aquatic Weeds: The Ecology andManagement of Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation,A.H. Pieterse and K.J. Murphy (eds.) (Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 223-227.65. National Research Council, Managing GlobalGenetic Resources: The U.S. National PlantGermplasm System (Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press, 1991).66. NationalResearch Council, Restoration ofAquaticEcosystems: Science, Technology, and PublicPolicy (Washington, DC: National AcademyPress, 1992).67. Peacock, J. et al., “Laboratory and Field Studieson the Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis onNon-target Lepidoptera,” Gypsy Moth News,February 1992, pp. 7-8.68. Rosenberg, D. Q., ‘‘The Interaction of State andFederal Quarantines in the U.S.,” Plant Protectionand Quarantine, Volume III Special Topics,R.P. Kahn (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC PresshlC., 1989), pp. 59-74.69. Roth, H., “Concepts and Recent Developmentsin Regulatory Treatments, ’ Plant Protectionand Quarantine, Volume III Special Topics, R.P.Kahn (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc.,1989), pp. 117-144.70. Sailer, R. I., “Extent of Biological and CulturalControl of Insect Pests of Crops,” CRC Handbookof Pest Management in Agriculture, Ist.d, D. Pimentel (cd.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRCPress, 1981), pp. 57-67.

Appendix C: References 134371.72.73.74.75.76.77.78,79,Sand, P.F. and Manley, J.D., “The WitchweedEradication Program Survey, Regulatory andControl,” Witchweed Research and Control inthe United States, P.F. Sand, R.E. Eplee, andG.W. Westbrooks (eds.) (Champaign, IL: WeedScience Society of America, 1990), pp. 141-150.Schoulties, C. L., ‘‘Pathways and Consequencesof the Introduction of Non-Indigenous PlantPathogens in the United States,” contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, December 1991.Schuyler, P., ‘ ‘Feral Animal Control: Santa CruzIsland, California, ’ Natural Areas Journal, vol.9, No. 4, 1989, P. 265.Sheppard, W. S., Steck, G. J,, and McPheron,B. A., “Geographic Populations of the MedflyMay Be Differentiated by Mitochondrial DNAVariation, Experimentia, vol. 48, No. 10,October 1992, pp. 1010-1013.Shoemaker, A., Chairman of the Mammal StandardsCommittee, Riverbank Zoological Park,Columbia, SC, personal communication to S.Fondriest, Office of Technology Assessment,Apr. 7, 1992.Shotkin, A. and McCrea, E. J., “Public EducationalEfforts in the United States RegardingPrevention and Management of Non-IndigenousSpecies, ’ contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, December1991.Siddiqui, I. A., Assistant Director, CaliforniaDepartment of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento,CA, testimony at hearings before theSenate Committee on Governmental Affairs,Subcommittee on Federal Services, Post Offices,and Civil Services, Postal Implementation of theAgricultural Quarantine Enforcement Act, June5, 1991.Silverstein, R. M., ‘‘Practical Use of Pheromonesand Other Behavior-modifying Compounds: Overview,’ Behavior-Modi~ing Chemicals for InsectManage merit.” Applications of Pheromonesand Other Attractants, R.L. Ridgway, R.M.Silverstein, and R.M. Inscoe (eds.) (New York,NY: Marcel Dekker, 1990), pp. 1-8.Stace-Smith, R. and Martin, R. R., “Plant QuzmmtineDiagnostic Problems: Viruses, ’ Plant Protectionand Quarantine Volume II, Selected Pests80.81.82.83.84.85.86.87.88.89.90.91.and Pathogens of Quarantine Signljlcance, 12.P.Kahn (cd,) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc.,1989), pp. 183-204.Stephens, C. H., ‘‘Minimizing Pesticide Use in aVegetative Management System,’ HortScience,vol. 25, No. 2, February 1990, pp. 164-167.Stevens, W. K., “Biologists Plan Survey ofEcosystems,’ The Sunday Herald, MontereyBay, CA, Mar. 14, 1993, p. 8A.Temple, S.A. and Carroll, D. M., “Pathways andConsequences of Introductions of Non-Indigenous Vertebrates in the United States,”contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, October 1991.Tisdell, C. A., ‘‘Economic Impacts of BiologicalControl of Weeds and Insects,’ Critical Issues inBiological Control, M. Mackauer, L.E. Ehler,and J. Roland (eds.) (Andover, Hants, UK:Intercept Ltd., 1990), pp. 301-316.U.S. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force,Proposed Aquatic Nuisance Species Program,Sept. 28, 1992.U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, GeographicInformation Systems, Status of SelectedAgencies, GAO-C-90-74FS, August 1990.U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, GreatLakes Fishery Commission: Actions Needed toSupport an Expanded Program, March 1992.U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, USDA’sResearch to Support Reregistration of Pesticidesfor Minor Crops, June 1992.U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,Hearings on the Department of the Interiorand Related Agencies Appropriations for 1993,Serial No. 56-090 (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Apr. 28, 1992), pp.231-246.U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committeeon Merchant Marine and Fisheries, GreatLakes Sea L.umprey Control Program Hearings,Status of Efforts to Control Sea Lamprey Populationsin the Great Lakes (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, Sept. 17, 1991).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Pest Management Strategies, Vol. I—Summary, October 1979.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Semice, Plant Protection

344 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States92.93.94.95.96.97.98.99.and Quarantine, “Protecting United States Agriculturefrom Foreign Pests and Diseases, ’ August1985.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, Managementand Budget Administrative Services Division,Hyattsville, MD, “Master Plan for the USDANational Plant Gerrnplasm Quarantine Center,’Sept. 11, 1989.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal andPlant Health Inpection Service, “AdministrativeInstructions Governing the Entry of Apples andPears from Certain Countries in Europe,’ 7 CFRCh. III, 319.56-2r,(l-l-91 Edition), 1991.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, ‘Papayas FromHawaii, ’ 7 CFR Part 318. 56 (156), ‘lhesday,Aug. 13, 1991.U.S. Department of Agriculture, CooperativeState Research Service, “Role of IR-4 in theRegistration of Biological Control Agents,”Proceedings of the USDAICSRS National Workshopon Critical Issues in Biological Control,held at the National Wildlife Federation, Vienna,VA, 1991.U.S. Department of AgriculNe, Office of theSecretary, Office of Agricultural Biotechnology,“Environmental Assessment of Research onTransgenic Carp in Confined Outdoor Ponds,”Nov. 15, 1990.U.S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard33 CFR Part 151, “Ballast Water Managementfor Vessels Entering the Great Lakes,” vol. 57,No. 192, Friday, Oct. 2, 1992.Veitch, C.R. and Bell, B. D., “Eradication ofIntroduced Animals from the Islands of NewZealand,” Ecological Restoration of New ZealandIslands, D.R. Towns, C.H. Daugherty, andI. Atkinson (eds.), Conservation Sciences PublicationNo. 2, Department of Conservation, Wellington,1990, pp. 137-146.Vinson, S. B., “Potential Impact of MicrobialInsecticides on Beneficial Arthopods on theTerrestrial Environment, ” Safety of MicrobialInsecticides, M. Laird, L.A, Lacey and E.W.Davidson (eds.) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press,1990), pp. 43-64.100.101.102.103.104.105.Wall, C. “Principles of Monitoring,” Behaviormodi~ingChemicals for Insect Management:Applications of Pheromones and Other Attractants,R.L. Ridgway, R.M. Silverstein, and R.M.Inscoe (eds.) (New York, NY: Marcel Dekker,hlC., 1990), pp. 9-23.Wapshere, A. J., Delfosse, E. S., and Cullens,J. M., “Recent Developments in Biological Controlof Weeds,’ Crop Protection, vol. 8., August1989, pp. 227-250.Wilson, E. O., “The Corning Pluralization ofBiology and the Stewardship of Systematic,”Bioscience, vol. 39, No. 4, April 1989, pp.242-245.Witt, I., Policy and Program Development,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communicationto E. Chornesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Nov. 9, 1992.Womach, J., Library of Congress, CongressionalResearch Service, “Regulating U.S. PesticideExports: Policy Issues and Proposed @gislation,”Report to Congress, July 1991.Zadig, D., ‘‘Plant Quarantines: Domestic StrategiesYield to International Policies,’ CaliforniaAgriculture, January-February 1992, pp. 9-10.CHAPTER 6: A PRIMER ON FEDERAL POLICY1, Anonymous, “Preventing Tomorrow’s Catastrophes,“ Farm Forum, summer 1990.2. Backiel, A. et al., Library of Congress, CongressionalResearch Service, “Major Federal LandManagement Agencies: Management of OurNation’s Land and Resources,’ May 7, 1990.3. Bandel, D, M., Chief, Natural and Cultural ResourcesDivision, Directorate of Public Works,Department of the Army, Fort Belvoir, VA,memorandum to the Executive Director, ArmedForces Pest Management Board, Feb. 4, 1992.4. Bean, M.J., ‘‘The Role of the U.S. Department ofthe Interior in Non-Indigenous Species Issues, ”contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, November 1991.5. Beard, J.D., “Bug Detectives Crack the ToughCases,’ Science, vol. 25, Dec. 13, 1991, pp.1580-1581.6. Betz, F. S., Acting Chief, Science Evaluation andCoordination Staff, Environmental Protection

Appendix C: References 13457.8.9.10.11.1~.13.14.15.Agency, Washington, DC, personal communicationto E.A. Chornesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, .lanuary 1992.Betz, F.S., Acting Chief, Science Evaluation andCoordination Staff, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Washington, DC, letter to E.A.Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment,Apr. 10, 1992.Betz, F. S,, Forsyth, S. F., and Stewart, W. E.,“Registration Requirements and Safety Considerationsfor .Microbial Pest Control Agents in NorthAmerica. ’ ,Tafe~ of ilficrobial Peticides, M.Laird et al. (eds, ) (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press,Inc., 1990).Bolsenga, S. J., Great Lakes Environmental ResearchLaboratory, National Oceanic and At mos -pheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,letter to E.A. Chornesky, Office ofTechnology Assessment, Apr. 1, 1992.Brosten, D., “lTackling Tumbleweeds on CRPAcreage, ’ Agrichemicul Age, vol. 32, No. 5,May 1988, pp. 12-18.Bushman, J., Office of Environmental Policy andCivil Works, Army Corp of Engineers, Washington,DC, personal communication to S.M. Fondriest,Office of Technology Assessment, Feb.11, 1992.Campbell, D. S., Director, Operational SupportInternational Services, Animal Plant Health InspectionService, letter to P.N. Windle, Office ofTechnology Assessment, Aug. 11, 1992.Cm-ruthers, R.I. and Coulson, J. R., “EcologicalBenefits and Risks Associated with the Introductionof Exotic Species for Biological Control ofAgricultural Pests, ’ paper presented at workshopof National Academy of Science, Committeeon Risk Assessment Methodology, AirlieFoundation, Barrington, VA, Feb. 2&Mar. 1,1991.Cauchon, S. P., Coastal Information Specialist,National Ocean Service, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Washington, DC, letter to E.A.Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment,June 15, 1992.Clay, W., Director, Animal Damage Control,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville,MD, personal communication to the Office ofTechnology Assessment, Mar. 13, 1991.16. Clay, W., Director, Animal Damage Control,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,FAX to E.A, Chornesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Oct. 23, 1992.17. Conlin, M., Chief, Fisheries Division, IllinoisDepartment of Conservation, Springfield, IL,letter to R.A. Peoples, Fish and Wildlife Service,U.S. Department of the Interior, Jan. 4, 1993.18. Coulson, J.R. and Soper,R.S.,‘‘Protocols for theIntroduction of Biological Control Agents in theU.S.*” Plant Protection and Quarantine: VolumeIll, Robert P. Kahn (cd. ) (Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press, Inc., 1989), pp. 1-35.19. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology,“Ecological Impacts of Federal Conservationand Cropland Reduction Programs, ’ TaskForce Report No, 117, September 1990.20. Courtenay, W. R., Jr., ‘ ‘Pathways and Consequencesof the Introduction of Non-IndigenousFishes in the United States, ” contractor reportprepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,August 1991.21. Craig, G., Professor of Biology, University ofNotra Dame, letter to P.T. Jenkins, Office ofTechnology Assessment, Mar. 14, 1992.22. Craven, R.B. et al., “Importation of Aedesalbopictu.s and Other Exotic Mosquito Speciesinto the United States in Used Tires from Asia, ’Journal of the American Mosquito ControlAssociation, vol. 4, No. 2, 1988, pp. 13842,23. Crosby, M., Director, Division of Research,Sanctuaries and Reserves, National Ocean Service,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington,DC, personal communication to E.A.Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment,Jan. 22, 1992.24. Cunningham, 1. S., “The U.S. National Arboretum:bader in Ornamental Plant GermplasmCollection,” Diversity, No. 12, 1988.25. DeFazio, P. et al., Members of Congress, letter toC.K. Yeutter, Secretary, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Dec. 5, 1990.26. Deitnch, B., “State Girds to Battle Alien Invader:A Moth, ’ Seattle Times, Nov. 19, 1991,p. A-1.

346 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States27.28.29.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.Dudley, TR., Research Botanist and Projecthader, National Arboretum, Agricultural ResearchService, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Washington, DC, personal communication toOffice of Technology Assessment, Oct. 4, 1991.Duffy, L., Assistant Secretary for EnvironmentalRestoration and Water Management, U.S. Departmentof Energy, Washington, DC, personalcommunication to S.M. Fondriest, Office ofTechnology Assessment, Jan. 2, 1992.Earl, R., Real Property Office, Department ofEnergy, personal communication to S.M. Fondriest,Ofllce of Technology Assessment, Dec.13, 1992.Edwards, G. B., Assistant Director, FisheriesDivision, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, Washington, DC, letterto P.N. Windle, Office of Technology Assessment,Mar, 16, 1992.Edwards, G.B. and Nottingham, D., Co-Chairs,U.S. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, letterto E.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment,Nov. 25, 1992.Elder, E., Chief Operations Officer, Domesticand Emergency Operations, Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, personal communication to OffIceof Technology Assessment, Mar. 13, 1991.Fens, J., Senior Operations Officer, Inspectionand Compliance, Animal and Plant Health InspectionService, personal communication to Officeof Technology Assessment, Mar. 13, 1991.Fomasari, L. et al., U.S. Department of Agriculture,Agricultural Research Service, BiologicalControl of Weeds Laboratory-Rome, Italy,“Overview of the U.S. Department of AgricultureBiocontrol of Weeds Laboratory—Europe, “ Dec. No. O018P, 1991.Fritts, TH., “The Brown Tree Snake, Boigairregulars, A Threat to Pacific Islands, ” U.S.Fish and Wildlfe Service, Biological Report,vol. 88, No. 31, September 1988.Gardner, D. E., U.S. Department of the Interior,National Park Service, “Role of BiologicalControl as a Management Tbol in National Parksand Other Natural Areas, ” Technical ReportNPS/NRUH/NRTR-90/01, September 1990.37,38.39.40.41.42.43.44.45.Geiger, J. G., Acting Assistant Director, Fish andWildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,letter to J.A. Schmid, Mar. 29, 1991.Giamporcaro, D., TSCA Biotechnology Program,Chemical Control Division, Ofllce ofPollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Washington, DC, personal communicationto E.A. Chomesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Jan. 14, 1992,Gillis, A. M., “Should Cows Chew Cheatgmsson Cornmonlands?” Bioscience, vol. 41, No. 10,November 1991, pp. 668-675.Glosser, J.W., Director, Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,testimony at hearings before the U.S. SenateCommittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,Subcommittee on Agricultural Researchand General hgislation, Preparation for the1990 Farm Bill: Noxious Weeds, Mar. 28, 1990,pp. 350-354.Glosser, J. W., Director, Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,letter to The Honorable Tom Daschle, Apr.17, 1990.Glosser, J.W., Director, Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,testimony at hearings before the U.S. HouseCommittee on Appropriations, Subcommittee onAgriculture, Rural Development, and RelatedAgencies, Hearings on Agriculture, Rural Developmentand Related Agencies Appropriationsfor 1992: Part 4, Serial No. 43-1710 (Washington,DC: Government Printing Office, May1991), pp. 271467.Grable, K., Plant Pathologist, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, personal communicationto E.A. Chornesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Mar. 31, 1992.Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee,Billings, MT, “Guidelines for Coordinated Managementof Noxious Weeds in the GreaterYellowstone Area, ’ undated.Griswold, B., Program Director, Marine AdvisoryServices, National Sea Grant College Program,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,U.S. Department of Commerce, SilverSpring, MD, FAX to E.A. Chornesky, Office ofTechnology Assessment, Mar. 31, 1992.

Appendix C: References 134746. Heck, J. A., Library of Congress, CongressionalResearch Service, “National WiIdlife Refuges:Places to Hunt?” July 28, 1992.47. Hester, F. E., “The U.S. National Park ServiceExperience with Exotic Specie s,’ Natural AreasJournal, vol. 11, No. 3, July 1991, pp. 127-128.48. Hetke, S. F., Associate Director for ResearchOperations, Environmental Research Laboratory,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Duluth, MN, letter to E.A. Chornesh~, Office ofTechnology Assessment, Jan. 15, 1992.49. Holmes, R., Director, Division of Fish andWildlife, Minnesota Department of NaturaI Resources,letter to R.A. Peoples, Fish and WildlifeService, Department of the Interior, Dec. 28,1992.50. Hunsaker, C.T. and Carpenter, D. E., EcologicalIndicators for the Environmental Monitoringand Assessment Program (Research TrianglePark, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Research and Development, 1990).51. Johnston, G. H., Chief of Wildlife and VegetationDivision, Natural Resources Program Branch,National Park Service, U.S. Deaprtment of theInterior, personal communication, July 10, 1991,Mar. 13, 1992.52. Johnston, G.H. and Dennis, J. G., Wildlife andVegetation Division, Natural Resources ProgramBranch, National Park Service, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, letter to P.N. Windle,Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 13, 1992.53. Kaplan, J. K., “Bring ‘Em Back Alive andGrowing, ’ Agricultural Research, vol. 39, No.7, July 1991, pp. 4-13.54. Kim, K.C. and Wheeler lA. G., Jr., ‘‘Pathwaysand Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Lndigenous Insects and Arachnids in the UnitedState s,’ contractor report prepared for the Officeof Technology Assessment, Washington, DC,December 1991.55. Kludy, D. H., “Federal Policy on Non-Indigenous Species: The Role of the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture’s Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, ” contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, Washington, DC, December 1991.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63.64.Krugman, S., U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, personal communication to J.A.Schnittker, 1991.Kutz, R., Deputy Director EMAP, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, personal communicationto E,A. Chornesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Jan. 13, 1992.Lima, P., Entomologist, BATS, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Semice, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, personal communication toS.M. Fondriest, Office of Technology Assessment,Nov. 12, 1992.Laope, L., Research Biologist, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, National Park Service, letter toP.N. Windle, Office of Technology Assessment,July 28, 1992.Mack, R. N., “Pathways and Consequences ofthe Introduction of Non-Indigenous Plants in theUnited States,” contractor report prepared forthe Office of Technology Assessment, September1991.Mack, R. N., “Additional Information on Non-Indigenous Plants in the United States,’ ContractorReport Prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, October 1992.Marroquin, R,, Entomologist, U.S. Army Engineeringand Housing Support Center, Departmentof the Army, personal communication toS.M. Fondriest, Office of Technology Assessment,Feb. 7, 1992.McCann, J. A., Director, National Fisheries ResearchCenter, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.SDepartment of the Interior, Gainesville, FL,personal communication to E.A. Chomesky,Office of Technology Assessment, Mar. 23,1993.Melland, R. B., Director, Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service, U.S, Department ofAgriculture, testimony at hearings before theU.S. House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommitteeon Agriculture, Rural Development,and Related Agencies, Hearings on Agriculture,Rural Development, Food and Drug Ministration,and Related Agenciew Appropriations for1993, Part 3, Serial No. 54-8880 (Washington,DC: Government Printing Office, March 1992),pp. 211-314.

348 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States65. Miller, S., Chief, Division of Land and WaterResources, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, personal communication toE.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment,Oct. 26, 1992.66. NationalFish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington,DC, ‘‘Fiscal Year 1991 Budget Recommendationsfor United States Department of theInterior, National Park Service, Natural ResourceManagement Program, ’ 1990.67. National Fishand WildlifeFoundation, Washington,DC, ‘‘Fiscal Year 1992 Wildlife and FisheriesAssessment,” April 1991.68. National Fish andWildlife Foundation, Washington,DC, Internal Progress Report on the “BringBack the Natives Projects, ” Mar. 1, 1992.69. Newman, J. B,, Director Ecological Sciences,Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, personal communication to E.A.Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment,July 11, 1991.70. Nickum, J., National Aquiculture Coordinator,Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department ofInterior, Washington, DC, personal communicationto E.A. Chornesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Aug. 26, 1991.71. Noldan, H. K., Acting Assistant Director, Landand Renewable Resources, Bureau of LandManagement, Washington, DC, internal informationbulletin No. 91-266 to all State Directors,Feb. 6, 1991.72. Peoples, R. A., Resource Analyst, Fish and WildlifeService, U.S. Department of Interior, personalcommunication to E.A. Chornesky, Officeof Technology Assessment, Aug. 19, 1991, Mar.4, 1992.73. Perez, A., Quarantine Division, Center for DiseaseControl, Public Health Service, Atlanta,GA, personal communication to S.M, Fondriest,Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 17,1992.74. Robertson, F, D,, ‘‘Rise to the Future: The ForestService Fisheries Program,” Fisheries, vol. 13,No. 3, May-June 1988, pp. 22-23.75. Schnittker, J., ‘ ‘Federal Policy on Non-Indigenous Species: An Overview of the U.S.Department of Agriculture, ” contractor reportprepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,December 1991.76. Schwegman, J. E., “Newsletter of the IllinoisNative Plant Conservation Program Division ofNatural Heritage, Illinois Department of Conservation,”Illinoensis, vol. 7, No. 2, July 1991.77. Shands, H. L., Fitzgerald, P.J., and Eberhart,S. A., “Program for Plant Germplasm Preservationin the United States: the U.S. National PlantGermplasm System,” Biotic Diversity andGermplasm Preservation, Global Imperatives,L. Knutson and A.K. Stoner (eds.) (Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989), pp. 97-115.78. Shamon, M., Assistant Director for Planningand Design, Animal and Plant Health InspectionService, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personalcommunication to P.T. Jenkins, Office ofTechnology Assessment, May 19, 1992.79. Sharp, C., “The Soil Conservation ServicePerspective,” paper presented at the 16th AnnualNatural Areas Conference, Knoxville, TN, Oct.18, 1989,80. Sharp, C., National Plant Materials Specialist,Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, personal communication to E.A.Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment,Aug. 15, 1991.81. Sharp, C., National Plant Materials Specialist,Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, letter to P.N. Windle, Office ofTechnology Assessment, July 24, 1992.82. Siehl, G.H,, “Natural Resource Issues in NationalDefense Programs, ” Congressional ResearchService Report to Congress, 91-781 ENR,Oct. 31, 1991 483. Singletary, H. M., Director, Plant Industry Division,North Carolina Department of Agriculture,testimony at hearings before the U.S. SenateCommittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,Subcommittee on Agricultural Researchand General Legislation, Preparation for the1990 Farm Bill: Noxious Weeds, Mar. 28, 1990,pp. 354-357.84. Smith, C., Professor, Department of Botany,University of Hawaii at Manoa, personal communicationto E,A. Chornesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, May 6, 1993.85. Stanley, J. G., Peoples, R. A., Jr., and McCam,J. A., “Legislation and Responsibilities Relatedto Importation of Exotic Fishes and Other

Appendix C: References 134986.87.88.89.90.91.92.93.94.95.Aquatic Organisms,’ Canadian Journal ofFisheriesand Aquatic Organisms, vol. 48, supl. 1,1991, pp. 162-166.Steering Committee for the 75th Symposium,National Parks for the 21st Century: The VailAgenda Report and Recommendations to theDirector of the National Park Service, NationalPark Service Document No, D-726, Mar. 25,1992.Thin, D., Department of Plant Soil and EnvironmentalSciences, University of Idaho, Moscow,ID, personal communication to R.N. Mack,Pullman, WA, Oct. 21, 1992.Torchio, P.F. et al., “Introduction of the EuropeanBee, Osmia cornuta, into California AlmondOrchards (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae),Environmental Entomology, vol. 16, No. 3,1987, Pp. 664-667.Troust, J., Senior Environmental Specialist, Bureauof Reclamation, U.S. Department of theInterior, FM to E.A. Chornesky, Office ofTechnology Assessment, Nov. 13, 1992.Turner, J. F., Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, DC,internal agency memorandum, Mar. 22, 1990.U.S. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force,‘‘Proposed Aquatic Nuisance Species program,’Sept. 28, 1992.U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, ForestService: Difficult Choices Face the Future ofthe Recreation Program, RCED-91 -115 (Gaithersburg,MD: U.S. General Accounting Office, Apr.15, 1991).U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, RangelandManagement: Forest Service Not Pe~ormingNeeded Monitoring of Grazing, RCED-91-148 (Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General AccountingOffice, May 16, 1991).U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, NationalForests: Funding Fish and Wildlife Projects,RCED-91-113 (Gaithersburg, MD: U.S.General Accounting Office, June 12, 1991).U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,and Related Agencies, Hearings onAgriculture, Rural Development and RelatedAgencies Appropriations for 1992: Part 2, Serial96.97.98.99.100,101.102.No. 43-149 0 (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, April 1991).U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,and Related Agencies, Hearings onAgriculture, Rural Development and RelatedAgencies Appropriations for 1992: Part 5, SerialNo. 43-194 (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, April 1991).U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,and Related Agencies, Hearings onAgriculture, Rural Development and RelatedAgencies Appropriations for 1992: Part 4, SerialNo, 43-171 0 (Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, May 1991).U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,and Related Agencies, Hearings onAgriculture, Rural Development, Food and DrugAdministration, and RelatedAgenciew Appropri -ations for 1993, Part 3, Serial No. 54-888 0(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,March 1992).U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,and Related Agencies, Hearings onAgriculture, Rural Development, Food and DrugAdministration, and Related Agencies Appropriationsfor 1993: Part 4, Serial No. 054-898 0(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,Mar, 25, 1992),U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,Subcommittee on the Department of theInterior and Related Agencies, Hearings onJustifications of the Budget Estimates for theBureau of Lund Management, Fish and WildlfeService, and National Park Service, Serial No.40-442 (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1991).U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,Subcommittee on the Department of theInterior and Related Agencies, Justification ofthe Budget Estimates: Part 2, Serial No. 52-5470 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1992).U.S. Congress, House Committee on MerchantMarine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Ocean-

350 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States103.104.105.106.107.108.109.110.111.112.113.114.ography, Great Lakes and the Outer ContinentalShelf, Hearings on Present Activities and FutureNeeds of Federal Programs Directed at Improvingthe Water Quality of the Great Lakes, SerialNo. 102-15, Apr. 30, 1991.U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Policy ofNoxious Weed Management,’ departmental regulation,1990.U.S. Department of Agriculture, AgriculturalMarketing Service, “This is AMS, ” March1991.U.S. Department of Agriculture, AgriculturalResearch Service, “Seeds for Our Future: TheU.S. National Plant Gerrnplasm System,” December1990.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, ‘‘National BiologicalControl Institute,” Information Sheet,undated.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic ResearchService, “The Conservation ReserveProgram: Enrollment Statistics for Signup Periods1-9 and Fiscal Year 1989,’ StatisticalBulletin No. 811, 1990.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,“Forest Service Manual: Chapter 2640-Stocking and Harvesting,” June 1, 1990.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,“Forest Service Manual: Chapter 261PCooperative Relations,” June 25, 1990,U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,“Blue Mountains Forest Health Report: NewPerspectives in Forest Health,” April 1991.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,“Forest Service Manual 2600-Wildlife, Fish,and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management WOAmendment 2600-91-6,” Sept. 24, 1991.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,“Forest Service Manual: Chapter 2080-Noxious Weed Management,” Interim Directive,Aug. 3, 1992.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil ConservationService, “Improved Conservation PlantMaterials Released by the SCS and CooperatorsThrough December 1990,” 1990.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil ConservationService, ‘‘National Plant Materials Manual115,116.117.118.119.120.121.122.123.124.125.126.~MM), 190-V, Second Edition,” Sept. 9,1990.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil ConservationService, “SCS National Plant MaterialsProgram: Accomplishments and Opportunities,’September 1990.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil ConservationService, “Plant Materials Centers: FindingVegetative Solutions to Conservation Problems,’June 1991.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil ConservationService, ‘Draft Strategic Plan for SCS PlantMaterials Center Program,” Aug. 15, 1991.U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, “GreatLakes Environmental Research Laboratory: AnnualReport FY 91 ,“ undated.U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, ‘‘TheNational Sea Grant College Program AnnualReport FY 89,” 1989.U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, “NationalEstuarin e Research Reserve System SiteCatalogue,” 1990 $U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, NationalSea Grant College Program, “Second AnnualCall for Research Proposals Related to NonindigenousSpecies With Special Emphasis on theZebra Mussel,” 1992.U.S. Department of Defense, “Department ofDefense Directive: Natural Resources ManagementProgram,” Directive No. 4700.4, Jan, 24,1989.U.S. Department of Defense, “bgacy ResourceManagement Program, ” Report to Congress,September 1991.U.S. Department of Defense, Department of theAir Force, “AF Regulation 400-21: RetrogradeMaterial Preclearance Program, ’ June 15, 1972,U.S. Department of Defense, Department of theAir Force, “AF Regulation 126-1: Conservationand Management of Natural Resources, ” Oct.21, 1988.U.S. Department of Defense, Department of theArmy, “Army Regulation 420-74: Natural ResourceManagement, ’ Feb. 25, 1986.

Appendix C: References 1351127. U.S. Department of Defense, Department of theArmy, “Army Regulation 420-76: FacilitiesEngineering Pest Management,” June 3, 1986.128. U.S. Department of Energy, “Real PropertyStatistics,” Sept. 30, 1991.129, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of IndianAffairs, “1992 Noxious Weed Plan, ” executivesummary, Washington, DC, 1992.130. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement, “Fish and Wildlife 2000: A Planfor the Future,” undated.131. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement, “BLM Manual: 6820-WildlifeIntroduction and Transplants,” Oct. 20, 1976.132. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement, “Northwest Area Noxious WeedControl Program: Final Environmental ImpactStatement, ” December 1985.133. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement, “BLM Manual: 1745—Introduction,Transplant, Augmentation, and Reestablishmentof Fish, Wildlife and Plants, ’ revision ofsection 6820, draft, Aug. 15, 1986.134. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement, ‘Drafl Environmental Impact Statement:Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands inThirteen Western States,” 1989.135. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement, “BLM Manual: 9014---Use ofBiological Control Agents of Pests on PublicLands,” Oct. 30, 1990.136. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement, “Evaluation: Bureauwide NoxiousWeed Program, ’ internal agency review,draft, December 1991.137. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau ofReclamation, Lower Colorado Region, ‘VegetationManagement Study: Lower Colorado River—Phase I,” Boulder City, NV, September 1992.138. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, “NEPA in Federal Aid Proposals:Guidance to the States,’ September 1980.139. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, “Federal Aid Manual, ” 1982.140. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, Internal memorandum from theDirector to the Regional Directors concerning141.142.143.144.145.146.147.148.149.150.151.152.153.“potential policy initiatiw+-reducing risks ofaquatic organism introductions, ” Oct. 20, 1987.U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, Restoring America Wildl~e (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,1987).U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, “Federal Aid in Fish and WildlifeRestoration,” 1988.U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, “Current Federal Aid ResearchReport: Fish 1990,” report, 1990.U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, “Current Federal Aid ResearchReport: Wildlife 1990,” report, 1990.U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, Law Enforcement Advisory Commission,‘‘Report of Findings and Recommendations,”June 15, 1990.U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, “Triploid Grass Carp Report,”1990.U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, “Vision for the Future: 1991 TotalQuality Management Plan,” May 1991.U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService, “Management Policies,’ 1988.U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService, and U.S. Department of Agriculture,Soil Conse~ation Service, Native Plants forParks, D-425 (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1989).U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService, “1989 Inventory of Research Activitiesin the National Parks,” Science Report NPS/NRWV/NRSR-91/03, January 1991.U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService, ‘‘1990 Inventory of Research Activitiesin the National Parks, ” Science report, 1992.U.S. Department of the Interior, Office ofInspector General, “The Endangered SpeciesProgram, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,’ AuditReport No. 90-98, September 1990.U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. CustomsService, “Master Plan for Passenger Processingat United States Airports for the 1990’ s,’undated.

352 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States154,155,156,157.158.159.160.161.162,163.164.U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. CustomsService, “Importing Into the United States, ”September 1991.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “PesticideAssessment Guidelines: Microbial PestControl Agents, ” March 1989.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EMAPMonitor,” EPA-600/M-90/022, January 1991.U.S. Public Health Service, “MedicalEntomology-Ecology Branch (MEEB),” information brochure,draft, undated.U.S. Public Health Service, “Public HealthScr*nings at U.S. Ports of Entry: A Guide forU.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service andU.S. Customs Service Inspectors, ” October1991.Versar, Inc., ‘‘Introduction of Pacific Salmonidsinto the Delaware River Watershed,” draftenvironmental impact statement prepared for theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NewJersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, July25, 1991.Wahle, C. M,, Evaluation Team bader, Office ofCoastal Resources Management, National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administmtion, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Washington, DC, personalcommunication to E.A, Chornesky, Officeof Technology Assessment, Mar. 31, 1992.Waters, L, H,, Pest Management Specialist, Bureauof Land Management, U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Washington, DC, personal communicationto E.A. Chornesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Sept. 5, 1991.Weiss, M. J., Assistant Director Forest PestManagement, Forest Service, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Washington, DC, letter to P.N.Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, Feb.5, 1992.West, A. J., Deputy Chief of State and PrivateForestry, Forest Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Washington, DC, letter to P.N.Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, Aug.24, 1992,Westbrooks, R. G., Station Leader, WhitevilleNoxious Weed Station, Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Whiteville, NC, letter to P.N. Windle,165.166.167.168.169.170.Office of Technology Assessment, Aug. 11,1992.White, G. A., “The U.S. Department of Agriculture’sPlant Introduction Program-SafeguardsAgainst Introducing Pests,” 1991.White, G. A., Shands, H. L., and Lovell, G. R.,“History and Operation of the National PlantGermplasm System,” Plant Breeding Reviews:The National Plant Germplasm System of theUni/ed States, Vol. 7, J. Janick (cd.) (Portland,OR: Timber Press, 1989), pp. 5-56.Wilkinson, D., Marine Resource ManagementSpecialist, Office of Protected Resources, NationalMarine Fisheries Service, National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Silver Spring, MD,personal communications to E.A. Chornesky,Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 22,1992and Mar. 31, 1992.Williamson, W., Director of Range Management,Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Washington, DC, personal communicationto E.A. Chornesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, July 19, 1991.Witfield, P., Deputy Assistant Secretary, EnvironmentalRestoration, U.S. Department of Energy,Washington, DC, personal communicationto S.M. Fondriest, Office of Technology Assessment,Jan. 9, 1992.Witt, 1., Policy and Program Development,Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC,FMes to E.A, Chomesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Nov. 9 and Nov. 10, 1992.CHAPTER 7: STATE AND LOCAL APPROACHESFROM A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE1. Alexander, D., Pest Exclusion Specialist, WashingtonDepartment of Agriculture, Olympia, WA,personal communication to P.T. Jenkins, Officeof Technology Assessment, Feb. 15, 1991.2. Alfieri, S. A., Jr., Assistant Director, Division ofPlant Industry, Florida Department of Agricultureand Consumer Services, Tallahassee FL,“Regulatory Pest Control Philosophy: Viewsand Assessment,” paper presented at the meetingof the National Plant Board, Kalispell, MT,August 1991.

Appendix C: References 13533.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.Anonymous, ‘‘Guidelines for Coordinated Managementof Noxious Weeds in the GreaterYellowstone Area, ’ adopted by parties to Memorandumof Understanding between the Governorof the State of Wyoming et al,, dated Sept.30, 1990.Anonymous, ‘‘Wyoming Noxious Weed-FreeForage,” pamphlet issued by Wyoming Departmentof Agriculture et al., Cheyenne, WY, 1991,Anonymous, “Non-Natives Bill Triggers Concern,’ American Horticulturist, May 1992, p.12.Bean, M. J., “The Role of the United StatesDepartment of Interior in NIS Issues, ” contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, November 1991.Britton, J. C., “Pathways and Consequences ofIntroductions of Non-Indigenous Freshwater,Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in the UnitedStates,’ contractor report prepared for the Officeof Technology Assessment, October 1991.California Department of Food and Agriculture,Division of Plant Industry, “Annual Report, ”Sacramento, CA, 1990.Clark, J. A., Environmental Defense Fund, writtenstatement submitted to the Intentional IntroductionsPolicy Committee of the Aquatic NuisanceSpecies Task Force, Feb. 26, 1992.Cohn, D., ‘‘Plan to Revive Bay’s Oysters Createsa Regional Dispute, ’ Washington Post, Nov. 18,1991, pp. Al, A12.Collins, R. A., “California’s Approach to RiskReduction in the Introduction of Exotic Species,’ Dispersal ofLiving Organisms into AquaticEcosystems, A. Rosenfield and R, Mam (eds,)(College Park MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992),pp. 361-364.Commissioner, Maine Department of MarineResources, Code of Maine Rules, Ch. 24, BasisStatement, Aug. 15, 1984.Courtenay, W. R., Jr., “Pathways and Consequencesof Introductions of Non-IndigenousFishes in the United States,” contractor reportprepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,August 1991.Doren, R. F., Assistant Research Director, EvergladesNational Park, Homestead, FL, personal15.16.17,18.19.20.21.22.23.24.communication to P.T. Jenkins, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Jan. 21, 1992.Dowell, R.V. and Krass, C. J., ‘‘Exotic Pests PoseGrowing Problem for California,” CaliforniaAgriculture, vol. 46, No. 1, January-February1992, pp. 6-12.Edwards, G. B., Assistant Director, FisheriesDivision, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, Washington, DC, testimonyat hearings before the House Subcommitteeon Oversight and Investigations of theCommittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,July 12, 1991, Serial No. 102-28, pp. 32-3.Elder, E. W., Chief Operations Officer, Domesticand Emergency Operations, Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Hyattsville, MD, personal communicationto P.T. Jenkins, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Mar. 13, 1991.Environmental Law Institute, Law of EnvironmentalProtection, Vol. 1 (New York, NY: ClarkBoardman Co., 1990), p. 6-24.Federal Noxious Weed Committee, Weed ScienceSociety of America, ‘‘Points of Discussionon Six Proposed Amendments to the FederalNOxiOUS Weed Act,” 1989.Fleck, A., Enforcement Officer, Utah Division ofWildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT, personalcommunication to P.T. Jenkins, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Sept. 9, 1992.Gilbert, B., “Coyotes Adapted to Us, Now WeHave to Adapt to Them,” Smithsonian, April1991, pp. 69-78.Girard, N., Counsel, New Hampshire Fish andGame Department, Concord, NH, personal communicationto P.T. Jenkins, Office of TechnologyAssessment, May 6, 1992.Gomez, R., Chairman, U.S. Department of AgricultureInteragency Technical Working Groupon the Africanized Honey Bee, Washington, DC,personal communication to P.T. Jenkins, Officeof Technology Assessment, Sept. 9, 1992.Greenwalt, L. A., Vice-President, InternationalAffairs, National Wildlife Federation, Washington,DC, personal communication to P.T. Jenkins,Office of Technology Assessment, Dec. 11,1991.

354 I Harmful Non-indigenous Species in the United States25.26.27.28.29.30.31.32.33.Hardy, T.N., Administrator Coordinator, QuarantinePrograms, Louisiana Department of Agricultureand Forestry, Baton Rouge, LA, letter to P.T.Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment, Dec.21, 1992.Hocutt, C.H., “Toward the Development of anEnvironmental Ethic for Exotic Fishes,” Distribution,Biology and Management of EroticFishes, W.R. Courtenay and J.R. Stauffer (eds.)(Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,1984), pp. 374-386.Kahn, R. P., “Technologies To Maintain BiologicalDiversity: Assessment of Plant QuarantinePractices,’ contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, November1985,Kern, F.G. and Rosenfield, A., “Shellfish Healthand Protection,’ Dispersal of Living Organismsinto Aquatic Ecosystems, A. Rosen field and R.Mann (eds.) (College Park, MD: Maryland SeaGrant, 1992), pp. 313-323.King, S.T, and Schroc~J.R., Controlled Wildlif+Vol. III: State Wildlife Regulations (Lawrence,KS: Assoc. of Systematic Collections, 1985).Krantz, G. E., “Present Management Position onCrassostrea virginica in Maryland with Commentson the Possible Introduction of an ExoticOyster, Crassostrea gigas,” Introductions andTransfers of Marine Species, Achieving a BalanceBetween Ecorwmic Development and ResourceProtection, Proceedings of Conference/Workshop at Hilton Head, SC (Charleston, SC:SC Sea Grant Consortium, 1992), pp. 121-126.Kurdila, J., ‘‘The Introduction of Exotic SpeciesInto the United States: There Goes the Neighborhood!”Boston College Environmental Affairsh Review, vol. 16, No. 1, 1988, pp. 95-118.Lanka, B. et al., Wyoming Game and FishDepartment, Game Division, Exotic Speciesbnmittee, Cheyenne, W, “Analysis and Recommendationson the Applications by Mr. John T.Dorrance III to Import and Possess Native andExotic Species,” Mar. 1, 1990.Mack, R. N., “Pathways and Consequences ofIntroductions of Non-Indigenous Plants in theUnited States-Additional Information, ’ supplementalcontractor report prepared for the Officeof Technology Assessment, October 1992.34. Mann, R., Burreson, E.M., and Baker, P.K.,“The Decline of the Virginia Oyster Fishery inChesapeake Bay: Considerations for Introductionof a Non-endemic Species, Crassostreagigas (ThUnberg),’ Introductions and Transfersof Marine Species, Achieving a Balance BetweenEconomic Development and Resource Protection,Proceedings of a Conference/Workshop atHilton Head, SC (Charleston, SC: South CarolinaSea Grant Consortium, 1992), pp. 107-120.35. Martin, G., “Hog Wild,” Discover, vol. 11, No.6, June 1990, pp. 43-46.36. Mayer, J,J. and Brisbin, I. L., Wild Pigs in theUnited States: Their History, Comparative Morphology,and Current Status (Athens, GA: Universityof Georgia Press, 1991).37. McCam, J, A., Director, National Fisheries ResearchCenter, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.Department of the Interior, Gainesville, FL,letter to E.A. Chornesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Oct. 4, 1991.38. McDowell, R., Director, Division of Fish, Gameand Wildlife, New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection, Trenton, NJ, testimony athearings before the House Committee on MerchantMarine and Fisheries, Subcommittee onOversight and Investigations, Serial No. 102-28,July 12, 1991, p. 19.39. Metterhouse, W. M., “Biological Control: StateRegulator View Point,” Regulations and Gui&lines: Critical Issues in Biological Control—Proceedings of a USDAfCSRS National Workshop,R. Charudattan and H.W. Browning (eds.)(Gainesville, FL: Institute of Food and AgriculturalSciences, 1992).40. Michigan Department of Natural Resources,Lansing, MI, Draft Briefing Statement on ZebraMussels, August 1992.41. Minnesota Interagency Exotic Species TaskForce, St. Paul, MN, ‘Report and Recommendations,’submitted to the Natural ResourcesCommittees of the Minnesota House and Senate,July 1991.42. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife andParks, Wildlife Division, “Draft summary ofBackground Information Pertaining to Regulationof the Game Farm Industry,” 1992.

Appendix C: References 35543.44.45.46.47,48.49.50.51.52.Moyle, P. B., Department of Wildlife and FisheriesBiology, University of California, Davis, CA,letter to P.N. Windle, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Dec. 16, 1991.Mullin, B., Weed Coordinator, Montana Departmentof Agriculture, Helena, MT, letter to P.T.Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment, Feb.18, 1992.Musgrave, R,, Program Director, Center forWildlife Law, University of New Mexico LawSchool, Albuquerque, NM, personal communicationto P.T, Jenkins, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Jan. 16, 1992.Nettles, V., Director, Southeast CooperativeWildlife Disease Study Center, Athens, GA,personal communication P.T. Jenkins, Office ofTechnology Assessment, Feb. 10, 1992.Nickum, J., National Aquiculture Coordinator,Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of theInterior, Washington, DC, personal communicationto E.A. Chornesky, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Aug. 26, 1991.Old, R. R., Weed Diagnostician, University ofIdaho, Moscow, ID, letter to P.N. Windle, Officeof Technology Assessment, Oct. 28, 1991.Regelbrugge, C., Director of Regulatory Affairsand Grower Services, American Association ofNurserymen, Washington, DC, letter to P.N.Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, Aug.10, 1992.Rosenberg, D, Y., “The Interaction of State andFederal Quarantines in the U.S.,’ Plant Protectionand Quarantine-Vol. 111, R.P. Kahn (cd.)(Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1989), pp. 59-74.Scarratt, D.J. and Drinnan, R. E., “CanadianStrategies for Risk Reductions in Introductionsand Transfers of Marine and Anadromous Species,Dispersal of Living Organisms into AquaticEcosystems, A. Rosenfield and R. Mann (eds.)(College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992),pp. 377-385.Schmidt, B. R., Chief of Fisheries, Division ofWildlife Resources, Utah Department of NaturalResources, Salt Lake City, UT, letter to P.N.Windle, Office of Technology Assessment, Dec.16, 1991.53.54.55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.Schmit.z, D. C., Bureau of Aquatic Plant Management,Florida Department of Natural Resources,Tallahassee, FL, memorandum to Jeremy Craft,Florida Division of Resource Management, Aug.9, 1988.Schmitz, D. C., Bureau of Aquatic Plant Management,Florida Department of Natural Resources,Tallahassee, FL, testimony at public hearingbefore the Intentional Introductions Policy Committeeof the U.S. Aquatic Nuisance SpeciesTask Force, Feb. 26, 1992.Schwegman, J., Botany Program Manager, IllinoisDepartment of Conservation, Springfield,IL, “A State Program to Combat Exotic Weedsin Natural Communities,” Apr. 1, 1989,Scribner, J. D., Attorney, Sacramento, CA, letterto P.N. Windle, Office of Technology Assessment,Feb. 3, 1992.Seed World, Seed Trade Buyers Guide, vol. 129,No. 4, April 1991.Siddiqui, I. A., Assistant Director, CaliforniaDepartment of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento,CA, testimony at hearings before theSenate Committee on Governmental Affairs,Subcommittee on Federal Services, Post Office,and Civil Service, Postal Implementation of theAgricultural Quarantine Enforcement Act, June5, 1991.South Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, Th.llahassee,FL, ‘‘Draft Model Exotic Species Ordinancefor Municipalities and Counties in South Florida,”Nov. 20, 1985.Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Disease StudyCenter, College of Veterinary Medicine, Universityof Georgia, Athens, GA, ‘‘Model for StateRegulations Pertaining to Captive Wild andExotic Animals,” Oct. 12, 1988.Taylor, O., Professor of Entomology, Universityof Kansas, Lawrence, KS, personal communicationto P.T. Jenkins, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Sept. 9, 1992.Temple, S,A. and Carroll, D. M., “Pathways andConsequences of Introductions of Non-Indigenous Vertebrates in the United States, ”contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, October 1991.

356 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States63. Thompson, D.Q. et al., U.S. Department ofInterior, Fish and Wildlife Service, “Spread,Impact and Control of Purple Loosestrife (Ly -thrum Salicaria) in North American Wetlands,’1987.64. U.S. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force,‘‘proposedAquatic Nuisance Species Program,’Sept. 28, 1992.65. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,Subcommittee on the Department of theInterior and Related Agencies, Hearings onDepartment of the Interior and Related AgenciesAppropriations for 1992: Part 3, Serial No. 404440, 1991.66. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, “Policies for Reducing Risks Associatedwith Introductions of Aquatic Organisms, ’Executive Surnrmuy and Discussion Document,Washington, DC, Oct. 14, 1987.67. Waples, R,S. et al., Department of Commerce,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle,WA, “NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSF/NWC-201-Status Review for Snake RiverFall Chinook Salmon,” June 1991.68. Waterworth, H. E., “Control of Plant Diseases byExclusion: Quarantines and Disease-freeStocks” Handbook of Pest Management inAgriculture, Vol. 1, D. Pimental et al. (eds.) (BocaRaton, FL: CRC Press, Inc., 1981), pp. 269-295.69. Westman, W. E., “Park Management of ExoticPlant Species: Problems and Issues,” ConservationBiology, vol. 4, No. 3, 1990, pp. 251-58.70. Wingate, P. J., Minnesota Department of NaturalResources, Fisheries Section, St. Paul, MN,“U.S. States’ Views and Regulations on FishIntroductions,” 1990.71, Wingate, P. J., Fisheries Research Manager, FisheriesSection, Minnesota Department of NaturalResources, St. Paul, MN, letter to JackBaughman, Environmental Defense Fund, July16, 1991.72. Wingate, P.J., Fisheries ResearchManager, FishcriesSection, Minnesota Department of NaturalResources, St. Paul, MN, personal communication,P.T. Jenkins, Office of Technology Assessment,Jan. 23, 1992.CHAPTER 8: TWO CASE STUDIES: NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES IN HAWAII AND FLORIDA1. American Ornithologists’ Union, Check-1ist ofNorth American Birds (Washington, DC: Americanornithologists’ Union, 1983).2. Anonymous, “Preaching to Brazil From Hawaii,”New York Times, July 24, 1990.3. Austin, D. F., ‘‘Exotic Plants and Their Effects inSoutheastern Florida,” Environmental Conservation,vol. 5, No. 1, 1978, pp. 25-34.4. Austin, D, F., ‘‘Vegetation on the Florida AtlanticUniversity Ecological Site, Flori&z Scientist(Bio/. Sci.), vol. 53, No. 1, 1990, pp. 11-27.5. Balciunas, J.K. and Center, TD., “BiologicalControl of Melaleuca quinquenervia: Prospectsand Conflicts,” Proceedings of the Symposiumon Exotic Pest Plants, T.D. Center et al. (eds.)(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,National Park Service, 1991).6. Beardsley, J.W., Jr., “New Immigrant Insects inHawaii: 1962 through 1976,” Proceedings of theHawaiian Entomological Society, vol. 13, No. 1,April 1979, pp. 3544.7. Beardsley, J. W., Jr., University of Hawaii atManoa, Honolulu, HI, “Introduction of ArthropodPests into the Hawaiian Islands,” paperpresented at Workshop on Exotic Pests in thePacific, University of Guam, May 31, 1990.8. Beardsley, J, W., Jr., Chairman, EntomologyDepartment, University of Hawaii at Manoa,Honolulu, HI, personal communication to K.Desmond, Oct. 19, 1990.9. Belden, R. C., Wild Hog Stocking: A Discussionof Issues (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Game andFresh Water Fish Commission, 1990).10. Brown, R.S. et al., “Resource Guide to StateEnvironmental Management,” Council of StateGovernments, 1990, as cited in World ResourcesInstitute, The 1992 Information Please EnvironmentalAlmanac (Boston, MA: Houghton MifflinCo., 1992), p. 196.11. Brown, T., Lieutenant Colonel, Military CustomsInspection, U.S. CINCPAC, Camp Smith,HI, personal communication to C. Mlot, Apr. 13,1992.12. Buck, M.E., Administrator, Hawaii Departmentof Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu, HI,

Appendix C: References ! 35713.14.15.16.17.18,19.20.21.22.23.personal communication to K. Desmond, Oct.11, 1990.Buck, M. E., Administrator, Hawaii Departmentof Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu, HI,personal communication to C, Mlot, Feb. 10,1992.Burkhead, N.M. and Williams, J. D., “Researchon the Okaloosa Darter, Focuses on Competitionand Habitat Use,’ Endangered Species TechnicalBulletin, vol. 15, No. 11, 1990, pp. 5-6.Canfield, D. E., Jr., Maceina, M. J., and Shireman,J. V., “Effects of Hydrilla and Grass Carp onWater Quality in a Florida Lake,” Water ResourcesBulletin, vol. 19, No. 5, September/October, 1983, pp. 773-778.Carey, J. R., “Establishment of the MediterraneanFruit Fly in California, ’ Science, vol. 253,No. 5026, Sept. 20, 1991, p. 1371.Carlquist, S., “Worst-case Scenarios for IslandConservation: The Endemic Biota of Hawaii, ”Ecological Restoration of New Zealand Islands,Consen’ation Sciences Publication No. 2, D.R.Towns et al. (eds.) (Wellington, New Zealand:Department of Conservation, 1990), pp. 207-212.Carr, A., ‘‘Armadillo Dilemma, ’ Animal Kingdom,vol. 85, No. 5, September/October 1983,pp. 40-43.Cassani, J. R., “ Arthropods on Brazilian Peppertree,(Schinus rerebinthifolius) (Anacardiaceae),in South Florida, ’ Florida Entomologist, vol.69, No. 1, 1986, pp. 184-196.Clark, R., Steck, G. J., and Weems, H. V., Jr.,‘‘Detection, Quarantine, and Eradication of FruitFlies Invading Florida, ’ Division of Plant Industry,Florida Department of Agriculture andConsumer Services, Gainesville, FL, undated.Cochran, M. J., ‘ ‘Applying the General Frameworkfor Benefit Costs Analysis on Non-Indigenous Species to the Case of Mekdeuca,”contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, March 1992.Council on Environmental Quality, EnvironmentalTrends (Washington, DC: Council onEnvironmental Quality, 1989).Courtenay, W. R., Jr. and Robins, C. R., “ExoticAquatic Organisms in Florida With Emphasis onFishes: A Review and Recommendations,’ Trans-24.25.26.27,28.29,30!31.32.actions of the American Fisheries Society, vol.101, No. 1, January/February 1973, pp. 1-12.Courtenay, W. R., Jr. et al., “Exotic Fishes inFresh and Brackish Waters of Florida,’ BiologicalConservation, vol. 6, No. 4, 1974, pp.292-302.Courtenay, W.R., Jr. and Stauffer, J. R., Jr., ‘‘TheIntroduced Fish Problem and The Aquarium FishIndustry,” Journal of World Aquiculture Society,vol. 21, No. 3, September 1991, pp. 145-159.Cuddihy, L, W., Stone, C. P., and l.mison, J.T.,“Alien Plants and their Management in HawaiiVolcanoes National Park,” Transactions of theWestern Section of the Wildlife Society, vol. 24,February 1988, pp. 42-46.Cuddihy, L.W. and Stone, C. P., Alteration ofNative Hawaiian Vegetation: Eflects of Humans,Their Activities and introductions (Honolulu,HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1990).Denmark, H.A, and Porter, J. E., “Regulation ofImportation of Arthropods Into and of TheirMovement Within Florida,” Florida Entonzo/ogist,vol. 56, No. 4, 1973, pp. 347-358.Diamond, C., Davis, D., and Schmit.z, D. C.,“Economic Impact Statement: The Addition ofMelaleuca quinquenervia to the Florida ProhibitedAquatic Plant List, ’ Proceedings of theSymposium on Exotic Pest Plants, TD. Center etal. (eds.), Technical Report NPS/NREVER/NRTR-91/06 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of theInterior/National Park Service, 1991).Doren, R.F. and Whiteaker, L. D., “The ExoticPest Plant Council: An Example of InteragencyCooperation to Solve Resource Related Problems,” Proceedings of the Symposium on ExoticPest Plants, T.D. Center et al. (eds.), TechnicalReport NPS/NREVER/NRTR-91 -06 (Washington,DC: U.S. Department of the Interior/National Park Service, 1991).Duda, M. D., “Blackmailed Jackrabbit Importation:Potential Impacts on Florida’s NaturalEnvironment, ’ Florida Game and Fresh WaterFish Commission, Tallahassee, FL, 1986.Engbring, J. and Fritts, T. H., “Demise of anInsular Avifauna: The Brown Tree Snake onGuam,” Transactions of the Western Section ofthe Wildlife Socie~, vol. 24, 1988, pp. 31-37.

358 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States33.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.41.42.43.44.Esser, R. P., O’Bamon, J.H., and Riherd, C. C.,“The Citrus Nursery Site Approval program forBurrowing Nematode and Its Beneficial Effecton the Citrus Industry of Florida,” BulletinOEPPIEPPO(European Plant Protection Organization),No. 18, 1988, pp. 579-586.Everglades Coalition, “Everglades in the 21stCentury, The Water Management Future,” 1992.Ewel, J.J., “Invasibility: Lessons from SouthFlorida,” Ecology of Biological Invasions ofNorth America and Hawaii, H.A. Mooney andJ.A. Drake (eds.) (New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1986).Exotic Pest Plant Council, Newsletter, vol. 1, No.3, summer, 1991.Exotic Pest Plant Council, Newsletter, vol. 2, No.2, spring, 1992.Frank, J. H., ‘Mole Crickets and Arthropod Pestsof Tti and Pastures, ’ Classical BiologicalControl in the Southern United States,’ D.H.Habeck et al. (eds.), Southern Cooperative SeriesBull. No. 355 (Gainesville, FL: Institute of Foodand Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,1990).Frank, J.H. and McCoy, E. D., ‘The Immigrationof Insects to Florida, with a Tabulation ofRecords Published since 1970, ” Florida Entomologist,vol. 75, No. 1, 1992, pp. 1-28.Funasaki, G.Y et al., “A Review of BiologicalControl Introductions in Hawaii: 1890 to 1985,”Proceedings of the Hawaii Entomological Society,vol. 28, May 31, 1988, pp. 105-160.Gagnt$ W. C., ‘‘Conservation Priorities in HawaiianNatural Systems, ” Bioscience, vol. 38, No.4, April 1988, pp. 264-271,Gleason, P.J. (cd.), Environments of South Florialz,Present and Past 1] (Miami, FL: MiamiGeological Society, 1984).Hadfield, M., Zoologist, University of Hawaii,Honolulu, HI, personal communication to C.Mlot, Jan. 6, 1992.Hardin, S. et al., “Food Items of Grass Carp,American Coots, and Ring-Necked Ducks froma Central Florida Lake, ” Proceedings of theAnnual Conference of Southeastern Associationsof Fish and Wildlife Agencies, vol. 38,1984, pp. 313-318.45.46.47.48.49,50,51.52.53.54.55.56.57.Havens, C. A., Chief Operations Officer, PortOperations, Animal and Plant Health InspectionService, U.S. Department of the Interior, personalcommunication to C. Mlot, Jan. 3, 1992.Hawaii Agricultural Alliance, Aiea, HI, “IntroducedSpecies: An Overview of DamagesCaused by the Introduction of Some AlienSpecies to Hawaii,” draft, 1991.Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Honolulu,HI, “Annual Report,” 1985.Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Honolulu,HI, “Annual Report,” 1987.Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Honolulu,HI, “Report to the 15th bgislature, 1989Regular Session, ” 1989.Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Honolulu,HI, “Annual Report,” 1990.Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources,Honolulu, HI, ‘Report to the Governor,vol. 1,’ ‘ 1987-1989.Hinsdale, G., Assistant Western Regional Director,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communicationto C. Mlot, Dec. 20, 1991.Hofstetter, RH., “The Current Status of Melaleucaquinquenervia in Southern Florida,” Proceedingsof the Symposium on Exotic Pest Plants,T.D. Center et al, (eds.), Tech. Rept. NPS,NREVER, NRTR-91/06 (Washington, DC: U.S.Department of the Interior, National Park Service,1991).Howarth, F. G., Sohmer, S. H., and Duckworth,W. D., ‘Hawaiian Natural History and ConservationEfforts,” Bioscience, vol. 38, No. 4, April1988, pp. 232-237.Howarth, F.G. and Ramsay, G, W., “The Conservationof Island Insects and their Habitats, ’ TheConservation of Insects and their Habitats, N.M.Collins and J.A. Thomas (eds.) (Lmndon, England:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich/Acadernic Press,1991), pp. 71-107.Hurley, T., ‘‘Inmate Labor Worries Kula Residence,”Maui News, Oct. 10, 1990, p, A3.Johnson, F.A. and Montalbano, F., III, “Selectionof Plant Communities by Wintering Waterfowlon Lake Okeechobee, Florida,’ Journal ofWildlije Management, vol. 48, 1984, pp. 174-178.

Appendix C: References! 35958. Joyce, J. C., ‘‘History of Aquatic Plant Managementin Florida, ’ Aquatic Pest Control ApplicationTraining Manual, K.A. Langeland (cd.)(Gainesville, FL: Institute of Food and AgriculturalSciences, University of Florida, 1990).59. Kushlan, J. A., ‘‘Exotic Fishes in the Everglades,A Reconsideration of Proven Impact,’ EnvironmentalConservation, vol. 13, 1986, pp. 67-69.60. Kushlan, J. A., “External Threats and InternalManagement: The Hydrologic Regulation of theEverglades, Florida, USA,” Environmental Management,vol. 11, No. 1, 1987, pp. 109-119.61. Lamoureux, C., Botanist, University of Hawaii,Honolulu, HI, personal communication to K.Desmond, Oct. 17, 1990.62. Langeland, K. A., “Exotic Woody Plant Control,” Circular No. 868 (Gainesville, FL: FloridaCooperative Extension Service, Institute of Foodand Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,1990).63. Langeland, K. A., ‘‘Hydrilla, A Continuing Problemin Florida Waters,” Circular No. 884,(Gainesville, FL: Center for Aquatic Plants,Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,University of Florida, 1990).64. Lxmg, J. L., Introduced Birds of the World(Sydney: A.H. and A.W. Reed, 1981) cited inL.L. Loope and D. Mueller-Dombois, “Characteristicsof Invaded Islands, With Special Referenceto Hawaii,’ Biological Invasions: A GlobalPerspective, J.A. Drake et al. (eds.) (Chichester,England: John Wiley and Sons, 1989), pp.257-280.65. Loope, L. L., “Haleakala National Park and the‘Island Syndrome’: Active Management is Neededfor Preservation of Island Biota,” Proceedingsof Conference on Science in National Parh,(vol. 5): Management of Exotic Species inNatural Communities, L,K. Thomas (cd.) (Hancock,MI: George Wright Society/U.S. NationalPark Service, 1986).66. bope, L. L., Research Scientist, Haleakala NationalPark, Makawao, HI, personal communicationto P.T. Jenkins, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Aug. 21-22, 1991.67. Loope, L. L., Research Scientist, Haleakala NationalPark, Makawao, HI, personal communicationto P.N. Windle, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Feb. 10, 1992.68. Loope, L.L. and Gon, S.M., III, “BiologicalDiversity and Its Loss,” Conservation Biologyin Hawaii, C.P. Stone and D.B. Stone (eds.)(Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press,1989).69. bope, L. L., Hamann, O., and Stone, C. P,,‘‘Comparative Conservation Biology of OceanicArchipelagoes,’ Bioscience, vol. 38, No. 4,April 1988, pp. 272-282.70. Imope, L.L. and Mueller-Dombois, D., “Characteristicsof Invaded Islands, with Special Referenceto Hawaii, ’ Biological Invasions: A GlobalPerspective, J.A, Drake et al. (eds.) (Chichester,England: John Wiley and Sons, 1989), pp.257-280.71, Maciolek, J. A., “Exotic Fishes in Hawaii andOther Islands of Oceania,” Distribution, Biology,and Management of Exotic Fishes, W.R.Courtenay, Jr. and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. (eds.) (Baltimore,MD: Johns Hopkins University Press,1984).72. Maehr, D.S. and Holler, N.R., “Exotic TerrestrialWildlife in Florida, ” unpublished manuscript,1984.73. McClelland, M., “Invasion of the Bio-Snatchers,’ Florida Environments, vol. 6, No. 2,February 1992, pp. 5, 13.74. Melaleuca Task Force, ‘‘Melaleuca ManagementPlan for South Florida, Recommendations fromthe Mekdeuca Task Force,” West Palm Beach,FL, April, 1990.75. Millsap, B., Chief, Florida Bureau of NongameWildlife, Tallahassee, FL, personal communicationto D.W. Johnston, Jan. 7, 1993.76. Milon, J.W. and Welsh, R., “An EconomicAnalysis of Sport Fishing and the Effects ofHydrilla Management in Lake County, Florida,”Economics Report No. 118, Institute of Food andAgricultural Sciences, University of Florida,Gainesville, FL, 1989.77. Mooney, H.A. and Drake, J. A., “TheEcologyofBiological Invasions, ” Environment, vol. 29,No. 5, June 1987, p. 12.78. Morgan, J., “Tourism,” Conservation Biologyin Hawaii, C.P. Stone and D.B. Stone (eds.)

360 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States(Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press,1989), pp. 146-153,79. Morton, J. F., “Pestiferous Spread of Manyornamental and Fruit Species in South Florida,’Proceedings of the Floridu State HorticulturalSocie@, vol. 89, 1976, pp. 348-353.80. Moulton, M.P. and Pimm, S. L,, “Species Introductionsto Hawaii, ” Ecology of BiologicalInvasions of North America and Hawaii, H.A.Mooney and J.A. Drake (eds.) (New York, NY:Springer-Verlag, 1986), pp. 231-249.81. Myers, R.L. and Ewel, J,J. (eds.), Ecosystems ofFlorida (Orlando, FL: University of CentralFlorida Press, 1990).82. Nakahara, L., Plant Quarantine Manager, HawaiiDepartment of Agriculture, Honolulu, HI, personalcommunication to C. Mlot, Apr. 16, 1992.83. National Audubon Society, Report of the AdvisoryPanel on the Everglades and EnAngeredSpecies, Audubon Conservation Report No. 8.(New York, NY: National Audubon Society,1992).84. National Research Council, Decline of the SeaTurtles (Washington, DC: National AcademyPress, 1990).85. Natural Resources Defense Council, ‘‘Extinctionin Paradise: Protecting our Hawaiian Species, ’Honolulu, HI, April 1989.86. Nature Conservancy of Hawaii and the NaturalResources Defense Council, “The Alien PestSpecies Invasion in Hawaii: Background Studyand Recommendations for Interagency Planning,”July 1992.87. Nordlie, F. G., “Rivers and Springs,” Ecosystemsof Floriaiz, R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel (eds,)(Orlando, FL: University of Central FloridaPress, 1990).88. Olson, S.L. and James, H. F., ‘‘Fossil Birds Fromthe Hawaiian Islands: Evidence for WholesaleExtinction by Man Before Western Contact, ”Science, vol. 217, No. 4560, Aug. 13, 1982, pp.633-635.89. O’Meara, G.F. et al., ‘‘Invasion of Cemeteries inFlorida by Aedes albopictus,” Journal of theAmerican Mosquito Control Association, vol. 8,No. 1, March 1992, pp. 1-10.90.91.92.93.94.95.96.97.98.99.100.101.Ota, A. K., Entomologist, Hawaiian Sugar Planters’Association, Aiea, HI, letter to W. Metcalf,Hawaii State Capitol, Apr. 5, 1990.Ota, A. K., Entomologist, Hawaiian Sugar Planters’Association, Aiea, HI, personal communicationto K. Desmond, Oct. 16, 1990.Owre, O.T., “A Consideration of the ExoticAvifauna of Southeastern Florida,’ Wilson Bulletin,vol. 85, 1973, pp. 491-500.Peterson, S. D., Chairperson, Hawaii Board ofAgriculture, Honolulu, HI, testimony at hearingsbefore the U.S. Senate Committee on GovernmentalAffairs, Subcommittees on Postal Operationand Services and Postal Personnel and Modernization,Nov. 4, 1987.Reynolds, J, R., Regional Director, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Sacramento, CA, memo toB.G. he on the results of the first 90 days of theHawaii First Class Mail Pilot Project, Sept. 19,1990.Robertson, W. B,, Jr, and Woolfenden, G. E.,Florida Bird Species: An Annotated List, SpecialPublication No. 6 (Gainesville, FL: FloridaOrnithological Society, 1992).Sailer, R. I., “History of Insect Introductions,”Exotic Plant Pests and North American Agriculture,C,L. Wilson and C.L. Graham (eds.) (NewYork NY: Academic Press, Inc., 1983).Schardt, J.D. and Schmitz, D. C., “ 1990 FloridaAquatic Plant Survey,” Technical Report ##91-CGA (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department ofNatural Resources, Bureau of Aquatic Plants,1990).Schmitz, D., Schardt, J. D., and Craft, J. J.,“Seeds of Destruction,” Florida Environments,vol. 4, No. 12, December 1990, p. 9.Schoulties, C.L. et al., “A New Outbreak ofCitrus Canker in Florida,” Plant Disease, vol.69, No, 4, April 1985, p. 361.Schoulties, C.L. et al., “Citrus Canker in Florida,”Plant Disease, vol. 71, No. 5, May 1987,pp. 388-395.Shafland, P. L., “Study X1X. Peacock BassInvestigations,” unpublished repofi, Florida Gameand Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee,FL, 1990.

Appendix C: References I 361102. Shafland, P. L., Management of Introduced FreshwaterFishes in Florida, ” Proceedings of the1990 Invitational SymposiumlWorkshop: NewDirections in Research, Management and Conservationof Hawaiian Stream Ecosystems (Honolulu,HI: Hawaii Department of Natural Resources,Division of Aquatic Resources, inpress).103. Shafland, P.L. and Pestr~ J. M., “J.mwer LethalTemperatures for Fourteen Non-native Fishes inFlorida,’ Environmental Biology of Fish, vol. 7,No. 2, February 1982, pp. 149-156.104. Sharp, D. U., Doren, R. F., and Anderson, J. N.,“East Everglades Exotic Plant Control, AnnualReport,” South Everglades Research Center,Homestead, FL, 1991.105. Shelton, M. L., ‘‘Surface-Water Flow to EvergladesNational Park,” Geographical Review,vol. 80, No. 4, October 1990, pp. 356-369.106. Shiroma, E., Officer in Charge, Honolulu InternationalAirport, Animal and Plant Health InspectionService, U.S. Department of Agriculture,personal communication to K. Desmond,Oct. 15, 1990.107. Shiroma, E., Officer in charge, Honolulu InternationalAirport, Animal and Plant Health InspectionService, U.S. Department of Agriculture,personal communication to C. Mlot, Jan. 6,1992.108, Smith, C. W., “Weed Management in Hawaii’sNational Parks,” Monogr. Syst. Bet. MissouriBotanical Gardens, vol. 32, 1990, pp. 223-234.109. Smith, C. W., “The Alien Plant Problem inHawaii,’ Proceedings of the Symposium onExotic Pest Plants, Technical Report NWNREVER/NRTR-91/06 (Washington, DC: U.S.Department of the Interior/National Park Service,1991), pp. 327-337.110. Smith, C. W., Botany Department, University ofHawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, personal communicationto C. Mlot, Oct. 21, 1991.111. Stange, L. A., Taxonomic Entomologist, Divisionof Plant Industry, Florida Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville,FL, personal communication to D.W. Johnston,June 1992.112. Stone, C. P., “Alien Animals in Hawaii’s NativeEcosystems: Toward Controlling the Adverse113.114.115,116,117.118,119.120.121.122.Effects of Introduced Vertebrates, ’ Hawaii’sTerrestrial Ecosystems: Presentation and Management(Honolulu, HI: Cooperative NationalPark Resources Study Unit, University of Hawaiiat Manoa, 1985), pp. 251-288.Stone, C. P., Research Scientist, Hawaii VolcanoesNational Park, ‘‘Environmental FAucationin Hawaii, ” paper presented at workshop onCritical Resource Issues in the Pacific, Guam,April 1990.Stone, C.P. and HoIt, R. A., “Managing theInvasions of Alien Ungulates and Plants inHawaii’s Natural Areas,” Monogr. S]’st. Bet.Missouri Botanical Gardens, vol. 32, 1990, pp.211-221.Sutton, D,L. and Vandiver, V. V., Jr., “GrassCarp, a Fish for Biological Management ofHydrilla and Other Aquatic Weeds in Florida,”Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations. BulletinNo. 867 (Gainesville, FL: Instjtute of Foodand Agricultural Sciences, LTnjversity of Florida,1986).Sykes, P. W., “The Feeding Habits of the SnailKite in Florida, USA, ” Colonial Waterhirds,vol. 10, 1987, pp. 84-92.Thayer, D., Director, Aquatic Plant ManagementDivision, South Florida Water ManagementDistrict, West Palm Beach, FL, personal communicationto D.W. Johnston, May 27, 1992.Thompson, D. R., Operations Officer, Plant Protectionand Quarantine, Anjmal Plant HealthInspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Hyattsville, MD, personal communicationto D.W. Johnston, May 27, 1992.Tiner, R. W., Jr., Wetlands of the United States:Current Status and Recent Trends (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984).Tobin, R. J., The E.rpendable Furure: U.S. Politicsand the Protection of Biological Div~ersity(Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990), pp.216-219.Toland, B., “Use of Forested Spoil Islands byNesting American Oystercatchers in SoutheastFlorida, ’ Journal of Fie/d Ornithology, vol. 63,No. 2, spring 1992. pp. 155-58.Toops, C. and Dilley, W. E., Birds of SouthFlorida: An Interpreti\le Guide (Conway, AR:River Road Press, 1986).

362 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States123. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science,Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on NaturalResources, Agriculture Research and Environment,Hearings on H.R. 126&The NationalBiological Diversity Conservation and EnvironmentalResearch Act, No. 30, May 17, 1989, pp.259-334.124. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on GovernmentalAffairs, Subcommittee on Federal Services,Post Office, and Civil Service, Hearings onPostal Implementation of the Agricultural QuarantineEnforcement Act, kne 5, 1991.125. U.S. Department of Agriculture, AgriculturalResearch Service, Tropical Fruit and VegetableResearch Laboratory, “I. ARS Perspective forFruit Fly Eradication in Hawaii and Pilot TestRequirements for Demonstration of Technology,’ and ‘II. Pilot Test to Eliminate MediterraneanFruit Fly from the Islands of Kauai andNiihau: Detailed Work Plan,” drafts (Honolulu,HI: December 1989).126. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, Animal DamageControl, Honolulu, HI, “Annual Report, ”FY 1989.127. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of theCensus, Statistical Abstract of the United States:1990 (1 loth cd.) (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1990).128. Vitousek, P. M., Loope, L. L., and Stone, C. P.,“Introduced Species in Hawaii: Biological Effectsand Opportunities for Ecological Research,’Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 2, No. 7,July 1987, pp. 224-227.129. Wagner, W. L., Herbst, D. R., and Sohmer, S. H.,Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii(Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press,Bishop Museum Press, 1990),130. Ward, D. B., “How Many Plant Species AreNative to Florida?” Palmetto, winter, 1989-90,pp. 3-5.131. Warner, R. E., ‘‘The Role of Introduced Diseasesin the Extinction of the Endemic HawaiianAvifauna,” The Condor, vol. 70, No. 2, spring,1968, pp. 101-120,132. Webb, J., “Managing Nature in the Everglades,”EPA Journal, vol. 16, No. 6 November/December 1990, pp. 48-50.133. Wester, L., “Origin and Distribution of AdventiveAlien Flowering Plants in Hawaii, ’Alien Plant Invasions in Native Ecosystems ofHawaii: Management and Research, C.P. Stoneet al. (eds.) (Honolulu, HI: University of HawaiiPress, in press), pp. 99-114.134. Wiley, M. J., Taze~ P, P., and Sobaski, S.T.,“Controlling Aquatic Vegetation With TriploidGrass Carp,” Illinois Natural History Survey,Circuku No. 57, 1987, pp. 1-16.135. Williams, R.N., “Bulbu!i Introductions on Oahu,”Elepaio, vol. 43, No. 11, May 1983.136. Wilson, L.D. and Porras, L., The EcologicalImpact of Man on the South Florida Herpe -tofauna, Special Publ. No. 9 (Lawrence, KS:University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History,1983).137. Winsberg, M.D., Florida Weather (Orlando, FL:University of Central Florida Press, 1990).138. Yee, R.S.N. and Gagn6, W. C., “Activities andNeeds of the Horticulture Industry in Relation toAlien Plant Problems in Hawaii,” A/ien P/antInvasions in Native Ecosystems of Hawaii:Management and Research, C,P. Stone et al.(eds.) (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press,in press), pp. 712-725.CHAPTER 9: GENETICALLY ENGINEEREDORGANISMS AS A SPECIAL CASE1. A.rntzen, C. J,, “Regulation of TransgenicPlants,” Science, vol. 257, No. 5075, Sept. 4,1992, p. 1327.2. Berry, D.F. andHagedorn, C., “SoilandGroundwaterTransport of Microorganisms, AssessingEcological Risks of Biotechnology, L.R.Ginzburg (cd,) (Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemam, 1991), pp. 57-74.3. Eisner, R., “State bgislators Seek to BroadenRegulation of Biotech Products,” The Scientist,vol. 5, No. 4, Feb. 18, 1991, pp. 1, 6, 19.4. Ellstrand, N.C. and Hoffman, C. A., “Hybridizationas an Avenue of Escape for EngineeredGenes: Strategies for Risk Reduction,” Bioscience,vol. 40, No. 6, June 1990, pp. 438-442.5. Fuchs, R.L. and Serdy, F. S., “GeneticallyModifiedPlants: Evaluation of Field Test BiosafetyData,” International Symposium on the BiosafetyResults of Field Tests of Genetically

Appendix C: References 13636.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.MochfiedPlatisandMicroorganisms, D.Il. MacKenzieand S.C. Henry (eds.) (Bethesda, MD:Agricultural Research Institute, 1990), pp. 25-30.Giarnporcaro, D. E., Section Chief, TSCA BiotechnologyProgram, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Washington, DC, personal communicationto P.N. Windle, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Apr. 29, 1993.Goldburg, R. J., Senior Scientist, and Hopkins,D. D., Senior Attorney, Environmental DefenseFund, New York, NY, memorandum to “PersonsInterested in State Oversight of IntentionalReleases of Genetically Engineered Organisms,’NOV. 30, 1992.Goldburg, R. J., Senior Scientist, and Hopkins,D. D., Senior Attorney, Environmental DefenseFund, New York, NY, letter to Chief, RegulatoryAnalysis and Development, Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Jan. 4, 1993.Grossman, B., Special Assistant to the Director,Hawaii Department of Health, Honolulu, HI,personal communication to E.A. Chornesky,Office of Technology Assessment, Apr. 8, 1993.Hails, R.S, et al., “The Invasive Potential ofTransgenic and Conventional Oilseed Rape inNatural Habitats, ” Bulletin of the EcologicalSociety of America, vol. 73, No. 2, June 1992, p.197.Hallerman, E. M., Assistant Professor, VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,VA, letter to P.N. Windle, Office ofTechnology Assessment, Nov. 29, 1992.Hallerman, E.M, and Kapuscincki, A. R,, “Ecologicaland Regulatory Uncertainties AssociatedWith Transgenic Fish,” Trarzsgenic Fish, C.L.Hew and G. Fletcher (eds.) (Singapore: WorldScience Publishing, 1992), pp. 209-228.Herrett, R. A., Statement on behalf of the Associationfor Biotechnology Companies, Hearingsbefore the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture,Subcommittee on Department Operations,Research and Foreign Agriculture, ‘‘Review ofStatutes of the Animal and Plant Health InspectionService,” July 10, 1990.Hess, C. E., ‘‘Opening Remarks,” InternationalSymposium on the Biosafety Results of FieldTests of Genetically Modljied Plants and Microorganisms,D.R. MacKenzie and S.C. Henry(eds.) (Bethesda, MD: Agricultural ResearchInstitute, 1990), pp. 25-30.15. Industrial Biotechnology Association, “Year-End Survey of State Government bgislation onBiotechnology: 1991,” Washington, DC, 1991.16. Istoc~ C, A,, “Genetic Exchange and GeneticStability in Bacterial Populations,” AssessingEcological Risks of Biotechnology, L.R.Ginzburg (cd.) (Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991), pp. 123-150.17. Kludy, D., Consultant, Richmond, VA, personalcommunication to E.A. Chornesky, Office ofTechnology Assessment, May 20, 1993.18. Krimsky, S. and Wetzler, R., “BioengineeredOrganisms and Non-Indigenous Species, ” contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, November 1991.19. Maclean, N. and Penman, D., ‘‘The Applicationof Gene Manipulation to Aquiculture,’ Aquiculture,vol. 85, 1990, pp. 1-20.20. Medley, T. L., Director, Biotechnology, Biologics,and Environmental Protection, Animaland Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD, letterto W.S. Wallace, Director of Policy and ProgramDevelopment, Animal and Plant Health InspectionService, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Hyattsville, MD, Feb. 11, 1992.21. Mel, J.N.M. et al., “Manipulation of FloralPigmentation Genes in Petuna: ‘‘Sense andAntisense Make Sense, ” Horticultural Biotechnology,A.B. Bennett and S.D. O’Neill (eds.)(New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1990),p. 192.22. Muench, S.R., “Requirements and Considerationsin Successful Field Releases of GeneticallyEngineered Plants,” International Symposiumon the Biosafety Results of Field Tests ofGenetically Mod@ed Plants and Microorganisms,D.R. MacKenzie and S.C. Henry (eds.)(Bethesda, MD: Agricultural Research Institute,1990), pp. 3-8.23. National Research Council, Field Testing GeneticallyModl>ed Organisms: Framework for Decisions(Washington, DC: National Academy Press,1989),

364 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States24. National Wildlife Federation, Biotechnology PolicyCenter, ‘‘Reports to Animal and Plant HealthInpsection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,on Completed Field Tests of TransgenicPlants,’ information sheet, Washington, DC,August 1992.25. Office of Science and Technology Policy, ExecutiveOffice of the President, Washington, DC,“Coordinated Framework for Regulation ofBiotechnology,” 51 Federal Register 23302-23308 (June 26, 1986).26. Payne, J. H., Associate Director, Biotechnology,Biologics, and Environmental Protection, Animaland Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD,letter to P.N. Windle, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Nov. 10, 1992.27. Postgate, J., “The Malleable Microbe,” NewScientist, vol. 129, No. 1756, Feb. 16, 1991, pp.38-41.28. President’s Council on Competitiveness, “Reporton National Biotechnology Policy,” Washington,DC, February 1991.29. Regal, P. J,, presentation on environmental issues,Transgenic Plant Conference, Annapolis,MD, Sept. 7-9,1988, co-sponsored by U.S. Foodand Drug Administration, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, and the U.S. Department ofAgriculture, 1988.30. Rogul, M. and Levin, M., “Regulation ofBiotechnology by the Environmental ProtectionAgency,” Assessing Ecological Risks of Biotechnology,L.R. Ginzburg (cd.) (Boston, MA:Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991), pp. 233-265.31. Sagoff, M., ‘On Making Nature Safe for Biotechnology,’ Assessing Ecological Risks of Biotech -rdogy, I.& Ginzburg (cd.)(a MA Butterwodh-Heinemann, 1991), pp. 341-365.32. Sharples, F.E., “Applications of IntroducedSpecies Models to Biotechnology Assessment,’Application of Biotechnology to Environmentaland Policy Issues, J.R. Fowle III (cd.) (Boulder,CO: Westview Press, Inc., 1987), pp. 93-98.33. Shore, S., Biotechnologist, Division of PlantIndustry, North Carolina Department of Agriculture,Raleigh, NC, personal communication toE.A. Chornesky, Office of Technology Assessment,May 25, 1993.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.41.42.Slutsky, B., “Pesticidal Transgenic Plants: RiskIssue s,” Pesticidal Transgenic Plants: ProductDevelopment, Risk Assessment, and Data Neeak,U.S. EPA Conference Proceedings (EPwlT-1024), Annapolis, MD, Nov. 6 and 7, 1990, pp.127-132.Springer, W. D., testimony before the U.S. HouseCommittee on Agriculture, Subcommittee onDepartment Operations, Research, and ForeignAgriculture, Adequacy of Current BiotechnologyRegulation and the Omnibus Biotechnology Actof 1990 (HR 5312), Serial No. 101-75, Oct. 2,1990.Suter, G. W., “Exotic Organisms,” EcologicalRisk Assessment, G.W. Suter (cd.) (Boca Raton,FL: hwis Publishers, 1993), pp. 391401.Tiedje, J.M. et al., ‘‘The Planned Introduction ofGenetically Engineered Organisms: EcologicalConsiderations and Recommendations,” Eco/-0~, vol. 70, No. 2, 1989, pp. 298-315.U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Biotechnology:Role of Institutional Biosafety Committees,GAO/RCED-88-64BR (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, December1987).U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Biotechnology:Delays in and Status of EPA’sEflorts to issue a TSCA Regulation, GAO/RCED-92-167, Washington, DC, June 1992.U.S. Congress, House Committee on Agriculture,Subcommittee on Department Operations,Research, and Foreign Agriculture, Review ofCurrent and Proposed Agriculture BiotechrwlogyRegulatory Authority and the OmnibusBiotechnology Act of 1990, Serial No. 101-75(Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1991),U.S. Congress, House Committee on MerchantMarines and Fisheries, request letter to J.H.Gibbons Director, Office of Technology Assessment,July 24, 1990.U.S. Congress, House Committee on Scienceand Technology, Subcommittee on Investigationsand Oversight, Issues in the FederalRegulation of Biotechnology: From Research toRelease (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, December 1986).

Appendix C: References I 36543.44.45.46.47,48.49.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,A New Technological Era for AmericanAgriculture, OTA-F474 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, August 1992).U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology,Biologics, and Environmental Protection, “User’sGuide for Introducing Genetically EngineeredPlants and Microorganisms, ” technical bulletinNo. 1783, Hyattsville, MD, June 1991.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology,Biologics, and Environmental Protection, ConferenceReport of the Workshop on Safeguardsfor Planned Introduction of Transgenic Potatoes,St. Andrews, Scotland, Aug. 16-17, 1991, J.P.Hegelson and H.V. Davis (eds.), Hyattsville,MD, 1991.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology,Biologics, and Environmental Protection, ConferenceReport on Workshop on Safeguards forPlanned Introduction of Transgenic Corn andWheat, Keystone, CO, Dec. 6-8, 1990, L.V.Giddings et al. (eds.), April 1992.U.S. Department of AgriculNe, Office of AgriculturalBiotechnology, ‘‘Proposed USDA Guidelinesfor Research Involving the Planned IntroductionInto the Environment of Organisms WithDeliberately Modified Hereditary Traits,” 56Federal Register 4134-4151 (Feb. 1, 1991).Vaituzis, Z., ‘‘Product Characterization and ToxicologicalEvaluation of Pesticidal TransgenicPlants,” Pesticidal Transgenic Plants: ProductDevelopment, Risk Assessment, and Data Needs,Proceedings of the U.S. EPA Conference (EPA/21 T-1024), Annapolis, MD, Nov. 6 and 7,1990,pp. 135-140.Wrubel, R, P., Krimsky, S., and Wetzler, R. E.,“Field Testing Transgenic Plants: An Analysisof the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s EnvironmentalAssessments, ” Bioscience, vol. 42, No.4, April 1992, pp. 280-289.CHAPTER 10: THE CONTEXT OF THE FUTURE:INTERNATIONAL LAW AND GLOBAL CHANGE1. Anonymous, “Extremely Rare Fruit WormBlocks Apple Export,” Seattle Times, Nov. 30,1991, p. Al 1.2. Anonymous, ‘‘Floral Arrangement,” Journal ofCommerce, June 27, 1991, p. A3.3. Anonymous, “Pest Infestation Spurs DoubtOver Standards in Mexico, ” Christian ScienceMonitor, May 4, 1992, p. 19.4. Anonymous, “Potatoes at the Root of AnotherU.S.-Canada Trade Embroilment, ’ Journal ofCommerce, Feb. 19, 1991, p. A7.5. Asselin, P., Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheriesand Oceans Department, Government of Canada,internal memorandum to Associate Deputy Minister,Policy and Program Planning, July 31, 1987.6. Bangsund, D. A., and Uistritz, F. L., EconomicImpact of Leafy Spurge in Montana, SouthDakota, and Wyoming, Agricultural EconomicsReport No, 275 (Fargo, ND: Department ofAgricultural Economics, North Dakota StateUniversity, October 1991).7. Birrningham, M. J., “The State of Forest Healthin New York,” New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, Division of Landsand Forests, Albany, NY, Dec. 31, 1990.8. Breckenridge, R.P. and Otis, M. D., “MonitoringConcepts Useful in the Assessment of ClimateChange Effects on U.S. Fish and WildIifeResources,” Coping With Climate Change, J.C.Topping (cd.) (Washington, DC: The ClimateInst., 1989), pp. 268-272.9. Britton, J. C., “Pathways and Consequences ofthe Introduction of Non-indigenous Freshwater,Terrestrial, and Estuarine Mollusks in the UnitedStates,’ contractor report prepared for the Officeof Technology Assessment, Washington, DC,October 1991.10. Brooks, D. J., ‘‘International Dimensions of U.S.Forestry,” Agriculture Outlook ’93, Prospectsfor Fruit and Vegetables, Floriculture and ForestProducts, booklet 2, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Washington, DC, Dec. 12, 1992, pp.19-33.11 Campbell, D. S., Director, Operational Support,International Services, Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, U.S. Department of Agricul-

366 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesture, letter to Phyllis N. Windle, OTA, Aug. 21,1992.12, Campbell, F.T, Natural Resources Defense Council,“Legal Avenues for Controlling Exotics,”presentation at Indiana Academy of ScienceConference on Biological Pollution, Indianapoh,IN, Oct. 26, 1991.13. Carlton, J,T, ‘ ‘Man’s Role in Changing the Faceof the Ocean,’ Conservation Biology, vol. 3, No.3, September 1989, pp. 270-72.14. Chi, K.S. “Foresight Activities in State Governmerit,” Futures Research Quarterly, vol. 7, No.4, 1991, pp. 47-60.15. Chock, A. K., “International Cooperation onControlling Exotic Pests,” Exotic P/ant Pestsand North American Agriculture, C.L. Wilsonand C.L. Graham (eds.) (I_xmdon, England:Academic Press, 1983), pp. 479-498.16. Coates, J. F., “Factors Shaping and Shaped bythe Environment, 1990-2010, ’ Futures ResearchQuarterly, vol. 7, No. 3, fall 1991, pp. 5-55.17. Coates, J. F., President, Coates & Jarratt, Inc.,Washington, DC, personal communication toOffice of Technology Assessment, Dec. 21,1992.18. Coates, J,F. and Jarratt, J., “What FuturistsBelieve,’ Futures, vol. 24, No. 6, November-December 1990, pp. 22-28.19. Courtenay, W. R., Jr., “Pathways and Consequencesof the Introduction of Non-IndigenousFishes in the United States,” contractor reportprepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,September 1991.20. Cramer, J. and Zegveld, W. C. L., “The FutureRole of Technology in Environmental Management,”Futures, vol. 23, No. 5, June 1991, pp.451-468.21. Crawley, M. J., “The Responses of TerrestrialEcosystems to Global Climate Change,” GlobalClimate and Ecosystem Change, G. MacDonaldand L. Sertorio (eds.) (New York, NY: PlenumPress, 1990).22. Crosson, P., “United States Agriculture and theEnvironment: Perspectives on the Next TwentyYears, ” Resources for the Future, Washington,DC, April 1992.23. Dahlsten, D. L., Garcia, R. and I.mraine, H.,“Eradication as a Pest Management Tbol: Con-24.25.26.27.28.29,30.31.32.cepts and Contexts, ” Eradication of ExoticPests: Analysis with Case Histories, D.L.Dahlsten and R. Garcia (eds,) (Dexter, MI:Thompson-Shore, Inc., 1989), pp. 3-15.Davis, M.B. and Zabinski, C., “Changes inGeographical Range Resulting from Greenhousew arming: Effects on Biodiversity in Forests,”Global Warming and Biological Diversity, P.L.Peters and T.E. Lovejoy (eds.) (New Haven, CN:Yale University Press, 1992), pp. 297-308.Delfosse, E. S,, Director, National BiologicalControl Institute, Animal and Plant Health InspectionService, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Hyattsville, MD, personal communicationto Office of Technology Assessment, Nov. 19,1991.Di Castri, F., “On Invading Species and InvadedEcosystems: The Interplay of Historical Chanceand Biological Necessity,’ Biological Invasionsin Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, F. diCastri, A.J. Hansen, and M. Debussche (eds.)(Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers,1990), pp. 3-16.Dobb, E., “Cultivating Nature,” The Sciences,vol. 32, No. 1, January/February 1992, pp.44-50.Dobson, A., “Climate Change and ParasiticDiseases of Man and Domestic Livestock in theUnited States,” Coping With Climate Change,J.C. Topping (cd.) (Washington, DC: The ClimateInst., 1989), pp. 147-152.Duvick, D, N., “Plant Breeding in the 21stCentury,” Choices, vol. 7, fourth quarter 1992,pp. 26-29.Ehler, L., Professor, Department of Entomology,University of California, Berkeley, CA, personalcommunication to Office of Technology Assessment,Dec. 23, 1992.Elston, R. A., ‘Effective Applications of AquicultureDisease-Control Regulations: RecommendationsFrom an Industry Viewpoint, Dispersal ofLiving Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems, A.Rosenfield and R. Mann (eds.) (College Park,MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992), pp. 353-359.Ehon, C. S., The Ecology of Invasions by Animalsand Plants (Ilmdon, England: Chapman andHall, Ltd., 1958).

Appendix C: References 136733.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.41.42.43.Fetterolf, C. M., ‘‘Why a Great Lakes FisheriesCommission and Why a Sea Lamprey InternationalSymposium,’ Canadian Journal of Fisheriesand Aquatic Sciences, vol. 37, 1980, pp.1588-1593.Fletcher, S.R. and Tiemann, M. E., “Trade andthe Environment, ” CRS Review, CongressionalResearch Service, Washington, DC, February-March, 1992, pp. 29-31,Forcella, F., “Final Distribution Is Related toRate of Spread in Alien Weeds,’ Weed Research,vol. 25, 1985, pp. 181-191.Fox, M. D., “Meditemanean Weeds: Exchangesof Invasive Plants Between the Five MediterraneanRegions of the World, ’ Biological invasionsin Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, F.di Castri, A.J. Hansen, and M. Debussche (eds.)(Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic Publishers, 1990),pp. 179-200.Gasser, C.S. and Fraley, R.T, “GeneticallyEngineering Plants for Crop Improvement,”Science, vol. 244, No, 4910, June 16, 1989, pp.1293-1299.Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, Ann Arbor,Michigan, “A Joint Strategic Plan for Managementof Great Lake Fisheries, ’ December 1980.Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978(revised), as amended by Protocol signed Nov.18,1987, International Joint Commission (Washington,DC and Ottawa, Canada: January 1988).Grooms, L., ‘‘Marketers Address Today’s FlowerTrends, ” Seed World, vol. 130, No. 1, January1992, pp. 19-22.Hanrahan, C. E., ‘Agriculture in the North AmericanFree Trade Agreement: A Preliminary Assessmerit,’ CRS Report for Congress, 92-716 S,Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress,Washington, DC, Sept. 21, 1992.Harville, J,P. (cd,), Proceedings of the NorthAmerican Fisheries Leadership Workshop, Snowbird,UT, May 21-23 (Bethesda, MD: AmericanFisheries Society, Fisheries Administrators Section,1991).Houghton, J,T, Jenkins, G. J., Ephraums, J.J.(eds.), Climate Change-The IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change Scientific Assessment,World Meteorological Organization/U.N. Envi-ronrnent Programme (Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniv. Press, 1990).44. International Union for the Conservation ofNature and Natural Resources, EnvironmentalLaw Centre, Bonn, Germany, “Biological DiversityConvention Draft,” June 30, 1989.45. Jablonski, D., “Extinctions: A PaleontologicalPerspective,” Science, vol. 253, No. 5021, Aug.16, 1991, pp. 754-757.46. Johnson, D. C., “Recession Impacts and EconomicOutlook for the U.S. Nursery, Greenhouse,and ‘Ihrfgrass Industries, AgricultureOutlook ’93. Prospects for Fruit and Vegetables,Floriculture and Forest Products, booklet 2,U.S. Department of AgriculNe, Washington,DC, 1992, pp. 3-12.47. Kahn, R. P., “Exclusion as a Plant DiseaseControl Strategy,” Annual Review of Phytopa -thology, vol. 29, 1991, pp. 219-246.48. Kahn, R. P., Consultant, Rockville, MD, personalcommunication to the Office of TechnologyAssessment, Dec. 4, 1991.49. Kareiva, P. M., Kingsolver, J. G., and R.B. Huey(eds.), Biotic Interactions and Global Change(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Assoc., 1993).50. Kennedy, V. S., “Potential Climate Effects ofClimate Change on Chesapeake Bay Animalsand Fisheries, ” Coping With Climate Change,J.C. Topping (cd.) (Washington, DC: The ClimateInst., 1989), pp. 509-513.51. Kim, K.C, and Wheeler, A. G., Jr., “Pathwaysand Consequences of the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Insects and Arachnids in the UnitedStates,’ contractor report prepared for the Ofliceof Technology Assessment, December 1991.52, Kludy, D. H., “Federal Policy on Non-Indigenous Species—The Role of the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture’s Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, ” contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, December 1991,53. Lausche, B., “International Laws and AssociatedPrograms for In-Situ Conservation of WildSpecies, ’ contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, September1985.54. Lederberg, J., Shope, R. E., and Oaks, S. C., Jr.(eds.), Emerging Infections: Microbial Threats

-368I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63.64.to Health in the United States (Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1992),Longstreth, J. and Wiseman, J., “The PotentialImpact of Climate Change on Patterns of InfectiousDisease in the United States, ’ The PotentialEflects of Global Climate Change on theUnited States, Appendi.r G, Health, J.B. Smithand D. Tirpak (eds.), EPA-230-05-89-057 (Washington,DC: Office of Policy, Planning, andEvaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,May 1989), pp. 3-1—3-41.Lubchenco, J. et al., ‘‘The Sustainable BiosphereInitiative: An Ecological Research Agenda,”Ecolofl, vol. 72, No, 2, 1991, pp. 371412.Lyster, S., International Wildlife Law (Cambridge,England: Grotius Publications, 1985).MacArthur, R. H., Geographical Ecology (NewYork, NY: Harper and Row, 1972).Macdonald, I. A. W,, Imope, L. L., Usher, M. B.,and Hamann, O., “Wildlife Conservation andthe Invasion of Nature Reserves by IntroducedSpecies: A Global Perspective,’ Biological Invasions,J.A. Drake et al. (eds.), Scope 37 (Chichester,UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1989), pp.215-255.Mack, R. N., “Additional Information on Non-Indigenous Plants in the United States,’ contractorreport prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, Washington, DC, October 1992.Magnuson, J.J. et al., “Potential Responses ofGreat Lakes Fishes and Their Habitat to GlobalClimate Warming,” The Potential Eflects ofGloabl Climate Change on the United States,Appendix E, Aquatic Resources, J.B. Smith andD. Tirpak (eds.), EPA-230-05-89-055 (Washington,DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,June 1989), pp. 2-1—242.Marien, M. (cd.), “A Future Survey Guide to 50Overviews and Agenda’ s,” Futures ResearchQuarterly, vol. 6, No. 1, spring 1990, pp.103-112.M’Boob, S., U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization-Africa,presentation at the North AmericanPlant Protection Organization Workshop onInternational Pest Risk Analysis, Alexandria,VA, Oct. 23, 1991.Miller, W.F, Dougherty, P.M. and Switzer, G. L.,“Rising C02 and Changing Climate: Major65.66.67.68.69,70.71.72.73.74.Southern Forest Management Implications,”The Greenhouse Effect, Climate Change, andU.S. Forests (Washington, DC: The ConservationFoundation, 1987).Minnesota Interagency Exotic Species TaskForce, Report and Recommendations, final edit(St. Paul, MN: State of Minnesota, Departmentof Natural Resources, July 1991).Moulton, W,, “Constraints to International Exchangeof Animal Germplasm, ” contractor reportprepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, October 1985.Munton, P., “Problems Associated With IntroducedSpecies,” paper presented at the Workshopon Feral Animals at the Third InternationalTheriological Conference, Helsinki, Finland,August 1982.National Research Council, Biological Contaminationof Mars: Issues and Recommendations,Space Studies Board (Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press, 1992).North American Plant Protection Organization,Pest Risk Analysis Panel, ‘A Process for Analyzingthe Risk to Plants and Plant Products Posedby the Introduction and/or Spread of BioticAgents,” discussion paper, Nov. 22, 1991.Ness, R. F., “From Endangered Species to Biodiversity,’Balancing on the Brink of Extinction,K,A. Kohm (cd,) (Washington, DC: Island Press $1991), pp. 227-242,O’Rourke, D., Director, Impact Center, WashingtonState University, Pullman, WA, personalcommunication to K.E. Bannon, Office of TechnologyAssessment, July 12, 1993.Parker, N. C., “Economic Pressures DrivingGenetic Changes in Fish,” Introductions andTransfers of Marine and Anadromous Species,’Dispersal of Living Organisms Into AquaticEcosystems, A. Rosenfield and R. Mann (eds.)(College Park MD: Maryland Sea Grant, 1992),pp. 415419.Parry, M, L,, Climate Change and World Agriculture@mdon, England: Earthscan Publishers,1990).Peters, R. L,, ‘‘Consequences of Global Warmingfor Biological Diversity, ’ Global ClimateChange and Life on Earth, R.L. Wyman (cd.)

—Appendix C: References 36975.76.77.78.79.80.81.82.83.84.85.86.87.(New York, NY: Chapman and Hall, 1991), pp.99-118.Reed, C.F. and Hughes, R. O., EconomicallyImportant Foreign Weeds, USDA AgriculturalHandbook Number 498 (Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, 1977).Rensberger, B., ‘‘Marine Biology: Blue Crabs tothe Rescue?” The Washington Post, Feb. 24,1992, p. A2.Rinderer, T.E. et al., “The Proposed Honey BeeRegulated Zone in Mexico,” American BeeJournal, March 1987, pp. 160-164.Ritchie, M., “GA~, Agriculture and the Environment:The U.S. Double Zero Plan, ’ TheEcologist, vol. 20, No, 6, November-December1990, pp. 214-220.Schneider, K., “Ranges of Animals and PlantsHead North,” The New York Times, Aug. 13,1991, p. cl.Schneider, S. H., Mearns, L. and P.H. Gleick,‘‘Climate-Change Scenarios for Impact Assessmerit,” Global Warming and Biological Diversity,R.L. Peters and T.E. Imvejoy (eds.) (NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), pp.38-55.Scott, D. C., ‘ ‘Mexico’s Avocado Growers GrumbleOver Unlikely Beachhead-Alaska,’ ChristianScience Monitor, Nov. 9, 1992, p, 6.Shetler, S. G., “Three Faces of Eden, ” Seeds ofChange Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press,1991), PP. 227-247.Shope, R. E., “Global Climate Change andInfectious Disease,’ EnvironmntalHealth Perspectives,vol. 96, 1991, pp. 171-174.Shrybman, S., ‘ ‘International Trade: In Search ofan Environmental Conscience, ’ EPA Journal,July-August 1990, pp. 17-19.Simberloff, D. and Cox, J., “Consequences andCosts of Conservation Corridors,’ ConservationBiology, vol. 1, No. 1, 1987, pp. 63-71.SOU16, M. E., “Conservation Biology in theTwenty-first Century: Summary and Outlook”Conservation for the Twenty jirst Century, D.Western and M.C. Pearl (eds.) (New York, NY:Oxford Univ. Press, 1989), pp. 297-303.Soul&, M. E., ‘‘The Onslaught of Alien Species,and Other Challenges in the Coming Decades, ’88.89.90.91.92.93.94.95.96.97.98.Conservation Biology, vol. 4, No. 3, September1990, pp. 233-239.Soul+ M. E,, “Conservation: Tactics for a ConstantCrisis, ” Science, vol. 253, No. 5021, Aug.16, 1991, pp. 744-750.Steadman, D. W., “Extinction of Species: Past,Present, and Future,” Global Climate Changeand Life on Earth, R.L. Wyman (cd.) (New York,NY: Chapman and Hall, 1991), pp. 156-169.Stinner, B.R. et al., ‘‘Potential Effects of ClimateChange on Plant-Pest Interactions,’ The PotentialE#ects of Global Climate Change on theUnited States, Appendix C, Agriculture, J.B.Smith and D. Tirpak (eds.), EPA-230-05-89-053(Washington, DC: Office of Policy, Plaming,and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, June 1989), pp. 8-l—8-35,Strobel, G. A., “Biological Control of Weeds,”Scientific American, vol. 265, No. 1, July 1991,pp. 72-78.Tayama, H. K., “New Developments in WorldFloriculture Markets,’ Agriculture Outlook ’93,Late Speeches (1), Booklet 9, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Washington, DC, Dec. 2, 1992,pp. 44-57.Uher, R. A., ‘‘Levitating Trains, ” The Futurist,vol. 24, No. 5, September/October 1990, pp.28-32.United Nations, Convention on the Luw of theSea and Resolutions I-IV, Third United NationsConference on the Law of the Sea, EleventhSession, New York, March-April, 1982.United Nations Environment Programme, ‘DraftConvention on Biological Diversity,” May 22,1992, Art. 8.U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, lnternationalEnviron men t: International AgreementsAre Not Well Monitored, RCED-92-43 (Gaithersburg,MD: U.S. General Accounting Office,January 1992).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Changing by Degrees: Steps to ReduceGreenhouse (2nes, OTA-482 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1991).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Trade and Environment: Conjlicts andOpportunities, OTA-BP-ITE-94 (Washington,

370Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States99.100.101.102.103.104.105.DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May1992).U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessrnen~Preparingfwan Uncertain Climate (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, inpress).U.S. Department of Agriculture, AgricultureStatistics 1990 (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1990).U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal andPlant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services,Import-Export Program, ‘‘Program MonitoringReview” (undated).U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office ofthe Press Secretary, “Statement by the Presidenton United States Ocean Policy, Mar. 10, 1983,”Washington, DC.U.S. Executive Office of the President, Scienceand Technology (Washington, DC: GMce ofScience and Technology Policy, 1993).U.S. Interagency Task Force, “Review of U. S.-Mexico Environmental Issues,” Office of theU.S. Trade Representative, Washington, DC,February 1992, as cited in U.S. Congress, Officeof Technology Assessment, Trade and Environment:Conflicts and Opportunities, OTA-BP-ITE-94 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, May 1992).Usher, M. B,, “Biological Invasions of NatureReserves: A Search for Generalizations,” BiologicalConservation, vol. 44, Nos. 1/2, 1988,pp. 119-135,106.107,108.109.110.111.112.113.114.Verrneij, G. J., ‘‘When Biotas Meet: UnderstandingBiotic Interchange,” Science, vol. 253, No.5024, Sept. 6, 1991, pp. 1099-1104.Vogt, D. U,, Congressional Research Service,Library of Congress, Washington, DC, memorandumentitled ‘GA~ Sanitary and PhytosanitaryProposals, ” Nov. 14, 1990.Vogt, D. U., “Sanitary and Phytosanitary MeasuresPertaining to Food in International TradeNegotiations,” Congressional Research Service,Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Sept. 11,1992.Waldrop, J., ‘Garden Variety Customers, “AmericanDemographics, vol. 15, No. 4, April 1993,pp. 44-49.Warrick, R.A. et al., “The Effects of IncreasedC02 and Climatic Change on Terrestrial Ecosystems,The Greenhouse Effect, ClimaticChange, and Ecosystems, SCOPE 29, B. Bolin etal. (eds.) (Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons,1986), Pp. 363-392.Welcomrne, R.L., “International Measures forthe Control of Introduction of Aquatic Organisms,”Fisheries, vol. 11, No. 2, May-April1986, pp. 4-9.Westman, W. E., “Managing for Biodiversity—Unresolved Science and Policy Questions,”Bioscience, vol. 40, No. 1, January 1990, pp.26-33.Wyman, R.L. (cd.), Global Climate Change andI#e on Earth (New York, NY: Chapman andHall, 1991).Ziegler, W., “Envisioning the Future,” Futures,vol. 23, No. 5, June 1991, pp. 516-527.

Index toCommon andScientificNames ofSpeciesCommon Namel (Scientific Name)Disease PathogensAfrican swine feve~, Iridoviridae, 304annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum = Fomesunnosus), 6, 301black stem rust (Puccinia grarninis), 207bluetogue virus, Reoviridae (Orbivirus), 176bT (Bacil/us thuringiensis), 153-6, 160, 196, 198,284burrowing nematode (Radopholus sirnilis), 262chestnut blight (Cryphonecrria parasitic), 58, 66, 74, 118,179chrysanthemum rust (Puccinia ch~’santhemi = P. tanaceti),37chrysanthemum white rust (Puccinia horiana), 82, 105citrus canker (Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri), 104, 139,175,207, 262, 264citrus nematode (Tylenchu[us semipenetrans), 262corn cyst nematode (Heterodtera zeae), 105crown gall disease (Agrobacteriurn tumefaciens), 198dengue fever, Flaviviridae (Flavivirus), 70, 81,262dogwood anthracnose (Discula destructive), 52Dutch elm disease (C’eratocystis ulmi = Ophiostoma ulmi),66,88,98, 118, 179eastern equine encephalitis, Togaviridae (Alphavirus), 81,70, 262Eastern filbert blight (Anisogramma anomala), 184foot and mouth disease, Picornaviridae (Aphthovirus), 6,126, 141,301golden nematode (Globodera rosrochiensis), 81,91, 176~sy moth nuclear polyhedrosis virus, Baculoviridae(Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus), 154, 198heliothis nuclear polyhedrosis virus, Baculoviridae (NuclearPolyhedrosis Virus), 154, 198hog cholera (European swine fever), Flaviviridae(Pestivirus), 68Karnal bunt fimgus (Tilletiu indica), 175LaCrosse encephalitis, Bunyaviridae (Bunyavints), 81larch canker (Luchnelhda spp.), 6, 301malaria, caused by (Plasmodti spp.), 253, 304needle cast (i%.fycospaereila laricina), 105oak wilt disease (Ceratocystis fagacearum), 74peanut stripe virus, Potyviridae (Potyvirus), 50,84, 180pine sawfly nuclear polyhedrosis virus, Baculoviridae(Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus), 198pine wood nematodes (Bursaphelenchus spp. B. lignicolus),6,288,301Port-Orford cedar root disease (Phytophthora lareralis), 179potato virus y—necrotic strain (n), Potyviridae (Potyvirus),105Rift valley fever virus, Bunyaviridae (Phlebovirus), 304rust fungus (on chrysanthemum)---see chrysanthemum whiterustsmut fungus (on rice) (Ustilago esculenta), 82, 105, 227soybean rust fungus (Phakopsora pachyrhizi), 6, 115, 301swine flu, Orthomyxovitidae (Orthomyxovirus), 52tomato spotted wilt virus, Bunyaviridae (Tospovirus), 160tussock moth nuclear polyhedrosis virus, Baculoviridae(Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus), 198wheat rust fungus (Puccinia recondite), 65white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola), 66, 118, 179yellow fever, Flaviviridae (Flavivkus), 701 Only scientific names are listed for species that do not have generally accepted common names and for most of the species for which nocommon names were provided in the original references.2 For most viruses, scientific names at the species level are not formally recognized, nor have problems in nomenclature been resolved. OTAlists viruses by their family, followed by genus when it is available,371

372 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States(Agrobacterium radiobacter), bacteria, 198(Agrobacterium tumefaciens), bacteria, 268,276(Aschochyta rabiei = Phoma rabiei), blight on chickpeas,104(Bacil[us lentimorbus), bacteria, 198(Bacillus popilliae), bacteria, 154, 198(Bacillus sphaericus), bacteria, 198(Bonamia ostreae), oyster parasite, 288(Colletotrichum gloeosprioides), fungus, 198(G/ioc/adium virens), fungus, 198(Hirschrnanniella spp.), nematode, 227(L.ugenidium gigantium), fungus, 154, 198(Mytilicola orientalism), copepod parasite, 80(Nosema Iocustae), protozoa, 154, 198(Perilitus coccinellae, wasp parasite, 49,90(Phytophthora palrnivora), fungus, 154, 198(Pseudomonas fluorescent), bacteria, 198(Puccinia carduorum), rust fungus, 82, 105(Puccirzia chondrillina), rust fungus, 56(Pythium spp.), 198(Rhizoctonia spp.), 198(Spiroplasma spp.), 273(Subanguina picridis), nematode, 82, 105(Trichoderma harzianum), fungus, 198(Trichoderma polysporum), fungus, 198(Trypanosoma cruzi), protozoa, 304Insects and ArachnidsAfrican honey bee (Apismellifera scutellata), 4,6,17,37,46,50,57,59,69,83,88,101, 144-5,176,181,199,229, 263,301,305alfalfa blotch leafrniner (Agromyzafiorztella), 126alfalfa weevil (Hypera postica), 66American elm bark beetle (Hylurgopinus rufipes), 88apple errnine moth (Yponomeuta rnalinella), 101, 206apple pith moth (Blasrodacna atra), 101apple sucker (Psylla mali), 101Argentine ant (Zridomyrmex humilis), 91,240armywonm (Pseudaletia unipuncta), 237, 243ash whitefly (Siphoninus phyllyreae), 9, 101, 152Asian cockroach (Blattella asahinai), 91, 101Asian gypsy moth (Lymuntria dispar), 6,37-8,41,80, 101,105, 112, 117-9,206, 301Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus), 8,46,69,80-1,88,101, 112, 144, 148, 165, 199, 200,261-3avocado mite (0/igonychus persae), 101bagoine weevil (Bagous afirzis), 264Bahamian mosquito (Aedes bahamensis), 101baileyana psyllid (Acizzia acaciae-baileyanae), 101balsam wooly adelgid (Adelgespiceae), 66,71, 179banana moth (Opogona sacchari), 101beach fly (Procanace dianneae), 101black parlatoria scale (Parlatoria ziziphi), 101blow fly (Chrysomya megacephala), 101blue gum psyllid (Ctenarytaina eucalypti), 101boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis), 6,10,37,65,126,148-9,154, 156, 176,301bollworm-see cotton bollwonnbudworrn (Choristoneura spp.), 198bumble bee (Bombus spp.) 49burrower bug (Aethus nigritus) 101cabbage looper (Trichoplusia ni) 274Caribbean fruit fly (Anastrepha suspensa), 207cactus moth (Cactoblastis cactorum), 61, 101cereal leaf beetle (Oulema melanopus), 58chestnut weevil (Curculio elephas), 140citrus blackfly (Aleurocanthus woglumi), 262convergent lady beetle (Hippodamia convergent), 49, 90cotton boll weevil-see boll weevilcotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea), 146, 154, 198diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella), 89Douglas fu tussock moth (Orgy iapseudotsugata), 198eucalyptus longhorn borer (Phoracantha semipunctata), 102eucalyptus psyllid (Ctenarytaina spp.), 102eugenia psyllid (Trioza eugensae), 102Eurasian lace bug @ictyfa echii), 78European barberry fruit maggot (Rhugoletis meigenii), 102European com bonx (Ostrinia nubilalis), 176European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar), 1,4-5, 17,33,37,50,57,59,67,69,85,87, 91,99, 105, 119, 146-7, 150,154, 157, 174, 176, 178-9, 181, 184, 195, 198,206,252European honey bee (Apis melhfera), 37,56,90, 144-5,175,229European violet gall midge (Dasineura afinis), 102false codling moth (Cryptophlebia leucotreta), 140f~e ant-see imported fm antforest cockroach (Ectobius sylvestris), 102fuchsia mite (Aculopsfichsiae), 102German cockroach (Blattella germanica), 57grass webworm (Herpetogramrna Iicarsisalis), 243green wattle psyllid (Acizzia nr. jucunda), 102guava fruit fly (Bactrocera correcta), 102gypsy moth-see European gypsy mothhoney bee-see European honey beehoney bee tracheal mite (Acarapis woodi), 66,90, 102, 181honey bee varroa mite (Varroa jacobson~~, 37,66,90, 102,175,207imported f~e ant (So/enopsis invicta, S. richteri), 4, 10, 57,59,63,69-70,91,99-100, 148-9, 176, 184,262imported klarnathweed beetle (AgasicZes hygrophila), 9, 152Japanese beetle (PopiZlia japonica), 91, 154, 184, 198,207khapra beetle (Trogoderma granariurn), 175leaf-mining fly (Hydrellti pakistanae, H. spp.), 264lesser apple worm (Enorrninia prunivora), 289lesser cornstalk borer (Elasmopalpus lignosellus), 242, 250

Index to Common and Specific Names of Species 1373lichen moth (Lycomorphodes sordida), 102longhorn beetle (Tetrops praeusta), 102Malaysian fruit fly (Bactrocera /a@wns), 244mason bee (Osmia cornuta), 82medfly-see Mediterranean fruit flyMediterranean fruit fly (Cerutitis capirata), 6,8-9,37,48,57,65,89, 126, 139-40, 144-5, 152, 154, 160, 175, 181,204,237, 243-4, 249, 251, 262, 264, 301Meditemanean mint aphid (Eucarazzia elegans), 102melon fly (Dacus cucurbitae), 237, 243JIMexfly-see Mexican fruit flyMexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens), 177monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), 75nesting whitefly (Paraleurodes minei), 103New World screwworm (Cochliomyia hominivorax), 154nine spotted ladybird beetle (CoccinelZa novernnotata), 61nun moth (Ljvnantria monacha), 6, 118, 301Oriental fruit fly (Dacus dorsalis), 237,2434peach fruit fly (Bactrocera zonata), 103pear thrip (Taeniothrips inconsequent), 67, 181pepper tree psyllid (Calophya schini), 103pine sawfly, (Neodiprion spp.), 198pine shoot beetle (Tomicuspiniperda), 103pink bollworm (Pectinophora go,wypiella), 66pirate bug (Braschysteles panicornis), 103poinsettia whitefly-see sweet potato whiteflypotato leafhopper (Empoascafabae), 304privet sawfly (Macrophya punctumalbum), 103red clover seed weevil (Tychius stephensi), 103Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia), 4,50,58-9,65-6,79,98, 103, 175-6, 181, 184seed head weevil (Rhinocyllus conicus), 9, 152seven spotted lady beetle (Coccinella septempunctata), 61Siberian elm aphid (Tinoca/lis zelkowae), 104southern mole cricket (Scapteriscus acletus), 100, 258, 262spider wmp (A14pk~pus carbonarius), 104spindletree ermine moth (Yponomeutu cagnage[la), 104spruce bark beetles (Zps typographus and others), 6, 104,301sugar cane beetle borer (Rhabdoscelus obscurus), 242sugar cane leafhopper (Perkinsie//a saccharicida), 242stink bug (Pellaea srictica), 104sweet potato whitefly (Bemisia tabaci), 103, 105, 143, 160,181tatarica honeysuckle aphid (Hyadaphis lataricue), 104tawny mole cricket (Scap(eriscus vicinus), 100, 258, 262tracheal mite—see honey bee tracheal mitetrifly— see melon fly, Mediterranean fmit fly, and orientaltiuit flytristania psyllid (Ctenarytaina Iongicauda), 104two-teeth Pityogenes bark beetle (Pityogenes bidentatus),104varroa mite-see honey bee varroa mitewaxflower wmp (Aprostocetus spp.), 104wax moth (Galleria melionella), 198western flower thrip (Frankliniella occidentals), 160western yellow jacket (Vespula pensylvanica), 240wheat bulb maggot (DeZia coarcta?a), 104yellow fever mosquito (Aedes aegypti), 304yellow sugarcane aphid (Sipha fla)a), 243, 245, 250(Agonopterix alstroemeriana), moth, 103(Allococcus spp.), mealybug, 102(Amaurorhinus bewickianus), weevil, 104(Arnbrosiodmus Lwisi), beetle, 101(Anchastus augusn’, beetle, 102(Anophe/es spp.), mosquito, 304(Anthrenus pimpinellae), beetle, 102(Anthribus nebufosus), scale predator, 103(Araptus dentifions), beetle, 101(Aspidomorpha transparipennis), beetle, 104(A[hrips moujfetella), moth, 103(Athrips rancideila), moth, 103(Bembidion bruxellense), beetle, 102(Bembidionproperans), beetle, 102(Brachyderes incanus), weevil, 104(Brachydeutera longipes), fly, 104(Ceratocapsus nigropiceus), plant bug, 103(Chaetocnema concinna), beetle, 102(Chelostoma campanularum), bee, 103(Chelostomajidiginosum), bee, 103(Chilacis typhae), seed bug, 103(Chramesus varius), beetle, 101(Chrysolinafasfuosa), beetle, 102(Clitostethus arcuatus), beetle, 9, 152(Coccotr)pes robustus), beetle, 101(Coccotrypes }wlgaris), beetle, 101(Coenonica puncticollis), beetle, 103(Coieophora deauratella), moth, 102(Coleophora colutella), moth, 102(Decadiomus bahamicus), beetle, 102(Delphacodesfulvidorsum), planthopper, 102(Delta campanforrne rendalfi), wasp, 103(Ectobius Iapponicus), cockroach, 102(Encarsia partenopea), wasp, 9, 152(Epi/ampra maya), cockroach, 102(Erista/inus taeniops), fly, 102(Eupteryx arropunctata), leafhopper, 102(Gabrius astutoides), beetle, 103(Gnamptogenys aculeaticoxqe), ant, 101(Grapholita delineana), moth, 103(Greenidiaformosana), aphid, 101(Grjpotes puncticollis), leafhopper, 102(Harrnonia a~’ridis), beetle, 102(Harmonia quadripunctata), beetle, 102(Harpalus rubripes), beetle, 102(Hererobostrychus harnatipennis), beetle, 101

374 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States(Heterotaplumbea), beetle, 103(Hyalopsallus diaphanous), plant bug, 103(Ischnoptera bihmata), cockroach, 102(Ischnoptera nox), cockroach, 102(Joberrus chrysolectrus), plant bug, 103(Lusioderma haemorrhoidale), beetle, 101(Lepthyphantes tenuis), spider, 104(Liliacina diversipes), sawfly, 103(Longitarsus luridus), beetle, 102(Lyciella rortia), fly, 102(Melittiphis alveartus), mite, 103(Metriona tuberculata) beetle, 104(NeobZatre//a detersa) cockroach, 102(Noctua comes), moth, 103(Notiophilus biguttatus), beetle, 102(Orthocephalus saltator), plant bug, 103(O~poda opaca), beetle, 103(Ozamia lucidalis), moth, 101(Paracarnus cubanus), plant bug, 103(Parapristina verticillata), wasp, 58(Pheidole tener[~anu), ant, 101(Pityogenes bidentatus), beetle, 101(Placopsidella grandis), fly, 104(P/inthisus brevipennis), seed bug, 103(Polistes dominulus), wasp, 103(Po/istes diminulus), wasp, 103(Prepops cruciferus), plant bug, 103(Priobium carpini), beetle, 101(Pristiphora aquilegiae), sawfly, 103(Proba hyalina), plant bug, 103(Psa/lus albipennis), plant bug, 103(Psallus lepidus), plant bug, 103(Psallus variabilis), plant bug, 103(Pseudococcus elisae), mealybug, 249(Pseudothysanoes securigerus), beetle, 101(Rhagio strigosus), 104(Rhagio tringarius), 104(Rhinocioa pa/Zidipes), plant bug, 103(Rhinoncus bruchoides), weevil, 104(Rhizedra lutosa), moth, 103(Rhizophagusparallelocollis), beetle, 103(Scymnus suturalis), beetle, 102(Sogatella kolophon), planthopper, 102(StaphyZinus brunnipes), beetle, 103(Staphylinus similis), beetle, 103(Stethorus nigripes), beetle, 102(Stheneridea wdgaris), plant bug, 103(Sunius melanocephdus), beetle, 103(SympZoce morsei), cockroach, 102(Syrittajlaviventris), fly, 102(Tachinus rufipes), beetle, 103(Technomyrmex albipes), ant, 101(Tetraleurodes spp), whitefly, 93, 104(Tetrastichus haitiensis), wasp, 102(Theoborus solitariceps), beetle, 101(Thripspabni), thrips, 104(Tomicus piniperda), beetle, 80(Trechus discus), beetle, 101(Trechus quadristriata), beetle, 102(Triatoma spp.), 304(Trochosa ruricola), spider, 104(Urocerus sah), wasp, 104(Vogtia malloi), moth, 9, 152(Xiphydria prolongata), wasp, 104(Xyleborus pelliculosus), beetle, 101(Xylelborus atratus), beetle, 101(Xenylla afin~ortnis), collembolan, 102(Zeta argillaceum), wasp, 103Invertebrates (mollusks, crustaceans, worms)African giant snail (Achatinafilica), 84,238,258, 2&lAsian clam (Corbiculajluminea), 4,50,58-9,67-8,79,86,88,91Asian tapeworm (Bothriocephalus opsarichthydis), 71,80Asiatic clam (Corbicula manilensis), 263Atlantic oyster (Crassostrea virginica), 207blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), 291California sea squirt (Botry/loides diegense), 91common periwinkle (Littorea littorea), 71decollate snail (Z?umina decollata), 90eastern mudsnail-see mud snailgiant African snail-see African giant snailgiant tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon), 83, 105Japanese snail (Ocenebrajaponica), 80mitten crab (Eriocheir spp.), 22mud snail (Ilyanassa obsoleta), 71opossum shrimp (Mysis relicta), 73Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas), 56,80, 83, 151,207Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei), 56,85, 105periwinkle-see common periwinklerosy snail (Eughndina rosea), 71, 238schistosomes (Schistosoma spp.), 69slipper limpet (Crepidulafornicata), 288spiny water flea (Bythotrephes cederstroemi), 105, 194water flea (Daphniu spp.), 90zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha, D. spp.), 1, 4-6, 9,16-7,19,21,34,41,52, 57,59,67-8,73,81,98, 104,112,138, 145, 152, 157-8, 165-6, 185, 194, 198-9,224,248,291,294,297, 300-1(Alcadia striata), clam, 104(Anodonta spp), mussel, 90(Argulusjaponicus), copepod, 90(Ascaris lumbricoides), worm, 304(Biomphdaria spp.), snail, 69

Index to Common and Specific Names of Species 1375(Cernuella virgatu), snail, 104(Corophium louistinum), crustacean, 89(Elimia comalensis = Balcones elimia), 72(Gammarus mucronatus), crustacean, 89(Hernigrapsus sanguineous), crab, 105(Orconectes rusticus), crayf~h, 71(Orconectes virilis), crayfish, 71(Parelaphostrongy los tenuis), worm, 71(Pha[lodrilus aquaedulcis), aquatic worm, 105(Potamocorbula amurensis), clam, 81, 104(Potamopyrgus antipodanum), snail, 85,98, 104(Pseudodiaptomus forbesi), copepod, 105(Pseudodiaptomus inopinus), copepod, 105(Pseudodiatomus marinus), copepod, 105(Pseudostylochus ostreophagus), flatworm, 80(Ripistes parasitic), aquatic worm, 91(Rumina decoilata), snail, 90(Teneridrilus mastix), aquatic worm, 105(Theorafiagi/is), clam, 104(Theora lubrica), clam, 81Fishesalewife ( A[osa pseudotirengus), 79bigeye lates (Lutes mariae), 83bighead carp (Hypophthdmichthys nobilis), 83, 104blue tilapia (Tilapia aurea), 263blue-eyed cichlid (Cich!asoma spi!urum), 104bream, several genera and species, 263brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis), 74, 188brown darter (Etheostoma edwini), 262brown trout (Salmo trutta), 56, 64, 74, 228carp-see common carpchinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytschu), 18, 120, 186coho salmon (Oncorhychus h“stch), 288common carp (Cyprinus carpio), 73, 277-8cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), 76European carp-see common carpEuropean zander—see zanderfour-spine sticklebacks (Apeltes quadracus), 91golden trout (Oncorhynchus aquabonita), 64goldfish (Carassius auratus), 57grass carp (Ctenophayzgodon idella), 71,73,80,90, 150-1,188, 193,213, 263-4, 271green swordtail (Xiphophorus hel[eri), 85hybrid bass (Morone chrysops x M. saxatilis), 131jaguar guapote (Cichlasoma manaquense), 104kirgemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), 56,90long tom (Strongylura he@’), 104Mayan cichlid (Cichlasoma urophthalmus), 104mosquito fish (Gambusia afinis, Gambusia spp,), 71Nile perch (Lutes niloticus), 83northern pike (Esox lucius), 9, 152, 160Okaloosa darter (Etheostoma okaloosae), 262Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), 52,297peacock bass—see peacock cichlidpeacock cichlid (Cichla ocehlzris), 84, 263piranha, several genera and species, 213rainbow krib (Pelviachromis pulcher), 104rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), 79rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus myh”ss), 56, 64, 74, 76, 187rainwater killfish (Lucania parva), 90razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), 71redstriped eartheater (Geophagus surinamensis), 104round goby (Neogobius melanostomus), 104xudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus), 90ruffe (Gymnocephahn cernuus),9, 67, 81, 91, 104, 152, 198sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), 67, 79.126, 131, 161,186, 208,269, 297shad (Alosa sapidissima), 76sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegates), 6, 88sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus), 90striped bass (Morone sa.xatilis), 56, 187, 276Texas big-scale logperch (Percina macrolepida), 90tilapia (Tilapia spp.), 52tubenose goby (Proterorhinus marmoratus), 104walking catfish (Clarias batrachus), 213walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), 9, 83, 99, 152white bass (Morone chrysops), 220yellowbelly cichlid (Cichlasoma salvini), 104zander (Stizostedion lucioperca), 83, 99, 207, 297zebra danio (Danio rerio), 85, 104(Ancistrus sp.), 104Vertebrates (mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds)African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis), 57, 84American oyster-catcher (Haemaropus palliates), 75, 262anole (Ano/is spp.), 89barn owl (Tyto alba), 56beach mouse (Peromyscuspolionotus phasma), 262black-hooded parakeet (ZVandayus nenday), 84black iguana (Ctenosaura spp.), 292boa constrictor (Boa constrictor), 84boa.-see hogbobcat (Felis ru,s), 84brown-headed cowbird (A4010thrus ater), 71brown tree snake (l?oiga irregulars), 2,5,68,72,76,81,91,176, 187.195, 246-8bull frog (Rana cutesbeiana), 90burro (Equus asinus), 131, 148, 166, 178, 190,204Californian condor (Gymnogyps cal~ornianus), 52cane toad (Bufo nm-inus), 160, 258

376 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesCape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramus rnaritimusmirabilis), 262cat (Fe/is caftus), 50, 57, 131, 199, 262cattle (Bos raw-us), 3, 78, 189, 236-7, 243cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), 237chuckar—see chukar partridgechukar partridge (Alectoris chukar), 57, 94, 178, 190, 228coyote (Cunis Iutrans), 73, 213crocodile (Caiman crocodiles), 84Cuban brown anole (Anolis sagrei), 257desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), 75dog (Carzisfarni/iaris), 49-50, 57,69, 131, 138, 143, 188,199, 236, 248, 251-3,262donkey-see burroeastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), 71English sparrow (Passer domestics), 63,99, 228European fallow deer (Dama darna), 84European pig—see hogEuropean rabbit (Orycto/agus curzictdus), 33,75, 213, 246,253European starling-see starlingferal burro-see burroferal cat—see catferal dog—see dogferal European pig—see hogferal goat—see goatferal hog-—see hogferal horse-see horseferal rabbit—see rabbitferal sheep-see sheepFlorida panther (Felis concoior coryi), 49, 76, 265giant rat (Cricetrnys gambianus, C’. emini), 292goat (Capra hircus), 7, 61, 148, 151, 178, 189, 204, 236-7,240, 246, 268, 271green anole (Anolis carolinensis), 257grey wolf––see wolfgrizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), 135Guam rail (Rallus owstoni), 76Hawaiian goose—see neneHawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi), 234Himalayan snow cock (Tetraogallus himalayensis), 94hog (Sus scrofa, Sus scrofa domesricus), 9,33,50,52,61,73,76, 131, 152, 188,205,218,220,236, 237,240,263,265horse (Equus caballus), 9, 111, 131, 148, 152, 166, 178,189-90, 204, 236house sparrow-see English sparrowHungarian partidge (Perdix perdix), 228Indian mongoose (Iferpestes auropunctatus), 9, 152, 160,236ka.lij pheasant (L.ophuru leucomelana), 246key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium), 262Kirtland’s warbler (Dcndroiea kirl/andii), 71lion (Punthera Ieo), 212, 218loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), 75longhorn cattle (Bos taurus), 187mongoose—see Indian mongoosemonk parakeet (h4yiopsitta monachus), 84, 258mouflon sheep (Ovis spp.), 204Muscovy duck (Cairina moschata), 228mute swan (C’ygnus olor) 228myna bird (Acridotheres tristis), 237nene (Branta sandvicensis), 236Nile monitor lizard (Varanus niloticus), 84nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), 263nutria (it4yocaster coypus), 213, 228Old World blackheaded gull (L.arus ridibundus), 52ostrich (Struthio camelus), 141palila (Loxioides bailleui), 204,246pig—see hograbbit—see European rabbitrat (I?attus spp. ), 56, 131, 236, 242, 299red deer (Cervus elaphus), 141, 217, 220red-vented bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus), 243red-whiskered bulbul (Pycnonotus cafer), 243ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), 57,82,94, 178,190, 228Rocky Mountain goat (Oreamnus americanus), 94San Juan rabbit—see European rabbitscarlet kingsnake (L.umpropeltis triangulum elapsoides), 89sheep (Ovis aries), 178, 189, 236, 246Sichuan pheasant (Phasianus colchieus), 82sika deer (Cervus nippon), 57, 71snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis), 262South African oryx (Oryx gazella gazella), 57starling (Sturnus vulgaris), 71, 228tree frog (Hykz cinerea), 89wild boar-see hogwild bumo-see burrowild hog—see hogwild horse-see horsewild pig—see hogwolf (Canis lupus), 49, 69wolffdog hybrid (Canis lupus x C. familiars), 49, 52,69, 71PlantsAfrican boxthom (Lycinurn ferocissimum), 303African lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana), 71African payal (Salvinia auriculata), 303air potato (Dioscorea buZbifera), 259alfalfa (Medicago sativa), 52,61, 187,271, 275alkanet-see common buglossalligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), 9, 152American chestnut (Castanea dentata), 66,74Amur maple (Acer ginnala), 84anchusa—see common bugloss

—Index to Common and Specific Names of Species 1377Andean pampas grass (Cortuderia jubata), 83animated oat (Avena sterilis), 88anthurium (Anthuriwn spp. ), 243apple (Malus dome.mica), 289Asian fig (Ficus microcarpa), 58Asian water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica), 82Australian pine (C’asuarina equisetfolia), 34,75, 258-9,261-4autumn olive (Elaeagnus urnbelkzta), 88avocado (Persea americanu), 289baby’s breath (Gypsophilapaniculata, G. elegans), 63,83banana (klusa spp.), 249banana poka (Passiflora mollissima), 88,236-7,243-4,246,254barberry (Berberis vulgaris), 39,65,207basil (Ocimum basilicum), 235beech (Fagus grandiflora), 302Bermuda grass (Cynodon dacfykm), 56,89, 276bighead knapweed (Centaurea macrocephda), 226bird-of-paradise (Strelitzia reginae), 245black knapweed (Centaurea nigra), 226black pine (Pinus nigra), 288bladder ketmia-see Venice mallowblue devil—see blueweedblue spruce (Picea pungens), 228blue thistle—see blueweedblueweed (Echium vulgare), 226Bolivian weed potato (Solarium sucrense), 271bougainvillea (Bougainvillea buttiana), 245Brazilian elodea (Elodea densa), 227Brazilian pepper (Schirzus terebirtthfo!ius), 27,69, 88, 159,258-9, 262, 264bromegrass (Bromus spp.), 50, 52,303broomrape (Orobanche spp,), 303broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), 243brown centauxy-see brown knapweedbrown knapweed (Centaurea jacea), 226bunchgrass (Schizachyrium condensafum), 73burning-bush-see kochiacabbage (Brassica oleracea), 89Canada thistle (Cirsium ar}ense), 191candleberry myrtle-see fwe treecarrot (Daucus carota sati}’a), 226, 271catclaw mimosa (Mimosa pigra pigra), 263, 303cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), 17, 39, 63, 73, 89chestnut (Casranea sativa), 55, 140citrus (Citrus spp.), 37, 55, 93, 262, 264citrus strangler vine (Morrenia odorara), 154, 198clover (Trifoiium carolinianurn, Trifolium spp.), 31, 271coca (Erythro~lum coca), 200coconut (Cocos nucifera), 236coffee (Coffea arabica), 241Cogon grass (Imperafa cylindrical), 263common bugloss (Anchusa oficimdis), 226common cordgrass (Spartina anglica), 227common crupina (Crupina vulgaris), 87, 176, 303common St. Johnswort (Hypericum pe~oratum), 226couchgrass (Digitaria spp.), 303com (Zea mays), 268, 272, 275, 285corn brome (Bromus squarrous), 101cornflower (Centaurea cyanus), 89cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) (see also--wild cotton), 79,146, 149, 155, 239,271-2,275, 278, 284crabgrass (Digitariu spp.), 57, 61, 271cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon), 56creeping bellflower (Campanula rapunculoides), 83crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum), 65, 71, 75crimson clover (Trifolium incarmtum), 89cudweed (Filago arvensis), 303Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genist~olia dabnatica), 226dame’s rocket (Hesperis matronulis), 89dandelion (Taraxucum oficinale), 557devil’s paintbrush-see yellow hawkweeddevil’s weed—see orange hawkweedMse knapweed (Centaurea dij’fusa), 39, 176,226dodder (Cuscuta spp.), 303Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), 55,93, 228dwarf snapdragon (Chaenorrhinum minus), 226dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria), 88,192,226,305early millet (Milium vernale), 80, 101eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), 302edible fig (Ficus carica), 83egeria-see Brazillan elodeaeggplant (So[anum rnelongena), 262elm (/71mus spp.), 66, 182Elsmo Iacebark elm (Ulmusparv~olia), 182English ivy (Hedera helix), 61,75,83eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), 75, 227Eurasian waterrnilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), 9,27, 152,157, 193, 196,230,227European buckthom (Rhamnus cathartic), 74European gorse (Ulex europaeus), 83,226Europxm viper’s bugloss (Echium vulgare), 78feather-head knapweed (Centaurea trichocephda), 101field daisy-see oxeyed daisyfield hawkweed-see yellow hawkweedfig tree (Ficus spp.), 263f~ (Abies spp., 71fmball-see kochiafm tree (Myrica faya), 75,237,244flarneweed —see orange hawkweedflower-of-an-hour-see Venice mallowforked fern (Dicranopterisf7exuosa), 101forsythia (Forsythia spp.), 56fountain grass (Permisetum setaceum), 237, 2434foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), 69, 83

378 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesfimze-see gorsegarlic mustard (Alliarti petiolata), 9, 89, 152, 158giant cow parsnip-see giant hogweedgiant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum), 226ginkgo (Gingko biloba), 57goatweed-see common St. Johnswortgorse—see European gorsegrapefruit (Citrus paradisi), 140@-the-collier-see orange hawkweedhardheads-see brown knapweedHawaiian raspbemy (Rubus hawaiensis), 235hedgeparsley (Torilis arvensis), 226horse-knobs-see brown knapweedhydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), 67,85,88, 126, 193, 196,227, 258-60,262, 264, 266ice plant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum), 75indigobush (Amorpha@ticosa), 226iris (Iris spp. ), 56Japanese dodder (Cuscatajaponica), 101Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica), 62,75,228,271Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli var. jiumentacea)89Japanese Unshiu orange-see Satsuma orangeJohnson grass (Sorghum halepense) 65, 88jointed vetch (Aeschynomene rudis) 227Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) 243king devil-see yellow hawkweedkochia (Kochia scoparia), 183, 224,226Koster’s curse (Clidemia hirta), 237,243kudzu (Pueraria lobata), 4,7,28,55,59,61,63,82, 88,93,206,269larch (Larix spp.), 118lather leaf (Co!ubrina asiatica), 259lead plant-see indigobushleafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), 5,65,74,99, 120, 176,183-4, 191, 300lepyrodiclis (Z..epyrodiclis holosteoides), 101lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.), 56leucaena @-.eucaena leucocephala), 75,89little love grass (Eragrostis minor), 101loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), 302macadamia nut (Macadamia integrl~olia), 241Manchuria rice (Zizania latifolia), 82mango (Mangi~era indica), 139-40Marguerite-see oxeye daisymarijuana (Cannabis sativa), 200Meditemanean sage (Salvia aethiopsis), 226Medusa head (Taenniatherum asperum), 39melaleuca-see paper bark treeMexican fwweed—see kochiamilk thistle (Silybum marianum), 226modesty-see Venice mallowmolasses grass (h.ielinis minutiflora), 73multiflora rose (Rosa multi flora), 28, 82, 182, 228musk thistle (Carduus nutans), 9, 82, 152, 226nodding thistl~ee musk thistlenorthern joint vetch (Ae.schynomene virginia), 198Nonvay spruce (Picea abies), 228oak (Quercus spp.), 71, 255oats (Avena sativa), 8oilseed crucifer-see rapeseedoleander (Nerium oleander), 83opium poppy (Papaver somn~erum), 200orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum), 226orange paintbrush-see orange hawkweedOriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), 74oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), 226panicgrass (Panicum spp.), 303papaya (Caricapapaya), 140, 241paper bark tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia), 2,5,6, 16,34,41-2,57,63,73-4,99, 126, 154, 181,258-262,264,266,271,300-1Parrot’s feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum), 227parrotfeather-see Parrot featherpeanut (Arachis hypogaea), 84pecan (Carya illinoensis), 56perennial pepperweed (L.epidium fatifolium), 226Persian darnel (Ldium persicum), 303pine (Pinus spp.), 71, 117,255,263pineapple (Ananas comosus), 241phuneless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), 226poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima), 131poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), 224poorland flower-see oxeye daisypoplar (Popu!us spp.), 275potato (Solarium tuberosum), 55,93,156,262,272,285, 289poverty grass (Sporobolus vaginiglorus), 101prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.), 61purple Ioosestrife (Lythrum salicarti), 4-6,9,27,59,63,74,85-6, 100, 126, 152, 157, 187, 193,221,226,228,276,301Queen Anne’s lace-see also carrot (Daucus carota), 271ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), 288, 299Raoul grass (Rottboellia exaltata), 303rapeseed (Brassica napus), 271rayed knapweed-see brown knapweedred bromegrass (Bromus rubens), 76red daisy-see orange hawkweedred oak (Quercus rubra), 74redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), 112rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.), 55, 93rooted water hyancinth (Eichhornia asurea), 49ruby salt bush (Enchykzeua tomentosa), 91runningbamboo(Arwzdinariz spp.,Phyll@achys spp.@ewbhstusspp., Sasa spp.), 36

Index to Common and Specific Names of Species 1379Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens), 82Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), 182Russian thistle-see tumble weedRussian wild rye (Psathyrosfachys junceus), 89St, Johnswort-see common St. Johnswortsage (Salvti oflcina[is), 235salt cedar (Tamarixpendantra, T gallica, T. ramosissima, T.africana, T spp.), 4,33,59,68,73,75,88, 181-2, 193,224salt meadow cordgrass (Spartitu patens), 227Satsuma orange (Citrus reticulate var. unshiu), 139, 175sawtooth oak (Quercus serrata), 88Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), 82-3,226Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), 226serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma), 28, 80, 101, 303shattercane (Sorghum halepense x S. bicolor), 65shoal grass (Dip[anthera wightii), 89shoo-fly-see Venice mallowsilver-leaf nightshade (Solarium elaeagnifolium), 224skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea), 56smooth cordgrass (Spartina aiterniflora), 27, 227snake flower-see blueweedsorghum (Sorghum bicolor), 65, 271soybean (Glycine max), 3, 262, 272, 291, 304spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), 39,89, 176,226spruce (Picea spp.-see also see blue and Norway spruce),71squash (Cucurbita pepo), 2, 271, 281-3strawberry guava (Psidium cattleianum), 236-7sugar beet (Beta vulgaris), 65sugar cane (Saccharum ojjicinarum), 236, 242-3, 245, 260sugar maple (Acer saccharum), 67, 302summer-cyprus-see kochiasunflower (He/ianthus spp. ), 56, 271sweet clover (Melilotus spp. ), 187Syrian bean-caper (Zygophyllum fabago), 226tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), 80, 303tamarisk-see salt cedartansy (Tanacetum vulgare), 69tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), 224thistle (Cirsium vulgare), 33tobacco (Nicottina tabacum), 56, 271-2tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum), 65, 156,271-2,275,282,285treefem (Cyarhea cooperi), 298tumbleweed (Saisob iberica), 65, 96, 183,224tutsan (Hypericum androsaemum), 303urnbrella—wort-see wild four o’clockunicorn-plant (Proboscidea louisianica), 226Unshiu orange-see Satsuma orangevelvet tree (Miconia calvescens), 245Venice mallow (Hibiscus trionum), 226viper’s bugloss—see blueweedVochin knapweed (Centaurea nigrescens), 226walnut (.luglans spp.), 275waterfeather-see Parrot’s featherwater hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), 7, 28, 88, 126, 193,195,258-9,262, 264, 266, 292water lettuce (Pistti stratiotes), 262weeping willow (Salix spp.), 56wheat (Triticum spp.), 3, 55, 79, 93, 291wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.), 187white daisy-see oxeye daisywhiteweed-see oxeye daisywild carrot-see carrotwild chervil (Anthriscus sylvestris), 226wild cotton (Gossypium tomentosum—see also cotton), 239,271,278,284wild four o’clock (Mirabilis nyctaginea), 226wild mustard (Brassica kuber, B. juncea, B. nigra), 271,283wild oats (Avena fatua), 180wild tomato (Lycopersicon pimpinnellifolium), 271witchweed (Striga asiatica, Striga spp.), 6, 9, 41, 91, 126,147-8, 152, 175-6,301,303yellow birch (Betula alleghuniensis), 302yellow devil-see yellow hawkweedyellow hawkweed (Hieracium pratense), 226yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), 224yellow paintbrush-see yellow hawkweedyellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), 191(Avena strigosa), 303(Coccinia grandis), 254(Medicago polymorpha), 303(Monochoria vaginalis), 303(Nitel[opsis obtusa), green alga, 91(Oxylobium parvlf70rum), 303(Salvinia moiesta), 303(Thladiantha dubia), 303

IndexAccountability, 4345ADC. See Animal Damage Control ProgramAgricultural Marketing Service, 177Agricultural Quarantine Enforcement Act, 251Agricultural Research Service, 29-30, 115research, 179-181Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 183-184Air cargo as pathway, 80,91,96Alabamaagency surveys, 210-212decisionmaking standards, 216fm ants, 10,99, 100regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 222Alaskaagency surveys, 210-212gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214interstate movement of MS, 202monitoring programs, 220numbers of NIS, 95regulatory approaches, 14, 218statutes and regulations, 222Alien Species AIert Program, 254Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act, 48-49Altered environments, 74,257biological diversity, 75Florida, 259-260American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums,150American Fisheries Society, 97, 125, 214AMS. See Agricultural Marketing ServiceAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 114-118, 139“blitz” baggage inspections, 142-143control and eradication, 176-177Federal-State cooperative programs, 206genetically engineered organisms, 272-274, 276-277importation and exclusion, 173inspections in Hawaii, 249interstate movement of NIS, 174-175monitoring programs, 175-176overseas pests and diseases, 301Animal Damage Control Program, 176-177Animal Health Association, 227-229APHIS. See Aurnal “ and Plant Health Inspection ServiceAquacuhure Advisory Committee, 218AquaCulture industry, 18Agricultural Research Service research, 180Fish and Wildlife Service discussion paper, 203Florida, 258research, 180, 187trends, 291Aquarium industry, 57,85Aquatic NIS, Federal policy, 168Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, 32,54,85, 113, 119,185, 194, 198-199research, 50Aquatic Plant Control Program, 196Arbor Day Foundation, 89Arizonaagency surveys, 210-212Asian chrn, 79game releases, 217regulatory approaches, 14road construction and species movement, 97statutes and regulations, 222Arkansasagency surveys, 210-212regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 222380

Index I 381Army Corps of Engineers, 88, 195ARS. See Agricultural Research ServiceASCS. See Agricultural Stabilization and ConservationServiceBait animals as pathway, 88Benefit/cost analysis, 37Benefits of introductions, 56-57,63altered environments that are inhospitable to indigenousspecies, 75biological diversity, 75-76to ensure survival of the species, 76indigenous species utilize NIS, 75Big Cypress National Preseme, 261Bilateral treaties, 297-298Biological controlsAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 176Bureau of Land Management, 192classical, 37-38, 153-154environmental impact, 160genetically engineered organisms, 154, 155,277host plant resistance to pests, 155importation, 141microbial pesticides, 154in national forests, 179natural enemies, 153as pathway, 56, 82, 90sale and release, 46-48State laws, 225trends, 291vertebrate contraceptives, 154-155Biological diversity, 34,74-76,294Florida, 259Hawaii, 239Biomedical experimentation, 57Biopesticides, 154, 197environmental impact, 160Bioremediation, 57Biotechnology, 293-294Boll weevil eradication, 149Border inspection stations, 225Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, 297Brown trout, 64Buildings, economic costs of NIS, 67Bulk commodities as pathway, 79Bureau of Indian Affairs, 193Bureau of Land Management, 30,44, 189-193Bureau of Reclamation, 180-181, 193CaliforniaAfrican clawed frog, 84agricultural pests, 96Asian clam, 68, 79border inspections, 149,225clams, 81Dutch elm disease, 98ecological risk analysis, 112t?lJCdyptUS, 75, 76Federal emergency powers to override State control, 204feral mammals, 75fmt class mail, 49, 143, 144, 206,251golden trout, 64ice plant, 75illegal releases of fish, 220importation permits, 211interstate cooperation, 208Japanese beetle, 91laws concerning biological controls, 225mason bee, 82Mediterranean iiuit fly, 48,89melaleuca tree, 63numbers of NIS, 95ornamental plants, 83Pacific oyster, 83,90pests associated with Asian fbods, 97pests from military cargo, 97pets, 93rainwater killillsh, 90red bromegrass, 76regulatory approaches, 14replacing NIS in parks, 227rust fungu$, 56scale insects, 93Scotch broom, 82shoal grass from Texas, 89snails, 90species decline and extinction, 72statutes and regulations, 222sticklebacks, 90surveys to detect new introductions, 145sweet potato whitefly, 143Texas big-scale logperch, 90woody weeds, 301California Department of Food and Agriculture, 142-143Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 46Chemical pesticides, 37-38, 152-153environmental impact, 159-160Hawaii, 242reregistration, 38, 160-162CITES. See Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species“Clean” and “dirty” lists, 8, 23-24, 108-110, 210-212Climate change, 302-306Coastal Zone Management Act, 194Coloradoagency surveys, 210-212

382 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesregulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 222Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council, 208Columbia River Basin Project, 193Computerized databases, 146-147Congress and a more stringent national policy, 15-19Connecticutgaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 222Conservation Reserve Program, 183Containerized freight, 80,93Centainmentbig-game animals, 150biological controls, 151, 153-156chemical pesticides, 152-153fish, 150-152physical controls, 151Control of NIS. See also Biological controls; Chemicalpesticides; Physical controlsAgricuhural Research Service, 181Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 176-177Bureau of Land Management, 190-193Department of Defense, 196Fish and Wildlife Service, 186-188Forest Service, 178-179National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 194policymaking process, 9, 110-111Soil Conservation Service, 182-183Convention on Biological Diversity, 296-297Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, 297Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species,185,298-299Convention on the Law of the Sea, 297Cooperative Forest~ Assistance Act, 179Cooperative State Research Service, 38, 161, 184-188CRP. See Conservation Reserve ProgramCSRS. See Cooperative State Research SemiceCuivre River State Park, 74Damage to natural areas, 31-34Decisionrnaking approaches, 22‘ ‘clean’ and “dirty” lists, 23-24economic analysis, 122-125new syntheses of diverse approaches, 131-136protocols, 47, 125-130risk analysis, 111-119standards, 24-25, 26, 214-217values, 129-131Decline of indigenous species, 71. See also SpeciesextinctionDeftitions, 52-54Delawareregtdato~ approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 222Department of Agriculture, 170-184. See also specificagenciesConservation Reserve Program, 79quarantines, 249Department of Commerce policies, 194-195Department of Defense, 195-199Department of Energy, 200Department of Health and Human Services, 199Department of the Interior, 184-195. See also specificagenciesDepartment of Justice, 200Department of Transportation, 199-200Department of the Treasury, 199Detection technologiesGIS technology, 146remote sensing, 146traps, 145visual surveys, 145District of ColumbiaEnglish ivy, 75Japanese honeysuckle, 75pathways, 89Rock Creek Park, 189Drug Enforcement Agency, 200Ecological restoration, 157-159Hawaii, 239Ecological risk assessment, 279-285Economic costs of NIS, 5,6,92to agriculture, 65-66analysis, 122-125to buildings, 67to fisheries and watemvay use, 67Florida, 261-262to foresq, 66-67fruit flies in Hawaii, 244to health, 69-70to natural areas, 68-69Education. See Public educationEmergencies, 36-38Endangered species, 262Hawaii, 238Endangered Species Act, 49,72, 130, 204Enforcement of laws and regulations, 220-221,225,227Environmental costs of NIS, 70to biological diversity, 74-76decline of indigenous species, 71in National Parks, 74transformation of ecological communities andecosystems, 73-74Environmental impact

Index 1383of control technologies, 159decisionmaking standards, 215-216tra.nsgenic fish, 278Environmental impact assessment, 120-122Environmental Protection Agency, 155, 196-199genetically engineered organisms policies, 274research, 198-199Eradication, 9-11, 170Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 176-177Department of Defense, 196fiie ant and boll weeviI programs, 10Fish and Wildlife Service, 186-188Florida, 262National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 194policymaking process, 110-111programs, 149research, 181Soil Conservation Service, 182-183States’ responsibility, 207technologies, 147-148Evaluationsgenetically engineered organisms, 269probable environmental impact, 61-62risk analysis, 111-119Everglades National Park, 74, 158, 159water management, 260Exclusion, 170. See also Importation; InspectionsAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 173Federal policies, 163-165Executive Order 11987,21, 167Exotic Pest Plant Council, 205, 230, 264, 265Exotic Phmt Pest Council, 39ExtinctionHawaii. 238Farm Bill of 1990, 30-31,42, 183FAS. See Foreign Agricultural ServiceFederal Aid Program, 185-186, 188Federal Endangered Species List, 238Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 38,153,196, 274Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 189, 193Federal laws, 11-13Federa! Negotiated Rulemaking Act, 135Federal Noxious Weed Act, 25-26, 26-30, 30-31, 117, 173,175, 202,203, 2241990 Amendment, 192, 205Federal Plant Pest Act, 173,202, 203,204, 278,279,282Federal Plant Quarantine Act, 203Federal Seed Act, 26-28,79-80, 97, 224,277Federal-State relationships, 201-203cooperative programs, 204-207, 254Federal preemption of State law, 203-204genetically engineered organisms, 279FIFRA, See Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and RodenticideActF& ant eradication, 149Fish and Wildlife Service, 19, 72,99, 109, 184-188aquiculture discussion paper, 203-204Federal-State cooperative programs, 206frees, 45release of genetically engineered organisms, 276risk analysis, 119Fishing industry, 56-57benefits of introductions, 64economic costs of NIS, 67evaluations of probable environmental impact, 61interstate shipments, 90removing harvesting pressure from indigenous species, 76values in decisionrnaking, 131Florida, 13-15, 254-257African giant snail, 84, 258African honey bee, 263agency surveys, 210-212American oyster catcher, 262anoles, 257aquarium fhh, 85, 109Asian fig plant, 58Asian tiger mosquito, 81, 262,263Asian water spinach, 82Asiatic clam, 263Australian pine, 75,258,262bagoine weevil, 264beach mouse, 262blue tilapia, 263border inspection of commodities, 149Brazilian pepper tree, 67,88,258brown darter, 262brown trout, 64cactus moth, 61cane toad, 258Cape Sable seaside sparrow, 262catclaw mimosa, 263citrus blackfly, 260citrus canker, 207, 260, 263climate, 95, 257-258Cogon grass, 263decisionmaking standards, 214-215diamondback moth, 89ecological restoration, 158, 159economic costs of NIS, 261-262effects of hurricanes, 88, 259eradication, 262Exotic Pest Plant Council, 205, 230, 264, 265Exotic Plant Pest Council, 39Federal-State cooperative programs, 207

384 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statesf~ ants, 260funding, 265-266giant African snail, 263GIS technology use, 146gTaSS Carp, 263health costs of NIS, 262honey bee parasites, 90human population growth, 258hydrilla, 258key deer, 262laws concerning biological controls, 225leaf-mining flies, 263Meditemanean fi-uit fly, 260melaleuca tree, 63, 73, 99, 258, 260, 261minimum containment standards for commercialaquacuhure, 150mole crickets, 258monk parakeet, 258nine-banded armadillo, 263numbers of NIS, 95, 255Okaloosa darter, 262panther, 76,263pathways, 258peacock bass, 263peacock cichlid, 84-85peanut stripe virus, 84pets, 93potential future impacts of NM, 263public education, 266regulato~ approaches, 14releases, 19, 214research, 181research centers, 187snail kite, 262snails, 67statutes and regulations, 217, 222urbanization, 260-261water hyacinth, 258water lettuce, 262water management, 260wild hogs, 263Florida Tropical Fish Farms Association, 258FLPMA. See Federal Land Policy and Management Act of1976HA. See Federal Noxious Weed ActFood and Agriculture Organization, 290,296Food Security Act of 1985, 183Foreign Agricultural Service, 177Forest Sewice, 32Federal-State cooperative programs, 206land management, 178-179research, 179Forestry, economic costs of NIS, 66-67Free trade agreements, 290-291Funding, 33,4043Fur industry, 57FWS. See Fish and Wildlife ServiceGame animals, 19big-game, 84,94centainment, 150enforcement of laws and regulations, 220quarantine, 140-141releases, 217Gaps in legal authority, 213-214Gaps in legislation and regulation, 45Gardening, 291GATT See General Agreement on Tariffs and TradeGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 288-290Genetically engineered organisms, 7-11, 113-114, 155commercial distribution and sale, 277-278commercialization issues, 282compared with NIS, 268confinement, 283-284Coordinated Framework, 274-275EPA regulations, 197Federal policies concerning release, 269fish and wildlife, 275-277insects and invertebrates used in biological control, 277international trade, 284-285microbes, 280plants, 276-277potential effects, 269pre-release evaluations, 11-12regulatory responsibilities, 272releases, 272-279research, 277risks, 270terms, 268Geographic distribution, 93-95Geographic information systems, 146Georgiaagency surveys, 210-212diamondback moth, 89feral hogs, 76regulatory approaches, 14, 217statutes and regulations, 217, 222sterile grass carp, 188GEOS, See Genetically engineered organismsGlacier National Park, 73,79Grand Teton National Forest, 85Grazing, 189-190in national forests, 178Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 67,208,297Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 74, 189Guam

Index 1385brown tree snake, 76, 177milit~ freight as pathway, 195Habitat destruction, 304Habitat modification, 78-79Habitat reduction, 74Haleakala National Park, 189, 190,240rabbits, 246, 253Hawaii, 13-15agency surveys, 210-212agriculture, 241-245banana poka, 88barn owl, 56brown tree snake, 247-248chemical controls, 242Christmas trees, 252climate, 95, 235-236crested wheatgrass, 75decisionmaking standards, 214-215ecology, 234-235Endangered Species Act, 204environmental education programs, 157Federal-State cooperative programs, 205feral goats, 148fiie tree, 75first class mail, 49fruit flies, 239, 249gourd-producing vine, 254Guam rail, 76gypsy moth, 252Haleakala National Park, 189, 190human populations of diverse origins, 93hunting industry, 246hurricane effects, 88importation laws, 110insects introduced as biological controls, 61inspections, 246-248interagency cooperation, 255interstate movement of NIS, 202irradiation of imported commodities, 140leuceana, 89mail as pathway, 48, 89, 143, 144, 175, 206mealybug, 249military freight as pathway, 195, 246molasses grass, 73monitoring programs, 220, 253National Parks, 33number of NIS, 235ornamental plants, 82, 243-245pet industry, 246popular attitudes toward NH, 130potted plants, 96public education, 2s3-254quarantines, 243,249-251rabbits, 253ranching, 243rates of introductions, 236, 238recovery plans for threatened or endangered species, 187regulatory approaches, 14, 219roles of Federal and State agencies, 241rosy snail, 71, 238signitlcant NM, 237species decline and extinction, 71-72state of indigenous species, 238-239statutes and regulations, 217, 222, 252-253strawberry guava, 236sugar cane, 236tourism, 245transgenic cottons, 278Volcanoes National Park, 189Hawaii Tropical Recovery Act, 240Health costs of NIS, 46,69-70Asian tiger mosquito, 81Florida, 262High-speed trains, 294Honey bee industry, 56, 90economic costs of NIS, 66model State laws, 229regulation, 175research, 181Host plant resistance to pests, 155, 181Hunting industry, 57,82, 84,94Hawaii, 246state regulation, 220Hurricanes and NIS spread, 88, 259Hybridization, 71, 76Idahoagency surveys, 210-212regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 222weed and seed laws, 221, 224Illinoisagency surveys, 210-212Elsmo Iacebark elm, 182garlic mustard, 158numbers of NE, 95nursery trade, 88regulatory approaches, 14, 218statutes and regulations, 222use of indigenous plants, 227, 228Immune-contraception, 155Importation, 194. See also Interstate movement of NISAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service policies, 173animals, 140-141biological control agents, 141

386 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United Statescommodities, 139-140decisionrnaking standards, 215Department of Defense policies, 195Fish and Wildlife Service, 185number prohibited by states, 194permits, 211plant germ plasm, 141policymaking process, 108-110public education, 141-142,225,227Public Health Service, 199seeds, 80, 177, 221Soil Conservation Service, 182State laws, 208-221treaties, 294Indianaagency surveys, 210-212regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 222Information gaps, 54-55Inspections, 28Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 173commodities, 139-140, 173containerized freight, 80detection technologies, 145-146evaluation of prevention programs, 142Hawaii, 246-248,249-250,252-253Public Health Service, 199sterile grass carp, 188travelers and baggage, 138-139U.S. Customs Service, 199Integrated Pest Management, 119-124, 156Intentional introductions, 6, 28, 61-62, 170. See alsoUnintentional introductionsFederal funding, 185Florida, 258national forests, 178National Park Service, 189pathways, 82-83Interagency cooperation, 254Florida, 264,265Interagency coordinationgenetically engineered organisms, 274-275Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 302International law, 287-306International OffIce on Epizootics, 296International Plant Protection Convention, 295-2%International trade, 287-288genetically engineered organisms, 284-285International treaties, 295International Union for Conservation of Nature and NaturalResources, 17, 125, 129, 296Interregional Research Project No. 4, 38, 161Interstate cooperation, 207-208Interstate movement of MS, 21, 170,202Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 174-175Department of Defense, 195Fish and Wildlife Service, 185-186produce shipments, 89Iowaagency surveys, 210-212gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 222IPM. See Integrated Pest ManagementIPPC. See International Plant Protection ConventionIrradiation of imported commodities, 140IUCN. See International Union for Conservation of Nameand Natural ResourcesKansasagency surveys, 210-212regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 222KentuckyAsian clam, 68regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 222Lacey Act, 44, 109, 114, 119, 185,201-202, 203implementation, 34proposed changes, 22,23,49Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 33,42Land management, 30-31,33Department of Defense, 196Federal policy, 165-170Forest Service, 178-179National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 194National Park Se~ice, 188-189Landscaping industry, 258Local approaches, 229-231Imuisianaagency surveys, 210-212Argentine ant, 91boll Wt%%k, 10gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214legal approaches, 14regulatory approaches, 14,218statutes and regulations, 222Imxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, 261Maguire approach to decisionmaking, 133-135Mail as pathway, 48-49,82,89-90, 143, 175,251-252Federal regulation, 202Puerto Rico, 143Mail-order sale of plants or seeds, 202Maine

Index 1387agency smeys, 210-212numbers of NIS, 95regulatory approaches, 14, 219requirements for releases, 215statutes and regulations, 222Marine Fisheries Commissions, 208Marine Mammal Protection Act, 289Ma.xylandagency surveys, 210-212diamondback moth, 89Pacific oyster, 207regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 222Massachusettsagency surveys, 210-212animals found in plant shipments, 89California sea squirt, 91numbers of NIS, 95pet escapes, 84regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 222Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and WildMe, 84Medical technology, 294Michiganenforcement of laws and regulations, 220gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214regulatory approaches, 14research centers, 187Sichuan pheasant, 82statutes and regulations, 222Microbes, 280Microbial pesticides, 197environmental impact, 160registered by EPA, 198used for biological control, 154Military freight as pathway, 81,97, 195, 246Hawaii, 253Minnesotaagency surveys, 210-212educational material, 157Environmental Research Laboratory, 198European zander, 207numbers of NIS, 95regulatory approaches, 14, 219sea lampreys, 186statutes and regulations, 222Minnesota Interagency Exotic Species Task Force, 21,39Mississippiagency surveys, 210-212bighead carp, 83boll weevils, 10fish releases, 217gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214legal authority to release, 213regulatory approaches, 14research facilities, 196statutes and regulations, 222under-regulation, 219Missouriagency surveys, 210-212Asian Amur maple, 84Elsmo lacebark elm, 182European buckthom, 74model laws, 24-25statutes and regulations, 222Model local ordinances, 230-231Model national law on NIS, 17Model State laws, 24-25captive wild and exotic tialS, 227-229honey bee certillcation plan, 229weeds in natural communities, 229Monitoring programs, 37-38,220Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 175-176Environmental Protection Agency, 197-198Hawaii, 253Montanaagency surveys, 210-212decisionmaking standards, 214-215,216emergency moratorium on game farm activities, 217funding strategies, 225game farms, 220leafy spurge, 99, 300regulatory approaches, 14, 218, 219statutes and regulations, 217, 222Movement of species into the United States. See ImportationNAITA. See North American F= Trade AgreementNational Aeronautic and Space Administration, 294National Animal Health Monitoring Program, 176National Aquiculture Act of 1980, 187National Arboretum, 180National Biological Control Institute, 176National Environmental Policy Act, 18, 120-122,289-290National Estuarine Research Reserve System, 194National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 193National Fish Health Strategy, 187National Fisheries Research Centers, 187National Genetic Resources Center, 183National Genetic Resources Program, 180National Institutes of Health, 274National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 19-20genetically engineered organisms, 276land management, 194research, 194-195National Park Service, 31-34,74, 183, 188-189fencing, 240

388 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesGIS technology use, 146Hawaii, 251-252land management, 188-189natural zones, 190policies, 107research, 189National Plant Board, 204-205, 221National Plant Gerrnplasm System, 179-180National Wildlife Refuge System, 187Natural enemies used in biological contxol, 153Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, 240Nebraskaagency surveys, 210-212regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 223NEPA. See National Environmental Policy ActNevadagame animals, 94regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 223New Hampshireagency surveys, 210-212regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 223New Jerseyagency surveys, 210-212gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214regulatory approaches, 14, 218statutes and ~gulations, 223New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, 186New Mexicogame animals, 19numbers of NIS, 95regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 223New Yorkagency surveys, 210-212diamondback moth, 89nursery industry as pathway, 93regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 223New York Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service, 146New Zealand, 19benefit/cost analysis, 37laws and programs, 20NTH. See National Institutes of HealthNOAA. See National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministrationNonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and ControlAct of 1990, 19,27,32,54, 176-177, 199,206,276North American Association for Environmental Education,35North American Free Trade Agreement, 290-291North Carolinaagency surveys, 210-212boll WtXVilS, 10commercial sales, 47genetically engineered organisms, 278-279gypsy moth, 67laws concerning biological controls, 225~egulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 223witchweed, 147-148North Carolina Genetically Engineered Organisms Act,278-279North Dakotaagency surveys, 210-212European zander, 83,99,207,297-298gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214leafy spurge, 99regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 223under-regulation, 219Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 179Noxious Weed Technical Advisory Group, 39NPGS. See National Plant Gerrnplasm SystemNPS. See National Park SexviceNun&m of NIS, 3,91-106,257Florida, 255Hawaii, 235by state, 95Nursery industry, 18Ohioagency surveys, 210-212gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 223under-regulation, 219Oklahomaagency surveys, 210-212regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 223Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1987,44Oregongaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214numbers of NIS, 95pine wood chips, 117regulatory approaches, 14species arriving in ballast water, 82statutes and regulations, 223weed and seed laws, 221, 224organic Act of 1944,33, 177OSTP. See White House Office of Science and TechnologyPolicyOyster industry, 56

Pacitlc Marine Fisheries Commission, 208Packing material as pathway, 80Pathways of spread within the United States, 85, 88-91Pennsylvaniaagency surveys, 210-212funding for eradication programs, 194gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 223Pennsylvania State Bureau of Consumer Protection, 48Pest-free zones, 139Pet industry, 18,57, 84,93animal quarantines, 140-141Hawaii, 246values in decisionmaking, 131Pet Indus~ Joint Advisory Council, 24, 97Physical controls, 151Phytotoxins, 293Plant Boards, 208, 221Plant germ plasm, 141importation, 141, 179-181Plant Pest Act, 44, 117Plant Quarantine Act, 44, 173,249, 278,279,282Pollution, 78Potential future impacts of NIS, Florida, 263Power industry, economic costs of NIS, 67,68Pre-release evaluations, 11-12, 28-30Predictions, 298-301next pests, 301-302, 303Preservation of ecosystems, 188Preservation of endangered and threatened species thatcannot be saved in their natural habitat, 57Presque State Park, 194Priority setting, 3840Protected lands, 205Public education, 34-36, 156-157Florida, 266Hawaii, 253-254importation, 141-142Public Health Service, 19,46Public opinioneradication programs, 148values in decisionmaking, 131Puerto Ricomail as pathway, 49, 143, 144species decline and extinction, 72Quarantines, 83animal, 140-141commodities, 139-140coordination, 208domestic, 148-150, 174-175,203,204-205, 207,221Hawaii, 243, 249international, 289Washington, 226-227Ranching in Hawaii, 243Randall approach to decisionmaking, 132-133Rates of introductions, 6Hawaii, 236, 238Rates of movement, 95-96Regulating product content and labeling, 170Releases, 83-95. See also Containmentbiological control agents, 4648decisionmaking standards, 215Florida, 258genetically engineered organisms, 281interstate cooperation, 208number prohibited by states, 213Pacific oysters in Virginia, 207policymaking process, 108-110pre-release evaluations, 11-12from research facilities, 91State laws, 208-221Remote sensing, 146Reregistration of minor use pesticides, 38, 160-161Research, 50, 170Agricultural Research Service, 179Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 177biological control, 180-181Environmental Protection Agency, 198-199Forest Service, 179genetically engineered organisms, 277interagency agreements, 205methodology, 55-56National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 194-195ship design, 200Research releases as pathway, 91Resistance to chemical pesticides, 160Restoration of habitats, 57Rhode Islandagency surveys, 210-212gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 223Risk iUl@SiS, 7-8, 111-113economic analysis, 122-125environmental impact, 120-122experimentation, 114by Federal agencies, 114-119process, 113-114Rock Creek National Park, 89, 189Safe Minimum Standard, 132SCS. See Soil Conservation Service

390 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesSeed trade as pathway, 88Semiochemicals, 155SEPAS. See State environmental policy actsShip’s ballast, 81,88,91dry, 100U.S. Coast Guard regulations, 199-200Soil Conservation Act of 1935, 181Soil Conservation Service, 82,84,88, 181-183importation, 182South Carolina, 147-148boll WeeVi.lS, 10gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214giant tiger shrimp, 83legal approaches, 14Pacific white shrimp, 85sawtooth oak, 89statutes and regulations, 223South Carolina Department of Fish and Game, 89South Dakotaagency surveys, 210-212leafy spurge, 99,300regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 223South Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, 230Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study Center, 227Species extinction, 71-73Species identification and inspection, 143-144molecular biology techniques, 144-145Species Survival Commission, 44, 47Standards, 24-25, 26,214-217State environmental policy acts, 120,216State f~h and wildlife agencies survey, 210-211State laws and regulations, 13,201-229Alaska: Ak. Stat. sec. 16,05.940(17), 218genetically engineered organisms, 278Georgia: Ga. Game and Fish Code 27-5-1,218Georgia: Ga. Game and Fish Code 27-5-4(f), 218Hawaii, 252Hawaii: Ha. Rev. Stat. sec. 150A-14, 219Illinois: 17 Ill. Admin. Code sec. 870.10(e), 218insects and other invertebrates, 225Louisiana: La. Wildlife and Fisheries Reg. sec. 107.1 1.D.,218Maine: 12 Me, Rev, Stat. Ann. 7613,219Maine v. Taylor, 202Montana: Rev. Code Mont. 87-1-102,219Montana: Mont. Admin. Register 2-1/30/’92, 218Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. 504.165,218New Jersey: N.J. Stat. Annot. 23:2A-5, 218Temessee: Term. Code Annot. 70-4-417,218Vermont: 10 Vt. Stat. Ann. sec 4502(b)(2)(L), 219Vermont: 10 Vt. Stat. Annot. sec. 4709,218weeds, 221-225Wisconsin: Wise. Admin. Code NR 19.05,218Sterile male release for biological control, 154Subset sampling, 139Taxes, 43Technological changes, 293-294Temesseeagency surveys, 210-212Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 189regulatory approaches, 14, 218statutes and regulations, 223TexasAfrican honey bee, 90, 176,229Asian Tiger mosquito, 81big-game animals, 84bobcats, 84boll WtXVilS, 10gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214illegal releases from game farms, 220numbers of NIS, 95peanut Stripe ViIUS, 84regulatory approaches, 14salt cedar, 75snails, 67, 72statutes and regulations, 223under-regulation, 219unsuccessful introductions of fish, 83Thermal pollution, 78Timber imports, 118-119Time lags, 79between establishment and harrnfid effects, 58between identiilcation of species’ pathway andimplementation of prevention program, 8, 144Toxic Substances Control Act, 196,274Transformation of ecological communities and ecosystems,73Transgenic f~h, 278Transgenic squash, 282Transgenic technology, 155-156. See also Geneticallyengineered organismsTraps used for detection, 145Travelers and baggage“blitz” inspections, 142-143Hawaii, 245,252international flights, 36as pathway, 82Treatment technologies forimportingcommodities, 139,140TSCA. See Toxic Substances Control ActTypes of organisms covered by GTA’s contractors, 55Unintentional introductions, 6,62-63national forests, 178pathways, 79-83

Index 1391prevention technologies, 137-143Unknown effects, 58Urban landscaping, 57U.S. Coast Guard, 199-200U.S. Customs Service, 199USDA. See Department of AgricultureUSFS. See Forest ServiceUtahagency surveys, 210-212brown trout, 64enforcement of laws and regulations, 220gypsy moth control, 153model laws, 24-25numbers of NIS, 95regulatory approaches, 14salt cedar, 75statutes and regulations, 217, 223weed and seed laws, 221, 224Utiiities. See Power industryValues in decisionrnaking, 129-131Vehicles as pathways, 80Vermontagency surveys, 210-212Eurasian watermilfoil, 157gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214pear thrip, 67regulatory approaches, 14, 218, 219statutes and regulations, 223Vertebrate contraceptives, 154-155VirginiaAfrican giant snails, 84boll weevils, 10numbers of NIS, 95Pacific oyster, 207peanut Stripe ViIUS, 84regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 223ViNs, Serum, and Toxin Act, 277Volcanoes National Park, 73, 148, 189fencing, 240Warm Springs Regional Fisheries Center, 188Washingtonanimated oat, 88apple ermine moth, 206dyer’s woad, 88emergency moratorium on game farm activities, 217Paciilc oyster, 83regulato~ approaches, 14shad, 76statutes and regulations, 223weed and seed laws, 221, 224weeds, 221Washington, D.C.. See District of ColumbiaWashington State Department of Fisheries, 76Water management, Florida, 260Waterways, economic costs of N_IS, 67Weeds, 25-31economic costs of NE, 65-66State laws, 221-225West Virginiaagency surveys, 210-212gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214numbers of NIS, 95regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 223under-regulation, 219Western Weed Coordinating Committee, 205White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, 270Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge, 187Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, 190,204Wildflowers as omamentals, 89Wisconsinagency surveys, 210-212crayfish, 71gaps in legal authority over importation and release, 214honey bee parasites, 90protocols, 47regulatory approaches, 14, 218research centers, 187statutes and regulations, 223Wood ChipS, 36-37Wooden crates as pathways, 80Wyomingagency surveys, 210-212big-game animals, 84leafy spurge, 99,300regulatory approaches, 14statutes and regulations, 223weed and seed laws, 221, 224Wyoming Game and Fish Cornmission, 217Yellowstone National Park, 205Yosemite National Park, 189Zebra mussel education programs, 158Zebra Mussel Information Clearinghouse, 146Zoo animal importation, 140-141